Prepare tin foil hats - no planes hit the twin towers

CosmicClown said:
(Hell the BBC reported WTC7 falling 20 minutes before it actually occured which tells me someone high up within that corporation had prior knowledge of the event)
Click to expand...

That's a rather large deductive leap to say the BBC had prior knowledge. An alternate explanation could be that in the confusion of the day they made a mistake or perhaps were premature in reporting the collapse after seeing debris hit WTC7 and thought that it had already taken out the tower.

CosmicClown said:
http://beforeitsnews.com/9-11-and-g...bc-for-9-11-wtc-7-cover-up-video-2440298.html

''Tony Rooke refused to pay a TV license fee because the BBC intentionally misrepresented facts about the 9/11 attacks, he alleged. It is widely known that the BBC reported the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 over 20 minutes before it occurred. WTC 7 was a 47-story skyscraper that was not hit by a plane on 9/11 but collapsed at free-fall speed later that day.

So Rooke said the BBC had to have had prior knowledge to a terror attack making them complicit in the attack. He presented the BBC footage to the judge along with a slew of other evidence, and the judge agreed that Rooke had a reasonable case to protest. Rooke was found not guilty and he was not fined for failure to pay the licensing fee.''

This in itself says something.
Click to expand...

Actually it doesn't - what isn't being reported on that site is that the judge said they had no authority to rule on the defence as it wasn't a permissible defence to the offence charged. Mr Rooke was found guilty of using an unlicensed set, given a 6 month discharge and made to pay court costs of £200 so if that's a victory then what he counts as a loss must be quite something to behold. I'm not sure why the judge didn't also make him pay for a TV licence but there you go.

Using that defence is a bit like trying to get out of a speeding fine by saying "I think that David Blaine is a charlatan" - it may or may not be provable but you've led with a non-sequitur which is utterly irrelevant to the offence that is being prosecuted.
 
[TW]Fox;26340334 said:
So they doctored live footage across multiple private broadcasters and not one of the "journalists" involved mentioned a thing?
Click to expand...

Well if they tried... what can i say, they never lived to tell the tale...

You should realy watch those documentaries, they all explain it in fine detail. I could spend all day answering questions but just watch the docs, its easier.
 
semi-pro waster said:
SNIP
Click to expand...

Remember that there are in fact two towers.
Two minus one is one; one one - 11.
Two minus one is one, one one.
and there are nine members on Silverstein's board of directors.
That's nine-one-one.
Nine-eleven.
And take 2 - 1 + 9/11 and you get 12 which leads us all to the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks.
Cartman's mam
 
Out of interest, is there a reasonable debunk to why the BBC reported it before it happened? Wasn't the original source of this Loose Change which has fully debunked each point now?
 
anything I don't mind said:
Cartoon plane physics. I am guessing no one actually took the time and watch the documentaries i posted...

You see an airplane can not enter a steel building like that without any deceleration, so this is impossible physics to see the plane enter the building without any deceleration.

ebkbm6Ol.gif.jpg

working gif: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/imagenes_sociopol/911_178_08.gif

You see the plane enters the building fully in tact. This is not possible. Thus the plane was a graphic image of a plane inserted in to the "live" tv broadcasts and the amateur footage that came afterwards were created by video/animation and special fx professionals.
Click to expand...

What is the non-conspiracy theorist explanation for that? It does indeed look fake if that is from CNN.
 
sid said:
What is the non-conspiracy theorist explanation for that? It does indeed look fake if that is from CNN.
Click to expand...

They simply deny it. Where i say there is no deceleration, they say there is deceleration. Where i say the plane does not breakup, they say it does breakup.

I've even had someone tell me that the plane would go inside the building in-between the steel cladding. ie all the plane managed to break up and enter via the foot wide gaps between the steel gladding, break the glass and enter. Other arguments include all the plane disintegrated on impact and was not actually going inside, it just vanished as it hit the building and only looks like its going inside.

We can clearly see from every single air plane impact video that has ever been released of the 2nd impact that the plane enters the building, not showing any decelerations, in some cases the planes tail is still completely in tact and a per frame analysis has been done showing that when the front part of the plane was inside the building, the tail was still in the same place as it would be even if the building was not there. Therefore the plane shows no visible signs of impacting anything, as no deformation of plane structure and no deceleration.
 
seems a bit daft to fly a cruise missle into the towers and then try and convince everyone it was a 767 when you could just fly a drone 767 into the towers, lot less doctoring and convincing to do!.
 
sid said:
What is the non-conspiracy theorist explanation for that? It does indeed look fake if that is from CNN.
Click to expand...

How would anyone know if it looks fake? Not as if we have other videos of widebody jets flying into buildings at 500mph is it? It was an unprecedented never seen before event so no idea how apparently you know what it should have looked like.
 
Zatoichi.uK said:
Out of interest, is there a reasonable debunk to why the BBC reported it before it happened? Wasn't the original source of this Loose Change which has fully debunked each point now?
Click to expand...

Not only did the bbc report the wtc 7 controlled demolition 20 mins early, but they also reported that the 2nd wtc building was coming down after the first one had come down and before the 2nd one had come down.

The reporting of the controlled demolition before it happened is far from the biggest smoking gun of the lot. In fact i rarely use that one because there are far better ones as it could be excused as simple mistake with the green screen footage.

Based on the simon shack analysis of the media his conclusion is that all the city shots from the day were in fact composites and using the latest in green screen and virtual reality technology that was available at the time, including multitrack sequences and the like that you would expect in film production.
 
Zuban said:
seems a bit daft to fly a cruise missle into the towers and then try and convince everyone it was a 767 when you could just fly a drone 767 into the towers, lot less doctoring and convincing to do!.
Click to expand...

You would think so but even the most experienced pilots have been unable to fly an airplane in to the buildings of the wtc on simulations when trying to recreate the apparent flight paths. In fact it was a lot easier to fly a missile and edit the video than it would be to fly commercial airlines in to the buildings, as evident.
 
anything I don't mind said:
You would think so but even the most experienced pilots have been unable to fly an airplane in to the buildings of the wtc on simulations when trying to recreate the apparent flight paths. In fact it was a lot easier to fly a missile and edit the video than it would be to fly commercial airlines in to the buildings, as evident.
Click to expand...

Really?

No experienced pilot could?

Or was it that experienced pilots would most likely be automatically, and unconciously be doing stuff to avoid it?

As I think the saying goes, it's not the experienced fighter you worry about, it's the inexperienced one who does things that are unpreditable (or something to that effect).

A poorly trained/barely competent pilot who doesn't care about if he lives is far more likely to do dangerous manoeuvres or unpredictable things, which the experienced pilots will have to actively ignore years of training, muscle memory and experience to accomplish.
 
Zatoichi.uK said:
Why would it be any harder to fly a plane into a building than it would be to land on a runway? Unless of course you're talking about the turning capabilities?
Click to expand...

It is all the factors that contribute, the speed, the altitude, the maneuvering, the fact that its over a city and you would be hitting two buildings with two different planes.

I think with the wtc people have said that a pilot may get lucky and be able to hit one tower if he tried a load of times in a simulator, but to get two on the same day at impossible speeds its just not possible technically.
 
sid said:
What is the non-conspiracy theorist explanation for that? It does indeed look fake if that is from CNN.
Click to expand...


Skip to 3.40.

I find it strange that there is little reaction from the cameraman and his mate.

If I saw that I certainly would have said something (and heard my mate say something too).

I'm not saying there was no plane but it does seem a bit staged to me.
 
Werewolf said:
Really?

No experienced pilot could?

Or was it that experienced pilots would most likely be automatically, and unconsciously be doing stuff to avoid it?

As I think the saying goes, it's not the experienced fighter you worry about, it's the inexperienced one who does things that are unpredictable (or something to that effect).

A poorly trained/barely competent pilot who doesn't care about if he lives is far more likely to do dangerous manoeuvres or unpredictable things, which the experienced pilots will have to actively ignore years of training, muscle memory and experience to accomplish.
Click to expand...

Pilots for 911 truth have gone to great lengths to try and validate the official story and failed everytime.

The transponders said that the airplanes were travelling at speeds that are not technically possible for an airplane to travel at, as at the altitude that the plane was travelling in order to hit the towers, the maximum speed was 100s of km per hour slower than it was reported.

a per frame analysis of the video footage puts the "object" travelling at over 500km/h . At 800feet the plane would literally start to break apart. This has been confirmed by top aeronautical engineers.
 
anything I don't mind said:
Not only did the bbc report the wtc 7 controlled demolition 20 mins early, but they also reported that the 2nd wtc building was coming down after the first one had come down and before the 2nd one had come down.

The reporting of the controlled demolition before it happened is far from the biggest smoking gun of the lot. In fact i rarely use that one because there are far better ones as it could be excused as simple mistake with the green screen footage.

Based on the simon shack analysis of the media his conclusion is that all the city shots from the day were in fact composites and using the latest in green screen and virtual reality technology that was available at the time, including multitrack sequences and the like that you would expect in film production.
Click to expand...

Will take a lot to convince me that events of that day are as clear cut as the official story* - I was playing quake 3 online at the time on a US server with a friend from the US while we were chatting on TS - his apartment had a clear view of events that day and though he didn't see the first impact he did see the second with his own eyes - so if something other than a passenger plane hit it it was a very good mockup. The interesting thing was several things that happened that day as reported in the BBC were being reported ahead of them actually happening defintely the WTC7 stuff was - I'd mention something and he'd be like "no dude thats wrong" then see the exact thing I'd just said about as reported by the BBC happen a few minutes later.


* Not that I believe in any conspiracy theory as such - I believe its more likely to be attempts to cover up failings by various agencies as much as anything else.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom