9/11 Vendetta (Video)

 

:)

Those planes were never going to miss. They can be programmed to hit a target with accuracy to within a few meters using GPS.

It was a military planned operation.

 

And I think if all had gone wrong then the building wouldn't have been imploded.

 

Was it planned by the same Millitary thats made a mess of Iraq? The same Military that got beat by India in war games? The same Military thats been known to have not the brightest people recruited? The same Military that got its ass whooped in Somalia and vietnam?

 

And you said earlier while it was possible they were remote controlled - you said it was unlikey.

That's such a bad argument. That because the US military went in an created a mess in a wasteland of a county.....that they couldn't organise 9/11 within their own country?? That argument is always tried but it's terrible. I think fighting in Vietnam is alot different to what happened on 9/11. I can't believe you would even try and compare that.....come on man, don't give up your intellect.

 

And where did I say that it was unlikey about the remote controlled planes??

MP3 download: David Ray Griffin Shreds NORAD Tapes

 

9/11 Blogger | August 31 2006

 

Yesterday, August 30, 2006, on KPFA's "Guns and Butter" radio program, host Bonnie Faulkner featured a new interview with David Ray Griffin: THIS IS HIGHLY RECOMMENDED LISTENING. The recent Vanity Fair piece and the NORAD tapes are thoroughly deconstructed and shown to be rife with anomalies;

 

The NORAD Audio Tapes: Real or Faked?

 

Interview with Dr. David Ray Griffin regarding his most recent article, "9/11 Live or Fabricated: Do the NORAD Tapes Verify the 9/11 Commission Report?" Griffin's article, written primarily in response to Vanity Fair Magazine's, "9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes" by Michael Bronner in their September 2006 issue, deconstructs the preposterous argument that NORAD was not notified by the FAA of hijacked airliners until they had struck their targets or crashed, and that the only jets the military scrambled were in response to a flight that did not exist. Griffin takes a close look at NORAD's audio tapes, on whose authenticity these claims depend.

 

MP3 download - 10.2 MB

 

Archived stream of yesterday's show.

Anyway if your right, what do you think would happen to America and the consequneces on the rest of the world? What do you hope to achieve?

 

Nothing will change, sure America will have riots and a massive egg on its face internationally, but life will go on and policitans will still lie and wheel and deal behind the scenes.

I want all these criminals in government to go to prison....that's a start.

OP, thanks for all those links.

Great points.

I think the government was somehow behind it. There's a lot of things they don't explain and thigs that don't make sence.

And we all know they used this to attack Afganistan, as they used that big lie to attack Iraque.

 

As citizens we can't believe everything they say and eveything they show us.

 

What do you hope to achieve?

I don't know what he hopes, but I hope people stop electing someone like Bush as a president. I hope people raise their hands take a stand and change things. I hope western people stop calling terrorrists to others when they're not that different from them.

 

And I think this attack that was going to happen in London last month was also a lie. No. I still havn't researched about it, but it sounded pretty convinient.

I want all these criminals in government to go to prison....that's a start.

 

 

And then what? You do realise that politicans are world renowned for being liars etc(i'm being polite here)

 

What makes you think that the world would be better off without Bush and his cronies? Could be a lot worse.

And then what? You do realise that politicans are world renowned for being liars etc(i'm being polite here)

 

What makes you think that the world would be better off without Bush and his cronies? Could be a lot worse.

 

Could be, but that's a risk I'd be willing to take.

And even if you lock Bush up, you are only locking the sock puppets up, leaving the main people still free

It wouldn't be only Bush but everyone behind it. They would have what they deserved and it would be a lesson for others. For that order of ideas we wouldn't arrest any criminal because others would come.

And I doubt it would be worse wihtout Bush.

Actually it got worse with Bush there.

 

Father Of 9/11 Victim Says Government Ran Attack As Media Hit Pieces Continue

Emotional shell game accusation of 'disgracing victim's memories' doesn't jive anymore

 

P. J. Watson | September 4 2006

 

Another 9/11 family member has gone public to rubbish the conspiracy theory that the attacks were planned and executed by nineteen incompetent Arabs with box cutters who were getting drunk in a strip club the night before and barely even made it to the airport on time. Meanwhile, hit pieces against the 9/11 truth movement continue in the lead up to the fifth anniversary of the event.

 

A familiar emotional shell game on the part of the debunkers is to proclaim that questioning any aspect of 9/11 disgraces the memory of the victims. This tactic is clearly not working anymore especially in light of the fact that Bill Doyle, representative of the largest group of 9/11 family members - says that half now completely distrust the official version of events.

 

Bob McIlvaine's son Bobby was working for Merrill Lynch in the 103rd floor of the south tower when Flight 175 struck. He was likely one of the unfortunate individuals who obeyed the Port Authority's ridiculous order for workers to stay in the building and not evacuate even after Flight 11 had ploughed into the north tower.

 

McIlvaine is convinced that the attacks were an inside job orchestrated by elements within the US government.

 

"Today, there are no ifs or buts in my mind that this was an inside job. The US government orchestrated it with the help of MI6 and Pakistan and Mossad. What they are telling us is bullshit. The hijackers were patsies and Osama bin Laden was set up," McIlvaine told the London Independent.

 

McIlvaine has since devoted his life to educating others on what really happened on 9/11.

 

Despite the best efforts of Jewish American Adam Yehiye Gadahn to propagandize the reality of the Al-Qaeda myth, Americans are becoming increasingly skeptical of 9/11 and if the recent rash of hit pieces against the 9/11 truth movement are anything to go by, the establishment is stricken with concern.

 

There were another two major 9/11 semi-debunking pieces over the weekend, one in the San Francisco Chronicle and one in Reuters. Expect a deluge of them for the next two weeks as the five year anniversary comes to pass.

 

The most incongruous sentence from the Chronicle piece is where CIA involvement in 9/11 is characterized as "the epitome of preposterous beliefs that start with a conclusion and work backward to find evidence."

 

Wasn't it media talking heads and government officials in the hours after the attacks who were reading off the same script and ascribing blame to Bin Laden with no substantiating evidence? Did they then not present alleged "evidence" to work backward to the already pre-determined conclusion? So-called evidence that is insufficient to federally indict Bin Laden for involvement in 9/11 five years after the attack - despite the fact that it took less than three months to indict him for the 1998 embassy bombings

apparently a expert was inside one of the towers before it went down and made a call saying with the fire the structure was unstable and in danger of falling. guess he was in on it too:rolleyes:

I still don't know what to believe about 9/11.

 

It's gonna be 5 years since 9/11/01 in a few days, and it's a shame that no one really knows (well, some freaks do) exactly what happened that day. The government is obviously hiding something.

 

^Apparently he wasn't really an expert. :rolleyes:

 

If you axe the upper trunk of a tree (I know the WTC is a lot different from a tree, but bear with me...), the whole thing won't fall. The top might, but there's roots in the ground that would keep the rest from falling.

 

The WTC had a bedrock foundation, reinforced elevator floors, etc etc... I don't have a single doubt in my mind that planes alone didn't take down the two towers. The WTC was indeed designed to be able to take a commercial jet--infact, it could've taken many jets. The WTC is a dense steel grid--think about it. If you have a steel grid, and a chunk of it is ripped out at the top by a plane, the rest would be able to support it. And dont' bring up that "oh, the steel melted and it collapsed on itself" stuff. It would've been able to support the weight of itself--the momentum of the top of the tower falling wouldn't demolish the rest of the tower. It wouldn't bust through those reinforced elevator floors as easy as the rest of the floors, too. Did you see how that thing crumbled? It was completely obliterated. If it fell simply by the plane alone, it'd look a lottt messier. The WTC shared many characteristics of a controlled implosion.

 

I'm not saying the government pulled their own buildings--terrorists could've put bombs in the WTC ahead of time, I have no friggin' idea. The US government could be embarrassed that their security was so easily breached and decided to blame it all on the planes. I don't know.

 

Or, you know, they could've done it themselves...

"If it fell simply by the plane alone, it'd look a lottt messier. The WTC shared many characteristics of a controlled implosion."

 

And i bet youve seen loads. Have you tried doing experiments? Have you seen for yourself the floor plans of the WTC? They were different then normal skyscrapers. I dont think there many many buildings in the world that could withstand being hit by a plane with a full tank fo fuel and not collapse in anyway.

 

And surely if someone had planted explosives - they would've been noticed - think of the holes in the walls, the time, the amount needed for demoliton.

 

Lots of weird things happen. 9/11 was weird - does that automatically mean theres an conspiracy?

He was a expert. he was in the tower after the attacks and warned their was enough damage to cause a collapse. science has proved the planes crashing could easily have caused the towers to fall. im gonna stick with the experts on this issue;)

He was a expert. he was in the tower after the attacks and warned their was enough damage to cause a collapse. science has proved the planes crashing could easily have caused the towers to fall. im gonna stick with the experts on this issue;)

 

What science? :thinking:

 

Gimme your facts, and I'll give you mine.

check our posts in this thread, we've posted alot of stuff that debunks 9/11, but because it doesnt come from prisonplanet.com, gareth refuses to belive it.

What science? :thinking:

 

Gimme your facts, and I'll give you mine.

 

we've posted lots of facts, scientist, people who know alot about the building saying the fire was hot enough to cause a collapse, the expert that was inside inspecting one of the towers saying before they fell that the damage was bad enough they could fall.....its been proven the planes brought down the towers.

"If it fell simply by the plane alone, it'd look a lottt messier. The WTC shared many characteristics of a controlled implosion."

 

And i bet youve seen loads. Have you tried doing experiments? Have you seen for yourself the floor plans of the WTC? They were different then normal skyscrapers. I dont think there many many buildings in the world that could withstand being hit by a plane with a full tank fo fuel and not collapse in anyway.

 

And surely if someone had planted explosives - they would've been noticed - think of the holes in the walls, the time, the amount needed for demoliton.

 

Lots of weird things happen. 9/11 was weird - does that automatically mean theres an conspiracy?

 

I've seen loads of implosions, but not many buildings falling by plane, since it was the first. :thinking:

 

Sorry about the steel grid thing--It's not all a steel grid--I remember hearing that in a documentary but now I remember that the floor plans had the steel core in the middle and office space surrounding it with a steel frame.

 

I've also heard that floors of the WTC were closed for "renovations" frequently before 9/11. I have to dig up where I found that somewhere...

 

 

According to a BYU physisist:

 

"Almost all large buildings will be the location for a major fire in their useful life. No major high-rise building has ever collapsed from fire…

 

The WTC [itself] was the location for such a fire in 1975; however, the building survived with minor damage and was repaired and returned to service.” (Glover, 2002)

 

That’s correct – no steel-beam high-rise had ever before (or since) completely collapsed due to fires! However, such complete and nearly symmetrical collapses in tall steel-frame buildings have occurred many times before -- all of them due to pre-positioned explosives in a procedure called “implosion” or controlled demolition. What a surprise, then, for such an occurrence in downtown Manhattan— three skyscrapers completely collapsed on the same day, September 11, 2001, presumably without the use of explosives."

 

And, according to a architect/phycisist:

 

"A controlled demolition would have exploded debris horizontally at a rapid rate. A controlled demolition would also explain the fine, pulverized concrete powder, whereas pancaking floors would leave chunks of concrete."

 

And it was observed that the antenna of the north tower started falling half a second before the rest of the building. How does that happen? It suggests that the steel core started collapsing before the rest of the building, even though the steel core is the strongest part of the building.

 

 

 

Ah I don't know... no one really does. Meh.

Its been proven by science the planes were capable of collapsing the building.

Its been proven by science the planes were capable of collapsing the building.

 

It has also been challenged, y'know... they use the pancake theory, and the pancake theory has been challenged by phycisists around the world.

 

:thinking:

 

I don't think everything has really been "proven"...

 

NIST (National Instute of Standards and Technology) said that:

 

The tower's intact structure was "unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass" of the top section of the tower falling above it. 911research challenges it:

 

* Requires us to believe that the massive steel frames of the towers provided no more resistance to falling rubble than air.

* Ignores the fact that the majority of rubble fell outside the towers' footprints, and hence could not contribute to crushing.

* Is unsupported by any calculation or logical argument.

 

 

 

 

Not much has been proven with hard evidence, so you can't immediately debunk the theory that the planes didn't cause the collapse, also.

 

The "proven" theories have a lot of holes. Nothing has been debunked completely.

It has also been challenged, y'know... they use the pancake theory, and the pancake theory has been challenged by phycisists around the world.

 

:thinking:

 

I don't think everything has really been "proven"...

 

NIST (National Instute of Standards and Technology) said that:

 

The tower's intact structure was "unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass" of the top section of the tower falling above it. 911research challenges it:

 

* Requires us to believe that the massive steel frames of the towers provided no more resistance to falling rubble than air.

* Ignores the fact that the majority of rubble fell outside the towers' footprints, and hence could not contribute to crushing.

* Is unsupported by any calculation or logical argument.

 

 

 

 

Not much has been proven with hard evidence, so you can't immediately debunk the theory that the planes didn't cause the collapse, also.

 

 

NIST conducted an extremely thorough three-year investigation into what caused the WTC towers to collapse, as explained in NIST’s dedicated Web site. This included consideration of a number of hypotheses for the collapses of the towers.

 

Some 200 technical experts – including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia – reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.

 

Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to the inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence – as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period prior to collapse – support this sequence for each tower.

 

NIST's findings do not support the "pancake theory" of collapse, which is premised on a progressive failure of the floor systems in the WTC towers (the composite floor system – that connected the core columns and the perimeter columns – consisted of a grid of steel "trusses" integrated with a concrete slab; see diagram below). Instead, the NIST investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns and pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon.

 

NIST's findings also do not support the "controlled demolition" theory since there is conclusive evidence that:

 

# the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;

 

# the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.

 

Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation.

 

In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept. 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired at or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.

Forget about the pancake theory thing--the pancake theory was by some other "expert", I got it confused with the NIST report.

 

quote:

 

While NIST cherry-picks a feature of the Towers' destructions that differs from conventional, bottom-up demolitions, it conveniently ignores numerous features that are apparently unique to demolitions, including:

 

* Rapid onset, accompanied by sounds of explosions

* Radial symmetry about the building's vertical axis

* Consistent pulverization of non-metallic materials

* Total destruction of the building

I think this disproves that

 

"Video evidence also showed unambiguously that the collapse progressed from the top to the bottom, and there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation."

 

experts can look at it and tell if it was a demolition blast