FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   Log in to check your private messages   Log in 
9/11 Without Tinfoil 2: The Deception
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Audios
  ::  Previous topic :: Next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 21 Sep 2006
Posts: 88
Location: Michigan

PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 5:24 pm    Post subject: New Planehugger Therapy Reply with quote

Prediction: 9/11 Without Tinfoil - Part 327: WE'RE ALMOST THERE
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Posts: 730

PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 5:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

urbanspaceman wrote:
More complex = higher risk. The no-plane theory is a lot more elaborate and complex then just flying the damn planes in. If you just fly the planes in, there's no need to brainwash and intimidate witnesses, no need to hide the original planes and kill passengers elsewhere, no need to fake flight data, no need to fool air traffic controllers, no need to create special effects videos, no need to plant aircraft parts, no need to suppress or fake records.

Nice urbanspaceman. Lets say I wanted to commit a murder (in theory) ... I could possibly fabricate "ice" bullets for my gun or I could hollow out the bullets and insert some kind of undetectable poison that may also allegedly not be detected on an autopsy report or ... I could just shoot the victim and destroy the weapon or just plant the weapon on someone else. What is more plausible and leaves the least amount of loose ends? This is the core issue ...

This is a strange use of investigation skills ... why would that be?? I would love to hear the Vegas odds on this scenario ...

- Hawk

"Look up here, I'm in heaven. I've got scars that can't be seen. I've got drama, can't be stolen. Everybody knows me now." - David Bowie
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 313

PostPosted: Tue Oct 03, 2006 6:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Stilldiggin:With regard to the "impact", you say the outer steel beams gave way? With perfectly horizontal "break points?"

Only a few horizontal break points on the beams, actually. Look at this picture more carefully. The horizontal break-points are much more apparent on the outer covering or sheeting, made of a much thinner material and obviously pre-formed in segments. Anyone can see that the breaks occured at the seams, almost without exception.
As for the beams themselves, the pattern is much more inconsistent. Yes it's a little surprising that a handful of beams would sever so neatly, and in such close proximity. Only five beams have horizontal break points - three on the right side (sticking up from below) and two on the left (hanging from above.) The breaks on both sides are at the same height. The builders might have alternated the sections/joints in groups of three or more.

Stilldiggin:...and I will no longer be debating about magical planes and steel beams that break without tearing or bending...

If you look more closely at the beams, (not the shiny outer sheeting,) you'll see that most of them are torn and bent.

Stilldiggin:C'mon, do you really expect people to believe that steel "breaks" like that? LEGOS, maybe... but not steel beams. I may not be sure of exactly when and I may not be sure of exactly how, but those steel beams were cut - no ifs, ands, or buts about it.

Well, unless there were charges placed on the outside of the building to blow the remains inside, (unlikely,) I think they would have needed to physically cut them, say with a torch, (why bother?) or sever them with a cutter charge (again, why bother?)

Stilldiggin:And of these thousands of witnesses, looking out of windows and such, how many would be looking for a plane?

None, but the 'blind area' naturally shrinks as you pull further away from the WTC. It would have been much easier to see the plane while viewing the north tower from a greater distance, much further than the close proximity examples you worked with in your diagram.

You're not the only one who finds all this a little tedious.

Stilldiggin:Maybe asking you to imagine a moving building was too much to ask. Maybe we need a real-world experiment. Tell you what: Grab a stopwatch, a tape measure, a calculator and a tractor-trailer. Measure exactly 100 feet from the front of the truck.

Diggin, this is pure crap. I never questioned the parity-in-effect of one object moving into the other, or vice versa. You're hearing things, ...clutching at straws?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 4:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm about done with The "no-towers" theory? The "no-Manhattan" theory?

However, upon careful examination, and with due respect for McGowan, I'm seeing his points that

a) virtually ALL the Pgon witnesses cited (who had names and not initials) (who were traceable) were either closely linked to the military or deep govt suspect positions, plus an unusual number of people from the Gannett kingdom which publishes about a half-dozen military publications.
i.e. possibly not your best sources

b) many of the non-spook witnesses had stories which either contradicted other stories or contradicted photo evidence

c) the impact from the plane should have (mostly) shattered the nosecone, while leaving a deep, clear imprint/hole of the wing+engine assy., i.e. NOT a circular shape but a shape more like the Towers.

Now I'm not saying I'm 100% sold on that, but whereas I completely dismissed Von Kleist and his ilk in the past, and still do, my impression of McGowan's arguments is that they do not sound so kooky.

One thing McGowan cracks on is certain people who use the "wrong shape" argument to say "No Plane" hit the Pgon, while they disingenuously use the "correct shape" argument to say "No Plane" hit the Towers.

I just think his points (more detailed) are worth considering, perhaps on another thread.

That's all.

Fintan, what's your take on McGowan? Any fatal flaws?
Back to top

Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 325
Location: London , UK

PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 10:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hawkwind wrote:
I could possibly fabricate "ice" bullets for my gun

Indeed. Not just the magic-bullet theory, but the magic-disappearing-ice-bullet-with-undetectable-poison-in-the-bullet theory!

dilbert_g wrote:
I'm about done with The "no-towers" theory? The "no-Manhattan" theory?

I apologize for the ad hominum attack, you're right, but emotions are running high on this thread. Like many on the forum I believe the no-plane theories are planted traps designed to discredit skeptical folks like us, and it kind of breaks my heart that people are being sucked in.

I'm not going to accuse those who believe in the no-plane of being "stupid idiots" and say they have no intelligence, because I also got sucked into many of the CIA fakes too, and I was in quite a state of fear for a number of months. I learned my lesson and I'm trying to be more careful and descerning now.

I just want people who think that no-planes is plausible to consider they may be suffering from a "worm's eye view", when a bird's eye view is what's needed to solve the crime. All the pieces must fit together.

I haven't looked deeply into McGowan's points about the witnesses...I think I remember reading one article, but I may have skimmed it. So I'll peer at that again.

Take a look at some of the other threads about the Pentagon strike. There's disagreement on the forum here, but some of the photos I've seen show a plane-shaped hole (not just a round hole), with the wings, engine to engine, hitting the ground floor. It appear the wing tips, past the engines, broke off (and the limestone is damaged there). A decent page on it is http://www.911review.com/attack/pentagon/impact.html.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 1:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey Spaceman,
NO NO NO. I'm all down with the ad-hominem attacks --- at least to a degree. I mean we don't want to be like Free Republic where it's just attack attack attack, but a little sarcasm is what this forum thrives on.

I even let some of Neo's Jew-baiting pass, like the first time he accused me of sneaky and deceptive arguments.

Ad-hom works at times, esp when a person is so insistent on the ridiculously implausible. People videoed the 2nd plane flying in for at least 5 seconds before it hit. Even people who might not have been staring open-mouthed at the fire, the moment everyone heard a low flying plane coming in, you'd be damn sure everyone instinctively looked up.

What I meant was I am done arguing with any "ghost plane" at the South Tower bulloney. I really don't get it, but even if it were possible (and anything is possible), it's so implausible --- and like I said --- how could you prove it?

I took a look at that photo. (The link doesn't work for some reason, because 911review.com is a mirror to 911review.wtc7.net, but I was able to navigate there by clicks.)

I DO appreciate HOFFMAN, and In Plane Site is trash logic in many ways, there IS plane parts at the Pgon for example, but as I said, McGowan makes some strong counter points on what evidence was photographed.

Hoffman's photo on that page does not clearly show serious damage to the façade that should be there. Yes, the skin on the planes is 2mm thick, but the wing between the engines HAS to be solid as hell, based on what I now realize about the forces the wings must withstand. They'd rip off the body on every landing if they were merely bolted on to the body. Sure they contain fuel, but they have to hold up the engines and wheels. When a plane goes bouncing and skidding on a runway, it's the wings taking all the impact of that momentum. He shows a photo of a passenger jet under construction. The wings are basically a solid assembly from one engine to the other. The nose is purely a shell. The nose only needs to keep out the impact of birds. The nose is a popcan.

For the nose to have punched through 3 layers and the wings to have disintegrated is the opposite of what should happen, I think, unless the instrument panel is a block of Kryptonite. Sure, the wings may very well have shredded, but not without causing some serious, serious damage, that is to say, far more damage than the nose.
I'm afraid that when I rejected In Plane Site, I was throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

And testimony McGowan describes where the 'flight attendant' who is a friend of John Judge who was given a ground tour (???) said she saw seats and such, but charred bones with no flesh?

This is John Judge's "conspiracy co-researcher" flight attendant friend who was given a ground tour of secure areas. I did not read the details of Judge's account before, but this does sound fishy, doesn't it?

McGowan is very good at highlighting these fallacies, in a way that impressed me.

As for "pull IT", I think that was probably an intentional psy-op done by Silverstein, NOT merely "pull the firemen" --- much like Peter Powers' interview where said he was running drills on 7/7, but was ambiguous at first about the fact that the drills were done in a boardroom on paper with coffee and donuts, executive management drills.

But on the construction of a Boeing, I think he's on the money.

Ad-hom, keep slingin' them, dickhead. Cool. Laughing
Back to top

PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 2:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote from old Free Republic, for what it's worth
interesting thread


We seemed to have a respite from the government huggers for a while there. It was like someone called for a short vacation for the crew. Now they are back full force, which suggests that something big is about to blow, probably the Key Report, and the government huggers want to be rested and ready.

As I pointed out in another thread, it's mportant to keep the facts in the case tgether and handle them as a unit. If you allow the huggers to break up the evidence into tiny pieces they can argue about it endlessly, which is their objective. But if you keep all of the facts in the case together as a whole, the reports of the bomb squad AND the Partin report AND the eyewitness affidavits AND the bomb dogs AND the Eglin Report AND the audio recording AND the photos of wrapped building debris and Ryder trucks in secret camps AND the FBI's now admitted cover-up of evidence AND the ex-agents statements of withheld evidence AND the FBI lab scandal, the government huggers have a much rougher time trying to keep the lid on, since they have to stand there shouting "tin foil", and "liar", and "fraud", and "in cahoots with the commies", at everything at once, making it very obvious that denial of the facts, rather than the facts, is what the government huggers are all about.

Michael Rivero
Back to top

Joined: 05 Jun 2006
Posts: 313

PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 3:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MCGOWEN: The reality is that the weight distribution and design characteristics of a Boeing 7X7 aircraft would seem to indicate that an impact hole should look remarkably like the hole photographed in the side of the World Trade Center tower on the morning of September 11 – with a clean penetration at the center of mass and substantial damage, though not necessarily penetration, at the wing extremities.

Fine, but he goes on to say....

There was no such penetration at the Pentagon. And no amount of delusional theorizing about flimsy, conveniently self-destructing airplane wings will ever change that fact.

He's blantanly ignoring the damage pattern in the pre-collapse photos. The 16' hole is confined to the second floor, while the 90'+-wide hole at the first floor level makes ample allowance for "a clean penetration at the center of mass and substantial damage, though not necessarily penetration, at the wing extremities."

Too many researchers have underestimated the height of each floor at the Pentagon, and likewise the enormity of the damage pattern itself. McGowan might have been one of them.

His "center of mass" argument makes sense though, and I would say the damage pattern at the Pentagon is remarkably similar to what we saw at the WTC. We see the principle in action on the first floor of the Pentagon crash area, as shown in the pre-collapse photos.
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/bluehi.html (Scroll to the fourth picture down.)
Looking below and just to the right of the 16' hole, it's plain to see that the beams nearest the center were damaged and bent on impact, whereas the beams further to the right held their ground. Moving further to the right, the reduced wing mass failed to penetrate the structure altogether, (perhaps to a somewhat greater extent than at the WTC, since the Pentagon had a tougher shell than the towers.)

For the life of me, I don't understand why the lower AND MUCH LARGER area of the damage pattern is written off by so many Pentagon researchers - something to do with being 'cool,' maybe? (Or worse?)

Gilbert d, most of what you write on this board is just peachy, second to none, but I think they bent you over on this one.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 325
Location: London , UK

PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 3:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dilbert wrote:
Ad-hom, keep slingin' them, dickhead. Cool.

Back at ya, numbnuts.

indigitydogdignation, you beat me to it. I'm a slow writer I guess.

Gary, I encourage you to check out the "Pentagon Overview" thread, and there was a thread were some of us started debating the Pentagon strike on a thread about Loose Change and Popular Mechanics on Democracy Now. Just so I don't repeat myself too much.

I don't endorse this site, but this single page is a good collection of Pentagon Strike photos on one page that are also available elsewhere:


When I look at all the pictures I don't see just a round hole. The ground floor has a 90ft wide hole in it, enough to get the width of the plane in minus the wing tips. So I certainly don't think the wings ripped clean off at the fuselage.

Yes the nose is a popcan, but there's more mass there than just the skin, just like your own body. How much, I don't know, I'm not an expert, and since we don't know how strong the reinforced Pentagon wing was, I can only speculate on how much damage an airliner would do flying at 450mph. Without facts there's no way for us to calculate.

Also keep in mind that the plane didn't go through 3 layers or walls. It only went through one. The bottom floors are one open floor plan (from C-E rings), and the upper floors break up into the ABCDE rings, which have more walls. It only went through the outer wall, that's it.

I can't make a judgement on McGowan's work until I read it more carefully, but some things I think about on the top of my head:

- The Pentagon isn't all that far from a major highway, and the attack happened during rush hour. So there would have been a lot of witnesses to fool if it wasn't AA77.

- If testamony from Military Personal is legit, I would expect they'd have a trained eye for identifying aircraft over lay witnesses, which could explain why their stories are more consistant (trained eye vs. untrained). The craft would have been travelling very low and fast, so maybe most couldn't get a long look.

- Could the perps be clever enough to get only select testamony into the press, those that have certain connections, to fuel the no plane theories? Look suspicious on purpose?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

Joined: 02 Sep 2006
Posts: 325
Location: London , UK

PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 3:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry, forgot the Laughing after 'numbnuts', indicating my playful punch-on-the-shoulder sarcasm!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Posts: 48

PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 4:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Jerry Fletcher wrote:
And "Jerry Fletcher" is about as fake a name as I've ever seen.

Ok. You got me.


My real name is Deep Throat.

LOL-Sherlock Holmes eat your heart out!!!!!!!!!!!!! Laughing Laughing :roll: Laughing

The NWO is finally Dead---HOORAY!!!!!!!!!!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

PostPosted: Wed Oct 04, 2006 6:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

OK, I looked at oilempire and the wtc7 link, which I've seen before. I never really examined them all, esp not to look for photoshopping.

I thought it was CDE rings that were penetrated by a small circle. It's true, I DO see a large portion of the façade damaged.

I can't explain why the engines did not fully penetrate the façade, if the nose did, but I agree that at very least it's ambiguous.

Even though nobody saw a missile, COULD one have been spiked in there just before the plane hit? I think they fly much faster than a Boeing is capable. Supersonic? Sonic BOOM?

Anyhow, that's where I admit I was stuck, so I dropped the matter and concentrated on other known things, or known statements. I couldn't quite reconcile what LOOKED like a clean hole (too small) with other photos showing extensive damage (but not holes).

There I go, giving the benefit of the doubt again. Is it really a kaleidescope or just pure disinfo about "no plane"?

I wish people like McGowan would come here just to discuss things, with no one trying to take some ABSOLUTE position on these issues. I ought to go to DC sometime and see how many civilians I can find who saw it.

I gotta run, I'll look it over again later.
Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Next Level Forum Index -> 9/11 HardCorps Audios All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 5 of 6

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.