Still Think the World is Waking up to the Conspiracy?

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: lambros56

Gravity ?
That doesn't answer the question.
Where is the time between each floor hitting the other ?

I don't believe in the full pancake theory.
Yes they found sections where floor(s) rested directly on top of each other.

I subscribe to the belief that steel and other debris punched through lower floors. Tearing them from their end mounting points. More of a chaos type destruction.

Spot on explanation of events.

Too bad truthers are immune to simple explanations.

To them, a Rube Goldbergesqe type explanation makes more sense.

originally posted by: Deveron

The OS is an unproven explanation for the events on 9/11. Fire and Damage cannot collapse Sky Scrapers. And large Commercial Airliners cannot disappear into earth. All these OS excuses do not make sense to me.

Sense? You mean common sense, right?

There are very nearly zero examples of large jet planes flying at high speed vertically into the ground to base any common sense on. And of those few that were, not very many people are aware of what happened to the planes and what the debris pattern was. But, we can search for them on the internet and learn about them. When we do that, we find that the debris pattern is much like was found at Shanksville.

And there are zero examples of large jets being flown into buildings. So we rely on engineering experts to explain it.

In both cases, there is nothing suspect.

My wife is a high school teacher, and she says that kids have been getting dumber over her career. And that they have heard so much about how smart and special they are (positive reinforcement and no kids left behind) that they have an inflated opinion of themselves. This is proof to me that there is nobody "waking up to the 9/11 conspiracy." People are getting dumber, and feel that their opinions have validity, even when they are baseless. This explains why there will always be a steady stream of newbies believing in the 9/11 conspiracy fantasies. And why many end up leaving the conspiracy circle as they get more life experiences and realize their previous opinions were stupid.

originally posted by: lambros56

At least we look for an answer and don't just accept a silly story that government gives out.

It's only silly to you cuz you don't understand it.

It's my strong belief that most truthers are in over their head trying to understand the technical explanations when they try to understand what the OS says They don't understand it and turn invariably to a conspiracy website for an easier to understand explanation. There, they are led astray and are indoctrinated into conspiratorial thinking. I find it sad.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Salander

And what's the point of releasing video that shows nothing? What is there to analyze?

Said video would show the (mythical) 757, and thereby demonstrate to the citizens the soundness of the official story regarding events at the Pentagon.

Said video was not released so that the absence of the (mythical) Boeing would not be seen. The video would have shown that the Emperor was naked, so the video was not released.

Because of "national security", I'm sure.

originally posted by: cardinalfan0596
a reply to: Salander. Yes, every Pentagon video that shows anything, were released almost ten years ago, they have been analyzed many times.

Many of them would have shown a Boeing.

None of them showed a Boeing, so they were kept secret. Pentagon cannot prove its claims because they are false claims. There was no Boeing there.

The world is waking up to the fact that they were duped. Actually, most Europeans already knew it. Just the americans are now, finally, waking up.

a reply to: Deveron

The name of the training exercises being conducted by NORAD and others was Vigilant Guardian. That included a group of other smaller exercises too, many with a variant of "Vigilant ______"

It was that exercise that set the stage for the confusion about targets between FAA and NORAD. Radar injects were used to fool the innocent FAA pawns.

Michael Ruppert wrote about this in his book "Crossing The Rubicon"

a reply to: Salander

So according to you, cameras pointing down, or in other directions would all see a 757. Those are amazing cameras

originally posted by: samkent
I thought it was supposed to be missiles and holograms?
Has the conspiracy side accepted that there were actually planes hitting buildings?

You keep forgetting the role of the individual in society.

I don't believe a word of the official story, but I do understand full well that 2 aircraft hit the trade towers.

Trouble is, the first strike was probably NOT a Boeing, and neither was the airline flights we were told. The first was NOT American 11, and the second was NOT United 175, but there were airplanes that hit the towers.

a reply to: Salander

Many of them would have shown a Boeing.

Tell us where we can find security cameras pointed at the sky.

All the cameras I have seen are pointed down in search of people and cars.

a reply to: Salander

www.youtube.com...

The videos you think exist, never have. The videos that do, show very little.

a reply to: Salander

Oh? Then what airplanes hit the Towers?...that carried the personal effects of those people known to have boarded AA 11 and UA 175?

originally posted by: samkent
a reply to: Salander

Many of them would have shown a Boeing.

Tell us where we can find security cameras pointed at the sky.

All the cameras I have seen are pointed down in search of people and cars.

Funny that, because apparently the aircraft came in at ground level, almost skimming the lawn, so those cameras should have seen it. If they were pointing at the sky, they wouldn't have seen anything.....

originally posted by: Flatcoat
because apparently the aircraft came in at ground level, almost skimming the lawn, so those cameras should have seen it.

Please show the location of the cameras at the Pentagon, and the direction they were pointed that "should" have shown Flight 77....

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Flatcoat
because apparently the aircraft came in at ground level, almost skimming the lawn, so those cameras should have seen it.

Please show the location of the cameras at the Pentagon, and the direction they were pointed that "should" have shown Flight 77....

Are you one of the "no security cameras at the pentagon" crowd? Or maybe "just one .3mp webcam at the guard hut" people? Or maybe surveillance is so lax at the pentagon that a 757 airliner can just waltz in across the front lawn undetected. My local shopping mall had at least a dozen security cameras in 1985 but the pentagon apparently couldn't afford any....and you call "truthers" crazy....

originally posted by: Flatcoat
Are you one of the "no security cameras at the pentagon" crowd?

Where did I say that? You are the one claiming that "so those cameras should have seen it.", I am just asking where the cameras you are talking about are, as you claim to know.

Unless....

a reply to: Flatcoat. No, we have just taken the time to research the subject and know that the camera systems were not full on video cameras, but frame cameras with a slow enough frame rate that they would not necessarily pick up a high speed aircraft. The primary protection, and eyes, for the Pentagon, was the Pentagon police force. Not the camera systems.

There wasn't just one camera pointing in the direction of the crash site. It stands to reason there would be many that would show anything between the roof and the ground in the vicinity of the impact zone.

Of course all the FBI would release is something that you cannot tell what hit the Pentagon. That's the way they made it. Just release enough to say there was an impact but not enough to show you what it was. Covet the truth.

Of course the OS Repeaters keep saying what THEY are saying. They are not looking into why there is no visual sighting of possibly hit. They are just repeating the Official Story.



There's something there but it ain't no Jet Liner!

Notice also the date and time stamp of the frames! WTF is going on with that?



And in this picture you will notice a blip on the top right of the frame. That was a Helicopter. What was a Helicopter doing flying over the Pentagon at the same time as the strike? Or not as per the irregular date and time on the CCTV frames!

Funny that. There was a Helicopter flying over the Towers as one collapsed and it wasn't a news chopper! That was the helicopter I saw on one of the videos earlier on in this thread that was behind the smoke above the tower, there was a flash, the helicopter moved away then the Tower collapsed! Some kind of Detonation device on board perhaps?

Same as the Pentagon one? Maybe the launcher for a missile?

Inquiring minds want to know!

So many anomalies so little time!

a reply to: Deveron and there you go again....thinking that YOUR idea of what should/should not be there, apply to reality. You think there should be many cameras that captured everything, and, there were not. Not to mention, in the one photo, accounting for distance and angle, is EXACTLY what Flight 77's vertical stabilizer would look like.

originally posted by: Deveron
It stands to reason there would be many that would show anything between the roof and the ground in the vicinity of the impact zone.

Again, please show the exact location of these camera's you claim to exist on the Pentagon.... why is that so hard to do?

They are not looking into why there is no visual sighting of possibly hit.

Funny how the truthers are unable to point out the location of these cameras....

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Salander

So according to you, cameras pointing down, or in other directions would all see a 757. Those are amazing cameras

I say again Zaphod, according to your story the airplane was flying within 5 feet of the ground. The building is like 70 feet tall. Do the math.

This is reinforced by the parking lot video showing the unidentified aircraft streaking along in ground effect, remember?