Groundbreaking New 9/11 Film "September Clues" - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

CB_Brooklyn · 06-15-2007, 02:59 AM

Groundbreaking New 9/11 Film "September Clues" reveals the truth about 9/11.

See September Clues in the following six 10-minute segments:
(more to be made)

http://www.livevideo.com/video/6F393...ues-part1.aspx

http://www.livevideo.com/video/2CE21...ues-part2.aspx

http://www.livevideo.com/video/E0E8D...ues-part3.aspx

http://www.livevideo.com/video/3F706...ues-part4.aspx

http://www.livevideo.com/video/0A68F...ues-part5.aspx

http://www.livevideo.com/video/C69E7...ues-part6.aspx

================

This is an excellent video series and is highly recommended, in particular parts 1 and 5, which contain PROOF of TV-Fakery.

How long till the media caves in?

More importantly, how long till enough people demand that something be done about the media liars?

pornclerk · 06-15-2007, 08:55 AM

I don't know what exactly they were trying to prove other than the media made fake videos. There's no evidence to say that a plane didn't hit the building. Maybe I am missing something here. Who made this video? Is there scientific evidence to back up many of the claims made?

Jinn · 06-15-2007, 09:03 AM

It'd be groundbreaking if it didn't just bring up the same shit that's been disputed hundreds, thousands of times by REAL SCIENTISTS.

You might've gotten a better audience if you'd titled it "Same shit about 9/11 produced, 'September Clues'"

Cynthetiq · 06-15-2007, 09:07 AM

right i guess those people who stood on their balconies on the Lower EastSide who did see the 2nd plane hit to the towers or the people who live in Brooklyn were also all in on it.

The people in the building where i work now in SoHo all watched it from the rooftop... I guess they've been paid off as well.

Willravel · 06-15-2007, 09:34 AM

I'm sure that everyone here knows well enough the difference between skepticism and condescension. Just a kindly reminder.

Mrs. Theresa Renaud gave a suspiciously conflicting report.
Interviewer: Did you hear the explosion from your position?
Theresa: Oh yes, yes we did. As a matter of fact, we heard it...and , cause I was just like standing there looking out the window I didn't see what caused it or if there was another impact.
Oh there's another plane just hit!

HIGHLY suspicious. The thing is, this requires an odd explanation. Had she just been lying or exaggerating, that would have been different, but she knew, despite any indication, that the initial impact was a plane. I can't think of any reason that she knew they were planes 1) because she specifically said that she didn't know what hit the building, 2) no one, up to that point thought it was a plane and 3) even with binoculars, she would have been hard pressed to actually see any plane. She knew it was a plane before the news outlets. Think about that. She knew it was a plane before anyone else.

When I consider this scenario, the most plausible explanations are either she knew before the news outlets somehow, or the news outlets sat on the information and she was a fake interview. Option 1 means she was familiar with the plan of attack befoe it was carried out and is likely in collusion (scary thought). Option 2 means that the media, in a (everyone take a deep breath) conspiracy, kept information from the public about the nature of the attack until the second impact. What do you think the implications of these two options are? Can you think of any other options?

Jinn · 06-15-2007, 09:54 AM

And what about the third option, will? That of simplicity?

If I were to witness via explosion (or the sound of such) the destruction of the top levels of a skyscraper, I would assume it was a plane. In Modern America, it is much more likely to see a plane in the air than a ground launched missile or satellite targeted laser system (as some would claim).

It's a safe assumption to believe that MOST Americans would connect the only human-made flying things they've seen with the destruction of something far into the air.

If I would assume that, surely she could. And if she is, then neither collusion nor "sitting on it" by the media would be necessary.

Cynthetiq · 06-15-2007, 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

I'm sure that everyone here knows well enough the difference between skepticism and condescension. Just a kindly reminder.

Mrs. Theresa Renaud gave a suspiciously conflicting report.
Interviewer: Did you hear the explosion from your position?
Theresa: Oh yes, yes we did. As a matter of fact, we heard it...and , cause I was just like standing there looking out the window I didn't see what caused it or if there was another impact.
Oh there's another plane just hit!

HIGHLY suspicious. The thing is, this requires an odd explanation. Had she just been lying or exaggerating, that would have been different, but she knew, despite any indication, that the initial impact was a plane. I can't think of any reason that she knew they were planes 1) because she specifically said that she didn't know what hit the building, 2) no one, up to that point thought it was a plane and 3) even with binoculars, she would have been hard pressed to actually see any plane. She knew it was a plane before the news outlets. Think about that. She knew it was a plane before anyone else.

When I consider this scenario, the most plausible explanations are either she knew before the news outlets somehow, or the news outlets sat on the information and she was a fake interview. Option 1 means she was familiar with the plan of attack befoe it was carried out and is likely in collusion (scary thought). Option 2 means that the media, in a (everyone take a deep breath) conspiracy, kept information from the public about the nature of the attack until the second impact. What do you think the implications of these two options are? Can you think of any other options?

As I walked in Times Square on that morning watching it on the ABC Jumboscreen, I thought to myself, "A plane hit one of the towers."

Did I know something that other people didn't? No, quite simply we live in a space that has alot of air traffic, helicopters, small planes, large commerical planes, military planes (even prior to 9/11) all flying over Manhattan.

The recent small plane that crashed on the Upper East Side had conflicting reporting of initially a helicopter going down, then it being called a small plane, then back to a helicopter. Was that also media conspiracy? No, just poor reporting by the reporting outlets. When the camera rolls for 24 hours 7 days a week, you have to fill time. In my opinion it has made for sloppy reporting.

note it is WELL documented that another plane has hit a skyscraper in NYC, and if you look at the evidence, the hole size of the impact, explosion described happening within the building, etc. It is VERY similar to the WTC impacts.

Quote:

LINK
On the foggy morning of Saturday, July 28, 1945, Lt. Colonel William Smith was piloting a U.S. Army B-25 bomber through New York City. He was on his way to Newark Airport to pick up his commanding officer, but for some reason he showed up over LaGuardia Airport and asked for a weather report. Because of the poor visibility, the LaGuardia tower wanted to him to land, but Smith requested and received permission from the military to continue on to Newark. The last transmission from the LaGuardia tower to the plane was a foreboding warning: "From where I'm sitting, I can't see the top of the Empire State Building."1

Avoiding Skyscrapers
Confronted with dense fog, Smith dropped the bomber low to regain visibility, where he found himself in the middle of Manhattan, surrounded by skyscrapers. At first, the bomber was headed directly for the New York Central Building but at the last minute, Smith was able to bank west and miss it. Unfortunately, this put him in line for another skyscraper. Smith managed to miss several skyscrapers until he was headed for the Empire State Building. At the last minute, Smith tried to get the bomber to climb and twist away, but it was too late.

The Crash
At 9:49 a.m., the ten-ton, B-25 bomber smashed into the north side of the Empire State Building. The majority of the plane hit the 79th floor, creating a hole in the building eighteen feet wide and twenty feet high. The plane's high-octane fuel exploded, hurtling flames down the side of the building and inside through hallways and stairwells all the way down to the 75th floor.

World War II had caused many to shift to a six-day work week; thus there were many people at work in the Empire State Building that Saturday. The plane crashed into the offices of the War Relief Services of the National Catholic Welfare Conference. Catherine O'Connor described the crash:

The plane exploded within the building. There were five or six seconds - I was tottering on my feet trying to keep my balance - and three-quarters of the office was instantaneously consumed in this sheet of flame. One man was standing inside the flame. I could see him. It was a co-worker, Joe Fountain. His whole body was on fire. I kept calling to him, "Come on, Joe; come on, Joe." He walked out of it.2 Joe Fountain died several days later. Eleven of the office workers were burned to death, some still sitting at their desks, others while trying to run from the flames.
One of the engines and part of the landing gear hurtled across the 79th floor, through wall partitions and two fire walls, and out the south wall's windows to fall onto a twelve-story building across 33rd Street. The other engine flew into an elevator shaft and landed on an elevator car. The car began to plummet, slowed somewhat by emergency safety devices. Miraculously, when help arrived at the remains of the elevator car in the basement, the two women inside the car were still alive.

Some debris from the crash fell to the streets below, sending pedestrians scurrying for cover, but most fell onto the buildings setbacks at the fifth floor. Still, a bulk of the wreckage remained stuck in the side of the building. After the flames were extinguished and the remains of the victims removed, the rest of the wreckage was removed through the building.

The plane crash killed 14 people (11 office workers and the three crewmen) plus injured 26 others. Though the integrity of the Empire State Building was not affected, the cost of the damage done by the crash was $1 million.

shakran · 06-15-2007, 10:50 AM

bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

first, I've seen the original live shots, and there wasn't a flash frame (it's not a fade to black because it didn't fade) in them. I'd have noticed if there was - over the years I've been editing I've gotten rather good at noticing 1 frame flashes, and that black was more than 1 frame. You can insert all the fake shit you want into a video and it still doesn't make your conspiracy real.

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

She knew it was a plane before the news outlets. Think about that. She knew it was a plane before anyone else.

Bull. They knew the first hit was a plane a few minutes after it happened, and by the time the second plane hit everyone's cameras were trained on the towers. The today show said, immediately after the second impact, that another plane just hit. So did CBS, ABC, Fox, and CNN. And so did everyone that saw the plane fly into the building. She didn't know crap before anyone else.

Willravel · 06-15-2007, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JinnKai

If I were to witness via explosion (or the sound of such) the destruction of the top levels of a skyscraper, I would assume it was a plane. In Modern America, it is much more likely to see a plane in the air than a ground launched missile or satellite targeted laser system (as some would claim).

That makes no sense at all, and is incredibly complicated. Think of the world in 2001, before 9/11. Every time a building was hit, Oklahoma, WTC, it was a bomb. It was reasonable to think it was a bomb. It was not reasonable to think it was anything but a bomb, and the plane idea was very far fetched to the average person until it happened. It's more likely that she knew more than she was letting on than she just figured out it was a plane.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cynthitiq

As I walked in Times Square on that morning watching it on the ABC Jumboscreen, I thought to myself, "A plane hit one of the towers."

After they said, "A plane hit the towers." I'm sure.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

They knew the first hit was a plane a few minutes after it happened, and by the time the second plane hit everyone's cameras were trained on the towers.

Bull. It was pure speculation and unconfirmed reports until the second collision. MOST reports said it was a bomb.

Cynthetiq · 06-15-2007, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

That makes no sense at all, and is incredibly complicated. Think of the world in 2001, before 9/11. Every time a building was hit, Oklahoma, WTC, it was a bomb. It was reasonable to think it was a bomb. It was not reasonable to think it was anything but a bomb, and the plane idea was very far fetched to the average person until it happened. It's more likely that she knew more than she was letting on than she just figured out it was a plane.

After they said, "A plane hit the towers." I'm sure.

Bull. It was pure speculation and unconfirmed reports until the second collision. MOST reports said it was a bomb.

No, I was walking from the Penn Station to if you have every walked in Times Square there is no audio sometimes there is closed captioning, of which the closed caption did not state anything more than there was someting happening at WTC. When I walked into the building and turned up the volume on the TVs they were still wondering what had caused the damage to the building. I still thought that it was a plane that hit the building again I cite the ESB plane crash of 1945 which I sent to another coworker who didn't believe me when I suggested that it was a plane that crashed into the building, they stated,"Impossible!"

I know New York history quite well especially when it comes to terrorism and other histories about death and destruction, things that lots of people have forgotten like the Manhattan Mad Bomber who left bombs all over NYC from 1940 to 1956. Sixteen years that people lived in fear of him. New York City faced years of terror as bomb after bomb was discovered in public places all over the city. More than 30 bombs would be found in phone booths, public libraries, transit stations, and movie theaters.

The subway tests to see if lethal substances could be transferred via the subway systems in 1966.

These things have always intrigued me because of the density of the city. It takes time to get people out of the city, and takes time to get people out of buildings.

I do like the second video... how the plane is black and white and can't be the SAME plane at all.

Living on the Lower East Side of Manhattan right on the river, I live in light and shadows quite easlily since there are no buildings to obstruct my sunlight, especially in the morning and in the evenings when the sun. Because of me seeing that a building illuminated by the morning sun, it is easy to understand how someone standing in New Jersey looking EASTWARD to the Towers sees a DARK plane versus someone who looks from westward would see an illuminated plane.

a good example of the shadow cone from an object's point of reference

Jinn · 06-15-2007, 12:13 PM

Quote:

That makes no sense at all, and is incredibly complicated. Think of the world in 2001, before 9/11. Every time a building was hit, Oklahoma, WTC, it was a bomb. It was reasonable to think it was a bomb. It was not reasonable to think it was anything but a bomb, and the plane idea was very far fetched to the average person until it happened. It's more likely that she knew more than she was letting on than she just figured out it was a plane.

Just because you jump to crazy ass conclusions doesn't mean that people don't take the simpler explanation. Yes, bombs take down buildings. But if we're talking 120 stories in the air? I don't assume bomb, I assume plane.

Planes fly in the air. Terror bombs drive around in cars or walk around strapped to people.

And even if I bought your assumption that people would alternatively think it was a bomb, there could be just as many people who thought it was a plane. Just because a plane-guesser was interviewed doesn't mean there weren't plenty of bomb-guessers who weren't (or who didn't admit it after the fact)

Willravel · 06-15-2007, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JinnKai

Just because you jump to crazy ass conclusions doesn't mean that people don't take the simpler explanation. Yes, bombs take down buildings. But if we're talking 120 stories in the air? I don't assume bomb, I assume plane.

Why? There's no precedence. There is tons of precedence for bombs. 'Bomb' was the favored theory on all the news stations up until the second collision.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JinnKai

And even if I bought your assumption that people would alternatively think it was a bomb, there could be just as many people who thought it was a plane. Just because a plane-guesser was interviewed doesn't mean there weren't plenty of bomb-guessers who weren't (or who didn't admit it after the fact)

She said, "...a second plane." I'd hardly call that a statement based on a guess. The language is what's telling.

shakran · 06-15-2007, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Bull. It was pure speculation and unconfirmed reports until the second collision. MOST reports said it was a bomb.

That's crap.

Tom Kaminski was flying in the WCBS helicopter doing traffic reports when he saw a flash and a fireball at the top of WTC. His pilot said he thought he'd seen a plane and asked LaGuardia if they saw it.

Jim Ryan was on the air anchoring Good Day New York for WNYW when it hit. They said it was a plane within minutes.

CNN New York deputy bureau chief Edith Chapin was on the air almost immediately because the building's property manager had seen the plane hit.

WNYW reporter Mike Sheehan was covering the catholic school teacher's strike - he was speaking with cops who were assigned to the protest. He heard the 10-13 (cop in trouble) radio call, and seconds later the dispatcher announced that a plane had hit WTC.

Anchor Mark Hilan was on the air minutes after the hit reporting a plane had hit - one of his colleagues had witnessed the impact.

James Faherty, anchor of WINS's morning news ran a bulletin immediately after the hit when his editor told him a plane had hit the towers. They had a live report from Joan Fleischer, a WINS account executive who lived blocks away from WTC and was already on the roof watching the aftermath. She had seen the plane from her apartment.

Jane Clayson, anchoring CBS New York's morning news was on the air immediately saying there was a plane that hit the tower.

John Del Giorno , helicopter reporter for WABC, was dispatched immediately by his assignment editor, with the information "a plane just flew into the Twin Towers! Just. . . Just flew right into it! Go now!"

Keith Lane, WNYW photojournalist, heard on the scanner as he was racing his live truck to the WTC, confirmation that a plane had hit - -not just a plane, but a commercial airliner.

Tom Brokaw's personal secretary called him before his shower and told him a plane had hit the WTC.

Robyn Walensky, AP radio reporter, gives this account. "I was watching Channel 7, Good Morning America. Charlie Gibson was interviewing Fergie when all of a sudden my TV picture flickered. So I clicked over to Channel 4 and could not believe my eyes. The World Trade Center had a huge hole in it and was on fire. The anchors were saying a plane had hit it."

Don Dahler, correspondent for ABC News New York says "Good Morning America was on our television and it seemed as if within seconds they were reporting that a small plane had hit the building."

Jane Clayson, CBS Anchor, again: "The first witnesses kept saying it was a commercial jet. Bryant (Gumbel) and I kept asking "are you sure?" I was thinking to myself this must have been an accident. "You're certain it wasn't a small plane?" How on a clear day could a plane just fly into the Trade Center? Witness after witness said "I am positive it was a commercial jet."

Source for all these, Covering Catastrophe: Broadcast Journalists Report September 11th.

So don't tell me that the news wasn't reporting a plane crash right away. They were. Those statements up there back me up, and my own eyes back me up. I was watching it live from my newsroom, and we knew it was a plane within minutes.

If you're going to advance wild (not to say dumbassed) conspiracy theories, then perhaps you can explain how whatever evil entity did this managed to brainwash thousands of New Yorkers into thinking they had seen a plane.

And if the US government did cause 9/11, perhaps you can explain why they used missiles or lasers or whatever other crazy theory you come up with this week, instead of flying a real airplane into the buildings. Wouldn't that make more sense? Hell you can fly a jumbojet by remote control - -in fact that's routine for crash testing a plane. They wouldn't even have had to kill anyone on the plane - -not that it would have been hard to find people willing to die to do this.

How do you explain the people who had tickets on those airplanes who haven't been seen since 9/11? Did the government hunt them down and kill them too?

How do you explain the disappearance of the airplanes themselves? It's not exactly easy to hide one of those things, and I think United and American would want their airplanes back unless they knew it had crashed.

How do you explain the huge chunk of jet engine that was found in the street? Oh wait, I know, invisible dwarves carried it out there and planted it, right?

Usually I see fairly eye to eye with you, but you've jumped the shark on this one. There is absolutely NO real evidence that the towers were not taken down by airplanes. There's plenty of bullshit evidence. Plenty of "hey 2 different colors of smoke means there wasn't an airplane" type of nonsensical evidence. Plenty of lies. But NO concrete, real evidence that planes did not hit the towers.

In order for this idiotic theory to hold any water, EVERY SINGLE journalist that reported ANYTHING on the WTC that day would have to have been in on it. I personally know some of those journalists and I guarantee you right now, they weren't in on anything, nor would they ever agree to perpetrate such a journalistic fraud. You'd also have to somehow get every single witness to the event to lie, or to not tell anyone when they see other people lying about the airplane. I'd love for you to tell me how one might accomplish that.

CB_Brooklyn · 06-16-2007, 04:25 PM

shakran · 06-16-2007, 04:32 PM

In little dust clouds all over new york, or did you forget about the mounds of soot, ash, and dust that covered the city for blocks around?

So what are you saying now? The building was vaporized and then beamed out of new york while thousands watched and thought they were seeing a plane crash? So far the technology to pull that off is hundreds of years beyond ours, so you must be suggesting aliens helped Bush out.

Hell let's make it a REALLY good one and bring in the Mother Wheel and the Andromeda System branch of the Illuminati.

fastom · 06-16-2007, 10:49 PM

I was woken up early (Pacific time zone) and told a plane had crashed in the WTC, i was watching one tower burn before there ever was a second crash.
But whatever. Those videos do look fake and i have to wonder why. If a plane did crash why alter the video? A pretty clear video has the plane not crashing into the building but just kind of vanishing against it. Comparing one video to another shows more inconsistancy.

Hard to disputer this unless you this is fakes of the faked ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhF1y-7RCts

fastom · 06-16-2007, 10:49 PM

Don't think that just because the media said planes that there actually were. This whole deal has shown how terrible the media are at telling the real story.

shakran · 06-17-2007, 04:43 AM

A guy with a crappy home camera that doesn't have dynamic contrast control takes a non-tripod shot from the shadow side of an airplane and you're surprised that it's not as good as a $50,000 camera which, in addition to having a vastly superior lens and much larger CCD's (in addition to having 3 of them instead of just 1) can automatically enhance shadow areas to normalize the video, and you're surprised that there's a big difference between the two pictures?

All that video proves is that consumer-model cameras suck, but I knew that already.

CB_Brooklyn · 06-17-2007, 09:02 PM

There's no evidence that hundreds/thousands of eyewitnesses saw planes. People keep making this assumption (even within the Truth Movement itself) but there's no evidence to back it up.

How many know that Donald Rumsfeld accidentally admitted that the WTC and Pentagon were struck by missiles?

Here's the quote:
"Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center."

shakran · 06-18-2007, 05:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CB_Brooklyn

There's no evidence that hundreds/thousands of eyewitnesses saw planes. People keep making this assumption (even within the Truth Movement itself) but there's no evidence to back it up.

Of course there is. If YOU had watched a missile fly into the WTC, and you heard everyone on TV saying it was a plane, and you checked with your friends who had also seen it was a missile, wouldn't YOU speak up?

Quote:

Here's the quote:
"Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center."

Yes, in an article written by Lyric Wallwork, published in Parade. Lyric is rather famous for either getting facts astonishingly wrong, or for just outright making them up. No one's sure exactly which. Not to mention the small fact that Parade is hardly a shining example of journalistic greatness.

And again, you're still failing to explain why they used a missile. Why didn't they use planes if they wanted to convince us that planes had hit. Or alternatively, why didn't they use missiles and then tell us the terrorists had launched them? Hell that would've been easier to con people with than trying to witch up 2 planes that weren't there.

Redlemon · 06-18-2007, 09:21 AM

I'm confused. Didn't they prove in your other thread (NEW 9/11 PAPER BY DR JUDY WOOD: Molecular Dissociation: from Dust to Dirt) that it was an energy weapon, and now you are proving it is a missile? Can't we pick one proof and stick with it?

Willravel · 06-18-2007, 09:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Redlemon

I'm confused. Didn't they prove in your other thread (NEW 9/11 PAPER BY DR JUDY WOOD: Molecular Dissociation: from Dust to Dirt) that it was an energy weapon, and now you are proving it is a missile? Can't we pick one proof and stick with it?

A missile could have struck the building, then an energy weapon could have been used. Hypothetically.

Bill O'Rights · 06-18-2007, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

A missile could have struck the building, then an energy weapon could have been used. Hypothetically.

Have you ever gotten one of those headaches that just feels like a red hot poker being shoved in one ear and out the other, searing any unfortunate brain cells that happen to be in it's path? Uh-huh...I just had that.

Willravel · 06-18-2007, 10:20 AM

I'm trying to help out CB here. Calm down. This is Tilted Paranoia, not Tilted Facts or Tilted Certainty.

Jinn · 06-18-2007, 10:32 AM

I just can't understand why you would believe any of this nonsense, Will.. sure, noname Billy.. but you're an otherwise normal person..

Willravel · 06-18-2007, 11:13 AM

Actually, I think that planes hit the towers on 9/11. I was just trying to point out that people's certainty on this should be tested.

Still, I do have questions that have never been answered about that day, especially things like the tiny hole in the Pentagon. Aluminum doesn't atomize on impact, It shreds. So either the entire plane went into a hole around 10' across or the wreckage should have been right there in front of the building. Neither of those circumstances existed (the plane cannot fit into a hole that small, and there was almost no wreckage on the lawn), therefore it's not unreasonable to bring new explanations to the table and postulate on them based on available evidence.

I'd like to think that I'm a reasonable person. I try to be skeptical and open minded. Many supposed facts about the occurrences surrounding 9/11 are highly suspect, and it's not unreasonable to ask questions. Dilbert and I went back and fourth for page after page in another thread, and we both found the same evidence and came to two different reasonable conclusions. I'm not going to say that Dilbert is an idiot (he's really not) or even that he is definitely wrong; I will simply say that we are coming to two completely different conclusions based on a lot of the same evidence. I felt like a lot of what Dilbert was doing was more like stretching the laws of physics and reason in his specific explanations of my questions; and he probably felt like the big picture I was painting was unreasonable.

It's just one of those big questions that's really difficult.

shakran · 06-18-2007, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willravel

Actually, I think that planes hit the towers on 9/11. I was just trying to point out that people's certainty on this should be tested.

I must say I'm relieved to note that you're just being a pain in the ass rather than actually buying into this crap.

I keed, I keed.

Quote:

Still, I do have questions that have never been answered about that day, especially things like the tiny hole in the Pentagon. Aluminum doesn't atomize on impact, It shreds.

Well first off, I don't know that anyone's done experiments on flying a fully loaded and fueled jetliner into a building made of reinforced concrete. Second, aluminum does not necessarily shred on impact. It can also crumple. Don't believe me? Go crush a can of beer.

People think planes are very strong, but they're really not. They're really just a really big beer can with wings. The strongest part on the plane is the wing assembly because it has to support the entire airplane. But the fuse section is just a hollow aluminum can. It'll crush, it'll crumble, and if exposed to conditions such as those at the pentagon it would probably do exactly what it appeared to do.

Besides, I personally know a guy who was there that day, and he saw a plane. Not a missile, not a laser beam, but a plane.

Cynthetiq · 06-18-2007, 05:36 PM

I was going to say the same thing as the buildings, they aren't solid objects, they are for the most part hollow in the interior. If you ever had the opportunity to see the WTC lobbies it was WIDE OPEN SPACE with just the center columns where the elevator structure was.

People were in the lobbies all the time from those that went to the observation deck to those that stood in line for TKTS broadway shows.

I think that these people wonder where the plane/debris is don't recall the whole conservation of mass principles. That overhead shot doesn't allow one to see that there is a mountain of debris...

And to make sure you are looking at the MOST DEMOCRATIC website ever, look at hereisnewyork.org

They collected ALL photographs by EVERYDAY people who submitted them from where ever they were in the city. The gallery was open in SoHo on Prince Street for over a year, possibly 2. Look there and you'll find plenty of debris photos.

The whole where is the debris "game" is very disingenious, especially to those of us who live in NYC. All you all who watched it on your TVs have no idea what it was like here in the city that day and what it is like to be here for the aftermath.

Willravel · 06-18-2007, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

I must say I'm relieved to note that you're just being a pain in the ass rather than actually buying into this crap.

I keed, I keed.

You're a funny guy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shakran

Well first off, I don't know that anyone's done experiments on flying a fully loaded and fueled jetliner into a building made of reinforced concrete. Second, aluminum does not necessarily shred on impact. It can also crumple. Don't believe me? Go crush a can of beer.

People think planes are very strong, but they're really not. They're really just a really big beer can with wings. The strongest part on the plane is the wing assembly because it has to support the entire airplane. But the fuse section is just a hollow aluminum can. It'll crush, it'll crumble, and if exposed to conditions such as those at the pentagon it would probably do exactly what it appeared to do.

Besides, I personally know a guy who was there that day, and he saw a plane. Not a missile, not a laser beam, but a plane.

I don't think there have been experiments either, but there have been planes that hit buildings. They have a ton of material to work with. I was just pointing out that there was almost no wreckage in front of the building. Also, a lot of people saw a lot of things that day. My simple question to your friend would be, "Can you say to a certainty that the plane you saw was a Boeing 757-200? Could it have been smaller? Could it have been a military plane that was painted? Could it be that the plane that you saw moving at the Pentagon at over 500 miles an hour only a few feet off the ground wasn't exactly what everyone told you it was immediately after the crash and for the next 5 years?" After all, the only footage available seems to make it clear it was a smaller aircraft present that day.

...but I don't want to threadjack. I was trying to explain my personal position on the larger matter. I'm cool discussing this in one of the other threads, though.

Walking Shadow · 06-19-2007, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CB_Brooklyn

Groundbreaking New 9/11 Film "September Clues" reveals the truth about 9/11.

See September Clues in the following five 10-minute segments:
(more to be made)

http://www.livevideo.com/video/6F393...ues-part1.aspx

http://www.livevideo.com/video/2CE21...ues-part2.aspx

http://www.livevideo.com/video/E0E8D...ues-part3.aspx

http://www.livevideo.com/video/3F706...ues-part4.aspx

http://www.livevideo.com/video/0A68F...ues-part5.aspx

================

This is an excellent video series and is highly recommended, in particular parts 1 and 5, which contain PROOF of TV-Fakery.

How long till the media caves in?

More importantly, how long till enough people demand that something be done about the media liars?

Y'know this is the 4th different message board that you've posted this too.

And your OP is exactly the same, right down to the punctuation.

Look people, let's all be rational and DNFTFT and let this thread die the death it greatly deserves.

Willravel · 06-19-2007, 10:13 AM

http://www.hipforums.com/forums/show...92#post3517892
http://www.discussanything.com/forum...d.php?t=105054
http://www.godlikeproductions.com/bb.../17/07&forum=1
http://www.conspiracyresearch.org/fo...es-t24689.html
http://forum.ebaumsworld.com/showthread.php?t=207477

That's not cool.

fastom · 06-19-2007, 11:25 PM

I suppose word needs to spread. Too many people probably think they are the only one who thinks the whole 9-11 deal was bogus.

The only one of those sites i'd heard of is eBaums and i thought it was just funny stuff.

In those pictures below the doofus with the bullhorn is standing atop a pile much too short to have 110 concrete floors broken up.

CB_Brooklyn · 07-06-2007, 06:27 PM

New Segment Available:

Part 6

http://www.livevideo.com/video/C69E7...ues-part6.aspx

ObieX · 07-06-2007, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fastom

In those pictures below the doofus with the bullhorn is standing atop a pile much too short to have 110 concrete floors broken up.

Keep in mind a couple things:

1. There were quite a few basement floors to the towers for the debris to compact into and a lot of other areas underground. (parking floors etc).

2. A lot of the debris would have been pulverized and smashed into dust by the sheer force of the collapse. When you watch a video of the collapse you see a lot of "smoke" shooting out. Well, thats not smoke, thats pulverized concrete and other materials. Most of that ended up as a thick layer of dust over quite a large area.

CB_Brooklyn · 07-06-2007, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ObieX

Keep in mind a couple things:

1. There were quite a few basement floors to the towers for the debris to compact into and a lot of other areas underground. (parking floors etc).

2. A lot of the debris would have been pulverized and smashed into dust by the sheer force of the collapse. When you watch a video of the collapse you see a lot of "smoke" shooting out. Well, thats not smoke, thats pulverized concrete and other materials. Most of that ended up as a thick layer of dust over quite a large area.

Actually, the subbasements weren't broken into. And videos actually show the steel spire turning to dust! Check out this page: http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=57

fastom · 07-09-2007, 12:21 AM

This whole pulverization nonsense seems to be believed at face value by too many people.

Concrete starts to fall... it pulverizes, that's so obvious. Try this:

Go to Home Depot and buy one of those foot square and inch thick patio bricks and a two foot long piece of 3/4" rebar , after all it's reinforced concrete. Borrow some binoculars too.

Go up your nearest 80 or more story building and drop the things (not the binoculars!) out the window ... i'd say look below first but why bother, it's going to turn to dust long before it hits the ground, right? Watch the descent and what happens to them... or the dust... when it lands.

Then... during your prison stay try to figure out why it didn't "pulver" and who lied to you.

ObieX · 07-09-2007, 12:34 AM

Take that same brick and then drop 20 stories worth of those bricks and steel beams on top of it and see what happens. Then try it with 40.. 60.. 80.. 100 stories of steel and concrete.. I think, yea.. it will be flattened into dust.

fastom · 07-10-2007, 08:51 AM

You think it'll turn to dust before it hits anything?

Willravel · 07-10-2007, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ObieX

Take that same brick and then drop 20 stories worth of those bricks and steel beams on top of it and see what happens. Then try it with 40.. 60.. 80.. 100 stories of steel and concrete.. I think, yea.. it will be flattened into dust.

That's just it: it's not 20 stories. It's ONE story. Those are the top floors of the North Tower, at the first moment of collapse. All fire and impact damage are many floors down. This was the building where fire was visible for a maximum of 16 minutes, and where the fire was repeatedly reported as dying down. People could be seen at the impact hole, alive. This would suggest very little heat, spread across thousands of tons of steel. Somehow, the roof collapses first.

This is, at the very least, counterintuitive.

ObieX · 07-10-2007, 11:39 AM

I didn't say that the top floor would/did evaporate. That wouldn't make much sense. Floors 1-80? Probably crushed into a fine powder.

Quote:

This is, at the very least, counterintuitive.

Not really. The fire is on the inside and heat travels up. So people near the holes could be fine while the fires behind them blaze up into the floors above them. I'm sure they wouldn't have been hanging out of that hole if it was pleasant inside.

I don't see how it would be very little heat when it was jet fuel burning. That alone suggests that it was rather hot. If the metal supporting the inside weakened enough it would begin to collapse inward and down, pulling the roof down since all that is connected in there. Once the one floor goes and falls onto the weakened floor below that one will go, then you have 2 stories worth of weight compacting on a 3rd weakened floor etc.. At some point soon after that the floors don't need to be weakened due to all the extreme weight.

Take the weight of 1 floor (tons of steel and such).. falls.. now double it by adding a second floor (thats a lot of weight). Now another floor.. and another.. That weight builds up mighty quickly and its all bearing down on the next floor.. and the next.. and so on. Anything in and around those floors is going to get obliterated.

06-15-2007, 02:59 AM	#1 (permalink)
CB_Brooklyn Banned Location: New York City	Groundbreaking New 9/11 Film "September Clues" Groundbreaking New 9/11 Film "September Clues" reveals the truth about 9/11. See September Clues in the following six 10-minute segments: (more to be made) http://www.livevideo.com/video/6F393...ues-part1.aspx http://www.livevideo.com/video/2CE21...ues-part2.aspx http://www.livevideo.com/video/E0E8D...ues-part3.aspx http://www.livevideo.com/video/3F706...ues-part4.aspx http://www.livevideo.com/video/0A68F...ues-part5.aspx http://www.livevideo.com/video/C69E7...ues-part6.aspx ================ This is an excellent video series and is highly recommended, in particular parts 1 and 5, which contain PROOF of TV-Fakery. How long till the media caves in? More importantly, how long till enough people demand that something be done about the media liars? Last edited by CB_Brooklyn; 07-06-2007 at 06:26 PM.. Reason: added 6th link

06-15-2007, 08:55 AM	#2 (permalink)
pornclerk Insane Location: Ontario, Canada	I don't know what exactly they were trying to prove other than the media made fake videos. There's no evidence to say that a plane didn't hit the building. Maybe I am missing something here. Who made this video? Is there scientific evidence to back up many of the claims made? __________________ Who wants a twig when you can have the whole tree?

06-15-2007, 09:03 AM	#3 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	It'd be groundbreaking if it didn't just bring up the same shit that's been disputed hundreds, thousands of times by REAL SCIENTISTS. You might've gotten a better audience if you'd titled it "Same shit about 9/11 produced, 'September Clues'" __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

06-15-2007, 09:07 AM	#4 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	right i guess those people who stood on their balconies on the Lower EastSide who did see the 2nd plane hit to the towers or the people who live in Brooklyn were also all in on it. The people in the building where i work now in SoHo all watched it from the rooftop... I guess they've been paid off as well. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION!

06-15-2007, 09:54 AM	#6 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	And what about the third option, will? That of simplicity? If I were to witness via explosion (or the sound of such) the destruction of the top levels of a skyscraper, I would assume it was a plane. In Modern America, it is much more likely to see a plane in the air than a ground launched missile or satellite targeted laser system (as some would claim). It's a safe assumption to believe that MOST Americans would connect the only human-made flying things they've seen with the destruction of something far into the air. If I would assume that, surely she could. And if she is, then neither collusion nor "sitting on it" by the media would be necessary. __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

06-15-2007, 09:34 AM	#5 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I'm sure that everyone here knows well enough the difference between skepticism and condescension. Just a kindly reminder. Mrs. Theresa Renaud gave a suspiciously conflicting report. Interviewer: Did you hear the explosion from your position? Theresa: Oh yes, yes we did. As a matter of fact, we heard it...and , cause I was just like standing there looking out the window I didn't see what caused it or if there was another impact. Oh there's another plane just hit! HIGHLY suspicious. The thing is, this requires an odd explanation. Had she just been lying or exaggerating, that would have been different, but she knew, despite any indication, that the initial impact was a plane. I can't think of any reason that she knew they were planes 1) because she specifically said that she didn't know what hit the building, 2) no one, up to that point thought it was a plane and 3) even with binoculars, she would have been hard pressed to actually see any plane. She knew it was a plane before the news outlets. Think about that. She knew it was a plane before anyone else. When I consider this scenario, the most plausible explanations are either she knew before the news outlets somehow, or the news outlets sat on the information and she was a fake interview. Option 1 means she was familiar with the plan of attack befoe it was carried out and is likely in collusion (scary thought). Option 2 means that the media, in a (everyone take a deep breath) conspiracy, kept information from the public about the nature of the attack until the second impact. What do you think the implications of these two options are? Can you think of any other options?

06-16-2007, 04:25 PM	#14 (permalink)
CB_Brooklyn Banned Location: New York City

06-16-2007, 04:32 PM	#15 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	In little dust clouds all over new york, or did you forget about the mounds of soot, ash, and dust that covered the city for blocks around? So what are you saying now? The building was vaporized and then beamed out of new york while thousands watched and thought they were seeing a plane crash? So far the technology to pull that off is hundreds of years beyond ours, so you must be suggesting aliens helped Bush out. Hell let's make it a REALLY good one and bring in the Mother Wheel and the Andromeda System branch of the Illuminati.

06-16-2007, 10:49 PM	#16 (permalink)
fastom Psycho Location: way out west	I was woken up early (Pacific time zone) and told a plane had crashed in the WTC, i was watching one tower burn before there ever was a second crash. But whatever. Those videos do look fake and i have to wonder why. If a plane did crash why alter the video? A pretty clear video has the plane not crashing into the building but just kind of vanishing against it. Comparing one video to another shows more inconsistancy. Hard to disputer this unless you this is fakes of the faked ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhF1y-7RCts

06-16-2007, 10:49 PM	#17 (permalink)
fastom Psycho Location: way out west	Don't think that just because the media said planes that there actually were. This whole deal has shown how terrible the media are at telling the real story. Last edited by fastom; 06-19-2007 at 11:12 PM.. Reason: double post

06-17-2007, 04:43 AM	#18 (permalink)
shakran Tone.	A guy with a crappy home camera that doesn't have dynamic contrast control takes a non-tripod shot from the shadow side of an airplane and you're surprised that it's not as good as a $50,000 camera which, in addition to having a vastly superior lens and much larger CCD's (in addition to having 3 of them instead of just 1) can automatically enhance shadow areas to normalize the video, and you're surprised that there's a big difference between the two pictures? All that video proves is that consumer-model cameras suck, but I knew that already.

06-17-2007, 09:02 PM	#19 (permalink)
CB_Brooklyn Banned Location: New York City	There's no evidence that hundreds/thousands of eyewitnesses saw planes. People keep making this assumption (even within the Truth Movement itself) but there's no evidence to back it up. How many know that Donald Rumsfeld accidentally admitted that the WTC and Pentagon were struck by missiles? Here's the quote: "Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center."

06-18-2007, 09:21 AM	#21 (permalink)
Redlemon Devoted Donor Location: New England	I'm confused. Didn't they prove in your other thread (NEW 9/11 PAPER BY DR JUDY WOOD: Molecular Dissociation: from Dust to Dirt) that it was an energy weapon, and now you are proving it is a missile? Can't we pick one proof and stick with it? __________________ I can't read your signature. Sorry.

06-18-2007, 10:20 AM	#24 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I'm trying to help out CB here. Calm down. This is Tilted Paranoia, not Tilted Facts or Tilted Certainty.

06-18-2007, 10:32 AM	#25 (permalink)
Jinn Lover - Protector - Teacher Location: Seattle, WA	I just can't understand why you would believe any of this nonsense, Will.. sure, noname Billy.. but you're an otherwise normal person.. __________________ "I'm typing on a computer of science, which is being sent by science wires to a little science server where you can access it. I'm not typing on a computer of philosophy or religion or whatever other thing you think can be used to understand the universe because they're a poor substitute in the role of understanding the universe which exists independent from ourselves." - Willravel

06-18-2007, 11:13 AM	#26 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Actually, I think that planes hit the towers on 9/11. I was just trying to point out that people's certainty on this should be tested. Still, I do have questions that have never been answered about that day, especially things like the tiny hole in the Pentagon. Aluminum doesn't atomize on impact, It shreds. So either the entire plane went into a hole around 10' across or the wreckage should have been right there in front of the building. Neither of those circumstances existed (the plane cannot fit into a hole that small, and there was almost no wreckage on the lawn), therefore it's not unreasonable to bring new explanations to the table and postulate on them based on available evidence. I'd like to think that I'm a reasonable person. I try to be skeptical and open minded. Many supposed facts about the occurrences surrounding 9/11 are highly suspect, and it's not unreasonable to ask questions. Dilbert and I went back and fourth for page after page in another thread, and we both found the same evidence and came to two different reasonable conclusions. I'm not going to say that Dilbert is an idiot (he's really not) or even that he is definitely wrong; I will simply say that we are coming to two completely different conclusions based on a lot of the same evidence. I felt like a lot of what Dilbert was doing was more like stretching the laws of physics and reason in his specific explanations of my questions; and he probably felt like the big picture I was painting was unreasonable. It's just one of those big questions that's really difficult.

06-18-2007, 05:36 PM	#28 (permalink)
Cynthetiq Tilted Cat Head Administrator Location: Manhattan, NY	I was going to say the same thing as the buildings, they aren't solid objects, they are for the most part hollow in the interior. If you ever had the opportunity to see the WTC lobbies it was WIDE OPEN SPACE with just the center columns where the elevator structure was. People were in the lobbies all the time from those that went to the observation deck to those that stood in line for TKTS broadway shows. I think that these people wonder where the plane/debris is don't recall the whole conservation of mass principles. That overhead shot doesn't allow one to see that there is a mountain of debris... And to make sure you are looking at the MOST DEMOCRATIC website ever, look at hereisnewyork.org They collected ALL photographs by EVERYDAY people who submitted them from where ever they were in the city. The gallery was open in SoHo on Prince Street for over a year, possibly 2. Look there and you'll find plenty of debris photos. The whole where is the debris "game" is very disingenious, especially to those of us who live in NYC. All you all who watched it on your TVs have no idea what it was like here in the city that day and what it is like to be here for the aftermath. __________________ I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not. What's the best nation in the world? DO-NATION! Last edited by Cynthetiq; 06-18-2007 at 06:02 PM.. Reason: Automerged Doublepost

06-19-2007, 10:13 AM	#31 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	http://www.hipforums.com/forums/show...92#post3517892 http://www.discussanything.com/forum...d.php?t=105054 http://www.godlikeproductions.com/bb.../17/07&forum=1 http://www.conspiracyresearch.org/fo...es-t24689.html http://forum.ebaumsworld.com/showthread.php?t=207477 That's not cool.

06-19-2007, 11:25 PM	#32 (permalink)
fastom Psycho Location: way out west	I suppose word needs to spread. Too many people probably think they are the only one who thinks the whole 9-11 deal was bogus. The only one of those sites i'd heard of is eBaums and i thought it was just funny stuff. In those pictures below the doofus with the bullhorn is standing atop a pile much too short to have 110 concrete floors broken up.

07-06-2007, 06:27 PM	#33 (permalink)
CB_Brooklyn Banned Location: New York City	New Segment Available: Part 6 http://www.livevideo.com/video/C69E7...ues-part6.aspx

07-09-2007, 12:21 AM	#36 (permalink)
fastom Psycho Location: way out west	This whole pulverization nonsense seems to be believed at face value by too many people. Concrete starts to fall... it pulverizes, that's so obvious. Try this: Go to Home Depot and buy one of those foot square and inch thick patio bricks and a two foot long piece of 3/4" rebar , after all it's reinforced concrete. Borrow some binoculars too. Go up your nearest 80 or more story building and drop the things (not the binoculars!) out the window ... i'd say look below first but why bother, it's going to turn to dust long before it hits the ground, right? Watch the descent and what happens to them... or the dust... when it lands. Then... during your prison stay try to figure out why it didn't "pulver" and who lied to you.

07-09-2007, 12:34 AM	#37 (permalink)
ObieX Pickles Location: Shirt and Pants (NJ)	Take that same brick and then drop 20 stories worth of those bricks and steel beams on top of it and see what happens. Then try it with 40.. 60.. 80.. 100 stories of steel and concrete.. I think, yea.. it will be flattened into dust. __________________ We Must Dissent.

07-10-2007, 08:51 AM	#38 (permalink)
fastom Psycho Location: way out west	You think it'll turn to dust before it hits anything?