911 DISINFORMATION and Far-out Theories : Proof of Coverup

When the author wrote that paragraph, do you think he took the trouble to contact Dylan and Corey to ask which of their errors had been the result of deliberate hoaxes? Does he pick out any of these errors and demonstrate that they were more than just simple errors, that they were, in his words, "well-crafted hoaxes"?

Like I have said time and time again. Dylan and Corey who I have spoke with many times were shown that their claims were false for sometime before and during the making of Loose Change. The film was also funded by Phil Jayhan, the creator of the pod theory. So therefore knowing something is false yet still including that disinfo in your documentary makes them guilty of selling a hoax.

These hoaxes are ill researched far-out theories which have been a burden for 911 truthers. There are debunkers who pose as truthers who come on forums and blogs who spread these known hoaxes in the name of 911 truth.




[edit on 24-3-2010 by Shadow Herder]

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
The film was also funded by Phil Jayhan, the creator of the pod theory.

You do know that civilian planes can carry pods ?

Originally posted by REMISNE

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
The film was also funded by Phil Jayhan, the creator of the pod theory.

You do know that civilian planes can carry pods ?

Let's see how that works.

Civilian planes can carry pods.
The 9/11 attack planes were civilian planes.
Therefore, the 9/11 attack planes could have carried pods.
[and it should be investigated.]

Is that about right?

reply to post by jthomas


Come on JT, i have seen you debunk some good evidence. This should be cake walk for you.

The pod thing has been proven to be blatant disinformation.

Has anyone ever mentioned how on the CBS coverage as soon as the 2nd plane hits, the cbs eye is hovering right above the pyramid on top of that building nearby??? I signed up for an account here just to post this and it wouldn't let me create a new thread since I'm a newbie so I thought I'd post it here...

You can see it on this link for example at 6:38 in to about 6:48:


www.youtube.com...

As soon as the plane hits, the eye moves on top the pyramid.

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Like I have said time and time again. Dylan and Corey who I have spoke with many times were shown that their claims were false for sometime before and during the making of Loose Change. The film was also funded by Phil Jayhan, the creator of the pod theory. So therefore knowing something is false yet still including that disinfo in your documentary makes them guilty of selling a hoax.

And you actually discussed this with them? What did they say when you raised the issue that they'd knowingly pur false claims into Loose Change?

If they knowingly put false claims into the first edition, what persuaded them to take them out in subsequent editions?

And at the moment, claims you make about Phil Jayhan, of whom I haven't heard, have the same credibility as the claim you made about Rumsfeld, which I know to be untrue.

Originally posted by REMISNE
You do know that civilian planes can carry pods ?

Please show us some civilian jetliners that have pods under them in the same location as the one to have allegedly been on FL.175.

You'll never find one because that was the very first thing I researched when I got introduced to 9/11 conspiracy theories.

See, I'm sort of a plane buff and go to alot of airshows. I can identify many planes. That's how I was easily able to identify the white plane at the Pentagon before most everyone else. There are no jetliners that carry pods, let alone in the location that is alleged on 9/11.

Suffice it to say, the "pod" on FL.175 has been debunked for many years here:

www.questionsquestions.net...

reply to post by Shadow Herder


Speaking of DisInfo and Far-out theories, OP..

...didn't I recently see you write something in another thread about the WTC Towers having been rigged for demolition, when they were built in the 1970s??

I am interested in how someone would arrive at suck (edit here: ooops! No, really...that is an honest typo! Of course, I meant "such". I ain't the best typist...) knowledge, "knowing" that it isn't "disinformation" or a "far-out theory".

Also, what kind of explosives would be stable, and still functional after three decades, and how did they (and all the associated paraphenalia) go undetected for all those years?

More questions than answers, it would seem...

Perhaps someone who is expert in demolitions and explosives handling will be able to contribute with some answers....

_BoneZ_ perhaps? Studying engineering, should have some good insights...

[edit on 25 March 2010 by weedwhacker]

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Shadow Herder

 

Speaking of DisInfo and Far-out theories, OP..

...didn't I recently see you write something in another thread about the WTC Towers having been rigged for demolition, when they were built in the 1970s??

Speaking of DisInfo and Far-out theories, WW...

...didn't I recently see you write that the penthouse of WTC7 pulled the rest of the building down?

...didn't I see you deny saying it?

...didn't I see you run away after you were shown where you said it?



Turns out, yes I did.

[edit on 25-3-2010 by K J Gunderson]

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Thanks for the questionsquestions link: I hadn't seen that, and am heartened to see that it bolsters my own opinions on the subject, which are that

• the idea of a missile being used is ridiculous
  
• the nose cone flashes do seem to be there, though we don't know what they are
  
• it's still possible that a plane switch took place or
  
• the "commercial flights" might not have been real in the first place
  

I like the honesty of the analysis, which never goes beyond what can be reasonably shown and is careful not to rule out sensible options which need more investigation. If only everyone were that careful.

OP, take note.

Edit to add:

having read further, I'm disappointed that this guy stopped his analysis. And I only skimmed the rest of the article, and so he might, ultimately, have moved away from the last couple of items in the list above. Well, if I come across good data and argument, I might too.

[edit on 25-3-2010 by rich23]

All i can say is that recently on this forum there a bunch of new guys that dont normally post under the 911 conspiracy forum that are just pumping out the far out theories now.

Odd, that the debunkers arent even debunking them at all. Things that make you go hmmmm

Originally posted by rich23

the nose cone flashes do seem to be there, though we don't know what they are

We do know what they are, thanks to our resident debunker, Weedwhacker. Weedwhacker may be a debunker, but he is also an experienced professional pilot. In a thread a long time ago, he showed diagrams of the insides of jetliners. The flashes seen as the noses touched the towers were likely the forward oxygen tanks being compromised and the oxygen being ignited. In the south tower video, for instance, the flash comes from the exact area and location of the forward oxygen tank. That's all the explanation I needed.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by rich23

the nose cone flashes do seem to be there, though we don't know what they are

We do know what they are, thanks to our resident debunker, Weedwhacker. Weedwhacker may be a debunker, but he is also an experienced professional pilot. In a thread a long time ago, he showed diagrams of the insides of jetliners. The flashes seen as the noses touched the towers were likely the forward oxygen tanks being compromised and the oxygen being ignited. In the south tower video, for instance, the flash comes from the exact area and location of the forward oxygen tank. That's all the explanation I needed.

Not to stray to far off, but wouldnt the air being compressed infront of the aircraft cause a visible disturbance as well? I noticed this watching the flight 175 video, you can see air build up under the wings, looks little like vapor.

A 9/11 truth video documentary was actually posted on mainstream news media here the other night..

Keep up the good work..

Ats is being hit hard with a concentrated effort of long debunked and proven 911 discrediting threads.

No planes at wtc, DEW directed energy weapons, space beams, holograms, tv fakery and Missile pods.

These stories are meant to mislead the average researcher and turn off the curious lurkers. These stories also delay any real research to be conducted.

Dont think for a minute that these theories are 'accidental' Most of these theories were created for a purpose. Divide and conquer, mislead and discredit.

But that is what is great about ats, the far out is still debatable no matter how ludicrous it is.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

Originally posted by warisover
It seems to me that this whole thread is designed to be propaganda to discredit the truth movement and to try to have them fighting among themselves

It appears that way to me as well. The problem isn't credibility. The problem is we have no controlling legal authority in this nation. The FBI and CIA were involved with 9/11. They will never investigate themselves.

Does anyone here really buy the idea that the reason the FBI isn't investigating the obvious demolition of the World Trade Center is because someone on the internet is saying something crazy and outlandish?

Am I to believe that the FBI was hot on the trail of investigating the obvious demolition of the WTC, but then they heard the Webfairy preaching holograms, and then called off their investigation?

This is absurd as it is insulting to peoples intelligence. The reason we have no investigation is we have no controlling legal authority, and the people supposed to be protecting us, were involved in this high crime of 911.

Cheers-
Phil

Originally posted by D.Duck
"The oxygen is being ignited" but the wings with jet fuel passes right through without anything happened and then explode inside the tower, that cant happen in real life.

You can drop a match into a can of kerosene and it will just extinguish the match. Kerosene isn't anywhere near as flammable as pure oxygen.

Originally posted by D.Duck
On 9/11 this CGI 767 decided to pass right through steel beams without anything happened

The 767's didn't pass through steel beams, they passed through the bolts holding those steel beams together.

Damn Bonez,

Now you made me think of something that I never applied to this subject. All of the studies I have seen so far have just considered jet fuel and the materials in the towers as a source for the fire. Does anybody here remember the ValuJet crash awhile back? They couldn't figure out how it's fire got so hot and spread so quickly, until they found the oxygen candles in the cargo area.

Nobody has taken into consideration the oxygen candles onboard these aircraft. In an airliner, only the cockpit oxygen is in a pressurized container. This is because they have to activate their oxygen in certain situations and these containers can be easily recharged. Oxygen for the passenger cabin comes from chemical generators. The sturdy containers that contain these chemicals would have been shredded on impact and would have released their chemicals. Another property of these chemicals is that they react violently when they come into contact with petroleum products.

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Another property of these chemicals is that they react violently when they come into contact with petroleum products.

I have been asking the following question for years and no one will answer it.

Since the fire was hot enough to melt aluminum, what chemical reactions would you get when the molten aluminum comes into contact with the following material?

1. Jet fuel.

2. Oxygen cylinders or generators.

3. Magnesium.

4. Tungsten.

5. Engine oil.

6. Hydraulic fluid.

And a few other hazmat materials from the planes.

[edit on 5-4-2010 by REMISNE]