tags:
Remember, remember, 11 September, the thermite treason and plot; I know of no reason, that villainous treason, should ever, be, forgot. http://www.controlled-demolition.com/ Comments  playlists with this video New York, New York by lisacat
• 9/11 Analysis by Constitutional_Patriot
who voted for this video cryptographrix
- thesnipe
- old_spider
- choggie
- grspec
- oinkinstein
- Constitutional_Patriot
- Enzoblue
- raven
- lisacat
- bluecliff
- ant
- dag
- eric3579
- Oatmeal
- blankfist
- Openmine
- ender
who voted against this video MycroftHomlz
who has this post bookmarked Deano
- Constitutional_Patriot
Loose Change-Second Edition Recut Related Videos
|
Stumble This
the only folks allowed on site at WTC, after the shitfanhit...follow the trails, like good little detectives.....
Yes, a plane can take take off only once, yet via "touch-and-go" landings I can land it 50 times and it would still be considered that I took off only once yet landed it 50 times. In your pilot log book it would be recorded as 1 takeoff and 50 landings.
Everything is not as black and white as you would believe it is.
These are the things you claim are garbage and bull:
1.) Testimonials from the firefighters that were there claiming explosions had been occurring at the WTC before and during the collapses.
2.) No real evidence that a *757 really crashed at the pentagon (my instrument flight class analyzed this and we determined that it was a cruise missle).
3.) Molten steel and evidence from one photo that one of the main beams was cut using thermate in the exact same fashion that demolition companies use to cut such a support beam. OMG it's staring at you in the face here!!!!
4.) Lack of wreckage from flight *93 indicates that it was shot down.
Grant it, there is a lot of hypothesis in this video, but if you believe the canned version that the Kean-Zelikow commission has spewed out (which unbelievably does not analyze the wreckage and other pertinent investigative information and clearly states that the funding of the terrorists is ultimately an unimportant factor.) then your either an idiot or a fool or both.
1. Witnesses having heard explosions doesn't necessitate the existence of explosives. There are a number of non-conspiratorial explanations for people hearing these kinds of sounds. Also, a number of people report having heard a freight train, but that doesn't mean there were freight trains involved in the attacks. As far as I'm aware, no fire fighters believe there were explosives going off that day.
2. It was a 757 that crashed into the Pentagon. That would probably explain there being no evidence of a 767. (The fact you didn't know this hardly reflects well on the quality of your supposed analysis.) Further, if you consider dozens of pieces of eyewitness testimony, numberless pieces of recovered debris, a recovered and functional flight data recorder and the DNA identification of all but one of the passengers to be "no real evidence," then one might have to seriously wonder just what might qualify as "real evidence."
3. Demolition companies simply do not use thermite to cut large support beams (or anything else for that matter). Please provide some evidence to the existence of these photographs which supposedly show that the beams were cut.
4. See above. There is overwhelming evidence that Flight 77 crashed into Pentagon. There is no evidence it was shot down.
1.) If you watch this video you will see many firefighters that were on the scene claiming to hear the floor popping out in a demolition style fasion.
2.) Yes, I have a typo from typing in haste (i'm at work).. it's a Boeing 757-223 model.
3.) http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_charges.html here is some photographic evidence from ground zero of the beams that were cut.
4.) Yes, I meant flight 93, not flight 77.
2. You made a typo. Fair enough. I refer you to the evidence for Flight 77 having hit the Pentagon I mention in my previous post.
3. You're quite correct. The photographs on the page you link to are indeed evidence that columns were cut -- by oxyacetylene torches during the clean-up efforts. Have a look at the following photographs:
A: Take special note of the incisions halfway up the column on the right.
B: Notice the similarity to the cutting effects depicted in your photograph.
4. There were numerous pieces of wreckage recovered from Flight 93. The flight data recorders and the cockpit voice recorders were also recovered. None of the resultant data supports the claim that the plane was shot down. It all supports the conclusion that the plane was intentionally crashed by the hijackers due to a passenger revolt.
1. It would take hundreds, if not thousands, of people to pull this off if it was a government conspiracy, especially if they did it the way all the conspiracy nuts think they did it. At least one of those people would have come forward by now, but no one has.
2. The conspiracy nuts are still alive. If the US government had no problem killing 3000 American citizens then they would have no qualms about killing someone who was onto their secret. The maker of this video and videos like this would have been killed long before they got famous.
Incidentally, I thought I should probably point out that, if you're referring to the quote I think you are, you've both significantly misrepresented it and also subjected it to a hatchet contextomy. The full quote reads:
This statement comes at the end of a chapter which explains that the 9/11 plotters would never have been short of money. That is why they claim that the precise channel used by al Qaeda to fund them is of little practical significance (to this specific issue). It in no way states that the "funding of the terrorists is ultimately an unimportant factor."
= Ultimately an unimportant factor
Why is that so hard to understand?
This directly indicates that Al-Qaeda is the sole entity that is responsible and that it doesn't matter where they get their funding because the funding source(s) can be easily replaced by various other sources.
By this reasoning the commission has somehow determined that the "source" is irrellevant. Evidence has surfaced that $100,000 was transferred by Mahmood Ahmed (*Pakistan Secret Service) to the "mastermind": Atta (according to the official reports). Malawi was in Washington DC in a meeting with politicians on 9/11. This is very incriminating evidence and any focus on it is constantly suppressed.
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&the_isi:_a_more_detailed_look=mahmoodahmed
Further, if you'd like to move onto the issue of Mahmood Ahmed (who you've incorrectly attributed to the "Palestinian Secret Services"), can I take it that our previous four issues of contention are settled?
If you've got a point you can manage to communicate in an even faintly lucid manner, please feel free to do so. If you'd like to continue our other discussion, please let me know in the appropriate thread.
Bah!!! damn my typos. I meant Pakistan, not Palestine. sry about that, don't look too deep into it. It was a mistake, thanks for pointing it out.
Incidentally, why would you think that this minor error would nullify any of the other issues. They are unrelated and if that is how you are going to conduct your reasoning, then yes we are done discussing it.
I will read the document you have produced. I had not known about it before. When was it published?
I also noticed there is a bit of info on insider trading investigations in this document. This is something I've been wondering about as well.
Since there were significant spikes of put options on the day before the tragedy, that would normally cause a few red flags to go up. I'm glad that they were easily able to disprove that even though it was highly coincidental, it was not uncommon for such trading spikes to occur. The only thing this document seems to lack is physical evidence. Historical graphs of trading would really help to reinforce their theory that this kind of trading was uncommon.
Actually.. after I read it in it's entirety I'll let you know my thoughts on this document. Thanks
Edit: Hell, see also:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/green/loose_change.html
or
http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/
(just type 'debunk screw loose' in to Google
My point is that there's surely things we don't fully know about
'9/11'the events leading up to and including September, 11th 2001. But, I don't think that these arseholes are the ones who should be telling us about them.I hope you don't also believe that no Jews died as a result of the attack?
Again, they have never claimed that the issue of financing is moot. The upshot of the report was that they were simply unable to determine the source of the funds.
BTW I haven't watched this vid, just making general chat. I did watch 9/11 Mysteries though.
It was quite watchable and it did make me think twice about the whole thing. I might give this one a watch for a laugh.
Thomas Kean(R) (of the 9/11 commission) had this to say about the official investigation:
Washington Post Article 8/2/06 - "Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.
"We, to this day, don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. ... It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."
Here is an excerpt from the CBC INTERVIEW: LEE HAMILTON (D) (of the 9/11 Commission) - August 21, 2006
http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911hamilton.html
Hamilton: I don't believe for a minute that we got everything right. We wrote a first draft of history.
We wrote it under a lot of time pressure, and we sorted through the evidence as best we could.
Now, it would be really rather remarkable if we got everything right. So far, of the things that have been brought up challenging the report, to my knowledge, we have more credibility than the challenger. But I would not for a moment want to suggest that that's always true, either in the past or in the future. People will be investigating 9/11 for the next hundred years in this country, and they're going to find out some things that we missed here.
So I don't automatically reject all the evidence you cite. It may be we missed it, it may be we ignored it when we shouldn't have - I don?t think we did, but it's possible.
...continued....
Hamilton: Well, for a number of reasons: Tom Kean and I were substitutes - Henry Kissinger and George Mitchell were the first choices; we got started late; we had a very short time frame - indeed, we had to get it extended; we did not have enough money - 3 million dollars to conduct an extensive investigation. We needed more, we got more, but it took us a while to get it.
Here is my final link and I think the most important one. Near the bottom of the main page you'll find statements (with links to the source of the comments) from various 9/11 Commission Report writers.
http://patriotsquestion911.com/#Kean
Like I said.. DON'T take my word for it. Listen to these high ranking officials and commission members. Keep an open mind. They even stated that they don't know all the facts of that day and it will continue to be investigated for many many years.
Sincerely, CP
The big problem for me is who the hell can run around buildings like that planting explosives without anyone noticing? It just stretches credulity a bit too much for me.
Firstly though, some specifics:
While they indeed had sincere reservations about how it was formed, funded and so forth, neither Hamilton nor Keane believe that the 9/11 Commission was ultimately unsuccessful. In fact, the opposite is true. The following is a quotation from their book Without Precedent:
In short, whether or not they believe that the Commission was "set up to fail," they don't believe that it actually did fail.
So, the "loose end" that never got tied was not a question of what actually happened concerning the attacks. It was the question of whether, during the investigation, NORAD gave the 9/11 Commission false information intentionally (to cover their mistakes) or inadvertently.
Quite plainly, I've never claimed that the 9/11 Commission Report (or the official account of the attacks generally) is anything like perfect. In fact, I've alluded to its shortcomings in one of my previous posts. None of this, however, gives us epistemological carte blanche to make unsubstantiated claims about controlled demolitions and bogus plane crashes. I'm not claiming that because the 9/11 Commission Report says the attacks were carried out by nineteen Islamic fundamentalists, any other theory is necessarily wrong. I'm saying that the attacks were carried out by nineteen Islamic fundamentalists because there's overwhelming evidence to support the idea and absolutely no compelling evidence either to exonerate them or to implicate (other al Qaeda members, etc. notwithstanding) anyone else.
Analogously, Evolutionary Biologists, to their credit, are the first to admit that their theories are incomplete and likely (in at least some small part) to be erroneous and that to reject any conflicting evidence automatically would be imprudent. That alone doesn't mean, however, that Intelligent Design theories and their ilk are compelling alternatives; it doesn't mean it's rational to assume that there's a vastly intricate, unseen force behind our biology -- just as it isn't rational to assume there are vastly intricate, unseen forces behind 9/11.
Finally, a word of advice:
The conspiracy theorists -- the documentary makers, the bloggers and suchlike -- are out to hoodwink and deceive you -- to trick you into accepting a false conclusion that will drastically affect some of the most important aspects of your life -- your voting habits, your politics and even your lifestyle itself. So, ask difficult questions; do your own research; do not take what you're told at face value.
Some individuals, most, are predictable, and easily led....conditioning-programming
very effective methods and means have been implemented to get us all, jumping through the unnatural hoops we do as humans today.
The very idea, that there are those capable of "pulling" it off, to some, instantly sends up the flags.....Insane.....preposterous......impossible.........crazy........think of some more expressive semantics to describe a predictable, human response to a dramatic set of stimuli.....
Gets some folks riled, simply to imagine there are those capable of believing in something like, taking control of an entire Nation.....Eisenhower was one of these fellows, who knew it could be done, and saw it happening, while standing on the tracks, train rushing at him......he jumped off at the last minute......
9/11 is an open case my fellow meatbots......keep it open, cause we have been, and are being hosed....
yeah-black/white duality does not apply here....the simple answer to the day's events, will most likely, never be made-
The denial dynamic works both ways...If tomorrow, we were all told the absolute truth , there would STILL be those, who would deny that......
fuck all, talk to a structural demolitions person, some pilots, some eyewitnesses, some folks in the building that day, cause that's about as close as you can get to a real answer, without calling the guys who did it....and being able to speak the language of the damned-
as situations like this go....(damned is not dead, unlike this stream)