Newest 9/11 Documentary - Proof 9/11 was an inside Job

page: 2
65
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 01:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicrat

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by TheLieWeLive
 

Just as a matter of interest. If you think the target of UA 93 was WTC 7 why was it on a bee-line for Washington when it came down?

TheLieWeLive makes a good point. None of them were bee-lines. Here's the flight path for UA93 (from Wikipedia):

From points F-H I can buy GoodOlDave's speculation that autopilot was programmed for Washington DC, but from points H-I I can see the possibility of New York as the final target. Regardless, it definitely isn't anything I would call a bee-line.

My gut feeling is that UA 93 was headed towards DC. But I do think it's possible its intended target was WTC 7.

Anyway, this is all off topic. I'm looking forward to watching the video in the OP - thanks for posting it, Hellas, and I'll try to remember to come back and share my thoughts after I've had a chance to see it.


What you are ignoring with H-I is that the aircraft was then at the point, as evidenced by phone calls and the cockpit voice recorder, where some passengers were intent on broaching the cockpit. The hi-jackers, as evidenced by the the cockpit voice recorder and the flight data recorder were more intent on throwing the passengers off balance than adhering to their previously straight line course.




posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by hdutton
 


look at 8:09 they show the flashes and the blinds shortly after that. Might be related to the explosions



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Is it just me, or is anyone else curious as to why the site where the trade center stood was being called "Ground Zero"?

websters dictionary defines 'ground zero' as----



1 : the point directly above, below, or at which a nuclear explosion occurs

Definition



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 02:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Alfie1
 
I'm not ignoring that at all, just didn't want to open up a whole new direction for discussion; but I appreciate you acknowledging the evidence instead of the disingenuous "bee-line for Washington" that you started with.

Anyway, this thread is about the video the OP posted. I couldn't help jumping in to clarify, but maybe I shouldn't have done that. I'm going to try to refrain from going further off topic with you, and hold off commenting until I've seen the video and can comment on that. I look forward to hearing your opinions of it as well.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Hellas
 


Thanks, I missed that.

If the movement is associated with any "explosions" then we have diffinative evidence of "pressure waves" inside the building before the innitiation of collapse.

This should also stand as evidence of "imbedded explosive devices".

Notice how I danced around the term "controlled demolition".

Even though there could be some distinctions drawn between the two terms.

Hence, there is some evidence of "fore knowledge" by someone.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 02:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Hellas
 


In case you didn't know (and apparently you dont) that is how things are done in New York

Trucks servicing buildings such as WTC arrive early in morning, often before dawn to load/unload - this
is because

1) Streets are not crowded so can move without being caught in traffic

2) This commonly done when a company is moving in/out of a space - the trucks arrive early to pick up
deliver the equipment to the site. This way dont tie up loading dock and freight elevators

I done many IT moves/installations - we dismantle the equipment after workers leave (5-6PM) - the movers
pick up and load on trucks then deliver to new tenant location early in morning so movers can bring up to
tenant spaces before start of work day

You were taken in slick sounding conspiracy tale....



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by TheLieWeLive
 


Why was this weird - Salomon Brothers was principal client for the building .


In November 1988, Salomon Brothers withdrew from plans to build a large new complex at Columbus Circle in Midtown and agreed to a 20-year lease for the top 19 floors of 7 World Trade Center. The building was extensively renovated in 1989 to accommodate the needs of Salomon Brothers. Most of three existing floors were removed as tenants continued to occupy other floors, and more than 350 tons (U.S.) of steel were added to construct three double-height trading floors. Nine diesel generators were installed on the 5th floor as part of a backup power station. "Essentially, Salomon is constructing a building within a building – and it's an occupied building, which complicates the situation," said a district manager of Silverstein Properties. The unusual task was possible, said Larry Silverstein, because it was designed to allow for "entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors."



At the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Salomon Smith Barney was by far the largest tenant in 7 World Trade Center, occupying 1,202,900 sq ft (111,750 m2) (64 percent of the building) which included floors 28–45. Other major tenants included ITT Hartford Insurance Group (122,590 sq ft/11,400 m²), American Express Bank International (106,117 sq ft/9,900 m²), Standard Chartered Bank (111,398 sq ft/10,350 m²), and the Securities and Exchange Commission (106,117 sq ft/9,850 m²).[26] Smaller tenants included the Internal Revenue Service Regional Council (90,430 sq ft/8,400 m²) and the United States Secret Service (85,343 sq ft/7,900 m²).[26] The smallest tenants included the New York City Office of Emergency Management,National Association of Insurance Commissioners, Federal Home Loan Bank, First State Management Group Inc., Provident Financial Management, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The Department of Defense (DOD) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) shared the 25th floor with the IRS.[1] Floors 46–47 were mechanical floors, as were the bottom six floors and part of the seventh floor.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by magicrat
 


So if hijackers were not on a course toward Washington DC why did they dial up the VOR radio beacon at
Regan National airport in Washington......



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by occrest
 


"GROUND ZERO" was name given to site because of the level of destruction looked like been hit with nuclear
weapon



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by hdutton
 


You are aware that as the structure collapsed air inside was displaced and forced out - as it escaped it
blew out the windows (which were the weak pint in the structure)



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by occrest
 


"GROUND ZERO" was name given to site because of the level of destruction looked like been hit with nuclear
weapon


Oh please don't start the nuke stuff. Thats a whole different level of silly.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 03:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by magicrat
 

So if hijackers were not on a course toward Washington DC why did they dial up the VOR radio beacon at Regan National airport in Washington......

Forgive my ignorance, but is the VOR radio beacon the same basic idea that GoodOlDave brought up earlier, which he described (and I repeated) as "autopilot"? I understand that's probably a really simplistic way of looking at it, but I'm not a pilot.

Also, earlier in the thread I said "My gut feeling is that UA 93 was headed towards DC." So I will forgive your ignorance as well
But I wasn't aware of what you're describing, so I'll look into that and hopefully learn more. Thanks.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicrat
From points F-H I can buy GoodOlDave's speculation that autopilot was programmed for Washington DC, but from points H-I I can see the possibility of New York as the final target. Regardless, it definitely isn't anything I would call a bee-line.


Do you know what the significance of the itemized points are? I tried looking it up but the graphic is in a format I cannot open. Otherwise, I would say that point H...the point where the course began to deviate away from Washington...would be where the passengers began to storm the cockpit and the hijackers decided to plow the plane into the ground. Travelling at 400 MPH, the time between point H and point I (the point of time when it crashed) is a matter of minutes.


My gut feeling is that UA 93 was headed towards DC. But I do think it's possible its intended target was WTC 7.


The fellow who came up with this accusation isn't admitting this, and I daresay he never will admit this, but he's almost certainly insinuating the plane was intended to crash into WTC 7 as a coverup for the secret controlled demoliitons, but since the secret controlled demolitions were an independent event, they went off and destroyed the WTC 7 without the impact. This is patently a case of the evidence being forced to conform to a predetermined scenario, rather than a scenario being derived from the evidence.



Anyway, this is all off topic. I'm looking forward to watching the video in the OP - thanks for posting it, Hellas, and I'll try to remember to come back and share my thoughts after I've had a chance to see it.


Same here...although from a cursory examination I can see it's chock full of all the innuendo and artfully chosen facts that artificially supports the scenario the video editor wants to trick people into believing. For one, it points out that fires were burning underground for three months and then offers the unsupported allegation it was due to thermite. Claiming that these controlled demolitions exploded like a bomb to destroy the building, reconstituted itself, and then burned for three months underground beneath the wreckage is an explanation that resembles black magic and the supernatural more than it does the laws of physics.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by magicrat
 


VOR - stands for VHF Omni Range, its standard positional equipmement on almost every aircraft

Here is description

en.wikipedia.org...

Autopilot is system which flys aircraft either on straight line path in its simpliest form or can be programmed
to fly to specific point(s) using either inertial or GPS reference

Our pilot friend PROUDBIRD can probably give a more detailed explaination



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by hdutton
 


You are aware that as the structure collapsed air inside was displaced and forced out - as it escaped it
blew out the windows (which were the weak pint in the structure)



Agreed on the movement seen in the video.

However, displaced air thrusting multi-ton steel beams hundreds of feet horizontally is another matter. That's a tough one to believe in.

Just my two cents worth.
edit on 13-2-2012 by Hessling because: spelling



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   
reply to post by thedman
 
Thanks for the explanation. So it sounds like it's similar to what I think of as "autopilot," but not quite the same thing. Regardless, I understand the point you're making - if they dialed up the radio signal for Reagan, it stands to reason that that's where they intended to go.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Do you know what the significance of the itemized points are? I tried looking it up but the graphic is in a format I cannot open. Otherwise, I would say that point H...the point where the course began to deviate away from Washington...would be where the passengers began to storm the cockpit and the hijackers decided to plow the plane into the ground. Travelling at 400 MPH, the time between point H and point I (the point of time when it crashed) is a matter of minutes.

I don't know for sure what the points represent, but I was making the same assumption you are in regards to point H.


The fellow who came up with this accusation isn't admitting this, and I daresay he never will admit this, but he's almost certainly insinuating the plane was intended to crash into WTC 7 as a coverup for the secret controlled demoliitons, but since the secret controlled demolitions were an independent event, they went off and destroyed the WTC 7 without the impact. This is patently a case of the evidence being forced to conform to a predetermined scenario, rather than a scenario being derived from the evidence.

Again, my assumption is the same as yours. But I will go ahead and admit it - the improbability of WTC 7 collapsing the way it did makes me wonder if the original plan included a plane crashing into that building as well. I don't have evidence to support that, so I didn't mention it and I don't promote that scenario, but I do consider that to be a possibility. (keep in mind, as I said before, my gut instinct is still that UA 93 was heading towards Washington DC)


Same here...although from a cursory examination I can see it's chock full of all the innuendo and artfully chosen facts that artificially supports the scenario the video editor wants to trick people into believing. For one, it points out that fires were burning underground for three months and then offers the unsupported allegation it was due to thermite. Claiming that these controlled demolitions exploded like a bomb to destroy the building, reconstituted itself, and then burned for three months underground beneath the wreckage is an explanation that resembles black magic and the supernatural more than it does the laws of physics.

Well, I'm going to watch the whole thing before deciding that a cursory examination supports my preconceived bias, but I can tell you that I was in New York in December 2001 and can personally vouch for the smoke and smell of burning at Ground Zero.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 03:44 PM
link   
edit on 13-2-2012 by occrest because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by hdutton
 


You are aware that as the structure collapsed air inside was displaced and forced out - as it escaped it
blew out the windows (which were the weak pint in the structure)




As I stated, this movement was BEFORE the collapse was initiated and as of that time the windows were not broken.

Thus the question; where did, whatever caused the blinds to move, come from.

Was it the movement of the building which would cause a hanging object appear to sway and move; or was there some reason for the air inside the building to cause the blinds to move / ie- a pressure wave ?

If this had happened after the building fell, the windows and their blinds would not have been visible behind the dust.



posted on Feb, 13 2012 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by occrest
 


"GROUND ZERO" was name given to site because of the level of destruction looked like been hit with nuclear
weapon



Well finally someone who's on the ball. No, not a nuclear wepon, but a "Direct Energy Weapon".

Dr. Judy Wood everyone, Dr. Judy Wood, get the book "Where Did The Towers Go", and then you will understand what happened on 9/11.

Note the fact that tons of brown soil was trucked in, WHY?,





top topics
 
65
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join