My personal 9/11 smoking gun. Please debunk.

Originally posted by skywalk
Fist off, 9/11 was a satanic ritual.

second 4 events happened that day
1) one plane hit WTC
2) one plane hit pentagon (or this is what they told us)
3) one plane hit the other WTC
4) one hijacked plane crash somewhere else

third, no plane hit the pentagon its physically impossible for a plane crash to leave this small of a wreckage in the pentagon, also there was no plane part been pulled out of the pentagon, so we can already rule that THEY LIED about the PENTAGON plane.

1. If you accept that a plane (of whatever variety from whatever conspiracy!) hit the WTC then you know that it can make a small hole. Look carefully at the footage.

2. Please investigate video footage of experiments done with crashing planes into walls of various materials. They leave holes that have a "look and feel" of a missile. NB Footage created before 911

Given these two points the rest of your justification for your mistaken viewpoint is meaningless.

In the months after 911 I too felt something was not right, especially the reaction of Bush in that school and the magically discovered hijackers passport at the crash site on the day.

However, it has become all too apparent that the ensuing chaos has meant that the usual has occurred:

1. Always number 1 - human error, mistakes, cock-ups etc Presidents, police, FBI etc are all subject to the cock-up syndrome its just that they never admit it instead they cover-up.DUH! and thus hand the conspiracists a xmas present.

2. Fading memories over time. This was highlighted by the London tube bombings where people were asked about the footage from the bus showing one of the hijackers. People would recall this with clarity........except no such footage exists! Jaw dropping stuff.

3. A conspiracy on this scale requires the involvment of so many people it would be impossible to keep it a secret and yet to this day there is not one single piece of paper, an email or anything from inside the conspiracy from a whistleblower. This is just not credible

4. ATS has shown to me how desperate people are for a conspiracy on all subjects.

Finally - It wasn't a plane it was Elenin.

Plus missiles don’t explode with a bright orange fire ball. That takes fuel.

All the proof I need is right here.

"The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere."

Replace the words Cuba and Cuban with Middle-East and Terrorists, respectively.

Originally posted by theshepherd2
All the proof I need is right here.

"The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere."

Replace the words Cuba and Cuban with Middle-East and Terrorists, respectively.

edit on 4-4-2012 by theshepherd2 because: (no reason given)

Of course, a plan which never got off the drawing board and which did not envisage harming a hair on the head of a US citizen makes a natural comparison with one intended to kill thousands.

And all other evidence goes out the window ?

i have watched all the loose change films etc etc . all the missing material weight from the rubble etc etc but if you want a really good head xxxx .just ask anybody outside of the usa WHAT TIME DID YOU HEAR ABOUT 9-11 .especially people who listen to music at there work .i watched it LIVE in britian at 11.40 am 6.40 AM NEW YORK TIME . DEBUNK THAT GOOD OL DAVE

Originally posted by geobro
i have watched all the loose change films etc etc . all the missing material weight from the rubble etc etc but if you want a really good head xxxx .just ask anybody outside of the usa WHAT TIME DID YOU HEAR ABOUT 9-11 .especially people who listen to music at there work .i watched it LIVE in britian at 11.40 am 6.40 AM NEW YORK TIME . DEBUNK THAT GOOD OL DAVE

I heard about it in the afternoon. You must have had a good night at the pub or you own a time machine to think different.

Originally posted by Alfie1

Originally posted by theshepherd2
All the proof I need is right here.

"The desired resultant from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere."

Replace the words Cuba and Cuban with Middle-East and Terrorists, respectively.

edit on 4-4-2012 by theshepherd2 because: (no reason given)

Of course, a plan which never got off the drawing board and which did not envisage harming a hair on the head of a US citizen makes a natural comparison with one intended to kill thousands.

And all other evidence goes out the window ?

A small caveat to that Alfie,

4.We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in WashingtonThe terror campaign could be pointed at refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans en route to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized. Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of Cuban agents and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement, also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible regime."

"Exploding plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots" does not guarantee anybody's hair be unharmed, It's all happened here, The Miami showband massacre, exact same scenario... I knew some of the guys.
"Boatload of Cuban refugees, real or simulated" is that your cop-out, while you missed the rest?

No wonder there are guys who see so much similarity with Northwoods and 9/11, plus a hawkish president...can you blame them, when this stuff is going on all the time. Then there would have been 'Operation dirty tricks' go and look it up in the manual.

Originally posted by geobro
i have watched all the loose change films etc etc . all the missing material weight from the rubble etc etc but if you want a really good head xxxx .just ask anybody outside of the usa WHAT TIME DID YOU HEAR ABOUT 9-11 .especially people who listen to music at there work .i watched it LIVE in britian at 11.40 am 6.40 AM NEW YORK TIME . DEBUNK THAT GOOD OL DAVE

Thats easy!! You're either lying or mistaken or stupid. Take your pick.

reply to post by hooper


NOT ANY OF THE ABOVE . THATS WHY IM IN HERE . SCARY THING IS THERE IS THOUSANDS LIKE ME .THE LIVE FEED WAS ON A LOOP .GO PLAY THE GAME OF ASKING PEOPLE WHO LISTEN TO LIVE RADIO OR TV I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO HEARD IT HOURS BEFORE ME CANT ALL BE STUPID DRUNK OR IDIOTS BBC ANNOUNCE WTC 7 COLLAPSE BEFORE IT HAPPENS .IVE GOT ITEMISED BILLS THAT DAY FOR PHONE ETC TO PROVE TO ME I AINT A NUT JOB AND SPOKE TO A LOT OF PEOPLE OVER THE YEARS BACK TO YOU

Originally posted by geobro
reply to post by hooper

NOT ANY OF THE ABOVE .

No, no. Those are your only three choices.

THATS WHY IM IN HERE .

I am dying to know where "here" is. Are you allowed out of "here" often or is it a permanent accomodation?

SCARY THING IS THERE IS THOUSANDS LIKE ME .

Boy, did you nail that right on the head.

THE LIVE FEED WAS ON A LOOP .

Huh?

GO PLAY THE GAME OF ASKING PEOPLE WHO LISTEN TO LIVE RADIO OR TV I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO HEARD IT HOURS BEFORE ME CANT ALL BE STUPID DRUNK OR IDIOTS

How about instead I go ask all the people I know that were there, on the ground, watching the whole thing in reality?

BBC ANNOUNCE WTC 7 COLLAPSE BEFORE IT HAPPENS

Sorry, that one has been done to death. No one cares. Rational people understand that reporters and broadcasters on the BBC not being intimately familiar with numbering system of the buildings of the World Trade Center made a mistake.

.IVE GOT ITEMISED BILLS THAT DAY FOR PHONE ETC TO PROVE TO ME I AINT A NUT JOB

Yes, because the one sure way to prove you're not a NUT JOB is to have itemized phone bills.

.....AND SPOKE TO A LOT OF PEOPLE OVER THE YEARS BACK TO YOU

That's funny, I've spoken with a lot of people too. I guess that proves I'm right and you're either lying, crazy or stupid.

reply to post by hooper


or your a shill . i remember a few reporters going quiet when asked the question . ps i can point to a few people on this site asking the same question . pps do you shills earn much

Yeah its a pod, there is one on both sides of the fuselage, its where the landing gear retracts to, and the angle of light and devious photo manipulators are trying to make it look like a pod of some sort that has no pylons to connect to in that section of most any aircraft.

This topic is so 2004.






The only thing a military aircraft carries there is external gas tanks, some older F-4's carried surveillance pods much smaller and not exactly in the same spot, more forward. Bombers have bays. A Boeing 757 is much larger than fighter jets even the F-111.




Super Hornet electronic warfare pod, and two external tanks.


Again, there is no hookup there on a 757, how could they ever have the landing gear down?

But let me ask a question, would the firepower of an external pod apparently that size be greater than a fully fueled 757 on a 500 mph collision course? Common...

reply to post by geobro


About 5 minutrs after second plane hit when boss came fownstairs to me and my partners office and told
us what had just witnessed - plane hitting South Tower

Went to top floor and watched the WTC burn until South Tower collapsed

Now is that good enough for you.......?

Originally posted by Illustronic
Yeah its a pod, there is one on both sides of the fuselage, its where the landing gear retracts to, and the angle of light and devious photo manipulators are trying to make it look like a pod of some sort that has no pylons to connect to in that section of most any aircraft.

This topic is so 2004.






The only thing a military aircraft carries there is external gas tanks, some older F-4's carried surveillance pods much smaller and not exactly in the same spot, more forward. Bombers have bays. A Boeing 757 is much larger than fighter jets even the F-111.




Super Hornet electronic warfare pod, and two external tanks.


Again, there is no hookup there on a 757, how could they ever have the landing gear down?

But let me ask a question, would the firepower of an external pod apparently that size be greater than a fully fueled 757 on a 500 mph collision course? Common...

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

I make no comment on the OP, that is not to say that the 9/11 story needs to be enlarged on, of that that I am sure. Some things fundamental need to be addressed. In this case the aircraft is, N612UA, a Boeing 767-222 once with a different livery. Now, can we go on?

reply to post by smurfy


Exactly what is the big difference? Seating capacity of 12 more people?

The subject was external pods. Citation needed to facilitate the hookup of such theoretical, landing gear, impediments. You know the jet does have to take off at some point, with the landing gear down, don't you?

reply to post by hooper


Checking out your posting history it occurred to me you've been on this website for 3 years, posting in no other forum except the 9/11 forum, every single day. May I ask what reason you have for being here, since you're obviously not here to contribute to 9/11 conspiracies which is the entire point of this website?
If you know 9/11 wasn't an inside job, why do you dedicate the last 3 years of your life defending that position on a conspiracy forum? Would it be possible for you to make it even more obvious that you're a shill?

reply to post by bl4ke360


I don't know, what compels you to notice that?

But please address the subject, how landing gear can be lowered with a central pod with no pylon hookups on a commercial airliner. Focus!

Originally posted by Illustronic
reply to post by smurfy

 

Exactly what is the big difference? Seating capacity of 12 more people?

The subject was external pods. Citation needed to facilitate the hookup of such theoretical, landing gear, impediments. You know the jet does have to take off at some point, with the landing gear down, don't you?

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

The Devil is always in the detail isn't it? You see, misidentification can be a seen both ways in general chit chat about 9/11, (just as many witnesses had differing ideas about the size of the 'plane, and it's origins). In a court however, you could be moved to be politely excused by one side or the other.

I already said I make no comment on the OP BTW, just a point of order.

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder

Originally posted by tonycodes
reply to post by ChaoticOrder

 

Good point, I think the color of the plane could have something to do with the cylinder as well. It looks more military than anything but also I think the color of thw plane could be because of the photgraphy.. not sure, but I know for sure i see a cylinder under that plane

I'm not talking about that photograph.

I've never seen this video and also some of this footage too.

It's pretty obvious that as time went on, the story made less and less sense until it fit what they wanted it to be.

That many people saying the same thing, and saying it because it stood out to them as something worth mentioning and talking about. Many people saying the same thing.