FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
9/11 Deja Vu : The Audios. The Analysis.
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 35, 36, 37  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message
IronClad



Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 435
Location: Kent

PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2012 11:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That is the fallacy of the story of the 10 and all the 19 hijackers.
It only makes sense if the two flying objects were remote controlled. Would "pilots" be wasted on a job if the towers were coming down anyway? Why provide the cover story?

Why hijack real planes [with the risks involved] when to take over planes by remote control would guarantee hits. Planes are a cover story or the only means by which the towers were brought down - without explosives. [this is the reason Fintan's analysis].

Since terrorist remote controllers would not provide the cover story this has got to the only means by which the towers came down.

Would terrorist pilots be motivated just to fly planes into the towers? What would have motivated them? Emarrassment having the towers damaged, on the landscape, the huge decision whether to repair them or take them down the old fashioned away? Having the repair costs? Loss of revenue from rentals.

Just damaging the two towers - almost beyond repair?

Almost enough motivation but was it enough?

Remote controlled planes just to damage the towers almost beyond repair?

This would certainly be worth it. But then there was the timing. Timed when least people were inside the towers. The first hit was high -the least number of people above the hit. The second 18 mins later - the least number inside the ST when less people went inside and most people who evacuated got out [motivated by the first hit].

If planes are the cover story and their timings were to limit casualities then this is two reasons why real terrorists were not flying those planes from the cockpits.

So, remote controlled flying objects possibly target drones put up for one of the umpteen terrorist exercises when to launch them would have been routine without drawing military attention.

Put a few remotely controlled flying objects into the towers and that would certainly have caused some big worry to those who saw what their decision would have to be if they remained standing and damaged.

Now we are dealing with some form of modern technology [DEW] that brought them down so neatly that the clean up involved very little demolition work. 110 floors were so neatly brought down that they had to be the first to come clean and tell us via the first demolition expert to speak out that it was too symetrical not to have been a controlled demolition. A conventional demolition expert,of course.

Would there have been so much vapour and hot spots as a consequence to two 767 flying into the towers? Would there have been so many questions regarding the state of some of the steel? Would there be questions of how welds, bolts or rivets had all parted company and ripped through the steel joints and how the spandrels had come adrift fromone another?

So, without the plane cover story those towers would have still been up today. When there has been a whole group of no planers "at it" for 10 years - what a cover story that was.

But they were pulveried, the mainstream account leads us to believe - so were the towers and the other 5 buildings.

Just fly a missile or target drone into the towers by remote control and sit back and watch the whole thing pan out. Simple. What isn't simple is the fact that just two 767's were responsible for taking off the landscape 7 buildings comprised of the WTC complex.

And the property market after 9/11 got more competitive since excess office space was removed.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
newspeak



Joined: 11 Dec 2011
Posts: 14
Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 9:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

IronClad wrote:
That is the fallacy of the story of the 10 and all the 19 hijackers.
It only makes sense if the two flying objects were remote controlled. Would "pilots" be wasted on a job if the towers were coming down anyway? Why provide the cover story?

Why hijack real planes [with the risks involved] when to take over planes by remote control would guarantee hits. Planes are a cover story or the only means by which the towers were brought down - without explosives. [this is the reason Fintan's analysis].

Since terrorist remote controllers would not provide the cover story this has got to the only means by which the towers came down.

Would terrorist pilots be motivated just to fly planes into the towers? What would have motivated them? Emarrassment having the towers damaged, on the landscape, the huge decision whether to repair them or take them down the old fashioned away? Having the repair costs? Loss of revenue from rentals.

Just damaging the two towers - almost beyond repair?

Almost enough motivation but was it enough?

Remote controlled planes just to damage the towers almost beyond repair?

This would certainly be worth it. But then there was the timing. Timed when least people were inside the towers. The first hit was high -the least number of people above the hit. The second 18 mins later - the least number inside the ST when less people went inside and most people who evacuated got out [motivated by the first hit].

If planes are the cover story and their timings were to limit casualities then this is two reasons why real terrorists were not flying those planes from the cockpits.

So, remote controlled flying objects possibly target drones put up for one of the umpteen terrorist exercises when to launch them would have been routine without drawing military attention.

Put a few remotely controlled flying objects into the towers and that would certainly have caused some big worry to those who saw what their decision would have to be if they remained standing and damaged.

Now we are dealing with some form of modern technology [DEW] that brought them down so neatly that the clean up involved very little demolition work. 110 floors were so neatly brought down that they had to be the first to come clean and tell us via the first demolition expert to speak out that it was too symetrical not to have been a controlled demolition. A conventional demolition expert,of course.

Would there have been so much vapour and hot spots as a consequence to two 767 flying into the towers? Would there have been so many questions regarding the state of some of the steel? Would there be questions of how welds, bolts or rivets had all parted company and ripped through the steel joints and how the spandrels had come adrift fromone another?

So, without the plane cover story those towers would have still been up today. When there has been a whole group of no planers "at it" for 10 years - what a cover story that was.

But they were pulveried, the mainstream account leads us to believe - so were the towers and the other 5 buildings.

Just fly a missile or target drone into the towers by remote control and sit back and watch the whole thing pan out. Simple. What isn't simple is the fact that just two 767's were responsible for taking off the landscape 7 buildings comprised of the WTC complex.

And the property market after 9/11 got more competitive since excess office space was removed.


I'll break that down and reply later ok
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
newspeak



Joined: 11 Dec 2011
Posts: 14
Location: UK

PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 10:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="IronClad"]
IronClad wrote:
That is the fallacy of the story of the 10 and all the 19 hijackers.
It only makes sense if the two flying objects were remote controlled. Would "pilots" be wasted on a job if the towers were coming down anyway? Why provide the cover story?

Dunno maybe the planes with their fuel load were enough?

Why hijack real planes [with the risks involved] when to take over planes by remote control would guarantee hits. Planes are a cover story or the only means by which the towers were brought down - without explosives. [this is the reason Fintan's analysis].

Last I heard this was not Fintan's conclusion at all!

Since terrorist remote controllers would not provide the cover story this has got to the only means by which the towers came down.

Would terrorist pilots be motivated just to fly planes into the towers? What would have motivated them? Emarrassment having the towers damaged, on the landscape, the huge decision whether to repair them or take them down the old fashioned away? Having the repair costs? Loss of revenue from rentals.

Just damaging the two towers - almost beyond repair?

Almost enough motivation but was it enough?

Remote controlled planes just to damage the towers almost beyond repair?

This would certainly be worth it. But then there was the timing. Timed when least people were inside the towers. The first hit was high -the least number of people above the hit. The second 18 mins later - the least number inside the ST when less people went inside and most people who evacuated got out [motivated by the first hit].

If planes are the cover story and their timings were to limit casualities then this is two reasons why real terrorists were not flying those planes from the cockpits.

The targets were the Towers the symbol of western capitalism,not the 10,000 or so people who would have been there later on.
So the timing is a non-issue from the "terrorists" (perps and planners) point of view.


So, remote controlled flying objects possibly target drones put up for one of the umpteen terrorist exercises when to launch them would have been routine without drawing military attention.

Routine? No attention? civilian jet drones,with or without passenger and hijackers rigged up to fly remotely?
Those excercises were they "real world or paper excercises?"


Put a few remotely controlled flying objects into the towers and that would certainly have caused some big worry to those who saw what their decision would have to be if they remained standing and damaged.

Now we are dealing with some form of modern technology [DEW] that brought them down so neatly that the clean up involved very little demolition work. 110 floors were so neatly brought down that they had to be the first to come clean and tell us via the first demolition expert to speak out that it was too symetrical not to have been a controlled demolition. A conventional demolition expert,of course.

As Fintan has said "Keep it simple stupid"

Would there have been so much vapour and hot spots as a consequence to two 767 flying into the towers? Would there have been so many questions regarding the state of some of the steel? Would there be questions of how welds, bolts or rivets had all parted company and ripped through the steel joints and how the spandrels had come adrift fromone another?

So, without the plane cover story those towers would have still been up today. When there has been a whole group of no planers "at it" for 10 years - what a cover story that was.

But they were pulveried, the mainstream account leads us to believe - so were the towers and the other 5 buildings.

Just fly a missile or target drone into the towers by remote control and sit back and watch the whole thing pan out. Simple. What isn't simple is the fact that just two 767's were responsible for taking off the landscape 7 buildings comprised of the WTC complex.

And the property market after 9/11 got more competitive since excess office space was removed.


Sorry this is Fantasy Island stuff just as diverting and ridiculous as no-planes theory, and Dewdy Woodeey's DEW theory.If you were remotely awake you would see that IronClad.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Raphael



Joined: 20 Aug 2007
Posts: 1337
Location: SpaceTimeVibration

PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 12:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

newspeak wrote:
They planted explosives as well as flying planes into the towers?


yes exactly those who were responsible had access to the buildings in order to lay the demolition charges, and they also would have had access to the technology to have been able to fly remote control drone/jets into WTC1 and WTC2.

Why is that so hard to believe, the military do it all the time, i.e. fly 'drone missions'.

do ya think they would have left the onetwo punch to a bunch of Islamic hacks who had trouble in Florida Flight School getting off the ground?

namaste

_________________
KEY 528=Swastika=ancient Spherical Standing Wave Theory
“A theory is more impressive the greater is the simplicity of its premise, the more different are the kinds of things it relates and the more extended its range of applicability…”
-Albert Einstein
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
IronClad



Joined: 10 Aug 2011
Posts: 435
Location: Kent

PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2012 3:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Some good points and I'll assume a few commentators agree with most of it.

I would stress that my analysis was aimed at the mainsteam account - not any alternative perp.

But it is a very good point that the Military and/or their Industrial Complex would provide both the exploding flying objects [and the demolition devices] which would allow the media to present a cover story for the main event however difficult that story might be. 265 people had to be created plus another one passenger plane, at least, to cover up the Pentagon attack. Of course those who argue it was a missile [Tarpley is one] will lead to a propersition,at least the first hit was also a missile [why change an MO? Why not a missile into the NT and its target drone into the ST? Routine exercise.

To this extent one could claim that the MIC provided the flying objects and the devices but the media had to put the flesh on the bones of the cover up.

On the other hand why not just fly the aforementioned craft into the NT & ST and watch for the inevitable. Were satelites over New York for the duration of both tower destructions or was it simply the presence of quartz in the bedrock for the use of other means?

Can we really depend on the keep it simple concept. The destruction of two towers and five other buildings was not simple at all. Otherwise it must have been by chance that the whole complex was destroyed and taken away.

The mainstream account is that 4 passenger planes and 265 passengers were vaporized. The only thing is they have not provided the science or physics to prove how it was done.

Planes and the twin towers were vapourized. WTC6 was gutted out because one of the towers fell on it and WTC7 just collapsed to the ground because of fire. This is the mainsream account. There is so much else to do to improve on the mainstream account. There was not much of a cover story provided, by the MIC for the media to use for the other five buildings. NIST had to do the best they could with the materials they managed to get hold of. This limitation of materials they had to work with [despite ample opportunity to gather evidence from Fresh Kills] was obviously a way to avoid real metalurgical tests and other forensic testing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Southpark Fan



Joined: 24 Nov 2011
Posts: 1368
Location: The Caribbean of Canada

PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 3:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

US drops investigations of Goldman Sachs
Barry Grey | 11 August 2012 | WSW


'The US Justice Department announced Thursday evening it was ending a one-year criminal investigation and would not file charges against the giant Wall Street investment bank Goldman Sachs or any of its employees. In April 2011, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations released a voluminous report on the role of major banks, federal regulators and credit rating firms in the collapse of the subprime mortgage market and ensuing financial crash of September 2008.

Of the report’s 640 pages, 240 pages, or 40 percent, were devoted to a detailed examination of Goldman Sach’s deceptive practices in marketing mortgage-backed securities and collateralized debt obligations. The report alleged that Goldman bilked clients by selling them mortgage-backed securities without informing them that the bank itself was betting the investments would fail. The Senate report concluded by listing federal securities laws the committee believed had likely been violated by Goldman and other banks. The committee referred its findings to the Justice Department and federal prosecutors for a criminal investigation of Goldman and its executives. It also called for an investigation into whether Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein had perjured himself in his public testimony before the panel.

In releasing the report, the chairman of the committee, Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, said the panel’s two-year probe had found “a financial snake pit rife with greed, conflicts of interest and wrongdoing.” He recommended that charges be brought and said, “In my judgment, Goldman clearly misled their clients and they misled Congress.”

In its statement released Thursday, the Justice Department said it had conducted “an exhaustive review of the report,” but concluded that “based on the law and evidence as they exist at this time, there is not a viable basis to bring a criminal prosecution with respect to Goldman Sachs or its employees in regard to the allegations set forth in the report.”'

Related: Systemic Upheaval

_________________
"Now water can flow or it can crash. Be water, my friend." - Bruce Lee
"Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth." - Buddha
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Big Boss



Joined: 04 May 2008
Posts: 822
Location: Outer Heaven

PostPosted: Sat Aug 11, 2012 5:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thats exactly what I thought. I remember Dunne reporting on this and the best I got from it was that there was all the rational reasons and evidence in the world to suspect a systemic crash that was designed by insiders on Wall St. and not a tinfoil.

I figured that of course there would never be any "high level" prosecutions, hell that would be cause for celebration honestly.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 7773

PostPosted: Thu Sep 12, 2013 5:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For the record, I'm posting the 4 best 9/11 videos
I could find which came out this 2013 anniversary.


Between them, they paint a good picture of where
things stand on the issue - both good or bad.

The spectacular find is the first video below, which
was only posted on YouTube just three days ago.

David Vanadia's hour long journey through the streets
of Manhattan in the immediate aftermath of the plane
strikes is fresh and human; beautiful and bittersweet.


It features live reaction to both tower collapses. [8mins 54mins]
He's promised to follow up by posting the full
raw video from which this edited hour came.

Quote:
My 9/11: New Video from Streets of Manhattan

David Vanadia



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEDfVUqtaAc




Quote:
RT Special on '9/11 Inside Job' [Video]



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ugCIjzHptA




Quote:
9/11: The 19 Suspects the US Gov. Wants to Hide [Video]



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jI2s4v9XY3U




Quote:
Poll: More Americans "Rethinking" 9/11 [Video]



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7tSfwkKaUo

_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Plato



Joined: 09 Dec 2010
Posts: 360

PostPosted: Fri Sep 13, 2013 6:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ok, there was a debate about this scientist Judy Wood on BFN years ago , on whether she's a nutcase, a stooge or simply telling the truth. She had me hooked though, as her most important point is; where did all the debris from WTC1, 2 & 7 actually go, all 1.25 million tons of them? After going through all the evidence (or rather what was left of it; where's the debris, why were there NO seismic recordings of the implosion of the towers, why weren't the firemen in the stairwell of WTC1 killed by the building collapsing on top of them, they actually DID survive etc. etc.), she comes to the conclusion that the buildings were simply 'vaporized' by some sort of secret weapon; a Directed Energy Weapon. Just because you may have never heard of it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist (as if they are going to share that kind of info with us!). If you have the time, see for yourself (a little over 2 hours, but she is VERY thorough at getting her point across).

<iframe></iframe>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=T1NbBxDGSkI

_________________
"A person hears only what he understands."
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jimbo



Joined: 11 Mar 2008
Posts: 462

PostPosted: Sun Sep 15, 2013 11:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://blasphemous.epouvantails.collectifs.net/

Add this one to your list, Fintan.

Wrong, Blasphemous and Sinful: Ten Years of 9/11 Media Coverage

And here is documentary with a European viewpoint regarding the dismissive and even slanderous way the European and US mainstream media treats the subject of 9/11. It is shocking. In one scene on a French talk show which allowed on a truther, the truther thanks the host for taking this risk and the host says, what risk? This is an open forum for free speech and that he is sure his job will be there tomorrow. The next day the producer was fired for allowing the show on. Please watch it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Jimbo



Joined: 11 Mar 2008
Posts: 462

PostPosted: Mon Sep 16, 2013 6:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Add this one to the TOP of your pile.

http://www.luogocomune.net/site/modules/sections/index.php?op=viewarticle&artid=167

A five hour extravaganza, the most comprehensive, encyclopedic , level-headed debunking of the debunkers I have yet seen.

Remember, Fintan, when you postulated how the knocking off of the fireproofing was akin to one good blow to a jungle gym knocking off all the sand collected on the bars? Deep within this film in the fireproofing chapter he shows a guy whose office was right below the plane's impact and at that moment not a picture on his desk moved, let along fell over. He did feel the building bow back as it was designed but it didn't jerk as if it was rigid.

A+++
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 7773

PostPosted: Tue Sep 24, 2013 6:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:


Boeing Turns Retired F-16s Into Drones

Matthew Feeney|Sep. 24, 2013 4:19 pm

A retired Cold War-era F-16 flew over the Gulf of Mexico last week after
being retrofitted by Boeing
.

According to the BBC the jet was flown by two U.S. Air Force pilots on the
ground and flew at an altitude of 40,000 feet at a speed of Mach 1.47. The
BBC also reports that there are six of these retrofitted jets, now called QF-
16s, which the U.S. military plans to use for live fire tests.

WATCH VIDEO >

Over at Gizmodo Adam Clark Estes points out that these
F-16s are not the first jets to be converted into drones:

Before the F-16s became QF-16s, the Vietnam-era F-4 became the QF-4. And before that, pilots took aim at converted jetslike the PQF-102 Delta Dagger, the QF-100 Super Saber and the QF-106 Delta Dart. The Air Force prefers the drone approach because nothing simulates actual combat fighting like a full-sized fighter jet pulling real-world maneuvers in the sky, and the lack of a pilot (somewhat ironically) lets them test the lethality of their weapons systems.

http://reason.com/blog/2013/09/24/boeing-turns-retired-jets-into-drones

Demonstrating the relative ease of
patching a command flight control
system into a modern aircraft.

It's not that difficult. Wink

_________________
Minds are like parachutes.
They only function when open.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 35, 36, 37  Next
Page 36 of 37

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

Theme xand created by spleen.