9/11: Debunking The Myths
- Thread starter I think not
- Start date
I have always believed the source of the Anthrax was US based..just some more of their homebred terrorism.
President Bush has stated on two occasions that he saw a plane hit WTC 1:
There is a problem with the above statements. There was no live video coverage of the first plane hitting the tower. There couldn't be. Video of the first plane hitting the tower did not surface until AFTER the second plane had hit.
Each of us will ... remember the moment the news came -- where we were and what we were doing. [G.W. Bush, September 20, 2001] http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html
There is a problem with the above statements. There was no live video coverage of the first plane hitting the tower. There couldn't be. Video of the first plane hitting the tower did not surface until AFTER the second plane had hit.
Each of us will ... remember the moment the news came -- where we were and what we were doing. [G.W. Bush, September 20, 2001] http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html
Re: RE: 9/11: Debunking The M
Yes I know what i'm talking about since I heard the same type of news from different sources mentioning what i'm talking about. Well the only thing i'm unsure about is, is our world still safe or are the Americans getting blind from Bush and turning the world into an American playground?
http://www.shoutwire.com/comments/12572/We_Tap_Your_Phone_For_Your_Own_Safety
Common would you seriously want your government listening to your private calls and secrets? Your secret date call and use the phrase "Oh we are only tapping your love calls for catching terrorists." Get serious
edit: Well about the media catching the first plane hitting the tower is impossible since if you knew nothing about it how would you know when to shoot your film? It would take like 10 minutes to do verious things before you can get a news like angle on such events. If you got the plane hitting the tower then obviously you knew something about it. Common sense takes over.
edit#2:
FAKE
http://www.shoutwire.com/comments/13008/First_9_11_Pentagon_Video_Released
Looks more like that spy plane called "Predator" more then a passenger plane. Talk about bull crap.
Johnny Utah said:
Yes I know what i'm talking about since I heard the same type of news from different sources mentioning what i'm talking about. Well the only thing i'm unsure about is, is our world still safe or are the Americans getting blind from Bush and turning the world into an American playground?
http://www.shoutwire.com/comments/12572/We_Tap_Your_Phone_For_Your_Own_Safety
Common would you seriously want your government listening to your private calls and secrets? Your secret date call and use the phrase "Oh we are only tapping your love calls for catching terrorists." Get serious
edit: Well about the media catching the first plane hitting the tower is impossible since if you knew nothing about it how would you know when to shoot your film? It would take like 10 minutes to do verious things before you can get a news like angle on such events. If you got the plane hitting the tower then obviously you knew something about it. Common sense takes over.
edit#2:
FAKE
http://www.shoutwire.com/comments/13008/First_9_11_Pentagon_Video_Released
Looks more like that spy plane called "Predator" more then a passenger plane. Talk about bull crap.
So what happened to the plane that supposedly hit the Pentagon? Did it ever exist?
What happened to all of those people who were on the plane?
I can't wait for the answers.
What happened to all of those people who were on the plane?
I can't wait for the answers.
New" official video
The Pentagon magic plane, part 2
by Pierre-Henri Bunel*
At the request of the neo-conservative association Judicial Watch, the US Department of Defence released the full version of the September 11th, 2001 attacks on Pentagon security camera videos. The neo-conservative press is delighted at this broadcasting, which supposedly contradicts conclusively our analyses. In fact, the video does not contain any additional element in comparison with the images already broadcast in 2002, and where it is still impossible to see a Boeing 757-200. This sequence confirms, on the contrary, the analysis of the former artillery officer Pierre - Henri Bunel published by Thierry Meyssan in his book Pentagate, and that we reprint here today.
Videos released on may, 16th 2006 by the United States Department of Defense
The Effects Of A Hollow Charge, 4th chapter of book Pentagate
What is the nature of the explosion that took place at the Pentagon on 11 September 2001? An an’alysis of the video pictures of the impact and the photographs of the damages permits one to know by what type of device the attack was caused. Did the explosion correspond with that produced by an airplane’s kerosene or that of a real explosive? Did the fire correspond with a hydrocarbon fire or with a classic blaze?
Deflagration or detonation?
As a preamble, it seems indispensable to make clear to the reader an essential distinction: the difference between a deflagration and a detonation.
The combustion of explosive chemical materials - powders, explosives or hydrocarbons, for example - release energy by producing a shock wave. The diffusion at high speeds of the enormous quantity of gas produced by the chemical reaction is accompanied by flame, by a noise caused by the displacement of the shockwave through the air, and by smoke. One also often observes, even before seeing the flame, a cloud of vapor due to the compression of the air surrounding the zone of the explosion. The air can’t be set into motion immediately, so it compresses under the influence of the shockwave. At first, under the compression of the air molecules, the invisible water vapor that the atmosphere always contains in greater or lesser quantities compresses and becomes visible as a white cloud.
What I would like to underline here is the notion of the shockwave. An explosion is a reaction that projects gas at a greater or lesser speeds. Explosive materials, according to their chemical composition and the physical arrangement of their molecules, impart upon the gases they generate a greater or lesser speed of propagation. One says that they are more or less progressive. The observation of the shockwave is thus a precious indication of the speed of the gases projected by the explosion.
(GIF) Explosive materials are divided into two groups, according to their progressiveness. Explosives produce a shockwave whose speed of propagation is superior to a value of about six thousand feet
www.voltairnet.org/article139203.html
The Pentagon magic plane, part 2
by Pierre-Henri Bunel*
At the request of the neo-conservative association Judicial Watch, the US Department of Defence released the full version of the September 11th, 2001 attacks on Pentagon security camera videos. The neo-conservative press is delighted at this broadcasting, which supposedly contradicts conclusively our analyses. In fact, the video does not contain any additional element in comparison with the images already broadcast in 2002, and where it is still impossible to see a Boeing 757-200. This sequence confirms, on the contrary, the analysis of the former artillery officer Pierre - Henri Bunel published by Thierry Meyssan in his book Pentagate, and that we reprint here today.
Videos released on may, 16th 2006 by the United States Department of Defense
The Effects Of A Hollow Charge, 4th chapter of book Pentagate
What is the nature of the explosion that took place at the Pentagon on 11 September 2001? An an’alysis of the video pictures of the impact and the photographs of the damages permits one to know by what type of device the attack was caused. Did the explosion correspond with that produced by an airplane’s kerosene or that of a real explosive? Did the fire correspond with a hydrocarbon fire or with a classic blaze?
Deflagration or detonation?
As a preamble, it seems indispensable to make clear to the reader an essential distinction: the difference between a deflagration and a detonation.
The combustion of explosive chemical materials - powders, explosives or hydrocarbons, for example - release energy by producing a shock wave. The diffusion at high speeds of the enormous quantity of gas produced by the chemical reaction is accompanied by flame, by a noise caused by the displacement of the shockwave through the air, and by smoke. One also often observes, even before seeing the flame, a cloud of vapor due to the compression of the air surrounding the zone of the explosion. The air can’t be set into motion immediately, so it compresses under the influence of the shockwave. At first, under the compression of the air molecules, the invisible water vapor that the atmosphere always contains in greater or lesser quantities compresses and becomes visible as a white cloud.
What I would like to underline here is the notion of the shockwave. An explosion is a reaction that projects gas at a greater or lesser speeds. Explosive materials, according to their chemical composition and the physical arrangement of their molecules, impart upon the gases they generate a greater or lesser speed of propagation. One says that they are more or less progressive. The observation of the shockwave is thus a precious indication of the speed of the gases projected by the explosion.
(GIF) Explosive materials are divided into two groups, according to their progressiveness. Explosives produce a shockwave whose speed of propagation is superior to a value of about six thousand feet
www.voltairnet.org/article139203.html
Yes Yes Yes... We got all that...
But what REALLY happened to the hijacked flight? Where are the people?
But what REALLY happened to the hijacked flight? Where are the people?
RE: 9/11: Debunking The M
Maybe thier sleeping with the fishes, maybe they wern't even on the flight, maybe there wasn't a flight, somebody knows the truth.
Maybe thier sleeping with the fishes, maybe they wern't even on the flight, maybe there wasn't a flight, somebody knows the truth.
Re: RE: 9/11: Debunking The Myths
The Moonbat Mothership took the people away.. :lol:EagleSmack said:
Re: RE: 9/11: Debunking The M
So what you are saying is that all of these people may have been taken off the plane and were disposed of?
I mean there was a flight and a whole bunch of people were killed off that flight. We can both agree that there was a Flight 77 and the people on Flight 77 did at one time exist? Yes?
So what do you think happened to them?
Is it possible that it did indeed crash into the Pentagon?
If you do not think it did what is the most probable scenario?
Canadian Content awaits your theory.
darkbeaver said:
So what you are saying is that all of these people may have been taken off the plane and were disposed of?
I mean there was a flight and a whole bunch of people were killed off that flight. We can both agree that there was a Flight 77 and the people on Flight 77 did at one time exist? Yes?
So what do you think happened to them?
Is it possible that it did indeed crash into the Pentagon?
If you do not think it did what is the most probable scenario?
Canadian Content awaits your theory.
I can't believe people actually buy the 9/11 conspiracy stuff. The American government can't even keep a blowjob in the oval office secret.
http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html
http://www.ccdominoes.com/lc/LooseChangeGuide.html
9/11 Commission report is a lie
by Richard Curtis
May 24, 2006
Seattle Post Intelligencer
Writing about a speech by one of the members of the 9/11 Commission, P-I columnist Joel Connelly claimed: "Each of us needs to understand why we are doing what we are doing." ("Sept. 11 show the flaws with protocol," May 8)
Indeed! The problem is that the "why" we have been told appears to be a complete fiction.
Connelly seems to assume that because the 9/11 Commission was bipartisan that we should accept its conclusions and recommendations. But is that true? Is the commission's story credible?
The commission's conclusions and recommendations should be totally rejected. Its story is full of lies, distortions and omissions of fact. Following are two of the more than 40 reasons why the official story about what happened on 9/11 is untrue.
First, who were the hijackers? We do not know. None of those named appear on any of the passenger lists released by the airlines. Most important, six of the men named by the government are still alive and have never even been to the United States. We know that because European media (as reported by The Associated Press, the London Telegraph and the BBC) have interviewed them. It is not a matter of mistaken identity not being noticed or someone using a false passport. The commission insists that the people they named were the hijackers but that claim is demonstrably false.
If that most basic claim is false, and the information was available to the commission (which it was), and the commission still claims that it has given us "a full account" of what happened that day based on "exacting research," it's clear that the members are lying. In his book, "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions," Dr. David Ray Griffin documents all that and concludes the whole report is one long lie.
Second, in the months after 9/11 all of the surviving New York City Fire Department personnel who were on the scene were interviewed. Those oral histories were recorded and withheld from the public until Aug. 15, 2005. Only after losing in court three times did the city of New York finally release them. All 503 are now posted on The New York Times Web site. Why did the city fight so hard to keep them from the public?
It turns out those oral histories reveal details about what was happening in the World Trade Center buildings that are completely inconsistent with the tale told by the commission. Dozens of firefighters and medics reported hearing, seeing and feeling explosives going off in the buildings that collapsed. Why were there explosives, very powerful explosives by all accounts, going off in the buildings? More disturbing, why was the pattern of those explosives identical in some important ways with the pattern used in a planned implosion (or controlled demolition of a building)?
In spite of Connelly's faith in what commission members say, the report seems to be an obvious cover-up. The question that we all need to ask is: What is the commission covering up? Was 9/11, in fact, an inside job?
Richard Curtis, Ph.D., is an adjunct professor of philosophy at Seattle University and a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth; www.st911.org.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
To become a Member of Global Research
The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles in their entirety, or any portions thereof, on community internet sites, as long as the text & title are not modified. The source must be acknowledged and an active URL hyperlink address to the original CRG article must be indicated. The author's copyright note must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com
The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CUR20060524&articleId=2511
by Richard Curtis
May 24, 2006
Seattle Post Intelligencer
Writing about a speech by one of the members of the 9/11 Commission, P-I columnist Joel Connelly claimed: "Each of us needs to understand why we are doing what we are doing." ("Sept. 11 show the flaws with protocol," May 8)
Indeed! The problem is that the "why" we have been told appears to be a complete fiction.
Connelly seems to assume that because the 9/11 Commission was bipartisan that we should accept its conclusions and recommendations. But is that true? Is the commission's story credible?
The commission's conclusions and recommendations should be totally rejected. Its story is full of lies, distortions and omissions of fact. Following are two of the more than 40 reasons why the official story about what happened on 9/11 is untrue.
First, who were the hijackers? We do not know. None of those named appear on any of the passenger lists released by the airlines. Most important, six of the men named by the government are still alive and have never even been to the United States. We know that because European media (as reported by The Associated Press, the London Telegraph and the BBC) have interviewed them. It is not a matter of mistaken identity not being noticed or someone using a false passport. The commission insists that the people they named were the hijackers but that claim is demonstrably false.
If that most basic claim is false, and the information was available to the commission (which it was), and the commission still claims that it has given us "a full account" of what happened that day based on "exacting research," it's clear that the members are lying. In his book, "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions," Dr. David Ray Griffin documents all that and concludes the whole report is one long lie.
Second, in the months after 9/11 all of the surviving New York City Fire Department personnel who were on the scene were interviewed. Those oral histories were recorded and withheld from the public until Aug. 15, 2005. Only after losing in court three times did the city of New York finally release them. All 503 are now posted on The New York Times Web site. Why did the city fight so hard to keep them from the public?
It turns out those oral histories reveal details about what was happening in the World Trade Center buildings that are completely inconsistent with the tale told by the commission. Dozens of firefighters and medics reported hearing, seeing and feeling explosives going off in the buildings that collapsed. Why were there explosives, very powerful explosives by all accounts, going off in the buildings? More disturbing, why was the pattern of those explosives identical in some important ways with the pattern used in a planned implosion (or controlled demolition of a building)?
In spite of Connelly's faith in what commission members say, the report seems to be an obvious cover-up. The question that we all need to ask is: What is the commission covering up? Was 9/11, in fact, an inside job?
Richard Curtis, Ph.D., is an adjunct professor of philosophy at Seattle University and a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth; www.st911.org.
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
To become a Member of Global Research
The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) at www.globalresearch.ca grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles in their entirety, or any portions thereof, on community internet sites, as long as the text & title are not modified. The source must be acknowledged and an active URL hyperlink address to the original CRG article must be indicated. The author's copyright note must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com
The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CUR20060524&articleId=2511
Re: RE: 9/11: Debunking The Myths
late getting in on this, but even though two planes DID actually hit the towers, they were constructed to withstand a plane crash. What the designers did not plan on was having charges explode causing the towers to implode. Think about it. Both towers came down within minutes of each other even though the timing between the plane crashes was greater. AND they came down perfecty as though the charges were well planned.
the caracal kid said:
late getting in on this, but even though two planes DID actually hit the towers, they were constructed to withstand a plane crash. What the designers did not plan on was having charges explode causing the towers to implode. Think about it. Both towers came down within minutes of each other even though the timing between the plane crashes was greater. AND they came down perfecty as though the charges were well planned.
RE: 9/11: Debunking The M
What I think is that many people are realy afraid to admit that thier own government did the towers, imagine the fear they must have, where can they turn, who can they trust, what's become of the illusion of America. I think very strongly that the American Dream is officially over and the nightmare has started we will be lucky to survive it. Dreams die hard and slow.
What I think is that many people are realy afraid to admit that thier own government did the towers, imagine the fear they must have, where can they turn, who can they trust, what's become of the illusion of America. I think very strongly that the American Dream is officially over and the nightmare has started we will be lucky to survive it. Dreams die hard and slow.
Re: RE: 9/11: Debunking The Myths
The problem with this argument
"they were constructed to withstand a plane crash. "
is that it assumes simply because that's how they were constructed, they actually would withstand a plane crash.
Its a weak argument because, not only do engineers get it wrong sometimes, planes ain't crashing into buildings on a regular basis, making the response to a plane crash primarily theoretical.
Ever see a film of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge? This is an example of engineers getting it wrong too, only on a much more spectacular level.
So simply because that's how the engineers constructed it does not mean it will respond in the manner in which it was designed.
Risus said:
The problem with this argument
"they were constructed to withstand a plane crash. "
is that it assumes simply because that's how they were constructed, they actually would withstand a plane crash.
Its a weak argument because, not only do engineers get it wrong sometimes, planes ain't crashing into buildings on a regular basis, making the response to a plane crash primarily theoretical.
Ever see a film of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge? This is an example of engineers getting it wrong too, only on a much more spectacular level.
So simply because that's how the engineers constructed it does not mean it will respond in the manner in which it was designed.
Re: RE: 9/11: Debunking The M
Missle?
That is a cop out. What missle?
Are you saying a missle hit the Pentagon? Is that what you mean? If it is then you are avoiding my question.
What happened to Flight 77? Where did all of those people go?
darkbeaver said:
Missle?
That is a cop out. What missle?
Are you saying a missle hit the Pentagon? Is that what you mean? If it is then you are avoiding my question.
What happened to Flight 77? Where did all of those people go?