My personal 9/11 smoking gun. Please debunk.

There is a really good 9-11 documentary called "9/11 In Plane Site" (sic) and it covers this exact topic pretty well

Originally posted by homervb

 

Keep insulting and not discussing. It's a good way to send a thread completely off track and piss everyone off. If you really do feel that way and you're going to act like this then why even bother entering the "9/11 Conspiracies" portion of the site? Why not just find a forum where you can bash truthers?

Let me answer your question with another question- how can you consider such a claim with even a grain of serious discussion? It's been pointed out ad nauseum that this "cylinder" wasn't any cylinder, but the well for the landing gear, and someone even showed a crystal clear photo of the same model of aircraft to prove it. NOPE NOPE NOPE this grainy photo taken from five miles away the OP got off some damned fool conspiracy website just HAS to be right and all those other up close photos as well as all the eyewitness accounts just HAVE to be wrong.

Here's a surprise for you- I do in fact support the idea for more investigations, if not because we need to document the failings of gov't they've carefully swept under the rug, then because it's one of the most historically important events in living memory and it needs to be documented for future generations. What concerns me is that the truthers have this incessant need to inject their abject paranoia in any crack and crevice the same way a scorpion pokes and prods with its stinger to inject its own venom through any weak spot in its prey's exoskeleton armor, and it makes everyone wanting to ask the simple questions look like crackpots by association. Heck, I can't even ask a simple question question like "who ever said "pull it" was lingo for controlled demolitions" without hordes of people bringing up all sorts of sinister secret plots to take over the world. You know as well as I do that if there ever are any future investigations, it's going to be turned into a three ring circus of "lasers from outer space", "nukes in the basement", and "hologram planes"

So, you tell me why I should treat "secret cylinders strapped to the bottom of the aircraft" claims seriously. I'm not even making any of this up- all I'm doing is repeating the conspiracy claims you people are spreading yourselves.

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime

 

There is a really good 9-11 documentary called "9/11 In Plane Site" (sic) and it covers this exact topic pretty well

...and thus, the reason why all these goofball conspiracy theories are floating around- hordes of snake oil peddlers behind those damned fool conspiracy web sites are pushing inane accusations to make a fast buck off of gullible truthers. This particular stunt for example is to peddle DVDs for a "donantion" of $20 a pop-

Buy IN PLANE SITE for a "donation" of $20

If you don't believe anything else I say, then believe this- If anyone tries to convince you that everything you know is fake and they'll tell you the "real" truth if you give them your money, they're just a con artist trying to rip you off.

Originally posted by tonycodes

Let's either accept that commercial airliners do not have that on them or it wasn't a commercial airliner.

Or, let's accept that it is the sun reflecting off the curved aluminum wing box of the polished aluminum (unpainted) AA plane and leave it at that. Look at the sun gleaming off the engines and fuselage.. same reflection.

This has been discussed so many times... why are you bringing it up again?

It was those art students.

Originally posted by onthedownlow

Originally posted by zatara

Originally posted by tonycodes
reply to post by Master_007

 

I understand your fustrations but please let's keep this to focusing on the cylinder... I do not wanna feed this thread with a ton of different topics thank you

I can only guess what it could be and my quess will be a liquid with stuff that can melt steel. And in enough quantity to take out an entire floor of the WTC.

Are you suggesting that only one floor would need to be compromised? I thought the heart of the truther movement believed that multiple floors would need to be compromised. But, gee, I guess your right- However many hundreds of thousands of tons that were reliant on the integrity of that one floor could have easily come down if that one floor was compromised. But what kind of compromise? A high velocity impact and extreme heat from jet fuel?

A high velocity impact and extreme heat from jet fuel would totally take down an entire building causing every entire floor below the impact to eject outwards in perfect unison, one after another, while keeping up with falling debris from the top. Yeah man, a plane and it's semi empty gas tank would totally do that. Don't forget to take into account the fuel that burned up in that massive fireball too.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by stirling

 

Who said it was an E4B? You know they are simply 747's with different innards?

I have never heard this part of the conspiracy.

There was a E4B over the white house, it was filmed, and almost certainly US air force. The footage was used in one of Discovery channel's own documentaries. Indeed it is thought that there were in fact three of them flying that day, and remained in the air after 9.03am. It would not be unreasonable to suppose then, that at least one of them also flew over New York.

reply to post by smurfy

It would not be unreasonable to suppose then, that at least one of them also flew over New York.

You can 'suppose' a lot of things. But that's not scientific.

Is that the kind of evidence you want coming at you if you were in trial?

Originally posted by smurfy

 

There was a E4B over the white house, it was filmed, and almost certainly US air force. The footage was used in one of Discovery channel's own documentaries. Indeed it is thought that there were in fact three of them flying that day, and remained in the air after 9.03am. It would not be unreasonable to suppose then, that at least one of them also flew over New York.

Are you seriously suggesting it was an E4B that hit the towers? The E4B isn't just a plane, it's a very expensive plane chock full of air to ground and air to satellite communications, and plus, it's hardened to withstand electromagnetic pulses from nuclear weapons. Using an E4B in a kamakaze attack is like using a Lamborghini in a demolition derby.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime

 

There is a really good 9-11 documentary called "9/11 In Plane Site" (sic) and it covers this exact topic pretty well

...and thus, the reason why all these goofball conspiracy theories are floating around- hordes of snake oil peddlers behind those damned fool conspiracy web sites are pushing inane accusations to make a fast buck off of gullible truthers. This particular stunt for example is to peddle DVDs for a "donantion" of $20 a pop-

Buy IN PLANE SITE for a "donation" of $20


If you don't believe anything else I say, then believe this- If anyone tries to convince you that everything you know is fake and they'll tell you the "real" truth if you give them your money, they're just a con artist trying to rip you off.

Calm down... I was just mentioning the movie because it is relevant to the topic. I'll let the OP make up their own mind about it. That movie can be seen for free all over the internet and on Netflix

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by smurfy

 

There was a E4B over the white house, it was filmed, and almost certainly US air force. The footage was used in one of Discovery channel's own documentaries. Indeed it is thought that there were in fact three of them flying that day, and remained in the air after 9.03am. It would not be unreasonable to suppose then, that at least one of them also flew over New York.

Are you seriously suggesting it was an E4B that hit the towers? The E4B isn't just a plane, it's a very expensive plane chock full of air to ground and air to satellite communications, and plus, it's hardened to withstand electromagnetic pulses from nuclear weapons. Using an E4B in a kamakaze attack is like using a Lamborghini in a demolition derby.

Dude, RELAX, holy #ttttttt. He did not suggest that, he said there was one in the air. You're the one putting words into his mouth. He said he wouldn't be surprised if one flew over NY, he didn't say "I wouldn't be surprised if that's what hit the WTC". To him, it may be suspicious that an E4B was in the air on 9/11, especially since it's pretty much a mobile command center for the military and the president. And people say truthers are hostile, pshhh. I've only been on this forum for a couple weeks now and honestly all I can say is GoodOlDave, you just seem to always be there with a hostile reply, with the intentions to cause trouble.

To me it is kinda hard to believe that someone can have a "personal 9/11 smoking gun" that is completely debunked in 10 seconds of Googling. For something to reach a "smoking gun" status, shouldn't you at least have Googled it? This is just

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by smurfy

 

It would not be unreasonable to suppose then, that at least one of them also flew over New York.

You can 'suppose' a lot of things. But that's not scientific.

Is that the kind of evidence you want coming at you if you were in trial?

What's your beef, and Dave's for that matter, it is known that those aircraft, (three) were in the air. The forth and final E-4b was launched in response to the actual attack. So, do you want to argue that they were not, as you implied to the other poster, or that they, or one of them was not in New York. One was certainly over the white house, filmed from the ground and seen by two CNN reporters, at least. And to Dave, I make no assumption as to what they were doing, just making a point of information, seeing as you don't appear to know that these aircraft were airborne.

Originally posted by homervb
Dude, RELAX, holy #ttttttt. He did not suggest that, he said there was one in the air. You're the one putting words into his mouth. He said he wouldn't be surprised if one flew over NY, he didn't say "I wouldn't be surprised if that's what hit the WTC". To him, it may be suspicious that an E4B was in the air on 9/11, especially since it's pretty much a mobile command center for the military and the president. And people say truthers are hostile, pshhh. I've only been on this forum for a couple weeks now and honestly all I can say is GoodOlDave, you just seem to always be there with a hostile reply, with the intentions to cause trouble.

edit on 3-4-2012 by homervb because: (no reason given)

You misunderstand my point. The truthers are notorious for grasping at any straw regardless of how absurd it is that helps them keep their conspiracy claims alive. One truther here is insisting the buildings were all fake. Another truther claimed the gov't killed the passengers of flight 77, chopped up their bodies, and loaded the body parts into the cruise missile that hit the Pentagon to plant the DNA. I'm sure you've seen your own share of "hologram planes" and "lasers from outer space" quackery, and even now, someone is insisting the plane that hit the tower had a cylinder bolted to the bottom of it. Making up accusations that the plane was an E4B would actually be the least goofball claim the truthers posted here. All I'm doing is pointing out that the idea is still pointless.

My experience here has actually been that every time someone takes me to task for posting some supposedly outrageous criticism of the truthers, not a day later some other truther comes along and posts something that shows I was right to begin with. One person griped that "noone here is claiming the planes were holograms" and not a day later someone came in claiming the planes were holograms. Not even yesterday a person griped that "noone was insisting the Jews staged 9/11" and about an hour later, sure enough, someone came in complaining that 9/11 was staged by the Jews. If the pattern holds up, someone will insist it was an E4B that hit the tower by the end of the week. Just to let you know, before you get too deeply into this "noone said an E4B hit the towers" thread.

reply to post by smurfy

What's your beef, and Dave's for that matter, it is known that those aircraft, (three) were in the air. The forth and final E-4b was launched in response to the actual attack. So, do you want to argue that they were not, as you implied to the other poster, or that they, or one of them was not in New York. One was certainly over the white house, filmed from the ground and seen by two CNN reporters, at least. And to Dave,

I don't know if they were or not. I was pointing out that the are just converted 747's. That does not mean what was seen was actually E-4bs. It might have been commercial 747's.

Even if they were there in NYC. It doesn't seem sinister. Is it at least possible that one follows the president on his travels?

So far I can't find a connection between E-4bs and a conspiracy.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by smurfy

 

It would not be unreasonable to suppose then, that at least one of them also flew over New York.

You can 'suppose' a lot of things. But that's not scientific.

Is that the kind of evidence you want coming at you if you were in trial?

What's your beef, and Dave's for that matter, it is known that those aircraft, (three) were in the air. The forth and final E-4b was launched in response to the actual attack. So, do you want to argue that they were not, as you implied to the other poster, or that they, or one of them was not in New York. One was certainly over the white house, filmed from the ground and seen by two CNN reporters, at least. And to Dave, I make no assumption as to what they were doing, just making a point of information, seeing as you don't appear to know that these aircraft were airborne.

GoodOlDave is just good ol' scared and that's...OK.

Some people don't like their reality messed with. It's safe and warm.

No planes, pods, nano-thermite -- irrelevant. How is not as important as why.

Consider the fact that we are on the fast track to hardcore totalitarianism in this country. Consider the fact that 9/11 was the germ for all the evils that came after: Patriot Act, Torture, Lying us into a war in Iraq, secret prisons, rendition, John Warner defense authorization act, Patriot II, the financial meltdown, the TSA and now the NDAA which destroys a thousand years of jurisprudence in Habeas corpus, the natural law and our constitution.
Now drones will fly over our cities and homes; Now the slightest infraction can get you strip searched and jailed; Now our veterans are considered a threat. Why? That is the question you should be asking. Why?

Congrats you spotted something thats never been spotted before. Thanks for wasting 30 seconds of my life

Its been debunked, now ask a mod to bin it before the real lunatics get in here

ETA: For a minute i thought id been redirected to GLP....

Originally posted by smurfy

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by smurfy

 

It would not be unreasonable to suppose then, that at least one of them also flew over New York.

You can 'suppose' a lot of things. But that's not scientific.

Is that the kind of evidence you want coming at you if you were in trial?

What's your beef, and Dave's for that matter, it is known that those aircraft, (three) were in the air. The forth and final E-4b was launched in response to the actual attack. So, do you want to argue that they were not, as you implied to the other poster, or that they, or one of them was not in New York. One was certainly over the white house, filmed from the ground and seen by two CNN reporters, at least. And to Dave, I make no assumption as to what they were doing, just making a point of information, seeing as you don't appear to know that these aircraft were airborne.

Actually yes I did. A while back, someone else here brought up the whole "they scrambled E4Bs" in a pretty weak attempt in dropping the innuendo that they were controlling the hijacked planes remotely, and I looked into it and found out they scrambled the E4B specifically to try and track down where the planes were since those things had access to real time satellite feeds. I don't know which one of those damned fool conspiracy web sites made much ado about this to begin with, but since there's no way they wouldn't have heard about the E4Bs without knowing why they were there, it's clear they're not not above lying to promote their conspiracy mongoring.

So please tell me, why is this relevent? From where I sit, either they're being used to drop the innuendo that they were used to control the planes remotely or they're being used to drop innuendo that they were the planes that hit the towers themselves. All I'm doing is putting the actual accusation into words that the truthers want to come out and say, but never will.