|
Post by serpico on Sept 7, 2019 23:15:27 GMT
Phone footage ? This was 2001 before phone cameras. There’s ton of pictures of the plane debris, just google image search it. Lots of eyewitnesses who saw the wreckage inside the building as well. It wasn't before phone cameras I don't think mate.. etc. As I said, 911 is in the past. They havn't actually got away with it, it seems to havs caused ripples within. Shit like the California Fires, Notre Dame, etc Trump declaring War in Space and stuff, are far more intersting now. And 5G and stuff. It definitely was before phone cameras, might even be before digital cameras ?
|
|
|
Post by cheeesfreeex on Sept 7, 2019 23:24:20 GMT
It wasn't before phone cameras I don't think mate.. etc. As I said, 911 is in the past. They havn't actually got away with it, it seems to havs caused ripples within. Shit like the California Fires, Notre Dame, etc Trump declaring War in Space and stuff, are far more intersting now. And 5G and stuff. It was definitely was before phone cameras, might even be before digital cameras ? Whatever, it was mainly played out on telly cameras. I wasn't there, I was in Manchester in te afternoon as it unfolded. But from all I've seen/heard/researched since it wasn't a terrorist plane attack. Which obviously leaves all sorts of avenues open for speculation. Why? There is a truth. It should be clear, open, up for grabs. It stinks, and the whiff comes from inside. Imho.
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Sept 7, 2019 23:32:05 GMT
But we saw two planes hit the wtc towers (unless you’re a proponent of the “no planes” theory) why is it so unbelievable that one hit the pentagon as well ? Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"Apologies, were at cross hairs here. I believe planes hit the WTC. As I have said to you personally on this board - if a plane hit me, I'd fall over (but that was about 8-9 years ago. However my point above was in relation to what hit the pentagon, be it plane or missile - easily sorted if they just show one of the many video camera captures that they undoubtedly have. Be it form the pentagon, the petrol station down the road or something else. Was it definitely the plane that they say it was? Easily Sorted with a video as above. However, by not releasing clear evidence of the plane are they doing it to perpetuate the myth that it wasn't whichever flight to distract people. That's my point - the us government could answer that one dead easily (we've got footage of the twin towers planes) by releasing it but they don't. I'm not saying it wasn't a plane, merely querying if they're doing it for alterior motives. www.9-11tv.org/the-pentagon-plane-puzzle/85-pentagon-area-surveillance-camerasWhy very few cameras captured the impact event
There are a number of valid reasons why only 4 of the 85 videos were released by the FBI in response to a FOIA (Freedom Of Information Act) request filed in 2004, which was fulfilled in 2006. Because of a number of factors (listed below and detailed in the footnotes) only 2 of the 85 cameras captured any useful footage of the plane-impact event[1].
Most of those 85 cameras were not aimed in the direction of the Pentagon and/or at the part of the Pentagon in question.
Most cameras were located a considerable distance from the impact event, and virtually all surveillance cameras had wide-angle (fisheye) lenses which cause some geometric distortion and render distant objects at very low resolution.
Many cameras had obstructed views of the Pentagon impact area.
In 2001, virtually all surveillance cameras had low spacial resolution.
In 2001, most surveillance cameras recorded at low frame rates (low temporal resolution), in the range of one to eight frames per second. By comparison, American TV is most often 30 frames/second.
The high speed of the plane, accelerating to around 550 mph, resulted in image blurring, and offered a low chance of catching more than a single frame of the plane, given the low-recorded frame rate (one frame/sec).
|
|
|
Post by zerps on Sept 8, 2019 5:48:46 GMT
A car bomb hit the pentagon. I thought that was proven?
You can’t trust a fat septic tank as far as you can throw him.
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Sept 8, 2019 7:16:50 GMT
Apologies, were at cross hairs here. I believe planes hit the WTC. As I have said to you personally on this board - if a plane hit me, I'd fall over (but that was about 8-9 years ago. However my point above was in relation to what hit the pentagon, be it plane or missile - easily sorted if they just show one of the many video camera captures that they undoubtedly have. Be it form the pentagon, the petrol station down the road or something else. Was it definitely the plane that they say it was? Easily Sorted with a video as above. However, by not releasing clear evidence of the plane are they doing it to perpetuate the myth that it wasn't whichever flight to distract people. That's my point - the us government could answer that one dead easily (we've got footage of the twin towers planes) by releasing it but they don't. I'm not saying it wasn't a plane, merely querying if they're doing it for alterior motives. www.9-11tv.org/the-pentagon-plane-puzzle/85-pentagon-area-surveillance-camerasWhy very few cameras captured the impact event
There are a number of valid reasons why only 4 of the 85 videos were released by the FBI in response to a FOIA (Freedom Of Information Act) request filed in 2004, which was fulfilled in 2006. Because of a number of factors (listed below and detailed in the footnotes) only 2 of the 85 cameras captured any useful footage of the plane-impact event[1].
Most of those 85 cameras were not aimed in the direction of the Pentagon and/or at the part of the Pentagon in question.
Most cameras were located a considerable distance from the impact event, and virtually all surveillance cameras had wide-angle (fisheye) lenses which cause some geometric distortion and render distant objects at very low resolution.
Many cameras had obstructed views of the Pentagon impact area.
In 2001, virtually all surveillance cameras had low spacial resolution.
In 2001, most surveillance cameras recorded at low frame rates (low temporal resolution), in the range of one to eight frames per second. By comparison, American TV is most often 30 frames/second.
The high speed of the plane, accelerating to around 550 mph, resulted in image blurring, and offered a low chance of catching more than a single frame of the plane, given the low-recorded frame rate (one frame/sec).The issue is that all has been released is those stills. Your post refers to "most" - not that just 1 camera captured anything. I think they are holding back on detail in this respect & could easily put it to bed if they wanted to.
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Sept 8, 2019 8:27:47 GMT
A car bomb hit the pentagon. I thought that was proven? You can’t trust a fat septic tank as far as you can throw him. Link ? Source?
|
|
|
Post by zerps on Sept 8, 2019 8:50:34 GMT
A car bomb hit the pentagon. I thought that was proven? You can’t trust a fat septic tank as far as you can throw him. Link ? Source? All seems to have been deleted. Conspiracy?
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Sept 8, 2019 12:45:03 GMT
www.9-11tv.org/the-pentagon-plane-puzzle/85-pentagon-area-surveillance-camerasWhy very few cameras captured the impact event
There are a number of valid reasons why only 4 of the 85 videos were released by the FBI in response to a FOIA (Freedom Of Information Act) request filed in 2004, which was fulfilled in 2006. Because of a number of factors (listed below and detailed in the footnotes) only 2 of the 85 cameras captured any useful footage of the plane-impact event[1].
Most of those 85 cameras were not aimed in the direction of the Pentagon and/or at the part of the Pentagon in question.
Most cameras were located a considerable distance from the impact event, and virtually all surveillance cameras had wide-angle (fisheye) lenses which cause some geometric distortion and render distant objects at very low resolution.
Many cameras had obstructed views of the Pentagon impact area.
In 2001, virtually all surveillance cameras had low spacial resolution.
In 2001, most surveillance cameras recorded at low frame rates (low temporal resolution), in the range of one to eight frames per second. By comparison, American TV is most often 30 frames/second.
The high speed of the plane, accelerating to around 550 mph, resulted in image blurring, and offered a low chance of catching more than a single frame of the plane, given the low-recorded frame rate (one frame/sec). The issue is that all has been released is those stills. Your post refers to "most" - not that just 1 camera captured anything. I think they are holding back on detail in this respect & could easily put it to bed if they wanted to Notice how the fireballs from the pentagon and the wtc all look the same.
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Sept 8, 2019 12:57:41 GMT
The issue is that all has been released is those stills. Your post refers to "most" - not that just 1 camera captured anything. I think they are holding back on detail in this respect & could easily put it to bed if they wanted to Notice how the fireballs from the pentagon and the wtc all look the same. Terrific - I'm not disputing what did or did not hit the pentagon. I'm suggesting they have more evidence that they could easily release to prove it was a plane (& that it was the plane that was hijacked). Look back at my other posts. Look at my original post.
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Sept 8, 2019 13:17:37 GMT
Notice how the fireballs from the pentagon and the wtc all look the same. Terrific - I'm not disputing what did or did not hit the pentagon. I'm suggesting they have more evidence that they could easily release to prove it was a plane (& that it was the plane that was hijacked). Look back at my other posts. Look at my original post. But in all likelihood they don’t show anything anymore definitive than the ones released already. Btw the petrol station one has been released I believe ?
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Sept 8, 2019 13:20:56 GMT
My mistake, it’s from the hotel
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Sept 8, 2019 13:41:21 GMT
Terrific - I'm not disputing what did or did not hit the pentagon. I'm suggesting they have more evidence that they could easily release to prove it was a plane (& that it was the plane that was hijacked). Look back at my other posts. Look at my original post. But in all likelihood they don’t show anything anymore definitive than the ones released already. Btw the petrol station one has been released I believe ? Who says they won't show anything more definitive? The article you posted before? So what - the truth era can point you in directions of other articles that back up what they're saying - doesn't make it true. Just release them and put it to bed.
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Sept 8, 2019 13:49:22 GMT
But in all likelihood they don’t show anything anymore definitive than the ones released already. Btw the petrol station one has been released I believe ? Who says they won't show anything more definitive? The article you posted before? So what - the truth era can point you in directions of other articles that back up what they're saying - doesn't make it true. Just release them and put it to bed. The truth websites can’t back up anything, it’s all speculation and confirmation bias, as soon as their proposition is scrutinized it falls apart. There’s no evidence anything other than a plane hit the pentagon.
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Sept 8, 2019 13:53:54 GMT
Who says they won't show anything more definitive? The article you posted before? So what - the truth era can point you in directions of other articles that back up what they're saying - doesn't make it true. Just release them and put it to bed. The truth websites can’t back up anything, it’s all speculation and confirmation bias, as soon as their proposition is scrutinized it falls apart. There’s no evidence anything other than a plane hit the pentagon. Honestly, you've gone 180 on your position on 9/11 but you're still as difficult to discuss it with. At no point have I said a plane didn't hit the pentagon.
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Sept 8, 2019 13:59:07 GMT
The truth websites can’t back up anything, it’s all speculation and confirmation bias, as soon as their proposition is scrutinized it falls apart. There’s no evidence anything other than a plane hit the pentagon. Honestly, you've gone 180 on your position on 9/11 but you're still as difficult to discuss it with. At no point have I said a plane didn't hit the pentagon. Im talking about those websites, not you. I haven’t gone 180, I still don’t believe the official story, there’s more to it, but I just don’t believe the inside job theory most truthers push.
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Sept 8, 2019 17:18:29 GMT
It was definitely was before phone cameras, might even be before digital cameras ? Whatever, it was mainly played out on telly cameras. I wasn't there, I was in Manchester in te afternoon as it unfolded. But from all I've seen/heard/researched since it wasn't a terrorist plane attack. Which obviously leaves all sorts of avenues open for speculation. Why? There is a truth. It should be clear, open, up for grabs. It stinks, and the whiff comes from inside. Imho. What’s your best evidence it wasn’t al qeada ?
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Sept 8, 2019 18:36:13 GMT
Thought there might be one or two more truthers on here, come on, let’s see your evidence. 🙂
|
|
|
Post by PotteringThrough on Sept 8, 2019 19:26:46 GMT
Thought there might be one or two more truthers on here, come on, let’s see your evidence. 🙂 Can't people just dig up some of your old posts and use those?
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Sept 8, 2019 19:38:46 GMT
Thought there might be one or two more truthers on here, come on, let’s see your evidence. 🙂 Can't people just dig up some of your old posts and use those? Always open to new evidence but all the loose change type theories have been pretty well discredited.
|
|
|
Post by Dresden_scfc on Sept 8, 2019 19:50:18 GMT
Chernobyl
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Sept 8, 2019 19:56:36 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Mr_DaftBurger on Sept 8, 2019 20:02:21 GMT
Soros documentary on BBC2 now!
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Sept 8, 2019 22:09:17 GMT
Has anyone seen this reported in the news, or has it been covered up? "The Official Story of the Collapse of WTC Building 7 Lies in Ruins A research team at the University of Alaska’s Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, led by Dr. Leroy Hulsey, Dr. Zhili Quan, and Professor Feng Xiao, Department of Civil Engineering, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, released yesterday for public comment their findings from a four-year study of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 on September 11, 2001. This is the first scientific investigation of the collapse of the building. Here is the conclusion: “The principal conclusion of our study is that fire did not cause the collapse of WTC 7 on 9/11, ..." www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/09/04/the-official-story-of-the-collapse-of-wtc-building-7-lies-in-ruins/Lots of quotes here about how bad the damage was to wtc 7 sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/accountsofwtc7damageFirehouse: When you had fire on the 20 floors, was it in one window or many?
|
|
|
Post by hoffgreen on Sept 9, 2019 11:41:23 GMT
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Sept 12, 2019 16:48:38 GMT
Looks like they’re at it again
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Sept 13, 2019 16:22:19 GMT
Nearly two decades and multiple wars carried out in it's name we still don't know the ins and outs of who was involved in planning and funding 9/11. Remember Bush allowed a number of saudis to leave the US when all other flights were grounded. www.floridabulldog.org/2019/09/justice-wont-cite-state-secrets-to-hide-name-in-9-11-case/In a twist in the search for answers about 9/11, the Justice Department announced Thursday that it will not invoke the state secrets privilege to conceal the name of the person who “tasked” Saudis in San Diego with aiding a pair of 9/11 suicide hijackers.
The name of that person, thought to be a ranking Saudi official, was blanked out of a heavily-censored October 2012 FBI summary report before it was released to Florida Bulldog in late 2016 amid continuing Freedom of Information litigation. The report is now the focus of a sprawling New York civil lawsuit brought by thousands of 9/11 survivors and victims’ families against Saudi Arabia.
|
|
|
Post by cheeesfreeex on Sept 13, 2019 23:30:35 GMT
Whatever, it was mainly played out on telly cameras. I wasn't there, I was in Manchester in te afternoon as it unfolded. But from all I've seen/heard/researched since it wasn't a terrorist plane attack. Which obviously leaves all sorts of avenues open for speculation. Why? There is a truth. It should be clear, open, up for grabs. It stinks, and the whiff comes from inside. Imho. What’s your best evidence it wasn’t al qeada ? Difficult to prove a negative. I think the onus is on you to prove it was them. The hijackers have been disproven time and time again. It wasn't them. AlQ, Isis... not really true are they? A narrative of fear, controlled opposition at best. It was a ritualistic event fully encoded.
|
|
|
Post by serpico on Sept 14, 2019 0:10:28 GMT
What’s your best evidence it wasn’t al qeada ? Difficult to prove a negative. I think the onus is on you to prove it was them. The hijackers have been disproven time and time again. It wasn't them. AlQ, Isis... not really true are they? A narrative of fear, controlled opposition at best. It was a ritualistic event fully encoded. The passengers on the planes reported hijackers had taken over the planes, as did the flight attendants. The families of the victims have gone on TV and talked about getting those calls, are you saying they were fake calls and the victims family memebers were actors ? And yes, cell phone calls were possible because they were flying at low altitudes, they also used the on flight phones. You can’t just say it’s all fake, if something contradicts your theory you have to reevaluate it.
|
|
|
Post by metalhead on Sept 14, 2019 0:22:03 GMT
Mentioned this before, there's a fairly small and unrecognised conspiracy regarding Raoul Moat. I read a superb article by an independent journalist who deduced that Moat was probably being persecuted by police and social services. Supposedly, the root of his psychosis was paranoia. When you look at more of the evidence, that's not usually broadcast via mainstream TV, it paints a picture of a man tormented by authority figures like Northumberland social services and the police.
|
|
|
Post by cheeesfreeex on Sept 14, 2019 0:27:58 GMT
Difficult to prove a negative. I think the onus is on you to prove it was them. The hijackers have been disproven time and time again. It wasn't them. AlQ, Isis... not really true are they? A narrative of fear, controlled opposition at best. It was a ritualistic event fully encoded. The passengers on the planes reported hijackers had taken over the planes, as did the flight attendants. The families of the victims have gone on TV and talked about getting those calls, are you saying they were fake calls and the victims family memebers were actors ? And yes, cell phone calls were possible because they were flying at low altitudes, they also used the on flight phones. You can’t just say it’s all fake, if something contradicts your theory you have to reevaluate it. I remain open to new information and obviously in the intervening years with new info I've changed/amended my thoughts. I satisfied myself it was an inside job some time ago and nothing recently has contradicted nor challenged that. Crisis actors fake relatives and phone calls are all part of the CIA modus operandi. I don't really want to get into deep Gematria but the whole event including the plane serial numbers was encoded. The planes took off but didn't include co-ordinated box cutter toting terrorists. The planes were diverted and there is evidence they were repurposed. There's a lot of misinfo to wade through obviously. I'd forgotten there were four planes.... meaning 8 black boxes, it's shite like this that keeps the stench strong. "One of the more puzzling mysteries of 9-11 is what ever happened to the flight recorders of the two planes that hit the World Trade Center towers. Now it appears that they may not be missing at all. Counterpunch has learned that the FBI has them. Flight recorders (commonly known as black boxes, though these days they are generally bright orange) are required on all passenger planes. There are always two-a flight data recorder that keeps track of a plane’s speed, altitude, course and maneuvers, and a cockpit voice recorder which keeps a continuous record of the last 30 minutes of conversation inside a plane’s cockpit. These devices are constructed to be extremely durable, and are installed in a plane’s tail section, where they are least likely suffer damaged on impact. They are designed to withstand up to 30 minutes of 1800-degree heat (more than they would have faced in the twin towers crashes), and to survive a crash at full speed into the ground. All four of the devices were recovered from the two planes that hit the Pentagon and that crashed in rural Pennsylvania. In the case of American Airlines Flight 77, which hit the Pentagon, the FBI reports that the flight data recorder survived and had recoverable information, but the voice recorder was allegedly too damaged to provide any record. In the case of United Airlines Flight 93, which hit the ground at 500 mph in Pennsylvania, the situation was reversed: the voice recorder survived but the flight data box was allegedly damaged beyond recovery. But the FBI states, and also reported to the 9-11 Commission, that none of the recording devices from the two planes that hit the World Trade Center were ever recovered." I'm ok with my conclusions.
|
|