This will answer 99% of your questions about 9/11.

a reply to: MotherMayEye

I mean, I could just answer your questions, however, given we are talking about video, here, I think your questions would be better answered by just watching it when you have a chance.

They weren't being asked for me but for anyone reading,

I know the answers hence why I said anything moving that fast and caught with a camera like that will be a blur.

This 5 minute video to really verify would take a few weeks of work if not more for me, chances are more time because I would have to educate myself with a more detailed knowledge of editing software than the laymen understanding I have now.

Like I said, I do remember this, haven't got the time or real interest to delve too deep into it because if it had any real meat to it, it would be the constant main talking point about the Pentagon, not missiles and impossible maneuvers.

If its verifiable then it wouldn't be talked on conspiracy sites but would all over the MSM and most likely lead to a very bad situation in the States.

when something is verifiable it becomes hard to debunk, the only way to debunk something that is verifiable and have ATSers believe it is to do what many conspiracy theories do, cater to the ignorant (of that certain subject).

So the video may be very explanatory and make very much sense like many 9/11 conspiracy videos do if one just absorbs the information without critical thought and skepticism.

Yes the media can be influenced but a story like this that would break a nation would be national news and world news after one of the US' not to friendly world powers like China or Russia expose it.

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: purplemer


It just goes on with no resolution like it's been doing for 17 years .

It will continue to be that way until there is justice.

:-)

a reply to: MotherMayEye

This video is funny it debunks its own conclusion. Watch when the police car goes past the cameras notice the police car doesn't appear to be in the same place in both cameras. Its called perspective but whoever made the video seems blissfully unaware the car did the exact same thing the plane did on the two videos. this mystery as they put it is simple to explain the cameras are not parallel to the object. Two different camera positions will always give you two different fields of view.

originally posted by: purplemer

originally posted by: Fallingdown
a reply to: purplemer


It just goes on with no resolution like it's been doing for 17 years .

It will continue to be that way until there is justice.

:-)

Do you mean the trials of the terrorists?
www.justice.gov...

a reply to: samkent
Thank God for that little LCD screen because main stream media is lying. I have a BS degree and a Doctorate. It does not take any deep thought to see the official story has more holes than a colander to wash spaghetti. Buildings do not fall at free fall speed without it under structure being blown out. Interviews from firemen, police, and others that heard multiple explosions. Yes from the dawn of civilization governments have staged false flags to get what they want done. We can agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Did the BBC really report WTC 7 26 min before it happened ?

originally posted by: Gargoyle91
Did the BBC really report WTC 7 26 min before it happened ?

Yes.

soulwaxer

a reply to: soulwaxer

So how was that explained away ?

originally posted by: Gargoyle91
Did the BBC really report WTC 7 26 min before it happened ?

Not exactly.

Basically there was a report about the firefighters pulling out of the building because they thought it was going to collapse that came form a local news report that the BBC picked up on, this was an accurate report however in the chaos of the day the BBC reporter got confused and thought that the building had collapsed.

There is quite a bit more to it but when you really dig deep into it, there isn't really much to it

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

There is quite a bit more to it but when you really dig deep into it, there isn't really much to it

But that doesn't make good copy for conspiracy believers.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin

originally posted by: one4all
a reply to: soulwaxer


@ 24:44 of the video I realised something....could the Aluminum from the planes have been used as a component of thermite...if the rest of the ingredients and needed catalysts were already inside the building....makes me wonder if they painted the inside of the building with the other ingredients besides aluminum needed to produce or enhance thermite or its reaction and accomodated the process.

Thermite?

Dude I thought we were talking about how it was mini-nukes.

Or where the planes all holograms.

Hang on no, av got it, it was space weapons.

Couldn't possibly have just be 19 bad guys who hijacked some planes and smashed them into buildings though, that would be way to far fetched.....

Oh yeah, those Saudi Arabian terrorists which gave reason to understandably declare war on er...Iraq and Afghanistan?
Right

a reply to: soulwaxer

More like having a reporter trying to scoop a story over the fact an outer wall was starting to bulge, WTC 7 was showing signs it would fail, and first responders cleared the area around WTC 7 out of fear it would collapse.

screwloosechange.blogspot.com...

Deputy Chief Peter Hayden:

Firehouse: Other people tell me that there were a lot of firefighters in the street who were visible, and they put out traffic cones to mark them off?
Hayden: Yeah. There was enough there and we were marking off. There were a lot of damaged apparatus there that were covered. We tried to get searches in those areas. By now, this is going on into the afternoon, and we were concerned about additional collapse, not only of the Marriott, because there was a good portion of the Marriott still standing, but also we were pretty sure that 7 World Trade Center would collapse. Early on, we saw a bulge in the southwest corner between floors 10 and 13, and we had put a transit on that and we were pretty sure she was going to collapse. You actually could see there was a visible bulge, it ran up about three floors. It came down about 5 o’clock in the afternoon, but by about 2 o’clock in the afternoon we realized this thing was going to collapse.

Funny how the account changes going from posting random facts to generate innuendo, to actually providing context.

The BBC reporter would not be the first reporter to mess something up?

KTVU news anchor gets pranked by NTSB on Flight 214 pilot
m.youtube.com...

a reply to: Gargoyle91

Did the BBC really report WTC 7 26 min before it happened ?

They were using a report from Reuters, which in turn got it from a "local source" that WTC 7 had collapsed

Its called confusion …….

BBC jumped the gun without confirming the story

Considering that were anticipating possible collapse of WTC 7 all afternoon and that collapse zone surrounding building
had been established at 300PM can understand where the errors occurred

I saw my first UFO/Alien Flying Vehicle in 1965.
This was right around the time that the CIA invented the term, “Conspiracy Theory”.
A term they invented to help cover-up their involvement in the murder of JFK.

It was only years later, upon reaching adulthood, that I became aware of the term and their involvement in the murder. But I knew as a teenager that the government was lying about UFO’s. By then I had seen my second one and I knew that THEY EXIST and that the government/military was covering them up.

The UFO and JFK are CONSPIRACY FACT.

After the first tower fell I told my spouse, “A plane cannot make a building fall down.”
Their response was, “No, I’m watching it on TV right now, the second building is falling!”

This made me get out of bed.

*

I knew if they were still talking about this after 17 years, then there must be something to it, and that I was not going to like what I found.

But last week I watched my first video on the subject, and after about 20 minutes, you know what, I still stand by my statement.

“A plane cannot make a building fall down”.

*

The engineers who design the buildings say the government is lying.

The engineers who design the planes say the government is lying.

The engineers who design the steel say the government is lying.

The engineers who design the fuel say the government is lying.

The first responders at the Towers say the government is lying.

The first responders at the Pentagon say the government is lying.

The first responders at Shanksville say the government is lying.

The people who make the cell phones say the government is lying.

Even pilots say the government is lying.

Common Sense Conclusion: The government is lying.


Yes, the same government/military that lied about there being no base at Area 51 and never dropping Agent Orange and never planting a mine under the USS Maine to start a war.


WHO NEEDS TO LIE THE MOST, THE PERSON TRYING TO SELL A BOOK OR THE PERSON TRYING TO STAY OUT OF PRISON?

Are we supposed to believe ALL these people are lying?

Some of you keep talking about 500 mph. Why?

The engineers who design them say those airliners cannot fly at 400 - 500 mph at sea level and still stay in one piece.

The pilots who fly them say those airliners cannot fly at 400 - 500 mph at sea level and still stay in one piece.

Like people trying to recreate Oswald’s supposed shooting excellence, every pilot that tried to replicate hitting a twin tower dead on failed. Like the Oswald trials, EVRY ONE of them failed their simulation. And these were proven excellent snipers/pilots. The best they could do was a glancing blow off the tower sides. The worst saw their plane snap apart in mid-air before even reaching the tower.

The pilots who fly them say those airliners cannot fly at 400 - 500 mph at sea level and still stay in one piece. The impact at the Pentagon shows a flat trajectory. The pilots say
there is no way they could fly flat along the ground at that speed and still hit the building like that. And these are trained, everyday professional pilots. Unlike the terrorist.

After just watching videos a for few days there are 4 SMOKING GUNS that are so easy to see that you have to be lying to yourself to not see them. Or you’re getting paid to lie on the internet by the government. Must be a nice day job.

GUN 1 – CELL PHONES DO NOT WORK IN AIRLINERS.
Not in 2001. This is perhaps the most obvious lie. The government changed their cell phone story to “plane phones” to cover-up their mistake, once it was pointed out that cell phones do not work from airliners flying at cruising speeds. The cell phone towers cannot keep up and the calls drop before going through. All the people on the ground received calls from known cell phone numbers, NOT airline phones.

The flight attendant said before hanging up – “IT’S A FRAME.”

GUN 2 – THERE WAS NO PLANE CRASH AT THE PENTAGON.
Because - you guessed it - there was no plane wreckage. Right above the hole was a room missing its outer wall. And a stool with an open book was sitting on it. Like nothing happened. Where was the great big fuel fire that brought down the steel twin towers? You guessed it - there was no fire.

And what about the hole? Why was the hole in the Pentagon only 60 feet wide? The wing span was around 145 feet. The whole in the reinforced steel of the tower clearly showed the whole shape of an aircraft wing, why not the Pentagon? The (only) released video does not even show an airliner hitting the building. Why were the street lights only bent over and not snapped off by the airliner wings, like the steel pillars in the towers? The first responders claim there were no bodies, no aircraft parts, no luggage, you name it. Why? Well they say it was because it was a cruise missile that hit the Pentagon, and it hit it in the one part where no one was, the only empty part of the building, the part that was being refurbished.

GUN 3 – THERE WAS NO PLANE CRASH AT SHANKSVILLE. Because there was no plane wreckage. Eye witness says before the explosion that a small aircraft flew horizontally right over her and the tree line and did not even disturb the trees. The first responders claim there were no bodies, no aircraft parts, no luggage, you name it. Yet the black boxes and terrorist id’s were miraculously found 8 miles away and in good shape?

And where was the great big fuel fire that brought down the steel twin towers? There was no fire. And there were no holes in the ground from the titanium engines. Only one hole for the fuselage in between the wings. Yet the USGS Shanksville map of 1994 shows the “wing” scars were already there. Somebody knew those wing scars were there and decided to drop a missile in the middle of them. Sound like part of their plan did not work and they needed a backup plan to get out of it. That back up was a mining scar near Shanksville. So was this “plane” supposed to have hit Building 7?

GUN 4 – BUILDING 7 WAS NOT HIT BY ANY PLANES, YET IT FELL STRAIGHT DOWN LIKE THE TOWERS DID.
Why? Well they say it was because Building 7 was a CIA building. You might remember those liars from the start of this post. Building 7 had evidence of their criminal workings in it and it had to be destroyed. Steel buildings do not come down because furniture and paperwork is on fire. The firemen at building seven, just like in the towers, said there were EXPLOSIONS which brought the building down. Before the explosions people were told to leave the area. They knew it was coming down because it was dropped down on purpose. And it was dropped just like the towers. Same thing. No plane. Gee, isn’t that special.


EXPLOSIONS. That is what the firemen heard in the towers before they fell. People on the street heard them too. Many Explosions. Someone blew up those towers and they turned to DUST.


Every film of the towers falling shows them turning to DUST. There is no big 107 floor pile of steel left over after they fell down. No BIG mound like there should have been. Just huge clouds of dust, like the buildings just floated away.

Which is why we have this thread.

a reply to: soulwaxer

HINTS:

- It wasn’t nano-thermite.
- It wasn’t a secret weapon from space, as described by Julie Woods.
- It wasn’t mini nukes.
- And it sure as HELL wasn’t fires resulting in a “pancake collapse”, as described by NIST!



I Desperately Need One More HINT !

a reply to: spiritualarchitect

You might want to fact check yourself.
You

The wing span was around 145 feet.

A Boeing 757 wingspan is 125 feet wide. Not 145 feet wide.

You

The engineers who design them say those airliners cannot fly at 400 - 500 mph at sea level and still stay in one piece.

The pilots who fly them say those airliners cannot fly at 400 - 500 mph at sea level and still stay in one piece.

Be nice if you actually cite real quotes?

What would happen if the throttles worked up to the speeds seen on 9/11. The jet stops mid air and drops straight down? They crash? What happened to the jets on 9/11? They crashed?

It’s not the jets could not fly that fast for a short period of time, or for just one time only. The jets limits were set for a twenty or thirty years service life.

You

The engineers who design the buildings say the government is lying.

The engineers who design the planes say the government is lying.

The engineers who design the steel say the government is lying.

The engineers who design the fuel say the government is lying.

The first responders at the Towers say the government is lying.

The first responders at the Pentagon say the government is lying.

The first responders at Shanksville say the government is lying.

The people who make the cell phones say the government is lying.

Even pilots say the government is lying.

Common Sense Conclusion: The government is lying.

Have actual quotes?

The run down. There was wreckage and remains indicative of a high speed crash at Shanksville. How big of a crater should a jet with a fuselage 12ft in diameter make when the force of the crash shoves into the dirt? There was personal effects, a large debris field, the trees caught fire, and human remains in the trees.

The towers and WTC 7 were brought down by buckling of columns and broken floor connections. Not being severed by explosives. There is zero evidence of CD in the video, audio, seismic, physical evidence at the WTC. No booms on video with the force to cut steel, no flashing of burning thermite, no cut columns.

The pentagon jet did not fly flat. It descended into the pentagon. It could have undergone early stages of fusillade failure. It could have broken apart even, but momentum would have carried it to the pentagon regardless.

The air phones systems had not been removed or deactivated. The jets were low enough to make cell phone calls.

The jet wing dipped down left before crashing into the pentagon. The actual entrance hole was shaped like an upside T. The hole was two stories tall at the tallest point. The whole was at least 90 feet wide at its widest point.

Not everyone hears the worded frame.

Video of WTC 7 collapse shows the collapse was not even loud enough to interrupt or drown out conversation. There was no detonations with 130 dB explosions indicative of a force capable of cutting steel. No multiple explosions the truth movement claims most have been used to removed the resistance of every floor.

City implosions are clearly heard on the many clips of CDs. The explosions relentlessly echo through the city. No audio or video evidence of detonations at the towers with the force to cut steel.

Nobody is saying there was not loud noises, but there is no proof of detonations with the force to cut steel.

There was about 200,000 tons of structural in WTC 1 and 2. About 300,000 tons of steel was removed from the WTC. Explain that one.

"Where were you when 9-11 happened?"

It appears to me that many posters here were either not born yet or were too young to remember.

I was 22, in college. I remember very well this day (traumatic experiences have a funny way of burning into your memory).
I had walked into the cafeteria for a late breakfast before my first class, both televisions were showing one of the towers on fire. This was odd as usually each TV was on different channels for variety. I asked a couple friends I saw in there what movie they were watching, I had no clue what was happening, & was told in a disgusted way THIS IS LIVE NEWS! I directed my attention to what was on, it wasn't five minutes from the time I entered the student center when the second plane hit.
Classes were canceled that day, when the towers fell not only did I have a hard time wrapping my head around the simple fact they went down but it was impossible for them to have collapsed so quickly, so perfectly upon themselves. Impossible. Not over an aircraft strike.
I've always been an airplane junkie, particularly WWII fighters and bombers. A little known fact (at that time) is the Empire State Building was struck by a B-25 Mitchell during WWII. Even with the following fire the building stands the best part of a century afterwards. The twin towers were built well after the E.S.B. so it's only logical to assume they were built under even stricter building safety code.

I have no doubt that the towers were struck by the airliners & they DID do the visible exterior damage, people who say an aluminum aircraft can't puncture a steel framed building has no understanding of ballistics. Lead is even softer than aluminum yet can pierce a steel plate when fired from a firearm.
I believe the airliners DID damage the structures but did not directly lead to the collapse. 9/11 was a well thought out plot with MANY MANY actors involved which we will probably NEVER know the whole story of. It's probably true that Osama was a player, however I feel the Bush clan was also involved, extremely so, as well as many of our alphabet soup agencies and organizations which have ties to the corrupted political families in power today.
I recall rumors and reports about certain security details being shut out of the area in the weeks before 9/11 while "maintenance crews" were in and out of the three towers back in the early days after the attack, sadly I can't find any of this information now.
I have a hard time believing nukes were used, it would have been all too easy to set up demolition charges placed in strategic locations to bring the towers down. As I was in college for electronics, networking, and robotics... I know for a FACT we had the technology then to control the firing order of planted charges to bring the towers down in near free-fall no matter WHERE the planes struck.
The technology was there then, and certain entities had the access and time frame to set it up, as well as a believable motive.
As for the Pentagon... I haven't seen any undeniable evidence it was struck by an airliner, the hole in the outer band does not match up with damage we've all seen. If the fuselage could punch a hole in the outer wall, the more dense engines would have also punched smaller holes just outside the damage we've all seen but that damage is strangely absent.
I also find it strange how the other airliner somehow managed to "vaporize" most of its metallic mass... never before has an aircraft crash disappeared so much of its structure nor has it ever happened since. I suspect the Pentagon was struck by a missile, I don't have an honest opinion about the last "crash" but I'm convinced it WASN'T a passenger airframe.

I could be very wrong in my theories and I know my thoughts leave a lot unanswered. However, I CAN say the officially released narrative is a flat out fabrication.

a reply to: klikmaus

You do realize some people post the last exit hole made by the more durable landing gear as the entrance hole at the pentagon. The entrance hole is shaped like an upside down T. It is almost two stories tall at its tallest point. The majority of the hole is one story tall, and about 90 feet wide.


As far as high speed crashes go?

New Video Reno Air Races Crash-Disaster Close Up Video YouTube Crash Video Reno Air Races
m.youtube.com...

After the crash, hard to believe the 12,000 pound plane ever existed.

F4 Phantom Jet Hits Concrete Wall at 500 MPH
m.youtube.com...

Hard to believe a 55,000 pound jet ever existed.

a reply to: klikmaus

However, I CAN say the officially released narrative is a flat out fabrication.

You've had 17 years to disprove the official store.
How many more do you need?

Please outline a cohesive explanation that covers all that was seen on 911.
Don't knit pick on little aspects.
Then post verifiable proof for all the aspects.

a reply to: neutronflux

The falling mass only grew as the collapse proceeded. 

No it didn't.

Show me the pile driver growing as the tower fell. Even if the pile driver was hidden within the dust cloud, it would only have a fraction of the mass of the former top of the building, since most of it was clearly falling outside of the building's profile.

The upper block was no longer a cohesive block to act like a pile driver on the remaining structure.

There was no pile driver.