1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

9/11 Conspiracy (continued from Ron Paul thread)

Discussion in 'Conspiracy Debates' started by n0spam4me, May 25, 2007.

  1. Scott

    Scott Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    8
    n0spam4me is right. The government planned and carried out the 9/11 attacks. The evidence for that is so clear that anyone still promoting the theory that the planes were really hickacked and the government knew it was going to happen and let it happen either simply hasn't seen the evidence, or is part of the government disinfo campaign.

    I posted this stuff on another 9/11 thread, but I'm going to post it here too.
    --------------------------------------------------

    Look at this picture of the nose of the plane that hit the Pentagon.
    http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg

    It's too pointed to be the nose of a 757.
    http://www.caverca.com/Images/Boeing 757 TACV 01.jpg

    The photo of the nose of the plane that hit the Pentagon was taken with a fish-eye lens which causes some distortion but the rest of the objects in the picture are not distorted to the same degree as the nose of a 757 would have to be to have that shape. The shadow line is visible under the nose and it's consistent with the shadow of the Pentagon.

    The picture is consistent with these analyses.
    http://www.physics911.net/missingwings
    http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticlesMeyer3March2006.html

    Also, we know that the Pentagon is about 75 feet high and that a 757 is about 150 feet long. If we look at the section of the Pentagon where the plane hit in the picture at the top of this page...
    http://0911.site.voila.fr/index3.htm

    ...and compare it with the space behind the box where the aircraft is, we can see that a 757 couldn't fit in that space without the nose protruding out front. The plane in the space behind the box is much too short to be a 757.

    A 757 would look like this.
    http://www.911research.dsl.pipex.com/pentagon/pentacamscam.jpg

    This analysis makes it pretty clear that a 757 wouldn't fit behind the box.
    http://www.bcrevolution.ca/911_part_iii.htm

    Also, if you look at the fourth picture from the top on this page, you'll see the hole made by the craft.
    http://www.physics911.net/missingwings

    There would have been some damage from the wings of a 757. Look at the damage caused by the 767 on the side of the tower.
    http://jabbajoo.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c0ac653ef00e5537c495d8834-pi

    There's quite a difference.

    These three articles are important.
    http://www.physics911.net/omholt
    http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/06/why-they-didnt-use-757-to-hit-pentagon.html
    http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson
    (excerpt)
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft — and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. This is because every military and civilian passenger-carrying aircraft have many parts that are identified for safety of flight. That is, if any of the parts were to fail at any time during a flight, the failure would likely result in the catastrophic loss of aircraft and passengers. Consequently, these parts are individually controlled by a distinctive serial number and tracked by a records section of the maintenance operation and by another section called plans and scheduling.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There are some good documentaries in this link.
    http://www.question911.com/linksall.htm

    Be sure to watch "9/11 Mysteries" and "Painful Deceptions". This stuff below is good too. The first two videos are about the "Thermite" issue. Be sure to watch them.
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8989407671184881047
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSh5o6ca8FM
    http://www.wtc7.net/articles/WhyIndeed09.pdf
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9t_i08d1xc
    http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/06/why-they-didnt-use-757-to-hit-pentagon.html

    I think that those people who put forth the no-plane theory, etc are governnment disinfo agents trying to cause disruption in the 9/11 truth movement. If there are some wacko theories out there that make the official version look logical by comparison, fewer people will join the truth movement.
    http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222

    This article deals with that subject.
    http://pseudonautics.blogspot.com/2008/11/disinformation-techniques.html
    (excerpt)
    --------------------------------------------------------------
    The best way to harm a cause is to defend it using wrong arguments.
    This is why, every time there is a government conspiracy, you have a load of kooks making ridiculous claims to discredit critics by association.
    Concerning 911, you have pod people, holograms, WTC nuclear devices, and directed energy weapons from space.
    --------------------------------------------------------------

    So does this video.
    http://skoolpool.com/watch?v=HYedTmaHt1A
    (7:22 and 9:32 time marks)

    They pulled off the 9/11 attack so they would have a pretext to invade the Middle East to get control of the oil there. This is an old story.

    http://video.google.es/videosearch?q=terror+storm#
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO301A.html
    http://www.nadir.org/nadir/initiativ/agp/free/chossudovsky/fabricatingenemy.htm

    Here's some stuff about the history of US and British meddling in the Middle East.
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5267640865741878159
    http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2002/1000history.htm
    http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/history/britishindex.htm
    http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/irqindx.htm
    http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/oil/2003/2003companiesiniraq.htm
    http://www.war-times.org/pdf/Oil leaflet.pdf
    http://www.globalpolicy.org/empire/intervention/2004/1007oilprotection.htm

    These two are important.
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3117338213439292490&pl=true
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jle47NiSNSQ&feature=related

    Here's some more stuff.
    http://killtown.911review.org/911links.html#forums

    http://killtown.911review.org/flight77/claim.html
    http://killtown.blogspot.com/2005/11/where-pentagon-was-hit.html
    http://killtown.911review.org/flight77/theories.html#5
    http://www.netctr.com/media.html
    http://www.netctr.com/911exposed.html
    http://www.sott.net/signs/editorial...AttackReleaseConfirmsBoeingWasNotInvolved.php
     
  2. Scott

    Scott Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2007
    Messages:
    96
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    8
    I just got through watching this video series.
    "September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor" - Full version (YouTube)
    "September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor" - Full version (1/3) - YouTube
    "September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor" - Full version (2/3) - YouTube
    "September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor" - Full version (3/3) - YouTube

    It's a pretty good summary of all the important inside job proof. It also has a few new things I'd never seen.

    Here's something important that I just found that isn't in the above video.
    9/11 - The Impossible Case of Flight 175 - YouTube
    "9/11 - The Impossible Case of Flight 175"

    It says the engine found on the ground from flight 175 wasn't from a 767. I think that video came from "Pilots for 9/11 truth" so it's probably credible.
    http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/

    Another piece of crushing proof is the fact that the craft that hit the Pentagon was too short to be a 757.
    Flight 77 3d sim test
    (5th picture from top)

    I'm mentioning it because it's also one of the important points that wasn't dealt with in the video.

    This video does a good job of explaining the government's motives for planning and carrying out the 9/11 attacks.
    The New American Century (1/10) PNAC Exposed - YouTube
    "The New American Century (1/10) PNAC Exposed" (YouTube)

    If people watch the above and experience cognitive dissonance and go into denial, you can have them watch this video.
    Why Can't They See The Truth? Psychologists Help 9 11 Truth Deniers - YouTube
    If this link goes dead, do a YouTube search on, "Why Can't They See The Truth? Psychologists Help 9 11 Truth Deniers".

    If we can get sheeple to take the time to look at the above, it should shake them out of their little world. If they say they just can't believe the government would tell such a big lie, show them the proof that the government faked the Apollo moon missions.
    The Apollo Moon Missions Were Faked in a Studio
     
Loading...

Share This Page