Thread: 9/11 was an inside job

Another interesting site.

Worldwide Information Control System (WICS)

http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume1/vol1ch02.pdf


Published in 1996.

Originally Posted by ENT

Another interesting site.

Worldwide Information Control System (WICS)

http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume1/vol1ch02.pdf


Published in 1996.

A proposed system for information and intel gathering to allow better informed decision making in command and control centers......how sinister.....

Just think, if Napoleon had the good sense to build something like this he might have won at Waterloo, knowing that the Prussian cavalry was sneaking up on him from behind the woods, and that sort of thing.......

Originally Posted by koman

I am beginning to think you may be some kind of PSYOPS program ENT.....there really is no normal, rational explanation for you.....

There IS, of a kind. In real life, he has a mental illness...most likely schizophrenia with paranoid/schizoid tendencies.

Originally Posted by piwanoi

Was the planes only observed on TV or was there hundreds of witnesses who saw the impact with their own eyes? and I say again if it was some sort of optical illusion why oh why do the multi millionaire"s distractors who say that there was no planes involved ,stage another optical Illusion to prove themselves right ?

There was 1000's just in the buildings alone. Sadly many didn't get out alive to tell their stories but quite few did and there should no disputing what they saw with their own eyes but then again.....................................

Originally Posted by FloridaBorn

Originally Posted by piwanoi

Was the planes only observed on TV or was there hundreds of witnesses who saw the impact with their own eyes? and I say again if it was some sort of optical illusion why oh why do the multi millionaire"s distractors who say that there was no planes involved ,stage another optical Illusion to prove themselves right ?

There was 1000's just in the buildings alone. Sadly many didn't get out alive to tell their stories but quite few did and there should no disputing what they saw with their own eyes but then again.....................................

In the buildings, and on the streets below. It happened at a time when thousands of people were on their way to work in the area. It's lower Mahatten FFS.

As has also been stated many times, millions of people had their TV's on for the morning news and breakfast show stuff. All the channels were interrupted with the "breaking news" item...(including the one I was ignoring until the interruption) .. at first, the news crews were chatting about some kind of serious accident at the World Trade Center, .....then shortly thereafter we all watched the second plane fly past and into the second tower...right on live TV. I still remember everything went suddenly quite and then a newscaster said...."OK, this is no accident"...then another kind of hushed silence.....

Later on in my office the entire staff were talking about what they had seen and very little work was done that day because we brought in a TV and watched 9/11 unfolding all day.....there was nothing else to watch...and very few clients came to see us because they were nearly all home watching the news too. It was the only topic of conversation for days.

During the first couple of days, there was a constant stream of officials, politicians and "experts" being interviewed and being pressed for information and opinion.

Many statements were made which turned out to be inaccurate. They had been purely speculative in the first place.....because initially there was no real data available. These inaccurate statements and speculations later became part of the very core material for conspiracy developers.

Anyone who does not understand, or can not accept that simple piece of truth really needs to see a counsellor and get their head sorted out.

These inaccurate statements and speculations later became part of the very core material for retarded nutjobs who believe in fairy stories.

Fixed that for you.

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

I don't think commercial aircraft fly indoors. Just sayin' like.

They did at 9/11. They flew though a steel/concrete building and exited the other side.

Yeah, none of my flights have been like that and I've survived every one of them.

Originally Posted by koman

then shortly thereafter we all watched the second plane fly past and into the second tower...right on live TV.

Strange that millions saw a plane crash into the second tower live on TV yet witnesses live at the seen say there was no aircraft and others say that it was a military plane. Easy to get millions to believe if seen on TV, but there's too many inconsistency with the witnesses live at the scene.

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

Originally Posted by koman

then shortly thereafter we all watched the second plane fly past and into the second tower...right on live TV.

Strange that millions saw a plane crash into the second tower live on TV yet witnesses live at the seen say there was no aircraft and others say that it was a military plane. Easy to get millions to believe if seen on TV, but there's too many inconsistency with the witnesses live at the scene.

Go see a shrink FFS...

any event seen by a large number of people will have "inconsistencies" in eyewitness accounts. A few people said it was a grey plane, some said it was a black plane, a big plane, a small plane, a commuter jet......

The vast majority saw a civilian airliner.....but you want to trump them all with comments from a small number of people who thought they saw something else...in fact many people could not tell a Boeing 747 from a Beachcraft....

You clearly were not there....and you clearly did not see it happen in realtime otherwise you would not come out with such nonsense.

Originally Posted by koman

The vast majority saw a civilian airliner.

Only on TV. Where does it say that of the people on the ground?

Originally Posted by Pragmatic;287t6157

Originally Posted by koman

The vast majority saw a civilian airliner.

Only on TV. Where does it say that of the people on the ground?

FFS, what rock were you under when this happened. The WTC was in lower Manhattan... the planes came in around 8am....there were thousands of people in the streets ...have you every been to NYC at around 8am....apparently not..

With all kind of smoke pouring out of the WTC....where do you think all these people down on the streets would be looking when the second plane arrived?

There were even loads of people across the river in NJ who witnessed the second plane come in, although that's a bit far for a positive ID on the exact make and model.
On top of that, every TV camera in NY was pointed at the WTC...

There was no earthly way anybody could have faked what happened, so grow up, face reality and give the fairy tale shit a rest will ya.....


How many times does this have to be explained FFS....

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

Originally Posted by koman

then shortly thereafter we all watched the second plane fly past and into the second tower...right on live TV.

Strange that millions saw a plane crash into the second tower live on TV yet witnesses live at the seen say there was no aircraft and others say that it was a military plane. Easy to get millions to believe if seen on TV, but there's too many inconsistency with the witnesses live at the scene.

Out of thousands of witnesses you are always going to get those that only had a quick glance out of the corner of their eye and therefore are convinced they saw something different.

That is why police rarely rely on the evidence of a single eye witness.

The majority saw what everyone saw on TV.

Only nutjob idiots would assume that what one or two people claim they saw obviously negates what the thousands, and yes there were thousands, of others saw.

Unfortunately they are the kooks that write all the bullshit sites that other nutjobs believe without any question.

Hmmm....Albert is notable for his absence. Perhaps he trolls to stir up, then retreats to observe ?

Originally Posted by Latindancer

Hmmm....Albert is notable for his absence. Perhaps he trolls to stir up, then retreats to observe ?

Albert's sole contribution was posting the same set of photos over and over to the point where the thread had to be cleaned up by the mods. Maybe they cleaned up Albert too......

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Out of thousands of witnesses you are always going to get those that only had a quick glance out of the corner of their eye and therefore are convinced they saw something different.

I agree 'Harry'. Therefore no eye witness accounts should be taken into consideration really. It all boils down to being selective in what one wants to believe. You ain't going to change my mind and I am not going to change your mind, so end of discussion.

Surely nothing for a conspiration ?
No signs of foul play seen in Pennsylvania 9/11 memorial fire

I'll just leave this here..................



9/11 terrorists caught testing airport security months before attacks, secret documents reveal

AT least three eyewitnesses spotted al Qaeda hijackers casing the security checkpoints at Boston’s Logan Airport months before the 9/11 attacks.

They saw something and said something — but were ignored, newly unveiled court papers reveal.

One of the witnesses, an American Airlines official, actually confronted hijacking ringleader Mohamed Atta after watching him videotape and test a security checkpoint in May 2001 — four months before he boarded the American Airlines flight that crashed into the World Trade Center.

The witness alerted security, but authorities never questioned the belligerent Egyptian national or flagged him as a threat.


I’m convinced that had action been taken after the sighting of Atta, the 9/11 attacks, at least at Logan, could have been deterred,” said Brian Sullivan, a former FAA special agent who at the time warned of holes in security at the airport.

The three Boston witnesses were never publicly revealed, even though they were interviewed by the FBI and found to be credible. Their names didn’t even appear as footnotes in the 9/11 Commission Report.

But what they testified to seeing — only revealed now as part of the discovery in a settled 9/11 wrongful-death suit against the airlines and the government — can only be described as chilling.

Stephen J. Wallace, a 17-year American Airlines technician, first alerted Logan authorities that two Middle Eastern men — one of whom he would ID as Atta from a photo array following the attacks — were acting suspiciously outside the main [at]security checkpoint.

He remembers it vividly. It was the morning of May 11, 2001. One was videotaping and taking still photos of the flight board and the checkpoint from about 25 feet away, while the other was talking loudly in Arabic on a cellphone. The behaviour went on for 45 minutes.

Wallace was so disturbed, he walked over to them and asked about the contents of their carry-on luggage, which he described as “brand-new” pilot bags.

“I said, ‘You guys don’t have any of this stuff in your bags, do you?’ ” pointing to a kiosk display of prohibited items.

“One of them said to the other, gesturing at me, called me a rather nasty name in Arabic,” Wallace added, explaining that he recognised the word because “I swear in Arabic.”

They then nervously packed up their bags and raced to another checkpoint, with Wallace hot on their heels. Before they entered the other checkpoint, Wallace alerted several authorities.

Modal Trigger

“I said, specifically, ‘These two clowns are up to something,’ ” he testified.

“They’ve been taking videos and pictures down at the main checkpoint.”

But authorities never followed up. The men boarded an American flight to Washington, DC.

Theresa Spagnuolo, an American Airlines passenger screener, told federal agents after the attacks that she also observed a short Middle Eastern man — Atta — videotaping the main security checkpoint in May 2001.

“She was bothered by Atta’s filming, so she spoke to her supervisor about it” and he “informed her it was a public area and nothing could be done about it,” the agents said in their investigation.

Her supervisor was James Miller Jr., who would later testify, “It looked weird to me.”

He said he reported Atta to higher-ups, who told him, as he relayed to Spagnuolo, that there was nothing they could do about it.

In fact, airport security had clear authority to investigate anybody surveilling a checkpoint at the time, and such activity should have raised major red flags. Just two months earlier, federal authorities advised airlines, including American, that al Qaeda terrorists typically conduct surveillance before attacking a target.

Instead, the worst terrorist hijacker in history was allowed to waltz through security without anyone stopping him, asking his name, checking his ticket, taking a picture, looking at his drivers license or passport, opening his bags or patting him down.

And Logan had failed to install security cameras at the checkpoint, so an image of Atta and his May 11 visit was never taken.

Four months later, on Sept. 11, Atta passed through the same security checkpoint. His carry-on bag got past screeners despite containing box-cutters and mace or pepper spray. He took his seat in business class of American Airlines Flight 11 unimpeded.

The eyewitness accounts surfaced in a lawsuit brought by the family of Mark Bavis, a Los Angeles Kings hockey scout who died in one of the hijacked Boston flights. Because the case was settled in 2011 for several million dollars and never went to trial, the evidence never aired in open court.

Over the objections of federal authorities, the Bavis lawyers later made the risky decision to dump the FBI interviews and deposition transcripts into the public archives.

The testimony is expected to factor prominently in another 9/11 lawsuit brought against the airlines by the owner of World Trade Center Properties. That case, which is on appeal, is expected to be heard next year.

Paul Sperry is a Hoover Institution media fellow and author of “Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington.”

9/11 terrorists caught testing airport security months before attacks, secret documents reveal

Originally Posted by koman

Originally Posted by FloridaBorn

Originally Posted by piwanoi

Was the planes only observed on TV or was there hundreds of witnesses who saw the impact with their own eyes? and I say again if it was some sort of optical illusion why oh why do the multi millionaire"s distractors who say that there was no planes involved ,stage another optical Illusion to prove themselves right ?

There was 1000's just in the buildings alone. Sadly many didn't get out alive to tell their stories but quite few did and there should no disputing what they saw with their own eyes but then again.....................................

In the buildings, and on the streets below. It happened at a time when thousands of people were on their way to work in the area. It's lower Mahatten FFS.

Yup, you saw it all on TV.


All videos, all time delayed, nothing live.

And millions or 1000s DIDN'T watch the second plane hit the tower either, you liar.

On TV;
"In radio and television, broadcast delay refers to the practice of intentionally delaying broadcast of live material. A short delay is often used to prevent profanity, bloopers, violence, or other undesirable material from making it to air, including more mundane problems such as technical malfunctions or coughing. In this instance, it is often referred to as a seven-second delay or profanity delay.

Longer delays can also be introduced, often to allow a show to air at the same time for the local market as is sometimes done with nationally-broadcast programs in countries with multiple time zones. That can sometimes be simply achieved with a video tape recorder or similar technology. In the context of modern digital video recorders, this can now be considered a class of time shifting."

Broadcast delay - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



While the controlled demolition of the 3 WTC towers has been extensively covered and documented, [1] I would like to bring our attention to the 9/11 media coverage that was shown to us that day and following it. For the overwhelming majority of us, we watched the days events unfold on TV, and our perceptions and beliefs about this event are greatly affected by what we saw that day. More than 11 years later, we have now seen videos of planes hitting the WTC possibly hundreds of times in a highly dramatic and realistic fashion, so our collective belief that planes hit the towers runs deep.

But what if what we saw on TV is not what actually happened? Is it possible that the TV footage was manipulated to make it look like the Twin Towers were hit by planes?

Could image-layering, computer-generated imagery, and other professional editing techniques have been employed to create this illusion? What if the towers were really hit by cruise missiles or drone planes instead? While this may sound far-fetched at first, reviewing the footage again for yourself in this pivotal video will reveal to you that this is almost certainly the case.

September Clues is a documentary by video/audio engineer Simon Shack that thoroughly examines the 9/11 television coverage from all major media outlets, including the “amateur footage” released afterwards. Using in-depth comparative analysis of both video and audio of the most pertinent footage, the film conclusively demonstrates that the footage of the planes is not authentic and was actually fabricated. The planes are nothing more than digital superimpositions complete with sound effects and an attempt at “movie-like” realism. The so-called “amateur footage” released afterwards are digital forgeries made by media and video professionals which are supposed to convince us that a real variety of genuine footage exists of this event. This is something that really must be seen and felt for yourself to be truly understood.


“When criminals have unlimited access to instruments of mass persuasion, solid proof of their crimes are hard to expose. On September 11, 2001, almost all pieces of evidence were quickly removed. In fact, all but ONE. It is spread all over America on tapes recorded by American families and verifiable on official TV archives: the 9/11 Television Coverage.” – Simon Shack, creator of September Clues.
Flight175By watching just the first 5-10 minutes (Part A) of this video, you will begin to notice some disturbing trends that continue to present themselves throughout the TV coverage. For example, you will see the infamous “nose in-nose out” shot, where the plane is shown to emerge through the other side of the building with its nose perfectly intact. Immediately after this occurs, the picture is blacked out in an attempt to hide this digital mistake. This was one of the first shots of the second plane hitting the tower from FOX’s Chopper 8, although it was not given virtually any attention afterwards for obvious reasons. All the other live angles are covered, including the coverage shown internationally.

Here are just a few of many disturbing anomalies including:

* In the CNN footage, the news anchors do not even mention seeing a plane after it was first shown quickly crashing into the second tower at 9:03 AM.

* 17 of the “firsthand witnesses” who claimed to see the first and second planes worked directly for news media or are the spouses of media employees. September Clues covers this revealing phenomenon in detail.

* Reporter Don Dahler of ABC reports hearing a missile and “not an airplane”, while Dick Oliver of FOX reports that several witnesses “thought they saw a missile.” They are both quickly corrected by the news anchors and this idea is never given airtime again.

* The vast majority of civilian witnesses report seeing a “small plane” and there does not seem to be any kind of consensus as to what type, size, or color it actually was.

* Depending on the footage, different flight paths are shown, which is highly contradictory. One angle shows the plane dive-bombing into the tower, which is an impossible maneuver for a Boeing 767 that is claimed to have been approaching at 590 MPH near sea level.

* There appears to be a 17-second delay between the actual attacks and the screening of the footage, and all major news networks had some kind of audible “trigger” which occurred precisely 17 seconds before the explosions in the second tower occurred.

* The audio is faked and varies widely depending on which clip you see, particularly in the “amateur footage.” For example, one sample of a woman screaming is found both on the amateur film and TV coverage in an identical match.

* Several “slips of the tongue” occur regarding missiles throughout the day and later on: from CNN anchor Vince Cellini, Donald Rumsfeld, and 9/11 Commission member Tim Roemer, who mentions a missile hitting the Pentagon before quickly correcting himself.

* Many more technical issues regarding the footage, including the backgrounds used actually being digital composites, as well as the use of actors to provide false testimonials about “what they saw” following the event.

agmmissile

The usage of missiles on 9/11 is actually not such a hard phenomenon to comprehend. Shack believes JASSM AGM-158 cruise missiles could have been used, which look eerily like a plane indeed. [2] Logically, it makes far more sense than the official story of 19 Arab hijackers being able to foil the most advanced air defence systems on the planet — 4 times in one day. It would be much more feasible to simulate or falsify the appearance of planes crashing into the towers digitally than actually having it happen. After all, why do we believe that planes hit the towers in the first place? Because we saw them on TV or on some kind of digital medium at some point, over and over again until it sank in as being real. It is quite possibly the biggest lie and psychological warfare operation in modern human history, being a truly collective event that has had such a profound impact on the direction we have taken globally over the last decade.

Regarding the Pentagon, it is well known that a Boeing 767 cannot fit into a 16-foot wide hole that pierced through all five layers of the building. The hole is nowhere near big enough and there are no plane pieces near the crash site. Even CNN’s initial reporter on the scene Jamie McIntyre states (at 18:36) that there is “no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.” Therefore, it is much more plausible and likely that a missile was used in this case, and most likely with the Twin Towers as well. Of course, the government later claimed to have identified all the bodies of the victims on these non-existent planes. This alone raises massive implications about the simulation of victim deaths which must be considered. The wreckage in Shanksville, PA is similar, with nothing more than a large crater in the ground with not a single piece of plane debris in sight. Again, all the victims were “confirmed and identified.” Are we really expected to believe that planes crashed here? This defies all logic and physics.

While it may be hard to accept at first, it is almost certain that no commercial airplanes were involved in the attacks of 9/11.




The “highly-realistic” image we have of a plane crashing into the towers is nothing more than cartoon physics when you really look at it. The clear absence of a plane can be seen in this short unedited video clip that gives you an idea of what really happened.

Is There Fake Video Footage in The 9/11 TV Coverage? | Collective-Evolution

Originally Posted by koman

Originally Posted by Latindancer

Hmmm....Albert is notable for his absence. Perhaps he trolls to stir up, then retreats to observe ?

Albert's sole contribution was posting the same set of photos over and over to the point where the thread had to be cleaned up by the mods. Maybe they cleaned up Albert too......

Again,.. you're lying.

Albert started the thread, has been contributing regularly and yo , ya johny-come-lately, are part of a small clatch of dis-informers which includes harrybarracuda, Latindancer, and Fl'born who really contribute nothing of any substance whatsoever to the discussion.

No proofs, no science, no verifiable information or even valid references or links to the hot air you blow.

Originally Posted by Latindancer

Hmmm....Albert is notable for his absence. Perhaps he trolls to stir up, then retreats to observe ?

Anyone reading through this or any other 9/11 thread can see that you're the #1 troll here wombat.

Originally Posted by koman

Originally Posted by ENT

Another interesting site.

Worldwide Information Control System (WICS)

http://csat.au.af.mil/2025/volume1/vol1ch02.pdf


Published in 1996.

A proposed system for information and intel gathering to allow better informed decision making in command and control centers......how sinister.....

Just think, if Napoleon had the good sense to build something like this he might have won at Waterloo, knowing that the Prussian cavalry was sneaking up on him from behind the woods, and that sort of thing.......

Maybe, but;

Originally Posted by koman View Post
So does Dok think the US government would risk using such incredibly leading edge and unproven technology in front of the population of America's biggest city in order to execute a complex plot to destroy the WTC as an excuse to start a war?


Actually;

Context of '1994: US Air Force Launches Top-Secret ‘Holographic Projector’ Research Program' is interesting., and a topic you obviously want to avoid.

It contains events related to the event 1994: US Air Force Launches Top-Secret ‘Holographic Projector’ Research Program.

The Airborne Holographic Projector [Source: Air University

According to a 1999 Washington Post website report, the US Air Force started a research program this year to develop a “holographic projector” as a psychological warfare weapon.

Holograms are three-dimensional images created by laser technology.

The US military explored the idea of using holograms during the 1991 Gulf War to deceive the Iraqis, but did not pursue it for technical reasons.

However, the US military did not abandon the concept. “The Gulf War hologram story might be dismissed were it not the case that [the Post] has learned that a super secret program was established in 1994 to pursue the very technology for PSYOPS [psychological operations] application.

The “Holographic Projector” is described in a classified Air Force document as a system to “project information power from space… for special operations deception missions.” [WASHINGTON POST, 2/1/1999; SYDNEY MORNING HERALD, 2/5/2000]

A 1996 study commissioned by a US Air Force panel called “Air Force 2025” shows how a future “Airborne Holographic Projector” might look like.......a virtual aircraft is created to deceive the enemy as to the size and location of attacking forces. [AIR UNIVERSITY, 1996; AL, 6/1996, PP. 114 pdf file]
Context of '1994: US Air Force Launches Top-Secret ‘Holographic Projector’ Research Program'

Well now koman, are you trying to say that such a possibility wasn't even considered by the US gov. in the lead up to 9/11 ?

If the US military/air force were capable of using such deception, and had considered using the above mentioned ploy on Iraq, it stands to reason that by 2011 they were well capable of deceiving the US public on a grand scale.

But of course, you still cling to the notion that the US gov would never do such a thing, poor little clone

Hmmm....Albert is notable for his absence. Perhaps he trolls to stir up, then retreats to observe ?

He posted on thailandchatter.com saying that he had been banned from Teakdoor, which seems a little odd - I would have thought that the admin would be keen to hang on to the tiny and ever shrinking pool of posters but perhaps they have their reasons. Thankfully, though, he's started a 9/11 thread there so nobody need miss out.

Originally Posted by Pragmatic

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Out of thousands of witnesses you are always going to get those that only had a quick glance out of the corner of their eye and therefore are convinced they saw something different.

I agree 'Harry'. Therefore no eye witness accounts should be taken into consideration really. It all boils down to being selective in what one wants to believe. You ain't going to change my mind and I am not going to change your mind, so end of discussion.

Not what I'm saying.

If 99% of the witnesses saw a plane flying into a building, you can assert with a high degree of probability that a plane flew into the building.

Then you have the Six live news feeds filming it happen.

You have to be a special kind of fuckwit to think it was something else, and a complete fucking idiot to believe it was a hologram or didn't even happen.

Originally Posted by ENT

No proofs, no science, no verifiable information or even valid references or links to the hot air you blow.

Either you are lying or you suffer from confirmation bias.

Using one example, I have shown you time and time again that the fireman working on Bldg 7 feared that, with the damage and it suffered and the uncontrollable fires, the building would collapse, and as they'd already lost plenty of firemen, took the decision to pull out and let it fall.

But you ignore their testimony, and instead pull out little bits of out of context dialogue to back up some fairy story that it was demolished deliberately.

You're the one full of hot air, you deranged clown.