9/11 nose cone comes out the far side of tower

reply to post by Danbones


My apologies, I guess I misinterpreted your post.

Sorry, a bit of a short fuse here when it comes to 911.

reply to post by micpsi


Why use a military plane loaded up with extra fule when they could plant as much TNT on the floors as they like and this special nose cone would had been found in the streets below if it was indestructable.

Let me throw a theory in the air and say the planes that took of with passengers realy did hit the building and the zionst planners that controlled the media used the 17 second time delay to plant obvious fake footage that goes aganst the laws of physics to divide people after the event knowing we would have a ton of other stuff to pick over like molton metal and the buildings comeing down so fast.

This confusion is working i say.

Sorry, a bit of a short fuse here when it comes to 911.

Yes me too when it comes to people that have been pointed to the evidance a million times and still fail to join any dots and simply beleives the goverment only ever tells the truth. My what a sad life and inactive brain they must have.







[edit on 10-6-2010 by LieBuster]

reply to post by LieBuster


But again, why would they risk leaving proof of them tampering with live broadcasting, for confusion purposes?

The proof of them tampering with live broadcasting seems more of a problem for their cause, than that the supposed goal of confusion is beneficial to their cause.

reply to post by winston_jones

I don't buy into this idea that the 'live' TV footage was somehow inserted or tampered with. It would be a highly risky and self-defeating thing to do.

You don't buy into it, yet the vid in the OP clearly shows they did.

The footage in the vid, is the footage that was aired on tv that day.

[edit on 10-6-2010 by Point of No Return]

Originally posted by Point of No Return
reply to post by LieBuster

 

But again, why would they risk leaving proof of them tampering with live broadcasting, for confusion purposes?

I realy don't know but i'm not about to start beleiving the nose cone could exit the building so you tell me if it's faked or not and even if we said it was then can we prove it or would we argue about it.

The people that analyised the footage did so in good faith however they have to ignor some of the other facts to make the theory viable and what i'm saying is this was worth the risk because i say it was no risk unless people realize they had 17 seconds to do it in.

The proof of them tampering with live broadcasting seems more of a problem for their cause, than that the supposed goal of confusion is beneficial to their cause.

They have split the 9/11 movement over this one and both sides have good points and no one can say this 'confusion' has not worked hte way it was designed to work.



[edit on 10-6-2010 by LieBuster]

Originally posted by Point of No Return
reply to post by winston_jones

 

I don't buy into this idea that the 'live' TV footage was somehow inserted or tampered with. It would be a highly risky and self-defeating thing to do.

You don't buy into it, yet the vid in the OP clearly shows they did.

The footage in the vid, is the footage that was aired on tv that day.

[edit on 10-6-2010 by Point of No Return]

Agree with your second statement but not sure how the vid in the OP 'clearly shows' evidence of having been inserted or tampered with.

This has been proven as disinformation since 2002.

See this post here for more info www.abovetopsecret.com...


and incase you dont want to click that link.....



[edit on 10-6-2010 by Shadow Herder]

If you discount this testimony, I hope you also discount ANY testimony from ANY member of the FDNY that day.

WTC Task Force interviews/oral histories

Frank Pastor

graphics8.nytimes.com...

...I came to the station, and let me just say this, the lieutenants here still break my chops, because that morning I came in, and I said to them, "I think we are going to be busy today." And they said to me, "Why?" I says, "Well, it's going to be 9-11," and from thereon -- I remember our normal routine in the morning, go get our breakfast, and we go sit and we cover Red Hook, so we had the view of the city. We were sitting there, and we were looking at the city. All of is sudden my partner says to me, "Frankie, that plane seems to be low."...

...and she yells out, "Frank that plane just hit the building."...

...We can't believe whats going on, and she says -- and I remember my partner, Mala, saying again to me, "That other plane is low." I don't know how much time, 10, 15 minutes, and we seen the other plane hit...

Firefighter Thomas Gaby

graphics8.nytimes.com...

...I also took the cell phone with me, headed back towards the command center outside, and believe it or not, somewhere in between there the plane had hit, the second plane.

Q. The second plane?

A. I saw it coming in, I heard it, and bang. It hit...

EMT Michael D'Angelo

graphics8.nytimes.com...

...Then as I made it through traffic and I was going over the BQE extension to get back on to the Battery Tunnel, I looke and I saw the second plane hit the building...

Chief of the Department Daniel Nigro

graphics8.nytimes.com...

...At some point after our arrival and after we had moved to the west side of West Street, I heard a loud roar of a jet, looked up and saw the second plane impact the south tower...

EMT Mala Harrilal

graphics8.nytimes.com...

...That's my assigned area and you could see -- we saw the smoke. There was a second plane circling the building and I kept saying why is he so near the buildings? Within minutes, before even talking about it, he just like slammed into the second building...

Firefighter Richard Saulle

graphics8.nytimes.com...

...A young kid, Joe Sullivan, said, "Why is this plane flying through the smoke? Holy #, he hit the second tower." I said. "Get the hell out of here." I stuck my head out the window, and I looked up and I was amazed what I saw. Both towers were on fire, and I said we're in a lot of trouble...

...We got through the tunnel. What we saw on the floor was amazing. There were plane parts, cars wrecked, body parts. It looked like Tales of the Crypt. There were arms sticking up in the air and bodies were just shredded all of the place. There was a car that we drove by that the driver's door and the passenger door were open, and there was a plane motor on the back half of the car. Two inches more, and both these guys would have been dead too. That was their ticket. It was amazing. The car was actually cut right in half with this motor, right there back of the front seat...

Supervising Fire Marshal Robert Byrnes

graphics8.nytimes.com...

...I looked our the window. I could see the smoke blowing off the World Trade Center. Several moments later I noticed a second plane and I commented to myself, look at this nitwit, he's so close, and before I realized it, he had crashed into the side of the south tower...

Firefighter Dominick Muschello

graphics8.nytimes.com...

...As we watched the fire from the third floor, we saw the second plane fly right into the center of the building clear as day...

Firefighter Joseph Sullivan

graphics8.nytimes.com...

...En route to the staging area, we were going down Columbia Street, saw the second plane strike the building...

EMT-D Ralph Ramos

graphics8.nytimes.com...

...We were returning back there from Battalion 4 and we were going up, I believe it's Pearl Street, and my partner Alex Loutsky and I, we witnessed the first plane hit the first tower. Saw it flying low and we thoughm that plane's flying kind of low, and then it thit the building and we went over the radio and we told central that we had witnessed a plane hitting the building, and at first she didn't believe us, but then other units started saying they saw the same thing...

Firefighter Stephen Zasa

graphics8.nytimes.com...

...Upon that time I heard a plane roar. I had my window down and on my side we saw a plane flying very low com right across us and with a lound, you know, the engines revved up, and I mentioned to him, I said no idea that it towards that way, and I just said like where is this guy going, you know, he was extremely low, not realizing it was another plane heading towards the World Trade, and we saw it struck the building, we saw a big mushroom of flame...

Fire Marshal Michael Cain

graphics8.nytimes.com...

...I set it up on the tripod in the window facing the Trade Center enclosing the top of -- the top, more like where the cash area was and I started the tape and as I was getting my fire gear ready looking out the window again, when we saw the second plane crash into the second tower

Plenty of people saw both the first plane hit and the second, as well as a multitude of identifiable plane debris about the location.

Its not a case of "hardly anyone" seeing the first plane hit, quite a large number of people did see the first plane and the second plane. There's been 911 calls released showing people that saw the first plane. But they are surely just government plants trying to reinforce the story.

reply to post by winston_jones

Agree with your second statement but not sure how the vid in the OP 'clearly shows' evidence of having been inserted or tampered with.

I could show you a clip of a man walking on water and half the world would think it true if i said it was Jesus and yes i say it was faked as do the no planers so to me the question becomes was it deliberate or not.

These people would not make a mistake like that if it was made in hollywood weeks before and i beleive they didn't make a mistake during the seventeen seconds they had to tweak the live footage because the building is a solid object but tweak it they did, that i am sure about.

Originally posted by LieBuster
reply to post by winston_jones

 

Agree with your second statement but not sure how the vid in the OP 'clearly shows' evidence of having been inserted or tampered with.

I could show you a clip of a man walking on water and half the world would think it true if i said it was Jesus and yes i say it was faked as do the no planers so to me the question becomes was it deliberate or not.

These people would not make a mistake like that if it was made in hollywood weeks before and i beleive they didn't make a mistake during the seventeen seconds they had to tweak the live footage because the building is a solid object but tweak it they did, that i am sure about.

And all that footage of straw stuck in trees after tornados is obvious fabrication by evil meteorologist who know that tornados are actually good. Its ludicrous to think a piece of hay could penetrate a tree.

reply to post by LieBuster

I realy don't know but i'm not about to start beleiving the nose cone could exit the building so you tell me if it's faked or not and even if we said it was then can we prove it or would we argue about it.

Yes, it was faked obviously, during the actual event, but not for the purpose of creating confusion amongst thuthers, years later.

It was faked, because, without plane, the official story of hyjacked planes and Arab terrorsits wouldn' hold up, obviously.

They have split the 9/11 movement over this one and both sides have good points and no one can say this 'confusion' has not worked hte way it was designed to work.

What have they gained if both groups believe in the conspiracy, but disagree on a smaller part?

The conspiracy is still in the open isn't it?

Again, why would they leave proof of tampering with live broadcast, and therefore proof of conspiracy, if the supposed benefit, creating confusion, is not a real benefit?

reply to post by winston_jones

Agree with your second statement but not sure how the vid in the OP 'clearly shows' evidence of having been inserted or tampered with.

So are you saying the nose cone is supposed to exit the tower on the other side?

reply to post by ThaLoccster


I don't think anyone needs to discount the many witness accounts, but can they be "explained" in the context of flying things, that aren't necessarily "planes"? Such as bombers made to look like jetliners, or even special missiles?

One problem with any "witness" testimony is that there is a significant "interpretation" factor. In other words, on that morning, since no one was "expecting" missiles, or bombers, the only thing that might make sense would be planes. Later, they hear the news, and a natural confirmation bias kicks in, solidifying the "memory".

It can be more complicated than this even, but this is just for starters. The fact is, as "obvious" as it seems to be, that planes "must have" done exactly what we have been told, the fact is, it could have easily been something else.

As I mentioned in my earlier reply, it seems probable that any well-planned false-flag operation would have to have some contingency plans as well. Perhaps plane #1 went as planned, but #2 did not. An alternative plan, a "Plan B" does make sense in this context. To look at the endless quotes that say "it was a plane", I hope people can see that such a thing actually has less value than meets the eye (so-to-speak).

Our context probably matters the most in this case. If you believe the party-line, then alternatives are impossible. If you tend to think it was just government doing a CYA post-event, than it still doesn't make sense. BUT, if you have already been persuaded that 9/11 was in fact a false-flag attack, then it would have been PLANNED.

The level of planning involved in something like this is huge. This alone adds another dimension to the issue, and would lead us to interpret all data differently. Something to consider when evaluating what seems to be "obvious".

JR

reply to post by JR MacBeth


Well goddamn it I can only rebut one argument at a time.

So what it is, that no planes were there, or that planes were there but they were actually military cargo jets, or bombers, or anything other than a 757?

And where the hell is the thread thats discussing what might this object seen in pictures and videos be? I thought it was here, but someone seems to have turned my street signs around.

reply to post by JR MacBeth


Totally agree.

And to add, some witnesses heard a jet engine, a cruise missile also makes a similar noise.

Originally posted by Point of No Return
reply to post by winston_jones

 

Agree with your second statement but not sure how the vid in the OP 'clearly shows' evidence of having been inserted or tampered with.

So are you saying the nose cone is supposed to exit the tower on the other side?

Er, no. I'm saying that I don't think it's a nose cone. I'm saying it's most probably what it looks like: an elongated cylinder. But I'm saying I don't think the footage is faked. I think an elongated cylinder really was propelled out of the corner-angle of WTC2. It may well not have originated from the plane.

reply to post by winston_jones


They even super-impose the nose cone of the plane before the collision, over the alleged cone coming out of the other end, and they match.

I'm saying it's most probably what it looks like: an elongated cylinder

A cilinder with nose cone, that looks exactly like the plane, comming out of the other side of the building exactly were the plane hit.

This cilinder would be bigger than one floor, so are you saying that this multistorey cilinder was laying around the building, and got blown out of the building in the exact path of the airplane, resembling that airplane?

I don't think so.

[edit on 10-6-2010 by Point of No Return]

reply to post by Point of No Return

It was faked, because, without plane, the official story of hyjacked planes and Arab terrorsits wouldn' hold up, obviously.

So now we are getting closer and can agree on it being faked but your down the route of saying it was faked because the real plane never hit the building.

This put you at odds with most 9/11 truthers and i'm in the middle but your route opens up more questions than answers and i'm not going to question physics to see the clip is faked and then ignor physics when it comes to dents in the outside of the building.

up to now you have been quite logical so i find it hard to understand your view on this and if your going to go down the route of holograms then why not just fake the whole even in hollywood and play it back later using news plants, smoke and mirrows.

reply to post by LieBuster

up to now you have been quite logical so i find it hard to understand your view on this and if your going to go down the route of holograms then why not just fake the whole even in hollywood and play it back later using news plants, smoke and mirrows.

Who said holograms, I said cruise missiles were likely imo.