Trying to clearify some myths

reply to post by nicepants


I do not pretend to be a conspiricy nut.
I am just a normal person who is basing his opinion of 9-11 on easily obsevable facts.
That is my point.
I do not need to be an engineer or aircraft expert or someone who knows how network broadcasts work, in order to make simple observations.
Yes, I think the networks had people inside who could manipulate what we saw on the morning of 9-11.
I detailed all this in another thread but I will go over some of it.
I was watching NBC news (I did not have cable then, so I could only pick up a few channels off rabbit ears) on the morning of 9-11, after my girlfriend told me to come in the room to watch what was happening.
With no explaination of where this was coming from, the anouncer said, " we have a feed coming in right now of another plane aproaching the area."
It showed a plane coming up the river from the south west dirrection flying low and level and ended up flying almost dirrectly overhead from the point of view of the camera.
The plane took a sharp right turn at the last possible moment, in order to hit the building.
If you look on youtube you will see the plane came in at a steep angle from accross the bay and took a sharp turn to the left, to be able to hit the tower.
The thing about Attah, I went into great detain on another thread.
My friend saw this guy every day to conduct normal buisness with.
There were records of these transactions and the FBI questioned her repeatedly about it, especialy because the last time this happened was the afternoon of 9-10.
It was a normal day with no indication that anything was happening out of the ordinary.
That is the facts.
It is my question of how Attah got from Venice, Florida, on the afternoon of 9-10, to be at Portland, Maine airport the next mornong at 7:00.
And why is there no pictures of him there?
I also went into great detail on another thread about how I was profiled as a potential terrorist back when Noriega was being brought up to Florida, after his capture in Panama.
I had tons of pictures and video taken of me and was confronted by the head of the airport security, and I do not look half as evil as Attah does, and I am not on a terrorist watch list.

Has the issue of metal fatigue ever been addressed with the fires?

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by nicepants

 

I do not pretend to be a conspiricy nut.
I am just a normal person who is basing his opinion of 9-11 on easily obsevable facts.
That is my point.
I do not need to be an engineer or aircraft expert or someone who knows how network broadcasts work, in order to make simple observations.
Yes, I think the networks had people inside who could manipulate what we saw on the morning of 9-11..

The TV networks couldn't fake what people in NYC saw first-hand.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
The thing about Attah, I went into great detain on another thread.
My friend saw this guy every day to conduct normal buisness with.
There were records of these transactions and the FBI questioned her repeatedly about it, especialy because the last time this happened was the afternoon of 9-10.
It was a normal day with no indication that anything was happening out of the ordinary.
That is the facts.
It is my question of how Attah got from Venice, Florida, on the afternoon of 9-10, to be at Portland, Maine airport the next mornong at 7:00.
And why is there no pictures of him there?
I also went into great detail on another thread about how I was profiled as a potential terrorist back when Noriega was being brought up to Florida, after his capture in Panama.
I had tons of pictures and video taken of me and was confronted by the head of the airport security, and I do not look half as evil as Attah does, and I am not on a terrorist watch list.

Atta "looks evil"? OH boy.
I'm gonna call BS on this Atta nonsense unless you can provide some evidence that he is still alive.

reply to post by nicepants


I have spent a lot of time on youtube mainly trying to find the video of what I saw "live".
I never have, but it made a huge impression on me and it is stuck in my memory.
If you do not believe me, post a link to the "live" feed of the crash that was run on NBC.
For some reason it is not available.
I am telling you why.
Because it was made ahead of time and does not correspond with what was caught by the news helecopters that were flying around.
Look, please do not call BS on me.
I am not arguing any point of view, other than what I saw, myself.
I had to leave to go to work and did not sit through all the brainwashing that went on for the rest of the day.
I mainly saw that one event and I do not have a bunch of confused thoughts to cloud my memory.
I am not advocating one theory or another.
I have no idea why there was a fake video.
I did not even think it was fake untill I started watching all the videos once there were so many being put up.
All I wanted was to see the same thing I saw that morning.
I found out that what is documented is different.
I only recently got to this final conclusion after going into all the details, because I was horrified to find out what I held to be first hand truth was a total lie.
As for this Attah guy, I doubt that he is dead but that is just a feeling.
Again, I am not pushing any theory.
Three moths ago I found out that a friend of mine knew the guy.
She told me that she thought he looked evil and the mental picture of him, in her mind, tortures her constantly.
She is a very unhappy person and her life was ruined by this guy.
She has no oppinion about it, other than she hates the fact that she had to look at the face of the man who killed so many people.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
What I saw as a "Live feed" when the second tower was hit was fake and made ahead of time, to be played as live.
The plane came from a different direction and turned at the opposite angle and level from what can be seen today, from private citizen's cameras.

The named hijackers were decoys and I know that directly from a friend who knew Attah, and his friends.

No there were no fake video/live feeds on 9/11. If you could prove that you would be famous.

So your friend, and now you, are withholding evidence from the FBI, or did you already present this evidence to the FBI? When will you and your friend notify the FBI of this "fact"? Should I send a copy of your post to the FBI, or have you already done that? I hope you have give all your evidence to the news papers and the local police, and the FBI. When did you do that?

Originally posted by nicepants

So all the major TV networks are in on it now too?

When BBC reports wtc7 'collapsed' before it did, then yes I'd think that could lead to a line of thinking along that path...

edit: and to the people thinking it/wtc1/2 can just collapse like they did, there is a slight physics issue of missing energy.

[edit on 10-4-2008 by GhostR1der]

Originally posted by GhostR1der

Originally posted by nicepants

So all the major TV networks are in on it now too?

When BBC reports wtc7 'collapsed' before it did, then yes I'd think that could lead to a line of thinking along that path...

The FDNY was worried that it might collapse, news media was told this, clearly the BBC just misunderstood. Are you suggesting that they were notified ahead of time? Why only the BBC?

Originally posted by GhostR1deredit: and to the people thinking it/wtc1/2 can just collapse like they did, there is a slight physics issue of missing energy.

Please explain and show how much energy was missing.

reply to post by beachnut


are you reading my posts?
Look again.
My friend has nothing to do with my oppinions.
She kept this secret from me for years.
I only talked to her once about all this 9-11 stuff.
She talked to the FBI several times.
She did not have to go to them, they came to her, at her work.
That is how the subject came up, was in a discussion about why she does not have a job and can not get one doing what she had been doing.
She is not hiding anything, the FBI have records of every transaction she had with these people.
As for the fake video.
It is not a video, like what you can find on youtube.
That is my point.
The fact that there is no video, is what is bothering me.
Anyone can prove me wrong by showing me what was aired live on 9-11 on the NBC news coverage of the terrorist attack on the WTC.
I saw something.
That is my point.
Despite the fact that they did not have a camera positioned to catch the event, they had a video to air at the right time to show a plane hitting the second tower.
That is all I can figure.
This is a big event and they did not want to miss the chance to show America a plane flying along and running right into a building.

I would happily reply to this post if I knew what the definition of clearify was? Does this poster mean clarify, clearly or something else entirely? I know this is too much to ask, but, could people that post here, or anywhere else, please learn the proper way to write the English language. Sentence structure, composition, and grammer are basic third grade knowledge. No wonder the Elitist are ruling us with an iron fist, it's because most of us are blindly ignorant to our own capable intelligence, let alone how things truly are.

reply to post by beachnut


I agree, terrorist did plan and carry out 911.
I disagree as to who the terrorist are.

[edit on 10-4-2008 by corusso]

Look at 9/11 as a criminal enterprise not as a terrorist event. Means, motive, opportunity. Who had control of enough factors to have the means? What was the motive? Perhaps to pave the way for a war on terror. Who could have had the opportunity, or the actual large scale planning and operational control to pull it off? Leads to only one conclusion. If you throw in the anthrax attacks and the widespread media manipulation as well as the subsequent cover ups then only one organization comes to mind.

I stated ubove that I was not pushing any agenda or trying to promote any particular theory about how or why things happened the way they did on 9-11.
Having said that, I can not help that, just going through these events, in the process of writing these posts, I have thought out an explaination.
I was writing in another thread about on-line gaming.
Just now, it occured to me that instead of a fake video, it could be like a segment of a video game.
I posted a long time ago, on a different forum, that I thought that the plane that hit the second tower was remote controled.
That was what it looked like to me, and the opinion came to me as I watched.
Now that I realize what I was watching was fake, I can take that crazy turn before the impact in a different way.
It was not just a fake control, such as a person twisting on a joystick instead of a pilot usung normal cockpit controls inside the plane.
I can take the concept one step farther and instead of someone watching the aproaching pane and using a over-ride systym to make sure of an impact, you have someone watching for an aproaching plane and running a computer simulation and manipulating a virtual plane, to make sure it does not hit the building, if the real one misses.
So, that is how the crazy, hairpin turn came to be, because of the last second human decision that is built into the whole scam set-up.
While writing this it also occures to me that 9-11 may have a lot to do with weather conditions.
Perfect conditions, maximum visibility and not a cloud in the sky to mess up the duplication of events with something visible, that can be used to set up a timeline.


[edit on 11-4-2008 by jmdewey60]

Originally posted by beachnut
The SCUD missiles in Desert Storm came down faster than MACH 1, over 800 mph and only had gravity bringing them down.

i agree with the rest of your post but this one line is, not to be a smartass, incorrect i believe.

scuds got their decent speed from their balistic trajectory. had they been fired straight up and bled off their thrust, paused then fell from gravity alone they wouldnt have reached 800mph, so the speed you listed has to be from the balistics.

again, i agree with the rest though

reply to post by Damocles

Shoot it straight up, the rocket engine only works for a minute, then it is coasting the whole way. They never were accurate, but the supersonic train made a surrealistic thunder sound show when Patriots joined in.

I spent some time today trying to find something similar to what I saw on "Live" tv of the second plane hitting the South tower.
This is the closest thing to what I saw, as far as where the tv camera would have been in order to get the shot that I remember.
Problem is, this photo was taken in 1979.
For all I know, there could be buildings standing in the way, that were not there when this was taken.
The other problem is that the camera panned 180 degrees to follow the plane, so you would have to have an unobstructed view of the harbor from this spot.
I am no expert, but I think there are buildings in that direction too.
I know there is a dispute about the video that we do have on youtube, of the plane hitting and that some people think it could not have been taken from Battery Park.
What I saw on tv on the morning of 9-11 may not have been possible to tape because of obstructions.
Anyone who can help me out with this, I would apreciate it.

I am becoming seriously concerned about this whole thing I brought up.
I live in Port Charlotte Fl and on 9-11 I was watching channel 2, an NBC affiliate station in Fort Meyers.
When My girlfriend woke me up, they were running NBC network news, apparently pre-empting what would have been normaly run in this time slot.
Am I the only person who saw this?
I had no idea, untill recently, that this is a problem, that I saw the second plane hit, on live tv.
Something is really strange here and I do not think it is me.
Up untill now I thought my only problem was that I thought the movement of the plane seemed peculiar.
All I have seen on youtube is local tv station's coverage and they were what looks like something caught from high in a building or from a helocopter.
What I saw was like I state above and illustrate with the help of the photo I posted.
While searching through Google image, today I did find out that the networks have purged their archives of 9-11 footage.


[edit on 12-4-2008 by jmdewey60]

Interesting comments.

All I wanted was to see the same thing I saw that morning.
I found out that what is documented is different.

There were things broadcast on BBC News 24 that I have not seen since 9/11 regarding the Pentagon. It is the reason I got started into all this, because every time the subject of 9/11 is brought up on the news, the Pentagon and Flight 93 aren't reported, only the collapse of the WTC.

Here is another picture I found with google image.
I spent a few hours looking at pictures that can explain the fake "Live" plane crash.
Look at this picture. It shows the same buildings that are in the picture I put up in my last post.
I went on google maps and went up and down these streets in street level mode, and none of these buildings exist, today.
In the high resolution photo from 1979, it looks like nothing but empty space is to the left of the photo,(out of view).
In the photo in this post (low resolution) you can see that when these old buildings stood, there was nothing but empty space between these buildings and the harbor.
Now, that space is full of new buildings.
-------------------------------------------
As I am writing this, an idea comes to mind that will explain all of these inconsistancies.
Some time around 1980, someone put a tripod near this spot and swung a movie camera from looking away off in the distance, into the outer harbor, and moved it slowly along the inner harbor untill it had panned 180 degrees to stop on the south tower of WTC.
Beautiful, and a quality high resolution palett to make into a computer simulation.
No clutter and a clear, unobstructed view to get maximum traumatic affect on a nation-wide audience.
Only problem, anyone in New York City would know it was fake.
To avoid that, you keep all the local news channels airing whatever live feeds they can come up with, until after the second plane hits, "live", but only on the network feed for people like me, far away, to see.
There is an obvious excuse for doing it.
Until the second plane hit, it can be argued that it was a local story, even though every other affiliate in the nation had gone to network.




[edit on 12-4-2008 by jmdewey60]

Last night I saw King Kong, the Peter Jackson re-make, on tv and in the first two minutes they show depression era homeless people camping out on the harbor, with the 1930's NewYork skyline in the background.
Think about how they did that.
What I proposed in earlier posts, about a fake simulation, would have been easier to do.
From all the photo's I have looked at of Manhattan, I thought I could identify two of the buildings and I think it may have been a portrayal of something that would today, look like what is in the photo below.(minus the towers)



[edit on 14-4-2008 by jmdewey60]

[edit on 14-4-2008 by jmdewey60]

I need to make a couple of points because of some things I mentioned in my previous posts in this thread.
I brought up the dispute of whether the video of the second plane hitting the south tower could have actually been taken at Battery Park.
www.youtube.com...
(again, keep in mind, this is the video you can find on youtube, and not what I was writing about, earlier, that I saw on tv.)

I ran across more photos and I think it could have been taken from the boat that is tied up at this spot along the sea wall.
(I have to add that it is reported that the ferry had already left, before the second plane hit.)

A lot of photos show this boat at this spot and apparently the above photo is from that boat as it is trying to dock at this point.

I have gotten better at navigating around this area with street level google map and I was able to find the buildings in my other post and they are still there.


[edit on 15-4-2008 by jmdewey60]

This stuff I was writing about the video taken from Battery Park, of the second plane hitting the South tower, caused me to collect a lot of Photos from the internet.
I decided to make a video in the form of a narrated slide show, explaining what these can add to the one-time controversy about how the video was made.
You can find it on youtube, if you are curious about how much of an idiot I can sound like, talking about a subject that is, apparently, not so controversial.
www.youtube.com...
It is 3:40 long.
My first video, it is not really a video, but me talking over a slide show.

[edit on 17-4-2008 by jmdewey60]