Some 9/11 stuff doesn't makes sense

Simonized said:
Freefall is the biggest anomaly of everything that's wrong to do with the attack.
Click to expand...
I know, and it surprises me that people with common sense won't apply it to this situation. You don't need any qualifications to understand that for something to drop at free fall speed there has to be zero resistance. What would cause zero resistance?
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
Why would I be telling you that?

I’ve not said anything about 9/11 other than there are several things that are odd / unusual.

Like I said, it’s you and your pals who seem obsessed with peddling lies.
Click to expand...
Lies eh?

So go on then why are they lies please do tell what really happened on that day that killed nearly 3,000 people.

I’am just putting the kettle on so no rush.

Can’t wait for this one. 👏
 
tangerine_neil said:
I’ve got a few suggestions for the towers collapsing.
The aircraft fuel created a super heat inferno situation unheard of in other building fires.
The buildings had engineering flaws or substandard materials / steel.
The steel work was already compromised - but that leads us back into conspiracy theory territory again.
Cracks caused by the high speed impact.
Detonators were also used.
The weight of subsequent floors collapsing created a domino effect.
Click to expand...
I've seen the counter arguments that do make sense for a lot of it, I think it may have been the steel where it is attached to the concrete core or something, they now cover in fire proof foam I think.

From memory I think they said the steel didn't melt but bent and gave way, it was an unheard of impact after all.

Explosions heard could have been floors slamming down and thrusting air out at speed.

But there were plenty of weird events around like some I posed in a post somewhere above.
 
Jaffa_The_Hut said:
Lies eh?

So go on then why are they lies please do tell what really happened on that day that killed nearly 3,000 people.

I’am just putting the kettle on so no rush.

Can’t wait for this one. 👏
Click to expand...

OK I’ll be generous and give you the benefit of the doubt….Let’s refer to them as factual inaccuracies.
 
Jaffa_The_Hut said:
Lies eh?

So go on then why are they lies please do tell what really happened on that day that killed nearly 3,000 people.

I’am just putting the kettle on so no rush.

Can’t wait for this one. 👏
Click to expand...
You do realise that if there was something untoward then we wouldn't actually know the details don't you? That's why they call it a governemtal cover up. The problem with 9/11 is there is so many things that are 1 in a billion chances that it stands to reason people will be suspicious.
 
Jaffa_The_Hut said:
I’am accusing people of conspiracy? 😂
You’ll be telling me there’s an alien craft next in Area 51 and loads of little green men running around. 😂
Click to expand...
Actually UFOs is a great subject, what do you make of the legit fighter pilot footage and stories, various ones, of objects moving around outside the laws of physics...

Certainly interesting.
 
Jaffa_The_Hut said:
Gained my degree while working at BAE Systems 1978-2011 gaining my aircraft licences in airframe and engines at the same time 1984-88.
Even did my PPL through the flying school in 89 but sadly expired long ago just proved too bloody expensive and we just started a family back then.

Anything else?
Click to expand...
I wasn’t aiming the question at you. The dick above👍
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
OK I’ll be generous and give you the benefit of the doubt….Let’s refer to them as factual inaccuracies.
Click to expand...
That’s a fair comment. 👍

Seriously though I’am just surprised anyone has doubts on what happened.

It was there live on TV to a world wide audience so why is it difficult not to accept it?

What do you think happened? The CIA planned it or something?
 
Jaffa_The_Hut said:
That’s a fair comment. 👍

Seriously though I’am just surprised anyone has doubts on what happened.

It was there live on TV to a world wide audience so why is it difficult not to accept it?

What do you think happened? The CIA planned it or something?
Click to expand...

I’ve no idea what happened (in its entirety)…I’ve accepted the ‘official’ answer. As I said at the outset though, there are a number of factors that I find odd and which do not appear to have been adequately answered / resolved.
 
Jaffa_The_Hut said:
That’s a fair comment. 👍

Seriously though I’am just surprised anyone has doubts on what happened.

It was there live on TV to a world wide audience so why is it difficult not to accept it?

What do you think happened? The CIA planned it or something?
Click to expand...
Forget the whole grand thing and answer these 2 points.

Is it likely that a passport from a guy on a plane in that crash, explosion and then complete buildings destruction is found 2 blocks away?

Is it at least a bit unusual that the government were running exact drills of of a 9/11 type attack that actually took place.... and on the day too more drills, rather than help them if anything it hindered them, as their response was awful.
 

This is quite interesting. ​

​

Using planes as missiles​

Immediately following the attacks, President George W. Bush stated that: "Nobody in our government, at least, and I don't think the prior government, could envision flying air planes into buildings", and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice claimed: "no one could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile". An Air Force general called the attack: "something we had never seen before, something we had never even thought of."[1] A few days after the attacks, FBI Director Robert Mueller announced: "There were no warning signs that I'm aware of that would indicate this type of operation in the country."[2] However, Mueller noted that an FBI agent in Minneapolis said Moussaoui might be that type of person that could fly something into the World Trade Center.[3] Mueller said this warning should have been followed more vigorously.

Some mainstream media reports have conflicted with these statements, claiming that the FBI, CIA and Executive Branch[4] knew of the threat of planes being used as missiles as early as 1995, following the foiling of the Bojinka Plot. In September 2002, one year after the 9/11 attacks, The Chicago Sun-Times reported that:

The FBI had advance indications of plans to hijack U.S. airliners and use them as weapons, but neither acted on them nor distributed the intelligence to local police agencies. From the moment of the September 11 attacks, all high-ranking federal officials insisted that the terrorists' method of operation surprised them. Many continue to stick to that story. Actually, elements of the suicide hijacking plan were known to the FBI as early as 1995 and, if coupled with current information, might have uncovered the plot.
Click to expand...
The Pentagon Mass Casualty project (codenamed Pentagon Mascal) was a contingency exercise that was held in the Office of the Secretary of Defense conference room between October 24 and October 26, 2000. The exercise required emergency response teams, members of the defense protective services, and U.S. government officials to conduct emergency simulations in preparation for a possible plane crash into the Pentagon.

The book The Terror Timeline includes numerous articles that are often cited to suggest that the method of flying planes into buildings was known by U.S. officials:[5]

  • In 1994, there were three examples of failed attempts to deliberately crash planes into buildings, including one where a lone pilot crashed a small plane into the lawn of the White House.[6]
  • The Bojinka Plot was a foiled large-scale al-Qaeda terrorist attack to blow up eleven airliners and their passengers as they flew from Asia to America, due to take place in January 1995.
  • The 2000 edition of the FAA's annual report on Criminal Acts Against Aviation said that although Osama bin Laden 'is not known to have attacked civil aviation, he has both the motivation and the wherewithal to do so,' adding, 'Bin Laden's anti-Western and anti-American attitudes make him and his followers a significant threat to civil aviation, particularly to U.S. civil aviation.'"
  • In April 2001, NORAD ran a war game in which the Pentagon was to become incapacitated; a NORAD planner proposed the simulated crash of a hijacked foreign commercial airliner into the Pentagon, but the Joints Chiefs of Staff rejected that scenario as "too unrealistic"[7][8]
  • In July 2001 at the G8 summit in Genoa, anti-aircraft missile batteries were installed following a report that terrorists would try to crash a plane to kill George Bush and other world leaders.[9] [10]
  • On the morning of September 11, 2001, the National Reconnaissance Office, which is responsible for operating U.S. reconnaissance satellites, had scheduled an exercise simulating the crashing of an aircraft into their building, 4 miles (6 km) from Washington Dulles International Airport.[11]
A 2004 USA Today article, "NORAD had drills of jets as weapons," describes pre-9/11 NORAD drills that suggest they were prepared for such an attack as happened on 9/11:

In the two years before the September 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties. One of the imagined targets was the World Trade Center. In another exercise, jets performed a mock shootdown over the Atlantic Ocean of a jet supposedly laden with chemical poisons headed toward a target in the United States. In a third scenario, the target was the Pentagon – but that drill was not run after Defense officials said it was unrealistic.[7]
Click to expand...
That NORAD was aware of the threat of terrorists hijacking commercial airliners within the United States, and using them as guided missiles, was flatly denied by the 9/11 Commission, which asserted several times in their report that "The threat of terrorists hijacking commercial airliners within the United States – and using them as guided missiles – was not recognized by NORAD before 9/11."

The September 11 attacks in 2001 occurred during that year's Global Guardian and Vigilant Guardian joint exercises. That year, according to the 9/11 Commission Report, Vigilant Guardian 'postulated a bomber attack from the former Soviet Union' on North America. In contrast to the 9/11 Commission Report - Michael Ruppert has characterized Vigilant Guardian as "a hijacking drill, not a cold war exercise". He cites direct quotes from participants which indicate "that the drill involved hijacked airliners rather than Russian Bombers". General Arnold, Tech. Sgt. W. Powel and Lt. Col. Dwane Deskins have stated that when they first were informed about hijacked airliners they thought it was "part of the exercise".[12] (read more at Global Guardian and the September 11 Attacks)
 
Point 1 yes it’s possible.
I read some years back the impact of the aircraft hitting the towers was the equivalent of 1,000 tonnes of TNT going off so yes the blast could have blown anything several blocks away.

Point 2
Yes it’s unusual but not impossible let’s not forget the CIA had intercepted several coded messages and they suspected some terrorist plot of some sort was going to happen some time soon granted not that morning.
Let’s also not forget at the time of the twin towers disaster concerns were being raised at the Miami pilots training school why all of a sudden up to 8 young Muslim students had enlisted on a pilots training course paid for by themselves and not by an airline which was the norm.
Investigations had already started and the students got wind of it via a tip off hence the low fling hours they had logged by 9/11.
Sources back then say they would have been brought in for investigation just days after 9/11.
 
Jaffa_The_Hut said:
Point 1 yes it’s possible.
I read some years back the impact of the aircraft hitting the towers was the equivalent of 1,000 tonnes of TNT going off so yes the blast could have blown anything several blocks away.

Point 2
Yes it’s unusual but not impossible let’s not forget the CIA had intercepted several coded messages and they suspected some terrorist plot of some sort was going to happen some time soon granted not that morning.
Let’s also not forget at the time of the twin towers disaster concerns were being raised at the Miami pilots training school why all of a sudden up to 8 young Muslim students had enlisted on a pilots training course paid for by themselves and not by an airline which was the norm.
Investigations had already started and the students got wind of it via a tip off hence the low fling hours they had logged by 9/11.
Sources back then say they would have been brought in for investigation just days after 9/11.
Click to expand...
More chance of elvis appearing in my back garden than a passport surviving that from inside a plane, subsequent fireball and collapse. Its so conveniently found, probably to put a face to the attack and probably helped convince people of the direction they wanted to go... the middle east.

The second point I found some info above, but they claimed they had no idea such an attack was possible yet seemed to be running drills of just that coincidentally.
 
Simonized said:
Kerosine does not burn hot enough or long enough to melt steel.
Click to expand...

It doesn't need to melt entirely, just heat it up a bit (to about 50% of melting point, well within the temperature range of a fire), it becomes softer and more malleable, if you are using it to support however many thousand tonnes of building above it bad things happen.


Normally these sort of buildings are protected against collapse due to fire, the way they do this is by encasing the structural members in heat resistant material, it turns out that if you fly a jet aircraft into such a building the heat resistant material gets knocked off by the impact and the exposed steel is extremely vulnerable to exactly the sort of failure that was witnessed on the day.
 
Last edited:
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
From my perspective there are a number or highly improbable events that took place in relation to 9/11.
Click to expand...

A couple of wide bodied commercial airliners flying into buildings isn't exactly an everyday event is it though?

With any event like this there's a huge number of different things going on at the same time, pick a few of them in isolation and some of them might seem odd, it doesn't mean there's a controlling mind in play, it's just that odd things happen.

It's a bit like winning the jackpot on a slot machine, very unlikely for a single spin, but only improbable if you ignore the thousands of other spins previously.
 
Last edited:
However that does not mean that the attack didn't happen as it was reported, that the buildings were blown up and that the culprits were not those identified at the time. The point made about the buildings collapsing being staged is pure fantasy. As Jaffa (and others) has pointed out, buildings can be designed for all sorts of eventualities, however no-one has ever stress tested any building by flying a jumbo jet into it. So yes, we can engineer to withstand impact but we cannot possibly predict the outcome of every eventuality - especially one like that. The most likely explanation is the one given by many engineers, that steel supports buckled under the heat and the building fell floor by floor like a stack of dominos, this fits in with all of the evidence.
The idea that this was all planned is ludicrous, if the US wanted to start a war they would just start one (like Vietnam). No need to kill thousands of your own citizens to do it. And secondly, 9/11 was wrongly used as a justification for the Iraq intervention. If the US had wanted to invade Iraq and was prepared to stage an incident to justify it, surely they would have staged something that they could rightly blame Iraq for.
 
Last edited:
Lost Seasider said:
A couple of wide bodied commercial airliners flying into buildings isn't exactly an everyday event is it though?

With any event like this there's a huge number of different things going on at the same time, pick a few of them in isolation and some of them might seem odd, it doesn't mean there's a controlling mind in play, it's just that odd things happen.

It's a bit like winning the jackpot on a slot machine, very unlikely for a single spin, but only improbable if you ignore the thousands of other spins previously.
Click to expand...

That’s a fair point and I’m not suggesting there was a controlling mind in play.

It’s also possible that a single event (the miraculous passport for example) was staged / planted without any need for a connection to any other event.

The problem with AVFTT is that debate is so terribly polarised and people are always desperate to pop you into one camp or the other … In this case you are either some kind of mad ‘conspiracy theorist’ or you’re a totally rational and normal person etc…

I find a few of the events on that day and surrounding the whole thing quite odd and I’m yet to hear an explanation that I can rest on.

Does that mean I think it likely that the whole event was manufactured by the CIA as a precursor to war? No I think that is a highly improbable (albeit possible) answer and that it’s most likely to have been along very similar lines to the official explanation….
 
So if the passport thing was planted/staged (for the record I don’t think it was) what were the authorities trying to prove/gain if like most on here actually admit the planes flew into the towers by the hijackers?
Why plant a passport from one of the passengers 3 blocks away?
 
Jaffa_The_Hut said:
So if the passport thing was planted/staged (for the record I don’t think it was) what were the authorities trying to prove/gain if like most on here actually admit the planes flew into the towers by the hijackers?
Why plant a passport from one of the passengers 3 blocks away?
Click to expand...

Assuming you settle on the idea that the US state or some ‘body’ like the CIA or whoever, planted the passport as opposed to some other party seeking to misdirect the US State, then the simplest explanation might be that they were simply trying to expedite the process of telling the public what they already knew.

It’s pretty feasible that the US state were aware of the possibility of attack and they may have had some intelligence about the perpetrators. They may not have wanted to admit that and to have been seen to have failed to protect the public.

So finding a clue that leads to the perpetrators and discovery of additional information is just a more palatable story.
 
Jaffa_The_Hut said:
So if the passport thing was planted/staged (for the record I don’t think it was) what were the authorities trying to prove/gain if like most on here actually admit the planes flew into the towers by the hijackers?
Why plant a passport from one of the passengers 3 blocks away?
Click to expand...
COZ IT'S THE ILLUMINATI OR SOMETHING!

Conspiracy theorists give me a headache.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
The problem with AVFTT is that debate is so terribly polarised and people are always desperate to pop you into one camp or the other … In this case you are either some kind of mad ‘conspiracy theorist’ or you’re a totally rational and normal person etc…

I find a few of the events on that day and surrounding the whole thing quite odd and I’m yet to hear an explanation that I can rest on.

.
Click to expand...
You've missed out a third camp : "People who will argue black is white to get a reaction". Even worse that the nutcases who have suddenly popped up on here since the 9/11 anniversary, in my opinion. They are deluded, not deliberately provocative.

I like your posting as a rule but on this subject, you are being pretty distasteful. Not as bad as Metropolis mind - 20togo sums him up perfectly.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
Assuming you settle on the idea that the US state or some ‘body’ like the CIA or whoever, planted the passport as opposed to some other party seeking to misdirect the US State, then the simplest explanation might be that they were simply trying to expedite the process of telling the public what they already knew.

It’s pretty feasible that the US state were aware of the possibility of attack and they may have had some intelligence about the perpetrators. They may not have wanted to admit that and to have been seen to have failed to protect the public.

So finding a clue that leads to the perpetrators and discovery of additional information is just a more palatable story.
Click to expand...

That’s the level of conspiracy theory that I believe is more worthy of debate.
Even amongst 9/11 ‘Truthers’ there are several groups who who think the others are crazy.

You’ve got those who believe the attacks were genuine, the government had no involvement, but manipulated the situation after the event.
Then you get those who believe the attacks were genuine, the government knew they were coming but did nothing because they knew they could manipulate the aftermath.
Then those who believe the government actively assisted the attacks.
Then ‘the government did it themselves’.
And the extreme nutters say it never happened, or the planes were holograms!

Looking at this thread, it seems most of the doubters believe the Americans did it themselves, as people are arguing that the buildings wouldn’t come down after a plane impact.

As an aside, the argument about the passport seems blown out of proportion to me. Debris from the plane was found for blocks in all directions, and strange items survive countless air accidents. There was a guy on Part 1 of 911- a day in America (?) who was in tears as he described coming out of his building and seeing suitcases all over the floor in front of him.
 
TomGxPool said:
You've missed out a third camp : "People who will argue black is white to get a reaction". Even worse that the nutcases who have suddenly popped up on here since the 9/11 anniversary, in my opinion. They are deluded, not deliberately provocative.

I like your posting as a rule but on this subject, you are being pretty distasteful. Not as bad as Metropolis mind - 20togo sums him up perfectly.
Click to expand...
Thanks…

For the record I’m not seeking your approval. 👍

‘Distasteful’ is a very odd way to describe my input though. Very odd indeed.
 
Johnno said:
That’s the level of conspiracy theory that I believe is more worthy of debate.
Even amongst 9/11 ‘Truthers’ there are several groups who who think the others are crazy.

You’ve got those who believe the attacks were genuine, the government had no involvement, but manipulated the situation after the event.
Then you get those who believe the attacks were genuine, the government knew they were coming but did nothing because they knew they could manipulate the aftermath.
Then those who believe the government actively assisted the attacks.
Then ‘the government did it themselves’.
And the extreme nutters say it never happened, or the planes were holograms!

Looking at this thread, it seems most of the doubters believe the Americans did it themselves, as people are arguing that the buildings wouldn’t come down after a plane impact.

As an aside, the argument about the passport seems blown out of proportion to me. Debris from the plane was found for blocks in all directions, and strange items survive countless air accidents. There was a guy on Part 1 of 911- a day in America (?) who was in tears as he described coming out of his building and seeing suitcases all over the floor in front of him.
Click to expand...
That is interesting and changes my view about the passport, I had never heard of reports of other stuff from the airplane being found blocks away in the street - that is why I thought it was odd as why would this one thing be the only thing that survived intact in isolation.
 
Johnno said:
That’s the level of conspiracy theory that I believe is more worthy of debate.
Even amongst 9/11 ‘Truthers’ there are several groups who who think the others are crazy.

You’ve got those who believe the attacks were genuine, the government had no involvement, but manipulated the situation after the event.
Then you get those who believe the attacks were genuine, the government knew they were coming but did nothing because they knew they could manipulate the aftermath.
Then those who believe the government actively assisted the attacks.
Then ‘the government did it themselves’.
And the extreme nutters say it never happened, or the planes were holograms!

Looking at this thread, it seems most of the doubters believe the Americans did it themselves, as people are arguing that the buildings wouldn’t come down after a plane impact.

As an aside, the argument about the passport seems blown out of proportion to me. Debris from the plane was found for blocks in all directions, and strange items survive countless air accidents. There was a guy on Part 1 of 911- a day in America (?) who was in tears as he described coming out of his building and seeing suitcases all over the floor in front of him.
Click to expand...

I think a lot of people have bought into the ‘controlled demolition’ theory and, in fairness the arguments are quite compelling.

It’s a long time since I’ve really looked into this, but I remember concluding that the ‘official’ explanation for the building collapse of WTC 1 & 2 was convincing enough. However there were unanswered questions that remained with building 7.

There’s a huge leap though for me from something being unexplained to creating an alternative story.

I don’t think it at all unreasonable that individuals (particularly those who lost loved ones or suffered injury for example) might query the official explanation and call for further investigation.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
Thanks…

For the record I’m not seeking your approval. 👍

‘Distasteful’ is a very odd way to describe my input though. Very odd indeed.
Click to expand...

Suggesting that the USA deliberately colluded in a plot to kill 3,000 innocent people for a political purpose you don't even bother to try to explain is pretty distasteful. Crass might be a better word, but I thought that might be a bit strong.

I'm sure the Americans took whatever political "advantage" they could from 9/11 after the event. But that's a completely different thing. The evidence that this was planned by extremists from a long way out is overwhelming to a reasonable person. I think you know that, but sometimes you give the impression you see AVFTT as an extended audition for a job on Talk Sport. Which is a shame,. 'cos you are a hell of a lot brighter and more interesting than Jim White.
 
TangerTonyGreen said:
You’re the only one who resorted to abuse so I’d agree with tdx
Click to expand...
That’s not true…
TomGxPool said:
Suggesting that the USA deliberately colluded in a plot to kill 3,000 innocent people for a political purpose you don't even bother to try to explain is pretty distasteful. Crass might be a better word, but I thought that might be a bit strong.

I'm sure the Americans took whatever political "advantage" they could from 9/11 after the event. But that's a completely different thing. The evidence that this was planned by extremists from a long way out is overwhelming to a reasonable person. I think you know that, but sometimes you give the impression you see AVFTT as an extended audition for a job on Talk Sport. Which is a shame,. 'cos you are a hell of a lot brighter and more interesting than Jim White.
Click to expand...

I haven’t suggested that though…In fact I’ve said I think that is highly improbable.

You see that’s the problem when you start targeting the man (again) rather than actually focusing on what has actually been said.

I’ll not hold my breath for the apology.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
That’s not true…

I haven’t suggested that though…In fact I’ve said I think that is highly improbable.
Click to expand...
You threw in a stock phrase to cover your arse that you knew would get lost in the tons of stuff you posted doubting every word the authorities have ever said.

And if you do think the conspiracy idea is highly improbable, why defend it at such great length? Isn't that a complete and utter waste of everyone's time?
 
TomGxPool said:
You threw in a stock phrase to cover your arse that you knew would get lost in the tons of stuff you posted doubting every word the authorities have ever said.

And if you do think the conspiracy idea is highly improbable, why defend it at such great length? Isn't that a complete and utter waste of everyone's time?
Click to expand...

I threw in a stock phrase to cover my arse?

I haven’t defended anything at great length though have I?

I have been consistent throughout in stating that I find a number of things quite odd, but that is a lot different than taking a leap towards some of the alternative explanations.

I’ve made it abundantly clear on two or three occasions in this thread alone that I don’t buy into the type of theory I that you have accused me of.

Let’s put this another way….

Where’s your evidence to back up your accusation. Provide one example of me stating that I believe 9/11 was an inside job.
 
BFC_BFC_BFC said:
Where’s your evidence to back up your accusation. Provide one example of me stating that I believe 9/11 was an inside job.
Click to expand...

Like I said, you covered your arse while at the same time casting doubt wherever you could. You know exactly what you are doing. I'm out.
 
TomGxPool said:
Like I said, you covered your arse while at the same time casting doubt wherever you could. You know exactly what you are doing. I'm out.
Click to expand...
No… I’ve been very clear in everything I’ve said… You’re just creating some kind of weird conspiracy theory (odd given the circumstances) which relies on me having some kind of secret underhand agenda that is diametrically opposed to what I’ve actually said.

Stop being so ridiculous…. You got it wrong… Be a man about it!
 
Johnno said:
That’s the level of conspiracy theory that I believe is more worthy of debate.
Even amongst 9/11 ‘Truthers’ there are several groups who who think the others are crazy.

You’ve got those who believe the attacks were genuine, the government had no involvement, but manipulated the situation after the event.
Then you get those who believe the attacks were genuine, the government knew they were coming but did nothing because they knew they could manipulate the aftermath.
Then those who believe the government actively assisted the attacks.
Then ‘the government did it themselves’.
And the extreme nutters say it never happened, or the planes were holograms!

Looking at this thread, it seems most of the doubters believe the Americans did it themselves, as people are arguing that the buildings wouldn’t come down after a plane impact.

As an aside, the argument about the passport seems blown out of proportion to me. Debris from the plane was found for blocks in all directions, and strange items survive countless air accidents. There was a guy on Part 1 of 911- a day in America (?) who was in tears as he described coming out of his building and seeing suitcases all over the floor in front of him.
Click to expand...
Excellent post.

For me the absolute 'smoking gun' is The Pentagon. They claim that they have video footage of this but it won't be released. You have to wonder why not. It would finish off any doubters forever.
 
Any of the people who are discounting any of the anomalies that have been brought up and haven't actually watched any of the documentaries that challenge the official news accounts.
You really can't argue against anything that's been quoted from the people that have watched the other side of your arguments.

Everyone has seen the official stuff mostly put out in the mainstream, but they rarely if ever do their job and investigate what they are told to broadcast and challenge it.
If you won't take time to look at both sides of the argument before you argue then you can't argue.
If you can't be arsed to watch Loose Change or you won't in case you may have to admit some of what you are arguing is wrong or not factual because it may dent your ego.

Watch the part about Building 7, @1hr 44mins as it might just intrigue you to watch the full documentary.
I am far from a conspiracy theorist but building 7 beggers belief.

 
Simonized said:
Any of the people who are discounting any of the anomalies that have been brought up and haven't actually watched any of the documentaries that challenge the official news accounts.
You really can't argue against anything that's been quoted from the people that have watched the other side of your arguments.

Everyone has seen the official stuff mostly put out in the mainstream, but they rarely if ever do their job and investigate what they are told to broadcast and challenge it.
If you won't take time to look at both sides of the argument before you argue then you can't argue.
If you can't be arsed to watch Loose Change or you won't in case you may have to admit some of what you are arguing is wrong or not factual because it may dent your ego.

Watch the part about Building 7, @1hr 44mins as it might just intrigue you to watch the full documentary.
I am far from a conspiracy theorist but building 7 beggers belief.

Click to expand...

I’ve seen it. I’ve also seen it debunked piece by piece many times. I’ve seen it reported that it contains 80-odd factual inaccuracies and nearly 400 totally unsubstantiated claims.
Is that the original film? Or the 2nd,3rd,4th or 5th one? They regularly updated the film to remove claims that had been blown apart so it’s interesting to know which one of their ‘totally factual’ versions you’re watching.
Dylan Avery, the guy who wrote it, was an 18 year old lad who started by writing a screenplay about a group of friends who discover the attack was a conspiracy. When he couldn’t get funding to turn it into a movie, he changed tack, and turned it into a documentary. Luckily for him he suddenly became expert at uncovering a Top Secret cover up that made him a very rich young man.

👏👏👏👏👏
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top