What is your theory on the events of 9/11???

Originally posted by r2d246

Originally posted by thegameisup
Total inside job, was just one big show and the sheeple bought it, well they bought it at the time, but now everybody is waking up. Except for debunkers of course, they are still asleep.

Watch from 01:08

That is all you need to see.

Wow that's crazy. Like look at how the whole image disappears along one straight line which is how a cgi image would work. Or if this is a hologram same thing. It would likely all disappear along one line. Not random enough as a real crash would be. For example if that were real then it's a 100% guarantee that some of the plane would bounce directly off the building and down. Instead it all appears to go in.

I'm not saying hologram, could be don't know, certainly not a real plane.

Now they don't like no plane theories here, apparently the 'debunkers' are concerned it damages the 'truth movement' that they are no part of, nice of them to be concerned. Any no plane threads get moved to the 'hoax' section, and all admin, super mods, and even the site owner will come out of the woodwork if you mention no planes. After all, this is a conspiracy site, so anything should be allowed, strange behaviour isn't it.

Many people say they saw a military, grey/black plane, only the suspicious actors said commercial jet, so my opinion it was either a military plane/drone, or a missile that looked like a plane, it certainly was not the two commercial jets they are telling us it was! Hence why they needed a bit of CGI to convince people all over the world it really was a commercial jet, but it wasn't, we know that.

Originally posted by Varemia
A. That is not a law of physics. You literally made that up.

B. The steel didn't melt. It weakened after the damage to the building knocked off the fireproofing, and then was heated by fire.

If you're going to theorize, at least make your points somewhat accurate. You guys are literally making up physics and facts.

Wow, you really are clinging onto the NIST report and their hypothesis that is full of lies and fake science!

You are either a very stupid, gullible person, or you are trying to sell the NIST report. Which one is it?

There was not enough energy left after the impact to 'knock off the fireproofing' you know very little about what you are trying to convey, and are just what is known as a 'repeater', a parrot. You are parroting the NIST report, that has been proven by many to be a pack of lies filled with very flawed science.

NIST had a predetermined outcome for their investigation before they even started it, they took a good while to even start it and many years to finish it, and came up with the biggest pile of crock ever, and they fudged all the data to make it fit their predetermined outcome. If you still believe NIST, then you need to go back to school.

'Varemia', you are out of your depth, I would suggest you do not enter the realm of 9/11 physics again, to save yourself from embarrassment!

Oh, watch this, you might learn something... It shows the NIST report for what it is, a big pile of BS.

Google Video Link

That the government knew it was going to happen, but Al Queda switched the day.

Flight 93 was taken down by our own military.

Originally posted by r2d246
What is your theory on the events of 9/11???

What caused the towers to collapse? And what hit the pentagon?

Personally I think it was an energy weapon. Because most of the building turned to dust and got blown away by the wind. That's not even controlled demo. Controlled demo the whole building falls to the ground, it doesn't all turn into dust the way they appeared to. Youtube: Judy Wood

As for the pentagon I think it was a missle. They have 80 cameras that caught the event but instead they release 5 frames. That shows a cover up. If it was a plane why not just show the footage. They can't because it wasn't a plane. There footage would just show the missle and they'd be in trouble. And Dick Chaney on the lawn helping carry a stretcher with an injured person on it? Get real talk about a great photo opp. No the vince pres can't be in a bunker. He has to be a first responder. Like give me a break. They actually think were that dumb.

to quote jon stewart "9/11 was an outside job". funny fact: bill o'reilley agrees with jon stewart and vice versa.

reply to post by Varemia



The thing you and others fail to understand is that that building is no different than a brick standing on one end. That concrete is like a mountain. It's not flimsy like the littleist thing means it all comes down. Not even close. it's rock hard. Like if you took a brick and threw a paper airplane at it, it would likely bounce off when it hit. That's not any different than what should have happened. It would definitely not slice into it like a hot knife threw butter. It's concrete. It's not toothpicks. Lets say by some miricle you got all the supporting columns on one level to give way all at once? What do you think would happen? It would all come down straight down? Again this is concrete, it would fall to one side. It wouldn't pancake down. But people are so dumb that that is what they got everyone thinking. It's halarious. Anyway again just my opinion. But concrete is harder than stone. It just doesn't fall the way they want people to believe by a airplain impact. I think if that was legit then the plane would litterally bounce off the side.

Originally posted by r2d246
reply to post by Varemia

 

The thing you and others fail to understand is that that building is no different than a brick standing on one end. That concrete is like a mountain. It's not flimsy like the littleist thing means it all comes down. Not even close. it's rock hard. Like if you took a brick and threw a paper airplane at it, it would likely bounce off when it hit. That's not any different than what should have happened. It would definitely not slice into it like a hot knife threw butter. It's concrete. It's not toothpicks. Lets say by some miricle you got all the supporting columns on one level to give way all at once? What do you think would happen? It would all come down straight down? Again this is concrete, it would fall to one side. It wouldn't pancake down. But people are so dumb that that is what they got everyone thinking. It's halarious. Anyway again just my opinion. But concrete is harder than stone. It just doesn't fall the way they want people to believe by a airplain impact. I think if that was legit then the plane would litterally bounce off the side.

wtc7 wasn't hit by an aeroplane. lol.

reply to post by nixie_nox


So, what weapon was used to bring down Flight 93 then? A weapon that managed to allow Flight 93 to hit the ground in one piece and NOT cause any damage that would have registered on the flight data recorder?

reply to post by ritualmurders911

wtc7 wasn't hit by an aeroplane. lol.

No it was only hit by 110 story building

Does that count....?

reply to post by r2d246

The thing you and others fail to understand is that that building is no different than a brick standing on one end. That concrete is like a mountain

One problem with you little fantasy ......

WTC was not built with concrete, at least in the structural support

Lightweight concrete was used for the floors, structural members were steel

reply to post by vipertech0596


How about this ....?

reply to post by thedman


So were many other buildings that were either closer, or equally as close but they still stood!

Even NIST and their report full of lies don't say falling debris as the cause for the collapse!

Your theories are more wackier than laser beams!

I don't entirely discount the controlled demolition theory but I think (in my admittedly uneducated opinion) if 9/11 was done by TPTB, it would have made a lot more sense for them to have everything as close to their official story as possible.

So I don't think they would have wanted to risk controlled demolition. They would have wanted the towers to fall on their own from just the plane impacts. Thus, if they could "hijack" two planes and fly them into the towers, they could just as easily figure out how many planes it would take to make it happen and do it that way.

Controlled demolition would have left a lot more loose ends. So why would they make it harder than it had to be?

I think the towers probably did come down from the plane impacts alone. I think the planes were probably remote controlled. The terrorists may have been real but they may not have known what was going to happen. Somehow, TPTB may have figured out how to put real hijackers up to hijacking the planes so all the passengers could tell people on the ground what was happening and it would look completely real.

Probably most of the casualties were real. I think it would have just been too hard to fake and these people probably aren't exactly losing any sleep over killing thousands of people anyway.

Are there a lot of plot holes in my theory? Undoubtedly. That's just what I've been thinking. Remote control.

reply to post by thegameisup


Different buildings = Different construction methods

Buildings ranged from 90 West St built in 1907 to WTC 7 in 1987 using dissilmilar construction methods
and materials


Different buildings took different damage

WTC 7 was set on fire from the impact, Deutsche Bank (130 Liberty St) was not, both suffered similar degree
of damage, Deutsche Bank did not catch fire which saved it from immediate collapse. Had to be torn down
over the next few years

Originally posted by r2d246
I think if that was legit then the plane would litterally bounce off the side.

No offense, but that's just stupid. Read up on elementary physics. Try force calculations. The faster an object moves, the more energy it has to impart on impact, exponentially. Then, try to tell me that the walls of the tower would be able to not only absorb the impact energy completely, but that they would reflect the plane away.

It's like you didn't even go through a basic science class.

Originally posted by thegameisup
Now they don't like no plane theories here, apparently the 'debunkers' are concerned it damages the 'truth movement' that they are no part of, nice of them to be concerned. Any no plane threads get moved to the 'hoax' section, and all admin, super mods, and even the site owner will come out of the woodwork if you mention no planes. After all, this is a conspiracy site, so anything should be allowed, strange behaviour isn't it.

Nothing strange. "No planes" not only debunks the OS, it also
- gives the idea that something seen live on TV may be false and staged. Not to mention further distrust MSM. It is a huge damage.
- Truth movement, that rejects the theory, is nothing else that controlled opposition, with aim to hide the truth.
- Internet, big sites are controlled by TPTB too. And why they should not, really? They care what people think, and internet is as important as MSM now.

A plane, disappearing in a steel and concrete building without apparent interaction and falling parts is obviously a CGI. And why would they need a plane at all. Just plant explosives, start to say that it was a plane via controlled media and plant some fake witnesses. Free fake witnesses will be generated automatically then.
It was a huge surprise for me, when I learn that the Truth Movement rejects the theory. Another surprise was no plane threads in HOAX and no planers banned. This is how I learn that TPTB are underestimated, they control almost everything. And that the vast majority do not use their brains, but try to guess which expert is right.
Even if all humanity starts to say me that there were planes, I would not change my mind, because I know that it is physically impossible. And also I believe it is easy to understand that. If someone uploaded the video on YouTube before 9/11, it would be described as an unrealistic bad special effect.
Anyway, I really believe that no planes theory damages the movement because people does not see the difference between "seen with my eyes" and "seen on live TV".
All that above makes me think that the truth will never come up. People will simply reject it. They do not need it.

In the words of Die Hard:

John McClane: So that's what this is about, Hans? A #ing robbery?

Hans Gruber: Put down the gun.

John McClane: Why'd you have to nuke the whole building, Hans?

Hans Gruber: Well, when you steal $600, you can just disappear. When you steal 600 million, they will find you, unless they think you're already dead.

reply to post by DonJuan

A plane, disappearing in a steel and concrete building without apparent interaction and falling parts is obviously a CGI. And why would they need a plane at all. Just plant explosives, start to say that it was a plane via controlled media and plant some fake witnesses. Free fake witnesses will be generated automatically then.

No plane parts ....?

reply to post by thedman

No parts were found BELOW the "impact" area, or in the gashes. The few parts that were found, were located BEYOND the tower, as if they made it all the way through and out the other side.
And no parts on the video. Everything went through inside, including easily breakable wingtips and tail.

It is not impossible to plant the plane parts. It cannot be 100% proof.

Originally posted by thedman

No plane parts ....?

This image cannot be claimed as plane parts, you cannot even tell what it is!


In this image, why did they go so over the top with the police tape? There's no pedestrians about, just FBI people, they might as well just picked up that small part instead of unecessarily taping off half the street!

How the hell did that supposed engine land on it's end, and did that engine injure anyone?

I thought John Lear said that engine was not from either of the 2 planes?


Why are all the supposed plane parts near scaffolding?


Blood on a newspaper and a scrap of metal, yeah that will convince them!


Another random unidentified 'plane' part.


Man, they really suckered you with these staged photos!

reply to post by DonJuan

It is not impossible to plant the plane parts. It cannot be 100% proof.

Maybe can explain this .....

Somebody planted a aircraft part on top of her

Mardenfeld, 31, was on her way to work that day when she was hit by falling debris from the second plane that slammed into the World Trade Center. Her legs were crushed below the knees, she lost skin and muscle on her buttocks, she suffered blood loss and trauma that can hardly be imagined.

Mardenfeld had taken the subway downtown to the trade center. As she got to the door of the station, some men with "WTC" on their shirts directed her and others to an exit from the mall.

When she walked out, she saw the second plane hit the south tower. "I heard,

'Run for cover,' " she said. She did, and that is the last thing she remembers about what she calls "the accident."

She was struck by large pieces of debris. Good Samaritans kept her from being trampled and eventually flagged down an ambulance.

.

Can see the shower of debris and victim lying in street after being hit

8:45 in to video 30 minutes in doctors describe her injuries

www.youtube.com...