The Official 9/11 Fairy Tale:

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/808b5308926a.jpg[/atsimg]

Directed by a beardy-guy from a cave in Afghanistan, nineteen hard-drinking, coke-snorting, devout Muslims enjoy lap dances before their mission to meet Allah…

Using nothing more than craft knifes, they overpower cabin crew, passengers and pilots on four planes… And hangover or not, they manage to give the world’s most sophisticated air defense system the slip…

Unphased by leaving their “How to Fly a Passenger Jet” guide in the car at the airport, they master the controls in no-time and score direct hits on two towers, causing THREE to collapse completely…

Our masterminds even manage to overpower the odd law of physics or two… and the world watches in awe as steel-framed buildings fall symmetrically – through their own mass – at free-fall speed, for the first time in history. Despite all their dastardly cunning, they stupidly give their identity away by using explosion-proof passports, which survive the fireball undamaged and fall to the ground… only to be discovered by the incredible crime-fighting sleuths at the FBI…

Continued HERE

A great summary of the fairy tale. I would have more to add but the article kinda says it all really. Great read

reply to post by sir_slide


I agree.

Too bad it's not this glaringly obvious to the sheep who believe everything they see on TV.

Absolutely EXCELLENT find! Thank you SO much for posting! That was a great read.

S&F

PS.. awakeInNM, love your pic, haha.

- Mike

Originally posted by AwakeinNM
Too bad it's not this glaringly obvious to the sheep who believe everything they see on TV.

Too bad? lol.. it's pathetic. ;/

the best part of the fairy tale is they find there passports but both black boxes were never recovered. they really think we the people are mindless. and what about building 7 never even hit by a plane but goes down or the best fairytale the most secured building on the planet a building surrounded by cameras the pentagon gets apparently hit by a plane but no video proof to back it up. what a mess clearly an operation done by morons who did not take into account the small details like a plane hitting the pentagon

reply to post by sir_slide


Heh.
When you put it that way, lol. yeah, a fairy tale.

Not to worry, though...........not enough people will ever even want to search just a little bit for some truth to that day. It's too uncomfortable for their minds.

The usual response I get from people when I raise questions about what it was I actually heard or saw that day and the few days afterwards are, Oh, you will believe anything you read..... heh. Apparantly, so will they.

Now, I was wondering about that plane that hit the Pentagon. Because I recall vividly watching a video of a plane that day on the internet. And the plane was moving very quickly. So quickly, I couldn't actually determine if it was a big plane or a small plane. But I do remember seeing a video of a plane slamming into the Pentagon. Then suddenly this video was gone.

So I wondered, if there really was a huge passenger jet that slammed into the Pentagon, why was the video removed?

And I can come to a couple of conclusions. it wasn't really a passenger jet. It was something that was built to look similar but wouldn't stand up to further analysis. Or some secret cabal had placed a hallucinoginic substance in my coffee that day and I imagined it all, and everything went wrong, and I was supposed to be painting a picture of a godly flower that morning instead of watching CNN.

reply to post by kyred


Exactly my friend.

If a plane (757) hit the pentagon as they say then there should be no problem showing us the video of the plane, why wouldnt you if it actually happened? Your points are absolutely correct in that if it was there, they should be able to prove it, I mean the second largest aircraft available plowing into one of the most important military buildings in the US? And no definitive footage of this is available? YEAH RIGHT

Heres a video that goes along these lines, it came up on WRH about 20 mins ago, Funny but spot on

Crap embedding didnt work heres the link.

911 conspiracy in five minutes

There are two truths that the events surrounding September 11th 2001 taught me.

1. People will hear what they want to hear in order to believe what they want to believe.

2. People will NOT hear what they do not want to hear so that they aren't forced to believe what they don't want to believe.

If you are still one of the few who actually still buy into the official story, then you DO NOT WANT to believe
what is staring you right in the face. You are, in a sense, in denial. The truth is so uncomfortable and unbearable,
that it is just easier to look the other way and hope it just goes away. I can understand in a way but, you need to suck it up and brace yourself because the truth is coming out and you aren't going to have the luxury of lounging around in your fairytale wonderland much longer.

reply to post by sir_slide

It would really help if your little made up fairytale made even a slight resemblance to the actual facts.

Directed by a beardy-guy from a cave in Afghanistan, nineteen hard-drinking, coke-snorting, devout Muslims enjoy lap dances before their mission to meet Allah…

Look up Tarnak Farms before spouting the "bearded guy in a cave" meme.

Noone seem to be able to point out a primary source of the "hard drinking, coke-snorting" story. Every link on points to second- or third-hand testimony at a time, when most americans seemed willing to demonize the hijackers, and even Mohammed Attas visit to single sportsbar have evolved into three different stories depending on when it was reported.

Using nothing more than craft knifes, they overpower cabin crew, passengers and pilots on four planes…

Knives, mace, bomb threats, something which appeared to be a gun. One of the first things the hijackers did on each plane was to kill a passenger, to show that they weren't to be messed with, before proceeding to the cockpit where they slit the throats of the flight deck crew.

And hangover or not, they manage to give the world’s most sophisticated air defense system the slip…

Hangover? When they spent the entire night previous sharpening their knives and preparing for their mission? And of course it was easy to evade an air defense system that was based on the threat coming from the outside. Look up the Payne Stewart incident for another example of how sophisticated the US air defense was.

Unphased by leaving their “How to Fly a Passenger Jet” guide in the car at the airport, they master the controls in no-time and score direct hits on two towers, causing THREE to collapse completely…

All of the pilot hijackers had pilots license, and some of them had trained on full motion simulators. And you forgot about building 3, 4, 5, 6 who also collaped on 9/11 despite not being hit by planes. Of course, they too were showered with debris when buildings 1 and 2 collapsed, but don't let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Our masterminds even manage to overpower the odd law of physics or two… and the world watches in awe as steel-framed buildings fall symmetrically – through their own mass – at free-fall speed, for the first time in history.

Ah yes, the "first time in history" card. Remind me, how many buildings have been constructed the way the WTC towers were? And how many have been intentionally rammed with passenger jets (ie. not a small sports plane)?

Despite all their dastardly cunning, they stupidly give their identity away by using explosion-proof passports, which survive the fireball undamaged and fall to the ground… only to be discovered by the incredible crime-fighting sleuths at the FBI…

You do realise they also reovered thousands of documents from within the towerrs, as well as mail being carried on the flights that hit the WTC towers? As for the passport, there was one, which was quite badly singed. Hardly "explosion-proof".

reply to post by Screwed


If they don't believe the official story, they will be forced to do something, and that would ruin their comfort zone.

Hey, anyone else notice that all our comfort zones are shrinking rapidly? Hmm, I wonder why that is. (rhetorical)

Originally posted by roboe
Ah yes, the "first time in history" card. Remind me, how many buildings have been constructed the way the WTC towers were? And how many have been intentionally rammed with passenger jets (ie. not a small sports plane)?

oh you mean over engineered in such a way as to be able to survive impacts from airplanes?

how about this one:

like building 7, it wasnt struck by an airplane. it also happened to burn hotter and longer than wtc 7, and didnt result in a collapse.

thats important to note, that uncontrollable fires didnt cause it to collapse in such a way as to be virtually indistinguishable from controlled demolition, as was the case in wtc 7.

reply to post by snarfbot

The only claim that it was "overengineered" to withstand an airplane impact comes from Leslie Robertson, and a) he has yet to show that this went beyond mere thoughts, since there are no calculations or documents showing that this has happened, and b) he claims that the airplane in theory would have been a low, slow Boeing 707, which is a rather different aircraft compared to a Boeing 767.

As for the CCTV building, I've already pointed out in another thread that the particular building was constructed with respect to the lessons learned from the WTC collapses, that the building was empty since it was under construction, and it was constructed entirely different from the WTC7 - oh yeah, there was also active firefighting going on, unlike WTC7.

Forgot to add, regarding the "WTC7 was virtually indistinguishable from a controlled demolition"-line, see if you can notice the great big difference between these two videos:


If anyone can find a video of the WTC7 collapse with some actual sound, it would be appreciated.

Originally posted by roboe
reply to post by snarfbot

 

The only claim that it was "overengineered" to withstand an airplane impact comes from Leslie Robertson, and a) he has yet to show that this went beyond mere thoughts, since there are no calculations or documents showing that this has happened, and b) he claims that the airplane in theory would have been a low, slow Boeing 707, which is a rather different aircraft compared to a Boeing 767.

the nist report never showed their calculations or documents supporting their computer model of the collapse. why should we discard the claims made by a structural engineer who designed the wtc, but not those made by an investigation that has been described as being "set up to fail"?

the planes are about the same size and weight.

As for the CCTV building, I've already pointed out in another thread that the particular building was constructed with respect to the lessons learned from the WTC collapses, that the building was empty since it was under construction, and it was constructed entirely different from the WTC7 - oh yeah, there was also active firefighting going on, unlike WTC7.

its a steel framed building with a hollow core, that was literally engulfed in flames, roaring for over 6 hours fueled by fireworks. to say its entirely different, and that because it was actively fought by firefighters it was less severe than wtc 7 seems pretty disingenuous to me.

Originally posted by roboe
Forgot to add, regarding the "WTC7 was virtually indistinguishable from a controlled demolition"-line, see if you can notice the great big difference between these two videos:

If anyone can find a video of the WTC7 collapse with some actual sound, it would be appreciated.

edit on 12-9-2011 by roboe because: (no reason given)

um, yea one is a video of controlled demo, and the other is a video of the pyroclastic dust cloud.

heres wtc 7 collapsing, around 10 seconds in you can hear an explosion.



together with the many other recorded audible explosions captured by amateurs and news crews alike, in addition to the many witnesses to said explosions, i think its fairly obvious that there were explosions, thats not really up for debate at this stage in the game.