Thread: 9/11 was an inside job

Nope, what you see is an entirely different plane than left the airport.

Anyone having any joy with the pentagon picture minus a plane or the cut beam yet?

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier

what is it that makes light bend?

(Hint: ANGLES of refraction)

Dear oh dear. You're not exactly a sharp analyst, Albert. And it's reflection, not refraction. Refraction is when light travels THROUGH a medium. Grade 11 physics.

HINT : The fuselage is a cylinder.

Originally Posted by Latindancer

Refraction is when light travels THROUGH a medium

What like air?

Originally Posted by Latindancer

HINT : The fuselage is a cylinder.

Listen mate, the chair and the hat are in the corner OK!

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier

Bizarre, so neither of you can see (in the albeit grainy scan) a missile shaped double carriage (for want of a better expression) running all the way along the bottom of the fuselage?

Originally Posted by Latindancer

No....we see (as did millions of others) the dark underneath of a fuselage, and a long brighter area which is light shining off it. The fuselage is just as wide as one might expect.

Not that I was asking you my learned doondus friend , but what is it that makes light bend?

(Hint: ANGLES of refraction)

Here is a picture of President Bush planting explosives in the World Trade Center days before the attack.



If you look closely, you can see that he hasn't done his flies up. And Donald Rumsfeld is behind him with a welding torch.

You'd better post this quickly on your looney tunes forums before the mods are ordered to take it down by the Illuminati.

^Piss and wind yet again harry?

"It is not a theory but a fact-one that is well known within the 9/11 truth movement-that the 9/11 Commission failed to ensure that at least one of the appropriate government agencies: the NTSB, the FBI or the FAA was commissioned to positively identify the aircraft which were allegedly involved in the murders of nearly 3,000 people, on September 11, 2001.

One does not need to be a Harvard Law School graduate to know that the first and most important requirement in any murder investigation is to determine the cause of death, which often leads to a requirement to identify, and trace to its origins, a murder weapon, or, in the case of 9/11: weapons. And there can be no doubt that each of the four planes which were allegedly hijacked on the morning 9/11 was posited as being a murder weapon, by the U.S. administration and the 9/11 Commission, yet there is absolutely nothing which firmly connects the four allegedly-hijacked planes to any of the 9/11 crash sites.

In fact it is not fanciful to suggest that if a lawyer, even of a far lower calibre than that of an Alan Dershowitz, were engaged to defend the airport security companies that allegedly allowed 19 box-cutter-carrying Arabs to get onto those planes, he would immediately call for the dismissal of such an action on the grounds that the planes which allegedly hit the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the one which crashed near Shanksville had never been forensically identified as the planes which, allegedly, had been hijacked that morning.

And such a motion could not possibly be denied, as I will explain.

The planes in question were alleged to have been: American Airlines flight 11 (Tail Number: N334AA), North Tower; United Airlines flight 175 (N612UA), South Tower; American Airlines flight 77 (N644AA), the Pentagon, and United Airlines flight 93 (N591UA), which supposedly crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. But the truth is that they could well have been different planes that had arrived on the scenes from quite different locations, because the crash debris recovered from those four crash sites has never been forensically linked to the planes that allegedly took off from Logan International, Boston; Dulles International, Washington and Newark International, New Jersey, and which were, allegedly, hijacked shortly thereafter. Therefore they cannot possibly be linked, without a reasonable doubt, to breaches of security at those airports.

So, it would be a remarkable irony, and quite possibly a unique circumstance in the annals of American jurisprudence, if the assumptions used as reasons for launching wars against two sovereign nations, as well as the more generalised ‘War on Terror’ would not stand up as evidence in either a criminal prosecution or a civil damages suit in an American court of law.

Air-crash investigations in the United States are normally carried out by the NTSB’s air accident investigation division, and there are several documentary television series featuring this government agency’s painstaking approach when investigating the causes of air crashes. During many such investigations, serial numbers from recovered parts are cross checked with the airline-in-question’s purchase and maintenance records, to try and identify the reason for an accident, when it is suspected that mechanical failure may have been the cause.

However the NTSB has confirmed that-apparently for the first time from its inception, in 1967, since when it has investigated more than 124,000 other aviation accidents-it took no part in investigating any of the air crashes which occurred on September 11, 2001. So the world has been asked to take it on faith and hearsay that the four planes involved were normal scheduled flights which were hijacked by Arab terrorists, some of whom, are, allegedly, still alive.

Even more disturbing is the fact that documentation exists, and is available on the Internet, which indicates that the FBI, backed up by a separate letter from the Justice Department has refused to release any information, under the Freedom of Information Act, about any debris recovered from the crash sites, including the serial number of the “Black Box” Cockpit Flight Data Recorder allegedly found near the alleged crash site of United Airlines Flight 93. It may be recalled that a transcript taken from this recorder formed the basis for several TV dramas and one Academy-Award winning feature film.

By no means finally, but just as disturbing, the core of a jet engine, which can been seen in several 9/11 videos falling out of the northern face of the WTC’s South Tower, and which hit a building on its way down, and was photographed and videoed-in the presence of FBI personnel and at least one FBI vehicle-where it came to rest at the junction of Church and Murray streets, was later photographed, prior to its burial in a land fill on Staten Island. So much for what murder investigators are usually so concerned about: The chain of custody and preservation of important evidence, pending its identification.

The events of 9/11 had consequences far beyond the destruction of life and property in the United States; they were the reasons for the launching of three wars. Yet it is obvious that a leader writer of an influential newspaper, the Washington Post, could not spare the time to look into such a serious matter-one that people with far fewer resources than he or she has access to have managed to do-before launching a scathing attack on a member of the Japanese parliament and the world-wide 9/11 truth movement, in general.

Just because the 9/11 Commission did not do its job properly is no excuse for newspaper writers not to do theirs. Unless, of course, newspapers such as the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times are playing a conscious role in a conspiracy to prevent the truth about these events from surfacing. In which case their editors and owners would almost certainly be guilty of misprision of felony.

I would like to stress that the identity of the planes is not the only reason why the 9/11 Commission’s findings should be regarded as invalid, and its members found guilty, at the very least, of gross oversights in the collection of the evidence which was used in the writing of its Final Report. Even a cursory look at the visual evidence of the collapsing World Trade Center’s Twin Towers and WTC 7 should have instilled grave doubts about the findings of some of the experts from the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST.

But, for my money, the real smoking guns were, and still are, the four aircraft that were used as weapons on that terrible day, and for them not to have been identified breaks every rule in any book which seeks to teach the art of solving crimes."

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier

I'd love to hear one of you flat earthers explain this.

No chance though.

Actually they look like not so cleverly done photo shopped photos which is why they added they nicely overdone border pretending to be a highlighter. No doubt they picked pic of a mean that was cut for any number of reasons and cropped onto one standing like that.

Same goes for the Pentagon jpegs as the presumed hole does not even match the surrounding structure in color and I've personally seen much better live pics which showed a much larger hole that resembled the fuselage diameter of a plane and went higher and was much deeper with no structures in the interior of the hole like there is in that photo shopped pic.

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier

Ok guys, here's an easier one.

Here's a Boeing 767-220 (same as the one which took off from the airport AA175)



And here's the plane that crashed into the second tower



Can you see a difference?

Yeah in a day and age when we have HD, vivid color and enhanced photography it's an intentionally really grainy virtually indistinguishable piece of shite for a photo.

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Yes, there are all sorts of blobs over the shitty second photograph that all the looney tunes nutjobs can interpret as anything because they're mental cases and think everyone is out to get them.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

actually no

Bizarre, so neither of you can see (in the albeit grainy scan) a missile shaped double carriage (for want of a better expression) running all the way along the bottom of the fuselage?

Strange.

More likely shadows and sun reflection playing with your intellect .................................................. .............Or lack there of..

Do you not see the angle of the plane and the morning sun reflection on the underside of the plane on that entire side of the plane as it banks? Any straight line on the plane will cause the effect that you ascribe to be a "missle" ..

Originally Posted by Latindancer

No....we see (as did millions of others) the dark underneath of a fuselage, and a long brighter area which is light shining off it.
The fuselage is just as wide as one might expect.

Notice the angle at which the light is being reflected off the plane elsewhere. It is also being reflected off that area of fuselage at the same angle.

Only someone who had serious ongoing problems with their pattern perception would see anything else. You wouldn't be the type to still take hallucinogenic drugs regularly, would you ? Whereas many others tried them in the 1970s and then gave up ?

You must have a lot of fun seeing faces and all sorts of patterns in clouds, mate.

Beat me to it.. But I hadn't read this prior so I just confirmed your perception independently and almost verbatim.

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier

You know, that picture was in the paper a few days after 9/11 - on the 14th I think. Not enough time to photoshop an image.

edit (obviously enough time to photoshop an image but you know what I mean )

Of course plenty of time for photo shopping you moron, they can get an entire documentary out in that amount of time, but that's irrelevant as no one is saying it's photo shopped.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier

Ok guys, here's an easier one.

Here's a Boeing 767-220 (same as the one which took off from the airport AA175)



And here's the plane that crashed into the second tower



Can you see a difference?

Yes, there are all sorts of blobs over the shitty second photograph that all the looney tunes nutjobs can interpret as anything because they're mental cases and think everyone is out to get them.

If you look closely at the top photo of the shiny aluminum fuselage of an AA plane, there's a missile running down it's entire length which might be especially noticeable if it was a crap, grainy, black and white photo instead of a nice clear color photo..

Originally Posted by Albert Shagnastier

Now this next one is a little like "Spot the ball", so no doubt harry will be up for it

Only difference is that this game is called "Spot the plane"

Just stick an X anywhere in the picture you think the plane actually is

And yet another shitty photograph that isn't clear enough to show bits of a plane that hit the ground at 500mph.

Really, are you that stupid?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Really, are you that stupid?

That's rhetorical right?

Originally Posted by FloridaBorn

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Really, are you that stupid?

That's rhetorical right?

Not 100% sure which one is which though

So other than a couple of old guys who should go to specsavers....

nada.

The planes involved cannot fly at 500mph at sea level, fact. My problem is with the pics involving the crash into the field, there is no debris at all of an aircraft. A 5 ton jet engine will not just disintegrate on impact with the ground.

Originally Posted by FloridaBorn

Yeah in a day and age when we have HD, vivid color and enhanced photography it's an intentionally really grainy virtually indistinguishable piece of shite for a photo.

Originally Posted by FloridaBorn

crap, grainy, black and white photo instead of a nice clear color photo..

Here's a good colour shot and closeup from the daily mail 3 days later on the 14th

Originally Posted by Tassini

My problem is with the pics involving the crash into the field, there is no debris at all of an aircraft. A 5 ton jet engine will not just disintegrate on impact with the ground.

Well quite mate - that's my problem with it too

Which reminds me, anyone spotted a plane on this part of "spot the plane" held at the pentagon?

Just to keep things moving - here's the next one.

Now this one is more of a "mystery riddle"

Q: How is it possible that a lamp post fell on this mans car causing the damage...

and didn't leave a scratch on the bonnet?