It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rethinkng the NPT (oh no! not again!)

page: 1
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 06:20 AM
link   
Please read the following post carefully before replying. Posters who haven't will get short shrift. I won't resort to insults, but I shall be merciless in exposing shoddy reading and poor thinking.

The NPT is one of the most charged topics in ATS. People posting on it tend to get very het up indeed. It also attracts quite a lot of people whom I consider to be idiots. So quite a lot of NPT threads are either people being rude to each other, or morons putting up ill-considered "opinions".

I'm making a plea, upfront, for some restraint, even distance, on the part of everyone. I'm just trying to think things through. Again. And please, please try not to post anything dumb. I will react badly to that. Stupidity will be denied.

I also want to limit the debate in this thread, simply to stop it spinning utterly out of control. The things I want to exclude from this thread have all been beaten to death elsewhere, and I'd like this to be a nice, civil discussion that sticks to the point. So if I say, can we leave topic X to another thread, I'm not trying to dodge any issues, I'm just trying to stay focused on the things that bother me and not re-hash stuff on this thread that is amply, redundantly covered in others. So for example please stay away from "how all the videos were faked". I don't want to go through all that again and I shall be ignoring any posts on that score. Likewise people who claim no-one saw any planes. I also want to exclude the whole "the planes/fire caused the towers to collapse" thing. As I've said in another thread, if that's the case I should get a bank loan, go buy myself some surplus KC-130s and some Global Hawk kits, and provide a rather more spectacular and showmanly way of demolishing buildings. It worked perfectly on two massively tall buildings in a row, collapsing them into their own footprint, and the OCT people say that it would have been impossible to do the job by controlled demolition. Fine. Two for two is a pretty good record - maybe I should incorporate UNcontrolled Demolition Inc. Much easier than all that messy business with people crawling through a building planting charges. So for the purposes of this thread I'd like to exclude that from debate as well.

Got that? Good.

So...

I've been thinking for some time that the NPT was disinfo, put out to make everyone who wants a proper investigation look like tinfoil hatters.

Now I'm not so sure.

The video "evidence" offered in support of it has never convinced me.

People say that a jet going 500mph couldn't penetrate the outer skin of the towers. I disagree, not least because when I was a child, I saw a programme in which someone fired a wax candle from a shotgun and penetrated a thick plank of hard, dense wood. If that can happen, I can't see why planes coudn't penetrate the WTC towers. Although, again, there's no visible crumpling in the videos... it's a tricky call.

One thing is clear to me: the video fakery aspect of it doesn't stand up. If you're going down the NPT route, you have to go with holograms, otherwise you have to get to all the video posted by all the people who filmed impacts. That just doesn't work for me.

Is it possible? You have to assume technology far in advance of what we know about. One thing that got me thinking was a 1996 paper describing experiments in acoustic holography to replicate the sound of a jet engine.

Previously I'd thought the hologram thing was unnecessary. You get global hawk, you put it in some planes, job done. John Lear says it's not possible to do it at all, but this is not something that Pilots for 9/11 Truth have ever gone with.

For the record, I don't think John Lear is a disinfo agent. I'm not completely certain he's not being used by disinfo agents.

What are the difficulties with the NPT?


  1. you have to assume massively advanced technology that deals with not only issues of appearance and sound, but also the timing of explosions in the Towers. (Unless you assume something like a cruise missile with hologram technology was used).
  2. we already have (in Global Hawk) technology that either allows a passenger plane to be taken over remotely, or allows a previously prepared plane to be flown into the buildings.
  3. didn't passengers actually get on some of those flights?
  4. and what about the radar tracks?
  5. er... I may have missed some out. No doubt other posters will remind me.


Well, maybe there is technology that advanced. There's certainly indications of research into it. As for point 2 above, maybe the high-tech option offered advantages that a more conventional solution didn't... and we may come back to that.

As for the other points... if passengers embarked it doesn't necessarily mean the planes went anywhere near the targets. And we know that part of the exercises running that day involved insertion of false radar blips onto NORAD screens.

I then thought about the other sites, not the WTC. And it was as soon as I started thinking about Shanksville that I started to really wonder.

My previous position on Shanksville was that the plane had been shot down at high altitude, causing widespread dispersal of wreckage. Naturally this would have to be covered up.

The problem with that is the alleged crash site. Surely this would have to be prepared somewhat beforehand? On one of the threads on the subject I've even seen a photo that was allegedly taken just after the plane crashed. In the context of the thread, this photo (which didn't seem to show a proper jet fuel explosion), was taken as evidence that the crash site was faked.

And that's my problem: if the crash site had been prepared beforehand, it puts a lot of things into doubt. It suggests that the "Let's Roll!" myth was written in well in advance. It suggests that the "plane" was never intended to reach its target. That's not impossible. It is the one flight that day they've actually made a movie about.

The NPT/hologram theory works pretty well for the Pentagon, too. If you turn off the hologram, there's no need for an actual flyover.

So, in sum, what does the NPT/Hologram theory actually buy us?


  1. A way of explaining the lack of witnesses to a Pentagon flyover (apologies to Craig Ranke if I've missed any witness testimony he's acquired)
  2. [i]assuming the technology is available (which I'm doing for the purposes of this thread), a safer, more controlled way of persuading people that planes did hit the towers
  3. anything else, anyone?


Like I say, I'm still pretty much on the fence here. I'm just trying to think things through.

edited for those pesky tags...

[edit on 11-7-2009 by rich23]




posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 07:06 AM
link   
Footprint, huh?
research.unc.edu...

But we won't discuss your rambling of course, because you said it was off limits. I therefore will not mention that a boeing 757 costs 80 million dollars. Little hint though: if you build strawmans, you are supposed to build them for the other side.

Anyway:
NPT has one problem besides being impossible: We didn't use real planes ... why?



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by debunky
Footprint, huh?
research.unc.edu...


Which proves nothing. It certainly doesn't suggest that the towers came down like trees, crushing buildings all around, because they didn't.


But we won't discuss your rambling


So much for pleas for civility.


of course, because you said it was off limits.


Because it's been done to death elsewhere.


I therefore will not mention that a boeing 757 costs 80 million dollars.


Just as well. You'd look pretty stupid if you did, because I was talking about buying surplus KC-130s, which is not the same thing. Phew! Saved yourself from looking like an illiterate there!


Little hint though: if you build strawmans, you are supposed to build them for the other side.


Little hint: be polite and careful with your reading. You've already exposed yourself as not having read the OP properly. I'm trying to think things through, not build strawmen. I'm open to civil and informed discussion. Come back when you can provide that.


Anyway:
NPT has one problem besides being impossible: We didn't use real planes ... why?


Again, I provided one possible reason in the OP. Go back and read it again.

Anyone with anything constructive to say?



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
People say that a jet going 500mph couldn't penetrate the outer skin of the towers.

This claiim has to do with a simple understanding of the WTC construction and comprehension of simple physics. Had the outer columns been continuous from top to bottom, then their claim might have merit. But the outer columns were constructed every 3 floors in a staggered formation:




The steel columns themselves didn't fail when the planes impacted. The connectors connecting the columns together are what failed. That's why it was so easy for the planes to penetrate the outer columns with little resistance.



Originally posted by rich23
I then thought about the other sites, not the WTC. And it was as soon as I started thinking about Shanksville that I started to really wonder.

Just to be clear, the NPT theories usually concentrate on no planes at the WTC and video fakery at the WTC. As far as Shanksville and the Pentagon, the evidence doesn't support planes crashing there, unlike the WTC and that's a separate topic.



posted on Jul, 11 2009 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Hi BoneZ, glad you showed up. In fact I was hoping you would. I'm hoping you probably know me from previous posts well enough to know that I'm not building strawmen or any of that nonsense, but I am trying to think things through.

Do you see what I'm driving at with Shanksville?

It seems like it can only go two ways.

If there was a plane, then fine, it was shot down... but then you get a problem of what happens with the fake crash site. How quickly could they mobilise to create a fake site? Actually, why create a fake site at all, especially if it has to be in such a rush? Wouldn't it have been easier to just say that the terrorists must have had a bomb on board, which would explain early reports of widely strewn wreckage?

Plus, there's a photo you must have seen that purports to be the smoke plume from the impact. What's your take on that? Is the photo genuine? If so, does it show a fake explosion intended to be the crash?

How reliable, in your opinion, are reports of widely-strewn wreckage?

If there were no plane involved, things get a lot simpler, in that 93 was designed from the first as the "let's roll" psyop. that way the crash site is predetermined but they didn't put too much effort into it and may have picked the mine location for the obvious get-out clause it's provided w.r.t the wreckage.

There's something that really bothers me about the chronology of this and I can't quite put my finger on it.

I know you hate the NPT, and I don't blame you. At the moment I've seen enough links to make me think that the very obvious technical problems associated with it (holograms, sound, perfectly timed explosions) could have been worked through, and it would avoid the whole messy and dangerous business of flying real planes around. I mean, someone could get hurt.

But then I come back to the Pentagon. There you have a teeny tiny hole and no real effort to make it look like a plane actually hit the thing. If you're going to the trouble of making the WTC towers look like plane-shaped things hit them, why wouldn't you do that with the Pentagon?

I just can't quite make it all add up at the moment. Any help with the questions I've raised?



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 09:23 PM
link   
The first biggest problem with the NPT, before you actually get into the nitty gritty, is that is unnecessarily complicated, and nonsensical.

Lets pretend for a moment that we are the perps of 9/11, and are planning the operation. What would you choose as the vehicle of destruction: unstable, unreliable, not fully tested and understood technologies that have a high probability of not only critical failure, but exposing the conspiracy, or, would you use jetliners full of people, a tried and tested method (before 9/11, there were plenty of plane crashes in the history of aviation, and even when they did not crash into populated areas, they still caused alot of death and damage)?

For the perpetrators of 9/11, the only way that they would use untried, unproven, and not fully foolproof technology would be if the thing they were trying to imitate, which is real planes crashing into buildings, would not do the trick. And of course, we all know that real planes crashing into heavily occupied buildings will cause alot of death and destruction. Holograms or miniplanes simply do not bring on the damage and death that a jetliner going at 400-500 mph would.

So, since the people behind this thing are not idiots, nor are they insane, they would have used a more reliable, more effective means of carrying out their plan. Real planes. Which also generate the desired psychological effect.

That, to me, is the first stumbling block for the NPT. Before you even get to logistics, physical evidence, eyewitnesses, video footage, ect ect ect ect.



posted on Jul, 13 2009 @ 10:50 PM
link   
737 crashes

go through a few pages of images.
how many do you see where there is no evidence of the tail (in one piece, even).
how many where there is no evidence except a few pieces of confetti? (none that i found)


this site has a lot of plane crash pictures. a search on 757 crashes brings up mostly pentagon and shanksville images, unfortunately.

anyway, in short, if you check, most plane crashes are obviously plane crashes.
neither the pentagon, nor shanksville are obvious plane crash sites, and in fact, look nothing like plane crash sites.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 08:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
The first biggest problem with the NPT, before you actually get into the nitty gritty, is that is unnecessarily complicated, and nonsensical.


I had been thinking exactly along the same lines myself.


Lets pretend for a moment that we are the perps of 9/11, and are planning the operation.


That's kind of what I'm doing. The difference is that I'm removing the assumption (which I had held) that the alternative means available is


unstable, unreliable, not fully tested and understood technologies that have a high probability of not only critical failure, but exposing the conspiracy,


Once you remove that assumption, things look a little different, and I've seen some links lately (can't drum them up now, sorry) that make me think that maybe that technology is available to a small group of people.

Did you ever see the video of the guy in the Predator-type invisibility suit? It looks like a video that the insurgents left running. A tank or apc comes into view and an IED goes off, but no harm done. Tnen... it's hard to tell what you're looking at but eventually a figure resolves itself as it climbs onto the vehicle. Very odd. And this is something that people have been working on, it's known, but there's no hint of something that successful.

So, kind of as a thought experiment I'm suspending that assumption.


or, would you use jetliners full of people,


As I understand it at this point there are quite a few options and I'm not wedded to any of these ideas at the moment myself.

First, yes, you have the airliners full of people. But then you have the possibility of making a switch in mid-air to a plane you've already prepared. That saves you the potential risk of exposure through installing Global Hawk in passenger planes. All you have to do is get the pilot to land somewhere.

And of course there are people who say the planes never took off, they weren't scheduled. I haven't done enough research on this to have an opinion but I'd rate it as low probability.

Why NOT use real planes?

The first reason that springs to mind is that it would be impossible for a skilled pilot to do it. I have to admit, it's pretty weak on its face and the guy who's pushing it is John Lear. I'm afraid that anyone who says it's easy on a flight simulator on their PC cuts no ice with me. I have no personal knowledge.

I guess if I get an answer to that question I'll get an answer as to whether John Lear is consciously part of a disinfo op.

I am suspending the idea that the technology involved in holograms wouldn't work, including all the tedious business of timing.

I guess the best reason I can come up with for not using real planes is that there are risks associated with having hunks of metal flying around at 550 knots. What if one of them had missed? What if it had hit another building which then conspicuously failed to collapse? That could have been embarrassing.

It does mean you have to have WTCs 1 and 2 prepared in a more complex manner. This is a weakness in the theory. I concede, but it's not impossible.


That, to me, is the first stumbling block for the NPT. Before you even get to logistics, physical evidence, eyewitnesses, video footage, ect ect ect ect.


I know what you mean. As I say, I'm just thinking this one through, again... and I think I'm coming back to my original position, which is that NPT doesn't work, Sometimes it's good to recosider even the implausible, though. But I can't come up with any compelling reasons not to use real planes (though I suspect that the ones that hit the towers might not have been the ones that took off, for reasons I detailed earlier).



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
Do you see what I'm driving at with Shanksville?

Other than the fact that Shanksville doesn't look like an aircraft crash site and that there's not enough wreckage to say a plane crashed there, I don't really give Shanksville any thought. There are a few people at the Loose Change forums who spend most of their time researching Shanksville only and they would be better suited for your questions.



Originally posted by rich23
Is the photo genuine? If so, does it show a fake explosion intended to be the crash?

In my opinion, the smoke cloud from the explosion doesn't look right for a large aircraft crash. It looks more like a bomb or missile smoke cloud. But that's just my opinion.



Originally posted by rich23
I've seen enough links to make me think that the very obvious technical problems associated with it (holograms, sound, perfectly timed explosions) could have been worked through, and it would avoid the whole messy and dangerous business of flying real planes around.

There's too many technical things that can go wrong with using holograms, etc. We can't even get a season of American Idol broadcasted perfectly without a single technical problem while it's broadcasting live. It's much easier and less trouble-free to just use planes instead of using holograms and fakery into live tv.



Originally posted by rich23
I just can't quite make it all add up at the moment. Any help with the questions I've raised?

See a relevant post I just made here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   
regarding depending on advanced technology, NASA and the military do it ALL THE TIME. by this logic, nagasaki and hiroshima didn't get bombed, smartbomb videos were all faked, modern airliners are flown totally manually, there are no space shuttles, hubble telescopes, deep space probes, and there was no moon or mars landing by anything from earth)
to me that argument holds no water. my irrelevant personal belief on the issue doesn't exist, although i lean towards real planes that had their radar blips swapped out in mid air by flying in close proximity. the planes used were remote controlled, and possibly locked onto a beacon in the towers. it is clear that something flies out faster than the plane and causes the flash on the second collision.
that is only true for wtc1 and 2. the shanksville plane was shot down, and the pentagon plane was a flyover. the number of military and raytheon employees(THE remote controlled flight gurus) on the pentagon flight was highly suspicious,not to mention barbara olsen being arrested in europe (true or false? it's a wild card). i think those people are still alive. (don't tell me about how the MILITARY tested the dna and identified all the bodies. that is obviously totally untrustworthy and uncorroborated by any non-complicit organisation).









[edit on 14-7-2009 by billybob]



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
That's kind of what I'm doing. The difference is that I'm removing the assumption (which I had held) that the alternative means available is


unstable, unreliable, not fully tested and understood technologies that have a high probability of not only critical failure, but exposing the conspiracy,


Once you remove that assumption, things look a little different, and I've seen some links lately (can't drum them up now, sorry) that make me think that maybe that technology is available to a small group of people.

Did you ever see the video of the guy in the Predator-type invisibility suit? It looks like a video that the insurgents left running. A tank or apc comes into view and an IED goes off, but no harm done. Tnen... it's hard to tell what you're looking at but eventually a figure resolves itself as it climbs onto the vehicle. Very odd. And this is something that people have been working on, it's known, but there's no hint of something that successful.

So, kind of as a thought experiment I'm suspending that assumption.


I understand your reasoning here for exploring this particular train of thought. And while there are some serious mind-blowing technological marvels being played with, there are limits to what is indeed possible.




As I understand it at this point there are quite a few options and I'm not wedded to any of these ideas at the moment myself.

First, yes, you have the airliners full of people. But then you have the possibility of making a switch in mid-air to a plane you've already prepared. That saves you the potential risk of exposure through installing Global Hawk in passenger planes. All you have to do is get the pilot to land somewhere.


Well, in some respects, you are right, but it is actually not that difficult to install a remote control unit in a plane without anyone knowing, either. I read a few posts a while ago that showed that a couple of the planes used in 9/11 had been grounded for quite some time before 9/11. A plane sitting in a hangar somewhere getting an "overhaul" is actually a perfect opportunity to do so. Alot easier than having to force a plane to land, switch planes, and kill off and dispose of passengers and crew.


And of course there are people who say the planes never took off, they weren't scheduled. I haven't done enough research on this to have an opinion but I'd rate it as low probability.


Everything I have seen on ATS and elsewhere leads me to believe said planes did take off. Most of those who claim differently either take old, confused reports or misread alot of things, as far as i can tell.


Why NOT use real planes?

The first reason that springs to mind is that it would be impossible for a skilled pilot to do it. I have to admit, it's pretty weak on its face and the guy who's pushing it is John Lear. I'm afraid that anyone who says it's easy on a flight simulator on their PC cuts no ice with me. I have no personal knowledge.


Well, John Lear isn't exactly what I would call a stellar source of information. I mean, he is indeed an accomplished pilot, and certainly has expertise in this field. However, I know several pilots who say differently. One example is my stepson's friend, who is a pilot for BA. He used to be in the RAF. As far as the twin tower strikes, he said that a highly trained pilot could pull it off, especially one with military background/training. the Pentagon he just scratches his head. But I've also talked to other pilots, and they said that it wasn't impossible for a pilot to fly a Boeing into the twin towers.

The Pentagon, however, is a different story. Of course, i do believe flight 77 hit the pentagon, but I think that, given the witness descriptions of pre crash maneuvering, my guess is that was most possibly running by remote control.


I guess if I get an answer to that question I'll get an answer as to whether John Lear is consciously part of a disinfo op.


That would be interesting to figure out.


I am suspending the idea that the technology involved in holograms wouldn't work, including all the tedious business of timing.

I guess the best reason I can come up with for not using real planes is that there are risks associated with having hunks of metal flying around at 550 knots. What if one of them had missed? What if it had hit another building which then conspicuously failed to collapse? That could have been embarrassing.


Good points, but generally, I think using holograms/super exotic technology would carry bigger risks of failure/exposure. Like, holograms blinking out, interference, logistics of getting everything perfect, planting everything, ect, as opposed to just flying the plane into a building.



I know what you mean. As I say, I'm just thinking this one through, again... and I think I'm coming back to my original position, which is that NPT doesn't work, Sometimes it's good to recosider even the implausible, though. But I can't come up with any compelling reasons not to use real planes (though I suspect that the ones that hit the towers might not have been the ones that took off, for reasons I detailed earlier).


Well, that is how the pursuit for truth and enlightenment begin....thinking and examining the puzzle from all angles, even the more bizarre. The insights gained from exploring the wilder theories can actually open new roads of investigation.




posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Thanks for these two pieces of information:


Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_ElfI read a few posts a while ago that showed that a couple of the planes used in 9/11 had been grounded for quite some time before 9/11.

Everything I have seen on ATS and elsewhere leads me to believe said planes did take off. Most of those who claim differently either take old, confused reports or misread alot of things, as far as i can tell.


And for this, too. I've seen enough of your posts to consider you a trustworthy souce...


However, I know several pilots who say differently.


Which is sad, because that means that Lear is almost certainly a witting disinfo agent. That's disappointing. I had thought that some of his claims were fed to him by people who were using him. But this is pretty unequivocal. I noticed that Pilots for 9/11 Truth don't make that claim, and that didn't sit right. On the other hand, you have to consider the idea that any of these organisations could be penetrated by gubmint agents. It sounds paranoid, but when you look at the history of independent UFO investigative agencies, it's very much a standard thing.


the Pentagon he just scratches his head.


Made me laugh.


The Pentagon, however, is a different story. Of course, i do believe flight 77 hit the pentagon, but I think that, given the witness descriptions of pre crash maneuvering, my guess is that was most possibly running by remote control.


I think I'm with the flyover people on this. I'm surprised you think the plane hit the Pentagon, actually. I agree on the remote control thing, there's no way the hijackers had enough skill to pull it off.

I think the Pentagon was a different game plan from the start. Newly reinforced wall or no, I don't think the people who organised this wanted to risk unplanned damage to the Pentagon, so if you're going to use a real plane then you're looking at a flyover. And the interviews Craig Ranke did with the two policemen who were at the Citgo station were pretty convincing. They both agreed that the plane passed over to their left as you look toward the Pentagon, which makes a nonsense of the alleged impact and penetration of the building, which would require the plane to come from a completely different direction.

I don't think the hijackers thought they were going to die, necessarily. The fact that they couldn't be bothered to learn to fly suggests that they might have known they wouldn't have to. They were being run by the CIA, and I think they'd been fed some script to run through. Then at some point they realise they're going to hit a building...

About the level of technology involved. The thing that made me put that argument on hold was seeing a link to a 1996 project specification about producing holographic sound for military applications. I'm very much of the opinion that what we get to see is generally a generation behind the cutting edge.



posted on Jul, 14 2009 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23
And for this, too. I've seen enough of your posts to consider you a trustworthy souce...


Which is sad, because that means that Lear is almost certainly a witting disinfo agent. That's disappointing. I had thought that some of his claims were fed to him by people who were using him. But this is pretty unequivocal. I noticed that Pilots for 9/11 Truth don't make that claim, and that didn't sit right. On the other hand, you have to consider the idea that any of these organisations could be penetrated by gubmint agents. It sounds paranoid, but when you look at the history of independent UFO investigative agencies, it's very much a standard thing.


Thanks for the vote of confidence. And yes, I have little to no doubt that the 9/11 movement has been infiltrated by disinfo agents. You are right, we see how well COINTELLIPRO did, and I highly doubt they would ditch such effective tactics just because congress told them to. It's not paranoia when we have an established historical record of said activities.




I think I'm with the flyover people on this. I'm surprised you think the plane hit the Pentagon, actually. I agree on the remote control thing, there's no way the hijackers had enough skill to pull it off.


I think the Pentagon was a different game plan from the start. Newly reinforced wall or no, I don't think the people who organised this wanted to risk unplanned damage to the Pentagon, so if you're going to use a real plane then you're looking at a flyover. And the interviews Craig Ranke did with the two policemen who were at the Citgo station were pretty convincing. They both agreed that the plane passed over to their left as you look toward the Pentagon, which makes a nonsense of the alleged impact and penetration of the building, which would require the plane to come from a completely different direction.


I am one of the few who believe that flight 77 (or something the right size and shape) did indeed strike the Pentagon. I base this on many eyewitness accounts, physical evidence, sheer number of witnesses present in the area who would have made anything impossible to plant/sneak in, lack of any witnesses to the plane flying over, (of which there should be thousands, not only from the road, but surrounding areas, ect). And naturally, I have questions about CIT's investigative tactics, as well as time lapse from the original event and the recollection of the witnesses. I did watch the videos they have posted, but was not really that impressed. But that's just me.

I do think that the plane did strike, but given the reported maneuvers as well as the reports that Hani Hanjour couldn't fly a kite in a wind tunnel, I think that it is very likely the plane was remotely flown and handled. I will admit, I'm in a tiny minority of 9/11 Official Story doubters who do think the plane hit, but until something concrete surfaces to show otherwise, I can only entertain other ideas while demanding some sort of proof.


I don't think the hijackers thought they were going to die, necessarily. The fact that they couldn't be bothered to learn to fly suggests that they might have known they wouldn't have to. They were being run by the CIA, and I think they'd been fed some script to run through. Then at some point they realise they're going to hit a building...


Ahhh! Finally! Someone else has reached a probable scenario to explain the hijackers, one which I tend to hold onto. Yes. Given that the Mossad and CIA have been able to infiltrate terrorist organizations, and have assets, it is not impossible for some spook, posing as a wise extremist imam, to recruit some Muslim youngsters for such a mission, and the young Muslims accepting, believing that they are really going to oerform some great deed by striking the "Great satan"...they could have been told they were simply hijacking the plane, thinking they were going to land somewhere and make demands, only to discover the planes started flying with minds of their own. Or, they could have been prepared for a suicide mission, and the remote control measures were employed as a safeguard. Since the very identity of the hijackers is in question (since several of them had the annoying habit of popping up alive elsewhere) there is alot of room for speculation on just exactly how they were recruited, our how the whole thing was executed.


About the level of technology involved. The thing that made me put that argument on hold was seeing a link to a 1996 project specification about producing holographic sound for military applications. I'm very much of the opinion that what we get to see is generally a generation behind the cutting edge.


Military technology is usually a generation or two ahead of what we know, in terms of black projects. However, they would also have to be able to teleport in the plane wreckage that was shot out of the building on impact. people on the street, before the towers collapsed, were reporting pieces and debris from the planes that were sheered off/blown out of the tower. If the military has found a way to make things materialize out of thin air, then who dunnit on 9/11 has suddenly become the least of my worries.

Of course, there were several unoccupied floors in the WTC, one could argue that plane wreckage was stored there previous to the attack. However, the problem with that is, is that the planes hit floors that were fully occupied, the empty floors being far below and unscathed by the plane strike.

As for Pentagon flyover theories, unless the military installed a Klingon cloaking device on flight 77, I have yet to hear a satisfactory explaination on how thousands of people, from all sides of the Pentagon, did not notice a big assed jet flying away at such a low altitude. Not to mention how a plane would stay intact and in the air pulling off the sharp turn that would require it to suddenly pull up and over the Pentagon.

To sum it up, my questions of 9/11 never included whether or not planes hit buildings, but more along the lines of who (or what) was really flying the suckers.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 07:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
I am one of the few who believe that flight 77 (or something the right size and shape) did indeed strike the Pentagon. I base this on many eyewitness accounts, physical evidence

If you could, check out this thread at the Loose Change forums that was just made yesterday with dozens of rare Pentagon photos:

s1.zetaboards.com...


Every single photo is missing one thing: 200,000 pounds of aircraft debris. There's no fuselage, no wings, no tail section, no luggage, no seats, let alone a couple hundred seats. The initial impact hole also doesn't suggest a large jetliner impacted. Sorry to disagree, but the physical evidence doesn't come close to saying a large jetliner impacted the Pentagon. The evidence has to support the witnesses for a plane to have hit the Pentagon.

There were alot of witnesses that saw a low-flying jetliner in the air near the Pentagon, but there would be very few that would have seen the actual impact with their own eyes. I'm not saying the "flyover" is truth and fact, but it's a better theory than anyone else has produced.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
I am one of the few who believe that flight 77 (or something the right size and shape) did indeed strike the Pentagon.


You make a pretty good case, but I'm left with pictures of that tiny hole and the "hello golfers" lawn where the plane should have crashed.

I know what you mean about people seeing the plane flying away but from what I remember it's towards the river and there might even be a handy landing strip. I might be filling that bit in. It's a toughie.


Ahhh! Finally! Someone else has reached a probable scenario to explain the hijackers, one which I tend to hold onto.


If you haven't already, google video Webster Tarpley's lecture on 9/11 being the key to avoiding WWIII. You've got details of all the exercises and the groups who are actually running the terrorists. Some are real terrorists, but I think our hijackers are a bunch of slackers whose only real function is to get on a plane at a given time (and of course leave some Korans around).

If you haven't read Daniel Hopsicker (he of Mad Cow Morning News)'s stuff on Atta, that gets into his visits to the air base to get coke, and the German guy who was his CIA handler.

(See, to me these two guys have done really vital work on the various aspects of this thing, and when that little #### Fintan Dunne slandered them as disinfo, that marked him out for me. I'd say COINTELPRO for sure.)

So when you've seen the Webster Tarpley lecture, you're then really set up to watch Core of Corruption. If you've seen it already, watch it again after the Tarpley. It makes a lot of pieces fall into place.

This is why the whistleblowers who talk about giving visas to terrorists in places like Saudi Arabia and elsewhere are so important.

Tarpley points out that you have to have someone running interference for the terrorists while they're setting themselves up in the US. Hence all the blocking of investigations into, for example, Atta.


"...they could have been told they were simply hijacking the plane, thinking they were going to land somewhere and make demands, only to discover the planes started flying with minds of their own.


The fact that they didn't bother learning to land points most obviously to a suicide mission. However, if some of the people know beforehand that it's a game and they won't have to actually fly... that works, too.

Hopsicker interviewed Atta's girlfriend and she talks about the last night, and a farewell drink and coke binge with Wolfgang (?) the German CIA contact. (Who, incidentally, turns up in the Pacific some months later, is arrested and gets out by saying he's with the CIA.) It seemed like he knew he wasn't coming back but I'd have to see the interview again to try to gauge whether or not he thought that was because he'd be dead.

As to the identity of the hijackers... that is a whole can of worms. I'm not sure what CCTV footage exists of all of them, I've seen one or two pictures.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by _BoneZ_
 


What those photos show is a mangled mess, of which I can't identify anything, building wreckage and all. it's a tangled mess, and really proves nothing. Besides, several of those photos I've seen before, posted. Some look like the ones from the Moussoui trial.

But photos really prove nothing either way to me. For starters, given the fact that the plane struck basically something as hard as the Pentagon, I'm not really expecting to find chunks of plane scattered about. There were fires, there were large sections of the floors collapsing.

Sorry, but I just don't find photographs taken in various places from various angles to be much of anything, especially given how many people, fire, construction, rescue personnel were present and reported finding things such as bodies still strapped in their seats, or pieces of the plane.

I need more solid, credible evidence than just a couple of photos.



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 02:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by rich23


You make a pretty good case, but I'm left with pictures of that tiny hole and the "hello golfers" lawn where the plane should have crashed.

I know what you mean about people seeing the plane flying away but from what I remember it's towards the river and there might even be a handy landing strip. I might be filling that bit in. It's a toughie.


What bothers me more is that the Pentagon is surrounded with surveillance cameras here, there, and everywhere. I was there back in 92, when I was doing my army AIT in Ft Belvoir, Virginia. Back in 92 there were friggin surveillance cameras everywhere you went, pointing at and away. I'm pretty sure that between back then and up to 9/11, there were more added, and probably better resolution/imaging. Yet all we get are a couple of grainy frames? What's that allk about?

My own piece of speculation: the Pentagon was hit by both truck bomb and plane. there were a ton of initial reports of a truck bomb and second or double explosion right when the plane hit. There were even reports that a truck of some sort, like a construction vehicle, was parked along side that side of the Pentagon. A possible explanation that I propose is that there was a secondary bomb placed in front of the building, a very powerful, perhaps even military made heavy duty bunker busting strength bomb, to ensure the desired amount of damage was done, in case the plane did not cause the amount of destruction required. And maybe to ensure the plane was totally destroyed...maybe to hide evidence that was on board, such as a remote control system that didn't belong?

Again, it is speculation on my part, but, the government and it's habit of secrecy and dishonesty has given plenty of fuel to feed my fire.




If you haven't already, google video Webster Tarpley's lecture on 9/11 being the key to avoiding WWIII. You've got details of all the exercises and the groups who are actually running the terrorists. Some are real terrorists, but I think our hijackers are a bunch of slackers whose only real function is to get on a plane at a given time (and of course leave some Korans around).


I'll check it out. that scenario is possible, given your next bits of info:


If you haven't read Daniel Hopsicker (he of Mad Cow Morning News)'s stuff on Atta, that gets into his visits to the air base to get coke, and the German guy who was his CIA handler.

(See, to me these two guys have done really vital work on the various aspects of this thing, and when that little #### Fintan Dunne slandered them as disinfo, that marked him out for me. I'd say COINTELPRO for sure.)

So when you've seen the Webster Tarpley lecture, you're then really set up to watch Core of Corruption. If you've seen it already, watch it again after the Tarpley. It makes a lot of pieces fall into place.

This is why the whistleblowers who talk about giving visas to terrorists in places like Saudi Arabia and elsewhere are so important.

Tarpley points out that you have to have someone running interference for the terrorists while they're setting themselves up in the US. Hence all the blocking of investigations into, for example, Atta.

The fact that they didn't bother learning to land points most obviously to a suicide mission. However, if some of the people know beforehand that it's a game and they won't have to actually fly... that works, too.

Hopsicker interviewed Atta's girlfriend and she talks about the last night, and a farewell drink and coke binge with Wolfgang (?) the German CIA contact. (Who, incidentally, turns up in the Pacific some months later, is arrested and gets out by saying he's with the CIA.) It seemed like he knew he wasn't coming back but I'd have to see the interview again to try to gauge whether or not he thought that was because he'd be dead.


I have read Hopsicker's stuff, and seen Core of Corruption. Yeah, that was VERY interesting. I remember later that Amanda Keller retracted her statements, saying something along the lines of "Wrong Atta" or something, which I found extremely interesting. It seems that through further investigation, the landlords of the apartments they lived at, as well as several tenants, later refused to talk anymore, and some had even stated the FBI had came around and told them to shut the hell up. Which I honestly do not doubt in the least, since the things they were saying about this "mad jihadist" sound more like a frat boy with some very high connections. There were also reports further north in Maryland or somewhere that a couple of the hijackers were out drinking, getting lap dances, and hiring hookers the night before. Not exactly the behavior or a pious, religious nut who is planning on dying the next day so he can get cool points with Allah and 72 virgins. In fact, since the real party is in the afterlife, why would they risk pissing Allah off and getting sent elsewhere over one night of mundane partying?

Yeah, Atta the psychotic kitten slaying cokehead, drunk, and whoremonger...last time I checked, Allah ain't down with any of that.




As to the identity of the hijackers... that is a whole can of worms. I'm not sure what CCTV footage exists of all of them, I've seen one or two pictures.

I've only seen the grainy pictures at Bangor airport. That wasx it. Every airport had video cameras of some sort back then....so where are the stills from Logan, Newark, and Dulles airports?

Questions, questions....



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 03:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
I need more solid, credible evidence than just a couple of photos.

Solid, credible evidence is having plane parts, seats, luggage, bodies, etc. being shown in these pictures. We do not have any of the solid, credible evidence. Therefore, the lack of 200,000 pounds of plane debris can only equal lack of a plane.

Just because there's a couple witnesses that said they saw some bodies still strapped in the seats, doesn't mean it actually happened. Where's the photos? Where's the couple-hundred other seats?

Sorry, but solid, credible evidence to a jetliner striking the building is missing. I'm not going to take a few peoples' words for it. Brig. Gen. Stubblebine says there's no way a large jetliner could have crashed into the Pentagon and made the damage we see. Now there's a thread that was just posted today of professional pilots that are saying they can't even do the maneuvers that we were told happened on 9/11. Then there's Jamie McIntyre from CNN that reported on 9/11 just after the crash that from his close-up inspection, there was no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.

Believe what you will, but every single piece of evidence suggests that no large jetliner struck the Pentagon and nowhere near enough evidence to even suggest that one did.

[edit on 15-7-2009 by _BoneZ_]



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 03:49 PM
link   

you have to assume massively advanced technology that deals with not only issues of appearance and sound, but also the timing of explosions in the Towers. (Unless you assume something like a cruise missile with hologram technology was used).


Now for my part as a no planer I do not see why we must include holograms. I stick to just plain ol TV fakery. A lie repeated a million times until people believe it.

I apologize for my slow connection my lack of speed prevents me from uploading photos and links as much as I would like so you will have to bear with me as I describe what I have seen.

In one WTC 911 shot the camera was angled up and someone was being interviewed when the second plane slams into the tower. The fellow in question did not look up until after the explosion... so the Noise of the plane did not grab anyones attention. I am sure a plane that large flying that low would of made LOTS of noise before it hit its target...Attracting alot of heads to look up.... But that is only the case post impact....After the KAboom of the explosion.

Also Lots of building top cameras caught the the second plane right? Not one caught the first plane. Only the nuday brothers caught that.... Kinda curious would you not agree? I mean lots of cameras were on the two towers and any given time. It may not be the pentagon but it was the BIGGEST thing to look at in New york with lots or tourists and building cameras constantly looking at it.....

So why then should their be a lack of the first impact film just like the lack of pentagon impact film?

The pentagon has never made sense... For the plane to do its circle thing around the pentagon requires that commercial airbus to exceed its physical limitations of G force...If there was no loop around the the pentagon then why not a nose dive? Why the level impact?

Also at every site we have a lack of something else.

Jet fuel hydrocarbons.

No jet fuel in the shanksville soil, no jet fuel contamination in the penta-lawn, no jet fuel at ground zero WTC... No jet fuel contamination means no planes full of refined kerosene. Maybe we can say it all burned up? Then we should be able to still trace where and what was burned by the type of carbon (its exact chemical composition and trace elements) left over from the brunt jet fuel right?


So some may wonder, "Why go with TV fakery at all? Doesn't just make things more complicated than they have to be?"

I say no not at all.

Trusting over 300 strangers on four different flights not to laugh at a fellow with a box cutter saying he controls the plane now.... That can get complicated real quick. I tell you what the moment this box cutter nerd turns his back to me I can just grab his arm in a lock twist a box cutter away from any hostages throat and stomp the fellow into mud just like the passengers did to the shoe bomber.

So trusting strangers to do nothing about a man with a box cutter is out. Some crazy cowboy American would of done something.

So what about remote control take over?

This too can lead to complications.

A real plane might miss its target.... It might hit the target but damage other things in the process you do not want damaged. For example the perfectly piloted pentagon plane might not of flown perfectly inches off the ground if flown by remote or by human.... So close to the ground flying so fast, through light poles just inches off the ground....either Allah flew that dang plane or their was no plane..just planted evidence. I mean, Can anyone find any plane paint that should of scraped off onto the light poles as the plane chopped them down? To say nothing of the plane size as compared to the small entrance size of the fake plane impact hole at the pentagon.

So that leaves TV fakery and real planted bombs and planted evidence.

Why use TV fakery? Well the boys of the strategic communication laboratories are already well versed in how to use propaganda communication to affect the masses. No body needs to actually see the planes when they have been shown one plane fly into one tower over and over and over so much that you know the images better than you know what your car looks like. Also by using TV fakery their is no X-Factor, No unknown that can screw up your plan like the FBI informant did in 93 the first time the WTC was bombed.

You have your own people go in plant the bombs, then show the world plans hitting the buildings and blame the planes for their destruction. Then go to war with the one you blame for the attack.

Cover your tracks further with false leads in the film, pods on planes and what not so we can be distracted by talking about whether or not that IS or is NOT a pod rather than the truth of the matter of a CGI plane.

Also when considering this TV fakery you wonder about the witnesses and the film footage and the news people I think it is vital that you remember Operation Mockingbird A long standing operation of the CIAs to plant their own agents into the Bona Fide news medias so that they (the cia) could control the news spin through their own agents. Read more on the link.

SO when you wonder how the news media could of gone along with this whole thing think about the CIA operation Mockingbird.







[edit on 15-7-2009 by titorite]



posted on Jul, 15 2009 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
I need more solid, credible evidence than just a couple of photos.

Solid, credible evidence is having plane parts, seats, luggage, bodies, etc. being shown in these pictures. We do not have any of the solid, credible evidence. Therefore, the lack of 200,000 pounds of plane debris can only equal lack of a plane.

Just because there's a couple witnesses that said they saw some bodies still strapped in the seats, doesn't mean it actually happened. Where's the photos? Where's the couple-hundred other seats?

Sorry, but solid, credible evidence to a jetliner striking the building is missing. I'm not going to take a few peoples' words for it. Brig. Gen. Stubblebine says there's no way a large jetliner could have crashed into the Pentagon and made the damage we see. Now there's a thread that was just posted today of professional pilots that are saying they can't even do the maneuvers that we were told happened on 9/11. Then there's Jamie McIntyre from CNN that reported on 9/11 just after the crash that from his close-up inspection, there was no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.

Believe what you will, but every single piece of evidence suggests that no large jetliner struck the Pentagon and nowhere near enough evidence to even suggest that one did.

[edit on 15-7-2009 by _BoneZ_]


There are photos of wreckage and bodies found in the pentagon. Havent you ever seen the photos from the Moussoui trial exhibits?

Exhibits

Again, one could say a single reporter claiming no plane debris was seen right after proves nothing, since he was not inside or up close to the Pentagon.

As I said, the photos you show have a bunch of wreckage and twisted, burned out stuff torn to pieces, any of it which could be plane debris. And it was not a few, but MANY who worked on the recovery efforts who reported debris bits associated with a plane.

To me, that is far more credible and solid evidence than a couple of internet people taking a couple of photos, looking at them, and saying there is no plane simply because they do not see anything that they perceive to be a plane, based on what they think a plane crash should look like.

Unless we get a good sample of crash investigators with many years of crash site expertise on this board to brefute this...



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join