WTC7 seems to be a classic controlled demolition. WTC 1 &2 destruction appears to have been enhanced by thermate (a variation of thermite) in addition.
Pentagon was not struck by a passenger aircraft. It was a drone or missle.
True. It size of the explosion can be judged by the width of the wall, at least how wide the explosion was. Hey, just ocurred to me. They say the wings of "77" went forward on impact. None of the wings went forward of the "767's". Even though in all cases, of course the wings/fixtures are the same and so is the cockpits. So all three had nose impacts yet the "767's" didn't go forward. Didn't even go back either.
You're totally right about how empty (of any plane parts) that hole in the north tower is. It is very suspicious. But in the Naudet video, there was a fairly significant fireball after the first hit. Just that we only have that one shot and one angle to see it from, and the camerawork is not great.
--- In 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com, "ron_winn" <ron_winn@...> wrote: > > I believe "11" should be the centre of attention which people may take to rather than the non- existent "175" because that 155' long plane went straight into the centre core of the north tower and none of it can be seen around the hole which the videos all zoom into. And even a woman stands at the hole which she couldn't have done if 155' of aluminium plane was burning in this area because of the toxic fumes being given off and of course flames which can't be seen either. What is the distance between the outer wall and the core? A tail end should have been seen somewhere inside around that hole. And how dramatic the explosion created by "175" into the atmosphere is not seen with "11". If a similar explosion ocurred inside the north tower how come it was contained within the building. Why wasn't there a dramatic scene after "11" penetrated the wall? > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: perpetualynquisitive > To: 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 6:46 AM > Subject: SV: [Fwd: [911InsideJobbers] Re: Controlled Demolition Limited Hangout?] > > > --- In 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com, Peter Kofod <slashkofod@> wrote: > > > > I agree with alex here. > > To just step in front of a camera and say "no planehit the towers" would be idiotic. But if someone would care to presentan hardhitting and easy-to-understand overview of the argument, itwould be a totally different case. > > > > Personally I would avoid terms like butterplanes andwhatitz, since my PERSONAL experience is, that these terms make peopleNOT want to look at the evidence, just like screaming IDIOT at someone,probably isn´t the best way to make them consider your point, but Iguess this is a matter of taste? > > > > Best, > > Peter Kofod, Denmark > > > > alexldent <alexldent@> skrev: > > Obviously I'm not Rosalee, and you asked her-- but, I wouldn't mind if > > he did this and backed it up with a proper analysis. If you just SAY > > that "there was no plane crash and that the planes hitting the towers > > were faked" of course it sounds crazy. But if one presented it > > properly, I think it could be a very effective argument. The more I > > look at these pictures of the WTC and the planes and then the > > plane-shaped holes, the more bogus it looks. > > > > The truth is the truth, and I don't like the idea of hiding the truth, > > no matter how crazy it might initially sound. > > > > > Do you really want Professor Jones to > > > go on national TV and say that there was no plane crash and that the > > > planes hitting the towers were faked and edited in later on > > > videotape? What praytell would be the result of him taking that > > > action? What good would it do our truth movement if people of Jones > > > stature started doing things like that? > > > > > > > > > > > > SPONSORED LINKS > > Governmentprocurement Government leasing Governmentgrants for women Government lease Government contract Government money > > > > --------------------------------- > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > > > > > Visit your group "911InsideJobbers" on the web. > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > 911InsideJobbers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > > We may have such a presentation available soon. I have been working ona 9/11 presentation, for more than 2 years, that exclusively covers theno-plane "theory". Thus far I have been able to show parts of it to people that were believers of the Official Fairy Tale and to date NOT one person that I went over the material with disagreed with my perspective afterwards. 100% conversion rate. Keep in mind this was done on a one-on-one basis with people that know me, but the results are encouraging. > > In the coming weeks (hopefully by April) I will make the presentationavailable for others to review, debunk, toss out the window, etc. > > For now, I will give you the title of the presentation: > > > 9/11: > Collusion > Illusion > Delusion. > > > Collusion is the planning of 9/11 (including memes for alternative scenarios). > Illusion is the actual attack and coverage. > Delusion is the inability of the public to see through the deception. > > > FWIW, back in December 2001, I aired my perspective about no-planes to several friends, it sailed about as smooth as the Titanic. Many of those people would not even speak to me for several months afterwards,a couple still won't (and refuse to hear my presentation as well), but the rest have since become convinced that the no-plane perspective is closer to what really occurred that morning than any other analysis. > > > > SPONSORED LINKS Government procurement Government leasing Government grants for women > Government lease Government contract Government money > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > a.. Visit your group "911InsideJobbers" on the web. > > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > 911InsideJobbers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >
So where in the fark were you while I was getting beat up from all directions all alone. It was more than a year before anybody spoke up for me.
I am effective in internet debate format but the effort to recast my long slog from there to here into useful essay makes me need a nap.
I have the video skills now to make a DVD. the videos at http://thewebfairy.com/911/missilegate/video.htm It feels like baling the ocean with a teaspoon tho.
I have learned that videos are unmixed into "elemental streams". These elemental streams seem to encode more information than can be expressed in the low resolution pixel grid. I have no other explanation for why the first hit object(s) make such detailed beautyshots while equal enlargement of the Pentagon Art Frames reveals flat blobs. http://thewebfairy.com/911/flyingpig/beautyshots.htm vs. http://thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/frames/startribune/st5_detail.jpg On this detail it's particularly evident how the Art Frame has been stretched horizontally.
perpetualynquisitive wrote: > I was in near shock watching the events that morning, the replay of > the 'plane' hitting WTC 2 over and over and over and over and, well > you get the idea. > > It was after seeing the Fairbanks interview (Diane Sawyer) and his > clip of the plane, when he said "it disappeared like a bad special > effect" that caused the light bulb in my head to start blinking > "Bingo, IT was a bad special effect!" For when they showed it slow > motion, the plane did not react when it impacted the building, it just > slipped right into it, like a hand into a glove. > > I also had a strong feeling of deja vu on 9/11, I was sure that I had > seen the WTC heavily damaged before by a big explosion that left a big > hole in the building. (it was in early 2002 that I verified that I had > indeed seen the WTC in that condition when I picked up "Armageddon" on > DVD) > > In the summer of 2002 I was watching The Simpsons one evening and low > behold the episode Sideshow Bob's Last Gleaming comes on. After I > heard Homer say "Let's Roll", while chasing a hijacked airplane, which > escapes a failed military intercept and then crashes into a building, > almost died as I had just had a discussion about the supposed failure > to intercept with someone the day before and had told him it was > red-herring disinformation to reinforce the 'plane' hoax. > > He is of the thinking that there must have been a miscommunication > with NORAD at best or the military was told to look the other way, > such as the case in Pearl Harbour at the very worst. > > This person is a total military buff, from the war of independence to > the present and can name almost every major military/battle statistic, > weapon platform, personnel, tactics etc, and he just couldn't > understand how the hijacked planes could fly around as long as they > did without getting shot out of the sky. > > As I explaned (hehe) to him, no planes = no airforce failure = no > standdown = no reprimands for military personnel. > > --- In 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com, Rosalee Grable <webfairy@...> > wrote: > >> You beat me to figuring out No Planes. >> I was intrigued by the Where's The Boeing site, back when I first heard >> of it, March 2002. >> I started looking at videos and noticed the plane was missing from the >> first hit right off. >> I thought we would have the crime solved by summer. >> I remember getting drunk to celebrate, and to get used to the notion >> they used indescribables, not a plane at all. >> There would have been no celebration if I'd been able to guess that >> people would be barely catching on in 2006, with economic crash and >> synthetic terror hard on our heels. >> People that stupid deserve to be slaves, is the only answer I've >> > come up > >> with. >> >> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS >>> >>> * Visit your group "911InsideJobbers >>> <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911InsideJobbers>" on the web. >>> >>> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: >>> 911InsideJobbers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com >>> >>> > <mailto:911InsideJobbers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> > >>> >>> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of >>> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>. >>> >>> >>> >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > >
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911InsideJobbers/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: 911InsideJobbers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
My response to having words stolen out from under me, orwellized and snuck back in meaning the opposite, was to invent my own language.
Whatzit is a word I'm so sick of my now I could scream, but I didn't know that UAVs existed or their name, let alone that they could fly in a close formation. I needed a word that was NOT "UFO" cos I still think they're gonna try to treat 911 as an "alien attack" once they get ready to trot out their Ultimate Enemy.
Whatzits are terrestrial secret stuff of multiple sorts. Schnookiedupes or Schnookies are people who don't believe in Secret Stuff and would rather think planes can violate natural law and be "real" as long as they imagine them "clearly." Believing the contents of one's imagination to be "reality" used to be what insanity was about. Butterplanes were the seriously posited explanation by a Learned Professor for why the pentagon 'plane' fitted the little hole and didn't shed debris. It melted.
alexldent wrote: > I like "butterplane" myself. But I would use it towards the end of > any presentation after fully introducing the concept. *show video > again in slow motion* --"this is why we derisively call it the > 'butterplane'" > > --- In 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com, "Nico Haupt" <nicohaupt@...> > wrote: > >>> --- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --- >>> Von: Peter Kofod <slashkofod@...> >>> An: 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com >>> Betreff: SV: [Fwd: [911InsideJobbers] Re: Controlled Demolition >>> > Limited > >>> Hangout?] >>> Datum: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 16:04:38 +0100 (CET) >>> >> A wording can be synched in time for a presentation, >> but i don't know why butterplane sounds that silly? >> This is the decade of hiphop, reality tv and geek speak. >> No worry about strange words, puhleese.... >> >> >> >> >>> I agree with alex here. >>> To just step in front of a camera and say "no plane hit the towers" >>> would be idiotic. But if someone would care to present an >>> > hardhitting and > >>> easy-to-understand overview of the argument, it would be a totally >>> >> different >> >>> case. >>> >>> Personally I would avoid terms like butterplanes and whatitz, >>> > since my > >>> PERSONAL experience is, that these terms make people NOT want to >>> > look at > >> the >> >>> evidence, just like screaming IDIOT at someone, probably isn´t the >>> > best > >>> way to make them consider your point, but I guess this is a matter of >>> >> taste? >> >>> >>> Best, >>> Peter Kofod, Denmark >>> >>> alexldent <alexldent@...> skrev: >>> Obviously I'm not Rosalee, and you asked her-- but, I wouldn't >>> > mind if > >>> he did this and backed it up with a proper analysis. If you just SAY >>> that "there was no plane crash and that the planes hitting the towers >>> were faked" of course it sounds crazy. But if one presented it >>> properly, I think it could be a very effective argument. The more I >>> look at these pictures of the WTC and the planes and then the >>> plane-shaped holes, the more bogus it looks. >>> >>> The truth is the truth, and I don't like the idea of hiding the truth, >>> no matter how crazy it might initially sound. >>> >>> >>>> Do you really want Professor Jones to >>>> go on national TV and say that there was no plane crash and that >>>> > the > >>>> planes hitting the towers were faked and edited in later on >>>> videotape? What praytell would be the result of him taking that >>>> action? What good would it do our truth movement if people of >>>> > Jones > >>>> stature started doing things like that? >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> SPONSORED LINKS >>> Government procurement Government leasing Government >>> > grants > >>> for women Government lease Government contract Government >>> > money > >>> >>> --------------------------------- >>> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS >>> >>> >>> Visit your group "911InsideJobbers" on the web. >>> >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: >>> 911InsideJobbers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com >>> >>> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of >>> > Service. > >>> >>> --------------------------------- >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> -- >> 10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS/Monat http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail >> +++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More +++ >> >> > > > > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > > > > >
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911InsideJobbers/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: 911InsideJobbers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
You're totally right about how empty (of any plane parts) that hole in the north tower is. It is very suspicious. But in the Naudet video, there was a fairly significant fireball after the first hit. Just that we only have that one shot and one angle to see it from, and the camerawork is not great.
--- In 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com, "ron_winn" <ron_winn@...> wrote: > > I believe "11" should be the centre of attention which people may take to rather than the non- existent "175" because that 155' long plane went straight into the centre core of the north tower and none of it can be seen around the hole which the videos all zoom into. And even a woman stands at the hole which she couldn't have done if 155' of aluminium plane was burning in this area because of the toxic fumes being given off and of course flames which can't be seen either. What is the distance between the outer wall and the core? A tail end should have been seen somewhere inside around that hole. And how dramatic the explosion created by "175" into the atmosphere is not seen with "11". If a similar explosion ocurred inside the north tower how come it was contained within the building. Why wasn't there a dramatic scene after "11" penetrated the wall? > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: perpetualynquisitive > To: 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com > Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 6:46 AM > Subject: SV: [Fwd: [911InsideJobbers] Re: Controlled Demolition Limited Hangout?] > > > --- In 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com, Peter Kofod <slashkofod@> wrote: > > > > I agree with alex here. > > To just step in front of a camera and say "no planehit the towers" would be idiotic. But if someone would care to presentan hardhitting and easy-to-understand overview of the argument, itwould be a totally different case. > > > > Personally I would avoid terms like butterplanes andwhatitz, since my PERSONAL experience is, that these terms make peopleNOT want to look at the evidence, just like screaming IDIOT at someone,probably isn´t the best way to make them consider your point, but Iguess this is a matter of taste? > > > > Best, > > Peter Kofod, Denmark > > > > alexldent <alexldent@> skrev: > > Obviously I'm not Rosalee, and you asked her-- but, I wouldn't mind if > > he did this and backed it up with a proper analysis. If you just SAY > > that "there was no plane crash and that the planes hitting the towers > > were faked" of course it sounds crazy. But if one presented it > > properly, I think it could be a very effective argument. The more I > > look at these pictures of the WTC and the planes and then the > > plane-shaped holes, the more bogus it looks. > > > > The truth is the truth, and I don't like the idea of hiding the truth, > > no matter how crazy it might initially sound. > > > > > Do you really want Professor Jones to > > > go on national TV and say that there was no plane crash and that the > > > planes hitting the towers were faked and edited in later on > > > videotape? What praytell would be the result of him taking that > > > action? What good would it do our truth movement if people of Jones > > > stature started doing things like that? > > > > > > > > > > > > SPONSORED LINKS > > Governmentprocurement Government leasing Governmentgrants for women Government lease Government contract Government money > > > > --------------------------------- > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > > > > > Visit your group "911InsideJobbers" on the web. > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > 911InsideJobbers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > > > > > --------------------------------- > > > We may have such a presentation available soon. I have been working ona 9/11 presentation, for more than 2 years, that exclusively covers theno-plane "theory". Thus far I have been able to show parts of it to people that were believers of the Official Fairy Tale and to date NOT one person that I went over the material with disagreed with my perspective afterwards. 100% conversion rate. Keep in mind this was done on a one-on-one basis with people that know me, but the results are encouraging. > > In the coming weeks (hopefully by April) I will make the presentationavailable for others to review, debunk, toss out the window, etc. > > For now, I will give you the title of the presentation: > > > 9/11: > Collusion > Illusion > Delusion. > > > Collusion is the planning of 9/11 (including memes for alternative scenarios). > Illusion is the actual attack and coverage. > Delusion is the inability of the public to see through the deception. > > > FWIW, back in December 2001, I aired my perspective about no-planes to several friends, it sailed about as smooth as the Titanic. Many of those people would not even speak to me for several months afterwards,a couple still won't (and refuse to hear my presentation as well), but the rest have since become convinced that the no-plane perspective is closer to what really occurred that morning than any other analysis. > > > > SPONSORED LINKS Government procurement Government leasing Government grants for women > Government lease Government contract Government money > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > a.. Visit your group "911InsideJobbers" on the web. > > b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > 911InsideJobbers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911InsideJobbers/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: 911InsideJobbers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
I was in near shock watching the events that morning, the replay of the 'plane' hitting WTC 2 over and over and over and over and, well you get the idea.
It was after seeing the Fairbanks interview (Diane Sawyer) and his clip of the plane, when he said "it disappeared like a bad special effect" that caused the light bulb in my head to start blinking "Bingo, IT was a bad special effect!" For when they showed it slow motion, the plane did not react when it impacted the building, it just slipped right into it, like a hand into a glove.
I also had a strong feeling of deja vu on 9/11, I was sure that I had seen the WTC heavily damaged before by a big explosion that left a big hole in the building. (it was in early 2002 that I verified that I had indeed seen the WTC in that condition when I picked up "Armageddon" on DVD)
In the summer of 2002 I was watching The Simpsons one evening and low behold the episode Sideshow Bob's Last Gleaming comes on. After I heard Homer say "Let's Roll", while chasing a hijacked airplane, which escapes a failed military intercept and then crashes into a building, almost died as I had just had a discussion about the supposed failure to intercept with someone the day before and had told him it was red-herring disinformation to reinforce the 'plane' hoax.
He is of the thinking that there must have been a miscommunication with NORAD at best or the military was told to look the other way, such as the case in Pearl Harbour at the very worst.
This person is a total military buff, from the war of independence to the present and can name almost every major military/battle statistic, weapon platform, personnel, tactics etc, and he just couldn't understand how the hijacked planes could fly around as long as they did without getting shot out of the sky.
As I explaned (hehe) to him, no planes = no airforce failure = no standdown = no reprimands for military personnel.
--- In 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com, Rosalee Grable <webfairy@...> wrote: > > You beat me to figuring out No Planes. > I was intrigued by the Where's The Boeing site, back when I first heard > of it, March 2002. > I started looking at videos and noticed the plane was missing from the > first hit right off. > I thought we would have the crime solved by summer. > I remember getting drunk to celebrate, and to get used to the notion > they used indescribables, not a plane at all. > There would have been no celebration if I'd been able to guess that > people would be barely catching on in 2006, with economic crash and > synthetic terror hard on our heels. > People that stupid deserve to be slaves, is the only answer I've come up > with. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > > > * Visit your group "911InsideJobbers > > <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911InsideJobbers>" on the web. > > > > * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > > 911InsideJobbers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > <mailto:911InsideJobbers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe> > > > > * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > > Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>. > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > >
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/911InsideJobbers/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: 911InsideJobbers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
This is the text version of DailyOM To see it with graphics, click: http://www.dailyom.com/articles/2006/2012.html
Today's DailyOM brought to you by: DailyCD - Click for your free DailyCD http://www.dailyom.com/cgi-bin/display/sponsorlink.cgi?iid=33
February 8, 2006
Truth In Vision The Sixth Chakra
Within each of us lies the capacity to be a finely tuned receptor for psychic signals and clairvoyant sight. The sixth chakra is the source of internal visions, telepathy, and intuition. Located at the level of the forehead, this chakra, known also as the third eye, or Anja, is the energy center from which we draw our dreams, memories, and visions. From the sixth chakra, we gain the ability to discern the truth and see the past, present, and future in detail. The blessings that come into our lives are often the result of the images we are able to perceive via the sixth chakra. In Sanskrit, Anja means both "to perceive" and "to command," because when this chakra is strong, visualization is the first step in manifesting your desires.
Associated with the imagination and big picture thinking, the sixth chakra can be visualized as a deep indigo lotus with only two petals. Like its element, light, it is the source of all seeing. Weakness or imbalance of the Anja chakra can lead to oversensitivity, lack of discipline, and a strong fear of success. An overabundance of sixth chakra energy often results in spiritual arrogance, unhealthy pride, and an inability to see what is in front of oneself. A balanced third eye is open to guidance from all the other chakras. The visualization capacity of this chakra can be nurtured and honed by focusing on the body's other chakra centers and filling that body part with the appropriate color of light. Balancing your Anja chakra can have a positive effect on many vision and sinus ailments, headaches, and learning disabilities.
It is possible to stimulate the sixth chakra directly by listening to energetic, dynamic music, playing drums, practicing hand mudras, or exposing the chakra to mugwort, lapis lazuli, sapphire, or quartz. Doing so can help you get in touch with your innate psychic abilities, access buried memories, and improve your intuitive senses. It can also give you an increased sense of confidence and power, because it is the third eye that makes your dreams yours to imagine and then create.
Share the OM: To email this to a friend, click: http://www.dailyom.com/cgi-bin/email/emailfriend.cgi?articleid=2012
To discuss this article, click: http://discuss.dailyom.com/cgi-bin/discuss/displaytopic.cgi?tid=631
Friend of OM: Support your unique intention with Energy Muse Jewelry. Since the beginning of time, every civilization has drawn on the healing properties of crystals and gemstones. This unique handcrafted jewelry has been cleansed using ancient techniques and energized to amplify the power and healing properties of the stones.
For more information visit: http://www.dailyom.com/cgi-bin/display/linktofriend.cgi?fid=422
I believe "11" should be the centre of attention which people may take to rather than the non- existent "175" because that 155' long plane went straight into the centre core of the north tower and none of it can be seen around the hole which the videos all zoom into. And even a woman stands at the hole which she couldn't have done if 155' of aluminium plane was burning in this area because of the toxic fumes being given off and of course flames which can't be seen either. What is the distance between the outer wall and the core? A tail end should have been seen somewhere inside around that hole. And how dramatic the explosion created by "175" into the atmosphere is not seen with "11". If a similar explosion ocurred inside the north tower how come it was contained within the building. Why wasn't there a dramatic scene after "11" penetrated the wall?
--- In 911InsideJobbers@yahoogroups.com, Peter Kofod <slashkofod@...> wrote: > > I agree with alex here. > To just step in front of a camera and say "no planehit the towers" would be idiotic. But if someone would care to presentan hardhitting and easy-to-understand overview of the argument, itwould be a totally different case. > > Personally I would avoid terms like butterplanes andwhatitz, since my PERSONAL experience is, that these terms make peopleNOT want to look at the evidence, just like screaming IDIOT at someone,probably isn´t the best way to make them consider your point, but Iguess this is a matter of taste? > > Best, > Peter Kofod, Denmark > > alexldent <alexldent@...> skrev: > Obviously I'm not Rosalee, and you asked her-- but, I wouldn't mind if > he did this and backed it up with a proper analysis. If you just SAY > that "there was no plane crash and that the planes hitting the towers > were faked" of course it sounds crazy. But if one presented it > properly, I think it could be a very effective argument. The more I > look at these pictures of the WTC and the planes and then the > plane-shaped holes, the more bogus it looks. > > The truth is the truth, and I don't like the idea of hiding the truth, > no matter how crazy it might initially sound. > > > Do you really want Professor Jones to > > go on national TV and say that there was no plane crash and that the > > planes hitting the towers were faked and edited in later on > > videotape? What praytell would be the result of him taking that > > action? What good would it do our truth movement if people of Jones > > stature started doing things like that? > > > > > > SPONSORED LINKS > Governmentprocurement Government leasing Governmentgrants for women Government lease Government contract Government money > > --------------------------------- > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > > Visit your group "911InsideJobbers" on the web. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > 911InsideJobbers-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > > --------------------------------- > We may have such a presentation available soon. I have been working ona 9/11 presentation, for more than 2 years, that exclusively covers theno-plane "theory". Thus far I have been able to show parts of it to people that were believers of the Official Fairy Tale and to date NOT one person that I went over the material with disagreed with my perspective afterwards. 100% conversion rate. Keep in mind this was done on a one-on-one basis with people that know me, but the results are encouraging.
In the coming weeks (hopefully by April) I will make the presentationavailable for others to review, debunk, toss out the window, etc.
For now, I will give you the title of the presentation:
9/11: Collusion Illusion Delusion.
Collusion is the planning of 9/11 (including memes for alternative scenarios). Illusion is the actual attack and coverage. Delusion is the inability of the public to see through the deception.
FWIW, back in December 2001, I aired my perspective about no-planes to several friends, it sailed about as smooth as the Titanic. Many of those people would not even speak to me for several months afterwards,a couple still won't (and refuse to hear my presentation as well), but the rest have since become convinced that the no-plane perspective is closer to what really occurred that morning than any other analysis.
Sounds great! Exactly what I was looking for, I think.
Best, Peter Kofod, Denmark
We may have such a presentation available soon. I have been working ona > 9/11 presentation, for more than 2 years, that exclusively covers > theno-plane "theory". Thus far I have been able to show parts of it to > people that were believers of the Official Fairy Tale and to date NOT > one person that I went over the material with disagreed with my > perspective afterwards. 100% conversion rate. Keep in mind this was done > on a one-on-one basis with people that know me, but the results are > encouraging. > > In the coming weeks (hopefully by April) I will make the > presentationavailable for others to review, debunk, toss out the window, > etc. > > For now, I will give you the title of the presentation: > > 9/11: > Collusion > Illusion > Delusion. > > Collusion is the planning of 9/11 (including memes for alternative > scenarios). > Illusion is the actual attack and coverage. > Delusion is the inability of the public to see through the deception. > > > FWIW, back in December 2001, I aired my perspective about no-planes to > several friends, it sailed about as smooth as the Titanic. Many of those > people would not even speak to me for several months afterwards,a couple > still won't (and refuse to hear my presentation as well), but the rest > have since become convinced that the no-plane perspective is closer to > what really occurred that morning than any other analysis. >
Claim: The damage to the Pentagon on September 11 was caused by something other than a hijacked Boeing 757's being crashed into its side.
Don’t be so sure…
Example:[Collected on the Internet, 2002]
As everyone knows, on 11 September, less than an hour after the attack on the World Trade Centre, an airplane collided with the Pentagon. The Associated Press first reported that a booby-trapped truck had caused the explosion. The Pentagon quickly denied this. The official US government version of events still holds. Here's a little game for you: Take a look at these photographs and try to find evidence to corroborate the official version. It's up to you to Hunt the Boeing!
Origins: The notion that the Pentagon was not damaged by terrorists who hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) and crashed it into the military office complex, but that the whole affair was staged by the U.S. government, has been promulgated by French author Thierry Meyssan in his book, The Frightening Fraud. Meyssan offers no real explanation for what did cause the extensive damage to the Pentagon, asserting only that Flight 77 did not exist, no plane crashed into the Pentagon, and that "the American government is lying."
Unfortunately, the appeal of conspiracy theories has resulted in widespread dissemination of Meyssan's "theory" in France and the USA, particularly in web sites that mirror his work. As Le Nouvel Observateur noted: "This theory suits everyone - there are no Islamic extremists and everyone is happy. It eliminates reality."
The text cited in the example above comes from a Hunt the Boeing! And test your perceptions! web site, one of the English-language mirrors of Meyssan's claims, where readers are invited to ponder a series of questions about why photographs of the damaged Pentagon seemingly show no evidence of a crashed airplane. The answers to the questions are:
1) Can you explain how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and travelling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour only damaged the outside of the Pentagon?
Despite the appearances of exterior photographs, the Boeing 757-200 did not "only damage the outside of the Pentagon." It caused damage to all five rings (not just the outermost one) after penetrating a reinforced, 24-inch-thick outer wall.
According to a DRAWING? If I drew you a picture of "Bigfoot", would you believe he existed? That news report states “The hijacked plane that crashed into the Pentagon Tuesday tore through all five rings and five floors of the structure.”
As 60 Minutes II reported in their "Miracle of the Pentagon" episode on 28 November 2001, the section of the Pentagon into which the hijacked airliner was flown had just been reinforced during a renovation project:
"We made several modifications to the building as part of that renovation that we think helped save people's lives," says Lee Evey, who runs a billion-dollar project to renovate the Pentagon. They’ve been working on it since 1993. The first section was five days from being finished when the terrorists hit it with the plane.
The renovation project built strength into the 60-year-old limestone exterior with a web of steel beams and columns.
"You have these steel tubes and, again, they go from the first floor and go all the way to the fifth floor," says Evey. "We have everything bolted together in a strong steel matrix. It supports and encases the windows and provides tremendous additional strength to the wall."
When the plane hit at 350 miles an hour, the limestone layer shattered. But inside, those shards of stone were caught by a shield of cloth that lines the entire section of the building.
It is a special cloth that helps prevent masonry from fragmenting and turning into shrapnel. The cloth is also used to make bullet-resistant vests.
All of this, especially the steel, held up the third, fourth and fifth floors. They stayed up for 35 minutes. You can see them through the smoke, suspended over the hole gouged by the jet. Only after the evacuation did the heat melt the new steel away. Evey says that without the reconstruction, the floors might have collapsed immediately.
Some news reports and the 9/11 Commission claim the plane came in faster than 350 mph:
"The jetliner disappeared from radar at 9:37 and less than a minute later it clipped the tops of street lights and plowed into the Pentagon at 460 mph." -CBS
"American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, traveling at approximately 530 miles per hour." -9/11 Commission
"American Airlines Flight 77, bound from Washington, D.C., to Los Angeles with 64 passengers and crew, flew low to the ground and then crashed into the Pentagon going 600 mph and loaded with 30,000 pounds of fuel." -MSNBC
Exterior photographs are misleading because they show only the intact roof structures of the outer rings and don't reveal that the plane penetrated all the way to the ground floor of the third ring. As a U.S. Army press release noted back on 26 September 2001, one engine of the aircraft punched a 12-foot hole through the wall of the second ring:
On the inside wall of the second ring of the Pentagon, a nearly circular hole, about 12-feet wide, allows light to pour into the building from an internal service alley. An aircraft engine punched the hole out on its last flight after being broken loose from its moorings on the plane. The result became a huge vent for the subsequent explosion and fire. Signs of fire and black smoke now ring the outside of the jagged-edged hole.
That’s funny, the Pentagon said it was the plane’s nose that punched out hole in the inside wall of the 3rd ring!
Recall that when the first airliner was flown into a World Trade Center tower on September 11 — before it was known that the "accident" was really part of a deliberate terrorist attack — newscasters were speculating that a small plane had accidentally flown into the side of the tower, because the visible exterior damage didn't seem as extensive as what people thought a large airliner would cause. Even though the two airplanes flown into the World Trade Center towers were travelling faster at the time of impact than the Pentagon plane was (400 MPH vs. 350 MPH),
Already mentioned that other news reports claim Flight 77 flew into the building faster than 400 mph.
hit aluminum-and-glass buildings rather than reinforced concrete walls, and didn't dissipate much of their energy striking the ground first (as the Pentagon plane did),
Where’s your proof that Flight 77 struck the ground first? If you look at all the crash scene photo’s that show the lawn in front of explosion site, the lawn shows absolutely no signs of skid marks from a plane hitting the ground first. Remember that on a Boeing 757, the engines hang lower than the rest of the plane.
they still barely penetrated all the way through the WTC towers.
Now let me get this straight. You’re saying that the two planes that hit the WTC flew faster into a less fortified building than the Pentagon, however Flight 77 flew slower, hit the ground first before crashing into a heavily fortified building and managed to penetrate further into that building than the two planes that flew into the WTC? Wow! Now if that scenario doesn’t defy the laws of physics, I don’t know what does!
Below is a recent (11 March 2002) photograph of the the rebuilding effort underway at the Pentagon, demonstrating that far more than just the "outside" of the building was damaged and needed to be repaired:
Now how does this picture prove the damage that was said to be caused by Flight 77? They could have demolished the entire pentagon, took a picture of it being built back up, and said the plane caused it all.
2) Can you explain how a Boeing 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of 41.6 yards and a cockpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just the ground floor of this building?
As eyewitnesses described and photographs demonstrate, the hijacked airliner dived so low as it approached the Pentagon that it actually hit the ground first,
Not only did I NOT see any Boeing 757 in those photographs, I especially didn’t see one "hit the ground first"! I think the Pentagon’s lawn in front of the explosion site with no skid marks on it proves that Flight 77 didn’t hit the ground first.
thereby dissipating much of the energy that might otherwise have caused more extensive damage to the building; nonetheless, as described by The New York Times, the plane still hit not "just the ground floor" but between the first and second floors:
The Boeing 757 crashed into the outer edge of the building between the first and second floors, "at full power," Mr. Rumsfeld said. It penetrated three of the five concentric rings of the building.
Wow! Another amazing feat! Flight 77 hit the ground first (although it didn’t leave any skid marks on the grass!), had its energy dissipated, and still managed to penetrate “three of the five concentric rings of the building” with “reinforced concrete walls” and a “reinforced, 24-inch-thick outer wall”! Man, that’s one tough plane!
Another account of the crash described:
The plane banked sharply
I didn't know Boeing 757's can bank sharply, but I bet missiles can!
and came in so low that it clipped light poles. It slammed into the side of the Pentagon at an estimated 350 miles per hour after first hitting the helipad.
OK, so how did the plane manage to hit the helipad first when the Pentagon claims it flew in to the right of the helipad?
The plane penetrated the outer three rings of the building. The jet fuel exploded, which sent a fireball outward from the impact point. About 30 minutes after the crash, a cross-section of the building collapsed, but only after enough time had elapsed for rescue workers to evacuate all injured employees.
The fire was so hot that firefighters could not approach the impact point itself until approximately 1 P.M. The collapse and roof fires left the inner courtyard visible from outside through a gaping hole. The area hit by the plane was newly renovated and reinforced, while the areas surrounding the impact zone were closed in preparation for renovation, so the death toll could have been much higher if another area had been hit.
Now wait a minute. That account says “about 30 minutes after the crash, a cross-section of the building collapsed, but only after enough time had elapsed for rescue workers to evacuate all injured employees”, but then it says “the fire was so hot that firefighters could not approach the impact point itself until approximately 1 P.M.”Now how were the rescue workers able to evacuate all injured employees when the firefighters could not approach the impact point itself until approximately 1 P.M.?
Next question:
3) You'll remember that the aircraft only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring. Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this photograph?
You'll recall from the discussions above that the hijacked airliner did not "only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring" — it struck the Pentagon between the first and second floors and blasted all the way through to the third ring. Because the plane disappeared into the building's interior after penetrating the outer ring, it was not visible in photographs taken from outside the Pentagon. Moreover, since the airliner was full of jet fuel
Flight 77 was said to have flown all the out to the Ohio/Kentucky border and then back to the Pentagon, an estimated 800 mile trip at least. I doubt the plane was still full of jet fuel.
and was flown into thick, reinforced concrete walls at high speed, exploding in a fireball, any pieces of wreckage large enough to be identifiable in after-the-fact photographs taken from a few hundred feet away burned up in the intense fire that followed the crash (just as the planes flown into the World Trade Center towers burned up, and the intensity of their jet-fuel fires caused both towers to collapse).
Small pieces of airplane debris were plainly visible on the Pentagon lawn in other photographs, however, such as the one below:
I thought you just said, “any pieces of wreckage large enough to be identifiable in after-the-fact photographs taken from a few hundred feet away burned up in the intense fire”?
1. It is the ONLY debris photo the "nay sayer’s" have found that look like it came from an American Airlines plane. 2. Notice that it doesn't have any burn or scrape marks on it. 3. The silver part on the debris does not match the silver color on American Airlines planes. 4. There is another photo of the debris taken from a different angle, which looks like the piece had been moved. 5. It was reportedly taken by an AP photographer which is interesting. If you notice the photo is taken BEFORE the roof collapses. I haven't been able to find any other photos taken by an AP photographer before the roof collapses which begs the question, how did the AP photographer get to the Pentagon so fast and why is that the only photo he took of debris or before the roof collapses? 6. That piece of "clean" debris could have easily been planted. 7. Why didn’t the photographer take a picture of that piece which looks like debris to the right of it?
4) Can you explain why the Defence Secretary deemed it necessary to sand over the lawn, which was otherwise undamaged after the attack?
The claim that the "Defence Secretary" ordered the lawn to be sanded over is false. A base of sand and gravel was laid on the Pentagon lawn because the trucks and other heavy equipment used to haul away the debris (as shown in the photograph below) would have been slipping and sliding on the grass and become mired in the Pentagon lawn otherwise.
The funny thing is that nobody has been able to answer why there is no skid marks on the lawn or plane debris either.
5) Can you explain what happened to the wings of the aircraft and why they caused no damage?
As the front of the Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, the outer portions of the wings likely snapped during the initial impact, then were pushed inward towards the fuselage and carried into the building's interior;
You mean they folded back like the wings on a F-14 jetfighter and then stayed with the fuselage on the way in? That’s the funniest explanation of what happened to the wings I’ve heard yet!!! What “carried” these wings into the building's interior? The magical “wing carrying fairies”?!! Remember, according to the Pentagon, the plane struck the building at an approximate 45* angle so the left side wing definitely would have sheered off. Wouldn’t a better explanation be that the wings snapped off and bounced back off the building’s wall? Well, that didn’t happen obviously because we see no evidence of wings there, so the only other explanation there could be is that Flight 77 didn’t crash there!
the inner portions of the wings probably penetrated the Pentagon walls with the rest of the plane. Any sizable portions of the wings were destroyed in the explosion or the subsequent fire.
You are saying “probably” so we then can also say “probably not”. Where’s your proof that it did? Now, you just showed a “sizable” piece of debris in the photo above. Why wasn’t that piece destroyed in the explosion or the subsequent fire?
Nonetheless, damage to the building caused by the plane's wings is plainly visible in photographs, such as the one below (note the blackened sections on both sides of the impact site):
Wow! Flight 77’s left wing must have been four times longer than it’s right wing! And could you have found a blurrier photo? I can only imagine if “Hunt the Boeing” or any other conspiracy site had this picture as some kind of proof and all the comments people would say about this photo being altered or something!
6) Can you explain why the County Fire Chief could not tell reporters where the aircraft was?
The exact quote offered here was:
When asked by a journalist: "Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?"
"First of all, the question about the aircraft, there are some small pieces of aircraft visible from the interior during this fire-fighting operation I'm talking about, but not large sections. In other words, there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing." "You know, I'd rather not comment on that. We have a lot of eyewitnesses that can give you better information about what actually happened with the aircraft as it approached. So we don't know. I don't know."
The fire chief wasn't asked "where the aircraft was"; he was asked "Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?" He did indeed provide an answer to the question he was asked: There were no large sections of the plane left by the time he was asked (the day after the attack) because they had been smashed into smaller pieces by the impact and then burned up; all that remained were smaller pieces visible only from the interior of the Pentagon.
He also said, “So we don't know. I don't know” and in the rest of his statement, he also says, “there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing.”
7) Can you find the aircraft's point of impact?
Immediately after Flight 77 smashed into the Pentagon, the impact was obscured by a huge fireball, explosions, fire, smoke, and water from firefighting efforts. Within a half hour, the upper stories of the building collapsed, thereby permanently obscuring the impact site. It simply wasn't possible for photographs to capture a clear view of the impact site during that brief interval between the crash and the collapse.
Actually, there are a few photos that show all of the impact point.
In photographs like the one provided (below left), the impact site is obscured by water from firefighters' hoses and smoke. A two-story high impact hole does exist right behind the fireman in the photograph, but it's covered over by water issuing from the fire truck.
Yes, you can see the very top of the impact hole. A couple of things are interesting to point out, it doesn’t look like the tail section did any damage to the building, the engines didn’t make any skid marks on the lawn, and the 2 story high impact hole was supposedly made by a 3 story tall plane! Hmmmm? What happened to the tail section and the engines?
By the time the smoke and water cleared, additional portions of the building had collapsed (below right), further obscuring the impact point.
You think?
I'll I have to say about your debunking attempt is...
So much for Snopes!
Update: A video presentation unleashed on the Internet in August 2004 rehashes the same conspiracy claims. It can be found at a number of locations, including:
