Self Evident. Proof of Twin Tower CD = Remote Controlled, Swapped-in, Military Drone Aircraft on 9/1

reply to post by wmd_2008


What's he's really saying is that everything that ought to have been found broken, was pulverized to dust while the building was um "falling" although exploding is a more descriptive word..

I think you missed his point.


But I'll butt out now don't mean to get in the middle just trying to be helpful.. (yikes! NAM rushes out and closes door in a hurry)

From last page [in case anyone might have missed it]

The Black Box Conspiracy.

NewAgeMan
They found the PASSPORT! (so why not black boxes?)



Pasport found!

Satam Al Suqami's remarkably undamaged passport

November 5, 1998-September 24, 2000: 9/11 Hijacker Al Suqami Frequently Travels around Middle East and AsiaEdit event
Satam Al Suqami.
Satam Al Suqami. [Source: US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division]
On August 11, 1998, 9/11 hijacker Satam Al Suqami is issued a Saudi Arabian passport. [FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, 10/2001, PP. 29 pdf file] This passport will allegedly be discovered in the wreckage of the 9/11 attacks in New York, allowing investigators an unusually detailed glimpse into the movements of one of the hijackers. While a majority of the hijackers seem to have traveled little prior to coming to the US, Al Suqami travels widely:
bullet November 5, 1998: He enters and departs Jordan, enters Syria.
bullet November 11, 1998: departs Syria; enters and departs Jordan.
bullet November 12, 1998: enters Saudi Arabia.
bullet February 19, 1999: enters Saudi Arabia.
bullet February 24, 1999: enters and departs Jordan; enters Syria.
bullet February 25, 1999: departs Saudi Arabia.
bullet March 7, 1999: departs Syria.
bullet March 8, 1999: enters Jordan.
bullet May 13, 1999: departs Bahrain.
bullet May 15, 1999: enters Saudi Arabia.
bullet January 18, 2000: enters United Arab Emirates (UAE).
bullet April 4, 2000: enters UAE.
bullet April 6, 2000: departs UAE.
bullet April 7, 2000: enters Egypt.
bullet April 18, 2000: departs Oman, enters UAE.
bullet July 11, 2000: departs Egypt.
bullet July 12, 2000: enters Malaysia. [FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, 10/2001, PP. 33, 37-39, 42, 59-62, 75 pdf file]
On September 24, 2000, Al Suqami enters Turkey and stays there for most of the next six months (see September 24, 2000-April 1, 2001). Then he will travel to Malaysia again before finally flying to the US. The above records are obviously incomplete as there are sometimes records of him leaving a country without entering it or vice versa. His travels to Afghanistan and Pakistan are also not mentioned, as there was probably an effort to keep them out of his passport. In 2007, al-Qaeda leader Luai Sakra will claim that Al Suqami was not just another hijacker but led a group of the hijackers. The release of Al Suqami’s passport records in 2008 will help corroborate that claim.

www.cooperativeresearch.org...

NewAgeMan

Let's see how many things made it out the building from the plane impacts..

It's the single item from WTC1, to the left.

That's his passport. Found!

Question: Was it a very windy day, on September 11th, 2001? (anyone know, I've got to go to bed now...g'night)

..I'll let someone else research that and I honestly haven't and don't yet know..

In the interim.. (then it's time for bed)

Just tossing this into the bin/locker for the time being, as I'm going to start collecting whatever photographic and video eye witness (namely, your own) record information is available for the South Tower plane, not because I'm trying to "hoax" anyone..lol, but only because the plane has become a real suspect now based on the explanatory hypothesis or model we've been using that is also the title of this thread and the basis of the OP, now that the self evident proof of CD of the buildings has been established (where there's no use continuing to go back and forth over ad infinitum, to save bandwidth, and I suppose to just accept that some may simply disagree in their worldview and that's ok as we each need to choose for ourselves how to view the world) , in other words, moving on... or perhaps I should say, backwards, through the event, to the apparent causal mechanism of the subsequent total destruction of the buildings - The plane impacts.

Because the North Tower plane was only captured on the "fireman's video" (which we'll take a look at anyway), what we have left is a multi-perspective video and photographic record of the south tower plane on final approach, to impact, because by the time it flew in and impacted the south tower, all eyes and cameras were trained on the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, and therefore we'll work with whatever we've got however limited it may be, or even however poorly compressed, or blurred, given that the plane was whipping along at approx 585mhp before hitting the building and causing the resulting gargantuan fireball and smokecloud, also recorded from every angle and perspective.


I therefore offer for your inspection the following photograph is one of if not the best of them all, and, I located the "providence" on it too!




Providence:

hereisnewyork.org...

pg 109

2087

Great snapshot above. Again no motion blur. You would
expect some at nearly 600 mph.

Having this thread in the HOAX forum is non-sensical
and contrary to the my understanding of how a free and
independant conspiracy forum should operate.
Every one of the hypothesis laid out in this thread has
supporting evidence and although i believe there is some
hoaxing going on, it is of a different kind.
But there is nothing new here.These same arguments have
been going on since 2005, and things haven't progressed much.
Those who haven't gotten to 9/11 media fakery yet are
stuck in one the layers laid out for them by the designers
of the 9/11 hoax. You don't think it a trifle that it is so
easy to see beyond the official narrative, do you?
9/11 is a glass onion. At the very core is media fakery
including computer generated plane crashes and building
demolitions.
It doesn't make sense to randy, an obviously seasoned
professional, to watch a plane dissolve into a building like
that because he is watching an animation where the laws of physics
don't need to hold.
It doesn't make sense to all the architects and engineers to
watch two buildings disintegrate like that because again they
are watching an animation where the laws of physics don't
need to hold.
But this non-sense appears to make sense to scepticoverlord, wmd,
zaphod etc., and about that, there is nothing to be done.

I urge all to look at the two images I re-posted earlier again and
try and reconcile them to yourselves. You will not be able to.

reply to post by OneFreeMan


Really? There should have been motion blur?

F-14 mach one pass

Blue Angels high speed pass

747 high speed pass

No motion blur in any of those, and at least one is faster than 175 was.

reply to post by OneFreeMan


High speed snap shot. I'm not a photographer so I don't know that the right terminology is, well shutter speed I guess, right.

I told you that I did not want for this at any point to be a "no plane" or NRPT thread. Your underlying motive you know might be hidden even to yourself..

NewAgeMan

Question: Was it a very windy day, on September 11th, 2001? (anyone know, I've got to go to bed now...g'night)

Also, whatever the wind speed that day, what direction was it blowing?

OneFreeMan
You don't think it a trifle that it is so
easy to see beyond the official narrative, do you?
9/11 is a glass onion. At the very core is media fakery
including computer generated plane crashes and building
demolitions.
It doesn't make sense to randy, an obviously seasoned
professional, to watch a plane dissolve into a building like
that because he is watching an animation where the laws of physics
don't need to hold.
It doesn't make sense to all the architects and engineers to
watch two buildings disintegrate like that because again they
are watching an animation where the laws of physics don't
need to hold.
But this non-sense appears to make sense to scepticoverlord, wmd,
zaphod etc., and about that, there is nothing to be done.

I urge all to look at the two images I re-posted earlier again and
try and reconcile them to yourselves. You will not be able to.

Seeing beyond the official narrative is certainly easy for most anyone. Do I believe we don't know the compete truth regarding the events of that day? Sure.

Once you delve into the theory of computer generated plane crashes, and computer generated building destruction, you no longer have a basis in reality for your theory. To think that the footage of the two planes hitting the towers was all fake is highly ludicrous. Beyond nonsense, it's down right stupid. And I don't mean that you are stupid, but your theory is.

reply to post by OneFreeMan

NewAgeMan
reply to post by OneFreeMan

 

This is not a no planer (NRPT) thread, I'm sorry. Please offer your hypothesis were it's permitted, in the regular "legitimate" 9/11 Conspiracies Forum. Thanks. No hard feelings though. NAM

That video was originally offered primarily for your review and consideration.

Kind Regards,

NAM

NewAgeMan
reply to post by leostokes

 

It's cement dust, pulverized, nothing more. That remaining spire of core steel when it falls, leaves a dust cloud. It never turned to dust. Get over it (I don't mean to sound harsh).

BRAVO you actually got something right!!!

reply to post by wmd_2008


You aint seen nuth'n yet! Just wait until we look at the evidence of super-high temperatures from the CD of the twin towers, as well as a certain indestructible "fluttering" passport..

Best Regards,

NAM

NewAgeMan
reply to post by wmd_2008

 

You aint seen nuth'n yet! Just wait until we look at the evidence of super-high temperatures from the CD of the twin towers, as well as a certain indestructible "fluttering" passport..

Best Regards,

NAM

Funny how people latch on to things they think couldn't or shouldn't have happened do YOU want a list like that?

Here are a couple that could never happen but they actually did!

Fell 33,000 ft and lived

Building fire wooden beams survived the METAL one didn't

rustylopez.typepad.com...


Want any more?

NewAgeMan
You aint seen nuth'n yet!

Very true, nothing but the usual truther lies interspersed with some conspiracy theories even most truther groups think silly - such as beam weapons!

reply to post by hellobruce


You guys, who advocate and who stand guard for the official story Big Lie are coming across as sounding a little "shrill".

There's no need for the name calling, although I suppose "truther" isn't such a bad name really, or the seething contempt.

Let's just stick the accumulating facts in evidence.

Also, I never advocated the beam weapons (DEW).

reply to post by NewAgeMan


How can we stick to facts, when neither side can agree on those facts? Or are we sticking to non-OS facts?

NewAgeMan
Let's just stick the accumulating facts in evidence.

So when are you going to start collecting facts then? As so far your "facts" have been very few, which is why this is in the HOAX forum.

reply to post by wmd_2008


No, no need to list any more exceedingly improbable things that have happened.

What we do need to look at however, is whether it's even possible, not merely whether an unscathed hijacker passport made it out of the crash and fireball, unscathed, but in terms where it was found, because a perfectly intact passport isn't like a mere piece of paper, it has some weight to it, so given it's location, relative to the North Tower, we're going to need to look at the wind speed and wind direction on that day to see if such a thing might even be possible, however improbable that it made it outside the building to begin with.

I don't think I need to talk about the implications of this, nor that of the idea that the black boxes really were recovered, with the FBI (who apparently has them) claiming that none of them were ever found, at all.

This is all just a small part of the problem with the official story though, on so many levels in particular as it relates to the destruction of those buildings, including Building 7.

It requires that we believe in and accept impossible things, even things that cannot be reconciled with the physical laws of the universe.

Regards,

NAM

NewAgeMan
It requires that we believe in and accept impossible things, even things that cannot be reconciled with the physical laws of the universe.

Just what about 9/11 cannot be reconciled with the "physical laws of the universe"?

Zaphod58
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

How can we stick to facts, when neither side can agree on those facts? Or are we sticking to non-OS facts?

It's just a personal preference, of course and mileage certainly varies for people finding such things useful. However, I've always thought the basic facts start around where This Case has all the evidence and exhibits layed out. He had a fair defense and a competent defense team. They challenged what was viable to challenge and that's in there too.

I figure you probably had that case page bookmarked. It seemed an apt spot to share with everyone tho.

It was established in a unique instance, to sit there in perpetuity, for public review of what convicted the only guy yet to face a verdict on it.

** As I've noted before when sharing it... It's a murder trial evidence package. It's all the evidence from the murder trial. Murder trials, by nature, have to prove the graphic level of the crime to a jury. I.E....there are pics in there which one won't be able to forget or unsee. If the graphic pics of 9/11, mixed in with the hundreds of other evidence items is bothersome, here's the heads up to avoid it all.