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

page: 5
65
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 03:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by L00kingGlass
 


Sigh.....


Sorry, but if people are remotely controlling drone strikes in the Middle East from Virgina, there's absolutely no reason why someone couldn't do the same with a larger aircraft.


There is a HUGE difference between an airplane designed from the beginning for remote control, and retro-fitting another airplane that was never intended for such a purpose.

HUGE difference......


What's your point? It can still be done.

The "planes" looked more like cruise missiles with cosmetic features attached to them.




posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 03:37 PM
link   
reply to post by L00kingGlass
 


Lie....totally false BS.

They were REAL airliners, this is proven. Not "remote controlled" this is also well proven.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 


In the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter. I see why you think it seems outlandish, however the entire thing was not expected in our wildest dreams to begin with, which is why people still deny it despite the evidence.

Can we just agree that this was a planned nefarious act by people working in or with the US government?



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by L00kingGlass
 


Lie....totally false BS.

They were REAL airliners, this is proven. Not "remote controlled" this is also well proven.






Lie? Why were they gray and black with strange features on the belly, when the actual aircraft should have been red, white, and blue? How would you know? I wouldn't know either. But you cannot dismiss it as lies, because you simply do not have the evidence to do so.
edit on 14-2-2012 by L00kingGlass because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by L00kingGlass

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by L00kingGlass
 


Sigh.....


Sorry, but if people are remotely controlling drone strikes in the Middle East from Virgina, there's absolutely no reason why someone couldn't do the same with a larger aircraft.


There is a HUGE difference between an airplane designed from the beginning for remote control, and retro-fitting another airplane that was never intended for such a purpose.

HUGE difference......


What's your point? It can still be done.

The "planes" looked more like cruise missiles with cosmetic features attached to them.



...

You are missing the point entirely. First of all, they looked like planes to me (and most of the worlds population). But the point you are missing COMPLETELY, is how are you supposed to convince logical and skeptical people (or anyone really) that 9/11 was anything but what the U.S government said it was, when your own version of events is completely illogical and borderline crazy?

I personally believe there needs to be a new and independent investigation and that there is more to the events of those days than we were all told, but I don't need the idea of remote controlled air liners or holograms or any other crazy B.S to come to that conclusion. There's enough evidence in the years, days, and hours leading up to the first impact to ask questions and conclude something isn't right about the whole thing without the need to concoct completely insane theories. Throw in all the evidence of the collapse and what was done with the debris, the lack of black boxes from the twin towers, and the resulting wars and legislation and you don't even NEED crazy theories.

The point I'm trying to make here is that people who throw these ideas around are only hurting the notion of a new investigation because they make the entire truth movement look like a bunch of crazy people.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 03:54 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 



So just make up bs stories to make it seem more plausible? Who's really doing the damage here?

Anyway, I'm done arguing the details of the incident. We already know planned criminal activity occurred that day, all this conjecture and speculation on what the planes were, who was in them, and what they had for breakfast that morning is besides the point.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 03:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by L00kingGlass
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 



So just make up bs stories to make it seem more plausible? Who's really doing the damage here?

Anyway, I'm done arguing the details of the incident. We already know planned criminal activity occurred that day, all this conjecture and speculation on what the planes were, who was in them, and what they had for breakfast that morning is besides the point.


I'm not suggesting ANYONE should make up BS stories. I'm suggesting you should consider the evidence and use logic to toss out ideas that...wait for it... AREN'T LOGICAL. Like remote controlled airliners. Have you considered any of the points I've made? Even if 9/11 WAS an inside job (and I believe it was), WHY would the government need to disappear 4 air liners full of people, and use remote controlled planes to ram them into the towers? There's no *need* for it if they intend to kill americans ANYWAYS to further an agenda. Think about it...



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 04:01 PM
link   
reply to post by DeadSeraph
 





AREN'T LOGICAL. Like remote controlled airliners. Have you considered any of the points I've made?



You're a riot. It is logical, you've just chosen to not see it that way.

As I said previously, I'm done arguing about little details that don't matter. Believe whatever the heck you want.

Edit: We should be talking about the stuff we DO know about the incident.
edit on 14-2-2012 by L00kingGlass because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 04:13 PM
link   
I'm ashamed at the "official" story these bozo's have given us. Do they honestly think that we are buying their load of crap. I mean c'mon, the video portion where the corner of the building is literally melting, was not caused by a normal fire melting steel. The planes are also very damning to their story...whatever plane(s) hit those towers, were not commercial airliners.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 04:18 PM
link   
reply to post by L00kingGlass
 


Huh???



Lie? Why were they gray and black with strange features on the belly, when the actual aircraft should have been red, white, and blue?


This there ^ ^ ^ indicates a lack of knowledge, sorry.

There were no "strange features" on the bellies.

American Airlines have a red, white and blue stripe on the SIDE of the fuselage, and mostly polished aluminum on the rest (modern airliners have many components that are composites, and these are a natural dark gray, almost black....so @ American they paint them a light gray, to match the aluminum).

United Airlines was NOT "red, white and blue"!! This is such basic stuff....no wonder people will fall for any nonsense they read on the 'Web' rather than doing the proper research for themselves!


American Flight 11 (typical paint scheme, on the B-767):





United 175 (typical paint scheme, in that year, for THAT airplane):





United 175

The claims on many nonsense "conspiracy" sites about United 175 are showing very poor quality images, and REFLECTIONS on the belly of the airplane....reflections and the paint scheme and also the landing gear fairings.

Look:

United 767, gear down


United 767, gear up


Got it?



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   
reply to post by sith9157
 


Exactly. We're looking RIGHT AT a controlled demolition. I don't care what fancy stories people come up with, we're looking RIGHT AT thermite in the footage, we're looking RIGHT AT buildings falling at free fall speed, and we've heard engineers/architects confirm that the buildings should NOT have fallen in this manner. Court is adjourned.

The only LOGICAL conclusion one can come to when buildings are taken down via controlled demolition with thermite, is that it was done purposely with evil intent.

The things we do not know and can only speculate on are: who is involved, and why.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 04:31 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Haha well Dave, Ignorance is bliss.
With a capital I.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 04:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


I think the argument here, is someone is saying it is possible for remote controlled planes whether full of people are not to crash into the buildings. What you are saying is, it is not only illogical it is impossible. This is where the problem lies because it is most certainly not impossible. Logical is a different and much harder question to answer as most of evidence is not accesible or destroyed. If the knowledge you have access to is filtered by the government how can you honestly say you know anything. It would be foolish to think, that you know what technology exists, and what it is capable of and not capable of. But I guess there are a lot of fools out there.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 04:43 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


Oh alright, I'll bite:



In reviewing the tens of thousands images taken on 9/11 and available across the Internet, it is clear that the flight that struck the second of the Twin Towers was not United Airlines Flight 175, because views from underneath the plane reveal a 20 m. long, 1/2 m. diameter, cylinder that opens just before impact. The pod appears in all photographs that clearly show that aspect of the plane, and can be seen in the frame-by-frame analysis of all videos of the impact, where there is sufficient contrast and resolution.






You're right on the color scheme, it does look more like a gray/dark blue color that was being used by models in that time period. But whatever. What is the explanation on the cylindrical attachment on the bottom of the aircraft? Hush up about it because it seems "out there", and that will damage the truth movement?

No.

I want an explanation that makes sense, but I also want the truth no matter how "out there" it may seem.
edit on 14-2-2012 by L00kingGlass because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Hellas
 

the "explosions" in the lobby were most likely from debris falling down the core.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by L00kingGlass
 


Like I said before....NOTHING was there:


What is the explanation on the cylindrical attachment on the bottom of the aircraft?


But, when using very poor quality videos/photos, people 'think' they see something.

It is a combination of the poor quality photos, and the light reflecting on the very, very normal fuselage bottom...the landing gear doors and fairings, and that particular paint scheme....just look at the other photos, you can see that the dark blue paint scheme does NOT continue all the way......there are sections on the belly that are not painted blue.....and THOSE are what people see in the crappy videos.....just bare spots on the fuselage belly.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 05:01 PM
link   
reply to post by andersensrm
 



What you are saying is, it is not only illogical it is impossible. This is where the problem lies because it is most certainly not impossible.


Let's be clear......from a technical standpoint it is not "impossible"....however, let's use some reason and clarity, here.

ANY such endeavor (to retro-fit not one, not two, but FOUR regular airliners) wold be a HUGE undertaking. This isn't something that could be done "unnoticed".

It is then, therefore, highly, highly improbable.....and it is pure fantasy, in light of ALL known information.



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by ProudBird
 


Nope. I see the cylindrical tube-like object on the belly, it's clearly there. And there is no reason why there would be a flash on the wall of the building before the aircraft actually hits it. Makes no sense at all.



It isn't an illusion created by light because the shadow of the wing can be seen overlapping the middle of the plane over the object.
edit on 14-2-2012 by L00kingGlass because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 05:15 PM
link   
something that looked really suspicious to me was at around 10:00 min, where the FBI agent and another guy wearing a suit and a badge, grab the guy being interviewed and escort him away. i kept replaying that part and i hear the FBI agent saying "you're not giving an interview! come on down here".




could be that they were just concerned about the guy, seeing that he had blood all over his face, and were escorting him to an ambulance. maybe there weren't any firefighters, police or paramedics near him.

maybe they were taking him for questioning, being that he was a first hand witness to the attack.

you can also hear the guy being interviewed saying "alright, we'll be talking" as he is escorted away.
has the reporter or news outlet that was interviewing him tried to contact this man again?

edit on 14-2-2012 by bladebosq because: Spelling
edit on 14-2-2012 by bladebosq because: adding snapshots



posted on Feb, 14 2012 @ 05:18 PM
link   
Do we really need anymore honestly?

I think anyone that I end up talking with about 9/11 I can pretty much put away any doubt with building 7 alone.

Anyone that thinks it isnt is just denying it. The question is who is invested in it.

edit on 14-2-2012 by EnigmaticDill because: (no reason given)





 
65
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join