Was 911 an inside job? Check out this new documentary (google video) - Page 4 - GoFuckYourself.com

Greg B · 03-06-2006, 08:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerzdotnet

Your losing the conspiracy angle you all started with, so now you switch to this. lol

Why did it happen? Fuckin complacintcey just like is happening again. It will take a nuke to wake people the fuck up.

Dude you generalize too much. It bears evidence to something.

Complacency? Sure there's lots of complacency. People sit on their asses in shock after disasters and soon as the sunshine hits their asses they rest on their laurels but to generalize and say it's the only answer is irresponsible.

If you've never worked security you don't know what you're talking about. The safeguards that are normally in place for passenger inspection, takeoff, on board control, flight pattern etc. were ALL ineffective? There's no fucking way! Each safeguard is designed to make sure the prior step is effective.

Not only that but they flew over KNOWN restricted airspace. I KNOW because the restricted airspace they flew over was over areas from my home town region in upstate New York. They flew past 2 or 3 nuclear power plants, multiple chemical plants, the world's TOP advanced computer and aeorospace researh facilities, CIA training grounds, military bases, and West fucking Point!

You can't fly a kite in some of these areas without the threat of liquidation with extreme predjudice. My sister who had top secret clearance while working in the region SAW 2 of the planes fly over her house which is restricted airspace. She knew damn well something was wrong and everyone in the area was waiting for the jets to be shot down.

No, complacency is a good excuse for SOME but not all.

Too many loose holes to chalk it up to complacency and negligence. It's a combination of many foibles and downright evil intent and a shitload of backpeddling after the fact.

yol_yo_yo · 03-06-2006, 08:21 AM

I think that was a very good video, i watched it a while ago. But I doubt that the government would do it because it was such a big thing with the media , hense the crime being too perfect.
Nah this type of movie just keeps michael moore in business.

stickyfingerz · 03-06-2006, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scootermuze

Conjecture??

Windows near the hole unbroken.. Pillars inside still standing.. Yet a huge plane created a small hole and flew all the way into the bldg.

Yep.. lots of guess work there..

Oh I forgot... Gfy'ers know much more than the scientists and engineers who researched all possibilities... Silly me..

Windows were blast proof and they were supposed to do exactly what they did.

Watch this vid. Only 480mph at impact.

http://www.sandia.gov/videos2005/F4-crash.asx

stickyfingerz · 03-06-2006, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

You didn't even read what I posted.. I'll post it again.. I clearly stated I can accept the pancake effect. It makes perfect sense to me.

The thing that raises questions in my mind, is the camera that was filming from across the street. It clearly shook from some sort of explosion 12 to 15 seconds before there were any signs that the building was coming down.

So it's not a pancake theory that makes me question, it's why did that camera shake before the building started falling?

Because the floors were already falling before the building fell.

stickyfingerz · 03-06-2006, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

You didn't even read what I posted.. I'll post it again.. I clearly stated I can accept the pancake effect. It makes perfect sense to me.

The thing that raises questions in my mind, is the camera that was filming from across the street. It clearly shook from some sort of explosion 12 to 15 seconds before there were any signs that the building was coming down.

So it's not a pancake theory that makes me question, it's why did that camera shake before the building started falling?

Because the floors were already falling before the building fell. Another thing that could be was the jet fuel went down through the a shaft in the building and became atomized. Put hair spray in a pop can and light it see what happens.

Phoenix · 03-06-2006, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerzdotnet

Because the floors were already falling before the building fell. Another thing that could be was the jet fuel went down through the a shaft in the building and became atomized. Put hair spray in a pop can and light it see what happens.

we are forced to stick to facts proveable by science...but you can use lots of what ifs and maybe possiblies

it is amusing to watch people stick their head in the sand

Scootermuze · 03-06-2006, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerzdotnet

Windows were blast proof and they were supposed to do exactly what they did.

Watch this vid. Only 480mph at impact.

http://www.sandia.gov/videos2005/F4-crash.asx

Ok... I watched yours.. now watch mine

Scootermuze · 03-06-2006, 09:46 AM

Here's a nice little piece about all of the cell phone calls that were supposedly made....

Following a delay in its scheduled departure time of 8:01 am, Flight 93 reached its cruising altitude of approximately 30,000 feet about 40 minutes into the flight. At about this time the takedown would have been initiated. And at about this time, the aircraft was "hijacked," according to several cellphone calls. (Note that at this altitude the calls were flat-out impossible.)

Any analysis of the cellphone and "airfone" calls from Flight 93 must begin with some basic, high-altitude cellphone facts. According to AT&T spokesperson Alexa Graf, cellphones are not designed for calls from the high altitudes at which most airliners normally operate. It was, in her opinion, a "fluke" that so many calls reached their destinations.

............... Once above 10,000 feet, however, calls rarely get through, if ever.

Here is the statement of an experienced airline pilot: "The idea of being able to use a cellphone while flying is completely impractical. Once through about 10,000 feet, the thing is useless, since you are too high and moving too fast (and thus changing cells too rapidly) for the phone to provide a signal." (AVWeb, 1999)

It must also be remarked that the alleged hijackers of the Cellphone Flight were remarkably lenient with their passengers, allowing some 13 calls. .......

Article

Article linked from

directfiesta · 03-06-2006, 09:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scootermuze

Ok... I watched yours.. now watch mine

ShittyFingersdotnet is right !!!!

How can you question what your truthfull leaders are saying ?? By doing so, you are undermining the foundation of the country ... making you an liberal activist, in other words a traitor ... so a sympathyser of Al-Quaeda, a terrorist....

Freedom doesn't include your right to question, or to see seized videos. They are protecting you from the bogeyman ...

Damn treehugger liberal democrat hippie tin foil hat traitor

-
-
-
-
-

Scootermuze · 03-06-2006, 10:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by directfiesta

ShittyFingersdotnet is right !!!!

How can you question what your truthfull leaders are saying ?? By doing so, you are undermining the foundation of the country ... making you an liberal activist, in other words a traitor ... so a sympathyser of Al-Quaeda, a terrorist....

Freedom doesn't include your right to question, or to see seized videos. They are protecting you from the bogeyman ...

Damn treehugger liberal democrat hippie tin foil hat traitor

I sowwy ..

...

directfiesta · 03-06-2006, 10:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scootermuze

I sowwy ..

...

03-06-2006, 10:34 AM

I saw the entire video... interesting.

vod · 03-06-2006, 10:35 AM

some inside and some outside

crockett · 03-06-2006, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerzdotnet

Because the floors were already falling before the building fell.

BS.. we are talking 12 seconds here.. Take your watch and see how long 12 second is when you are sitting right there watching it. Once the building visably started to fall it went from standing to a pile of ruble in less than 10 seconds.

You are going to tell me, that the floors were falling for 12 seconds before the building started to fall, yet there was no smoke or dust pushed out the windows during that entire 12 seconds.

Yea right.. think about that for a second.

SmokeyTheBear · 03-06-2006, 11:20 AM

i see once again none of the DOUBTERS can answer my questions

Why cant we see the 3 lvideos of the plane hitting the pentagon.. we kNOW they exist. we know the exact angle of the cameras and we know they record 24 hours a day.

And thats just the 3 videos we KNOW about.. lets be realistic , this is the pentagon.. dont you think they have LOTS of cameras recording..

Until we can get easy answers to questions like this , there is only 1 reasonable explanation , Theres something on those videos they dont want us to see..

So i ask the doubters.. lets assume for the moment everything the government has told us about 9/11 is exactly how they told us.

Explain a reasonable scenario that involves why we cant see the 3 videos of the actual crash..

Scootermuze · 03-06-2006, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crockett

............
You are going to tell me, that the floors were falling for 12 seconds before the building started to fall, yet there was no smoke or dust pushed out the windows during that entire 12 seconds.
.................

"no building prior to 9-11, in the 100-plus year history of steel frame buildings, had ever collapsed from fire."

The official story maintains that fires weakened the buildings. Jet fuel supposedly burned so hot it began to melt the steel columns supporting the towers. But steel-framed skyscrapers have never collapsed from fire, since they're built from steel that doesn't melt below 2750 degrees Fahrenheit. No fuel, not even jet fuel, which is really just refined kerosene, will burn hotter than 1500 degrees Fahrenheit.

It's also odd that WTC7, which wasn't hit by an airplane or by any significant debris, collapsed in strikingly similar fashion to the Twin Towers. There wasn't even any jet fuel or kerosene burning in WTC7.

Why, then, did the three WTC buildings fall?

There is a method that has been able to consistently get skyscrapers to fall as fast as the three buildings of the World Trade Center fell on 9-11. In this method, each floor of a building is destroyed at just the moment the floor above is about to strike it. Thus, the floors fall simultaneously ? and in virtual freefall. This method, when precisely used, has indeed given near-freefall speed to demolitions of buildings all over the world in the past few decades. This method could have brought down WTC7 in 6.5 seconds. This method is called controlled demolition.
-------------------------------------

Don't tell anyone that I told ya this..

Hard Science and the Collapse of the World Trade Center

Scootermuze · 03-06-2006, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

i see once again none of the DOUBTERS can answer my questions

Why cant we see the 3 lvideos of the plane hitting the pentagon.. we kNOW they exist. we know the exact angle of the cameras and we know they record 24 hours a day.

And thats just the 3 videos we KNOW about.. lets be realistic , this is the pentagon.. dont you think they have LOTS of cameras recording..

Until we can get easy answers to questions like this , there is only 1 reasonable explanation , Theres something on those videos they dont want us to see..

So i ask the doubters.. lets assume for the moment everything the government has told us about 9/11 is exactly how they told us.

Explain a reasonable scenario that involves why we cant see the 3 videos of the actual crash..

There were cameras on other buildings in the vacinity as well.. Those recordings have also vanished..

But I'm still curious how a plane the size of a 757 with a 125' wing span can enter a small hole and not take out a few windows and pillars that are all over the place inside.. and still standing..

Linkster · 03-06-2006, 01:54 PM

Might help if the FAA was strict about how they handle their databases online - but they kinda let things slide so here ya go:
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinqu...um_inquiry.asp

When a plane crashes it is given a removal reason as "destroyed" as you can see from the tail numbers for flights AA11(334AA is the N number for the tail) and AA77(644AA) - these are the two AA flights that went to NYC from Logan.

Interestingly - the two flights for the pentagon UA175 (612UA) and the Pa "crash" UA93 (591UA) were still in the database as of 10/12/2005 with the registration fee paid for their tail numbers which gets updated annually. They have recently been cancelled (not destroyed)

The two AA flights were never scheduled to be flown that day according to the FAA's database as well - no traffic database lists those flights as scheduled - kinda spooky

directfiesta · 03-06-2006, 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linkster

Might help if the FAA was strict about how they handle their databases online - but they kinda let things slide so here ya go:
http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinqu...um_inquiry.asp

When a plane crashes it is given a removal reason as "destroyed" as you can see from the tail numbers for flights AA11(334AA is the N number for the tail) and AA77(644AA) - these are the two AA flights that went to NYC from Logan.

Interestingly - the two flights for the pentagon UA175 (612UA) and the Pa "crash" UA93 (591UA) were still in the database as of 10/12/2005 with the registration fee paid for their tail numbers which gets updated annually. They have recently been cancelled (not destroyed)

The two AA flights were never scheduled to be flown that day according to the FAA's database as well - no traffic database lists those flights as scheduled - kinda spooky

Interesting... but you realize that you a ruining the day of quite a few posters here

blackfeet · 03-06-2006, 06:06 PM

symbols
https://youtube.com/watch?v=aHvmmZDGLPs

blackfeet · 03-06-2006, 08:45 PM

more on symbols
https://youtube.com/watch?v=w7DkSnhKk...rch=illuminati

Greg B · 03-06-2006, 08:50 PM

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/blog/...freedom_o.html

Oh now this is fucked up if true.

blackfeet · 03-06-2006, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg B

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/blog/...freedom_o.html

Oh now this is fucked up if true.

it's true!

saw it today on either cnn or msnbc.
very scary shit.

Greg B · 03-06-2006, 09:36 PM

No shit! I can't believe it. I'm gonna keep double checking to see if this shit is true.

High Plains Drifter · 03-06-2006, 09:53 PM

I've seen many of the conspiracy videos, websites, etc, and they do bring up some interesting questions... but my main question is what happened to the passengers that were suppossedly on these flights? Did they ever release the passenger lists?

It isn't easy to make that many people disappear. And people taking cross-country flights usually aren't the dregs of society and can't just vanish without some people asking questions.

Kevsh · 03-06-2006, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

Explain a reasonable scenario that involves why we cant see the 3 videos of the actual crash..

Not to dodge the question, but that's for the FBI and/or government to explain. But the fact they have not released them doesn't mean this conspiracy is true at any level.

It does raise questions, certainly, but as I pointed out a few pages back "holes in the plot" aren't by themselves a smoking gun: Hard evidence is. From the evidence at the scene, there was more to show a plane hit than a missile.

For example, at what point were scraps of a plane brought in and dumped at the scene? No explanation.

They had 1 guy saying he saw a windowless plane. If 500 people witness a plane slamming into a building you are surely going to get a few different descriptions. Show me *any* video that clearly shows a windowless plane or drone - you can't.

The 2nd plane was caught on a few cameras and no one is questioning it was a commercial plane .. so the first was a drone or cargo plane but the second was a commercial plane?

Is there even a tiny shred of *physical* evidence that bombs were in the WTC? Sure the area was closed off (it was a crime scene) but to date no has produced any evidence bombs were there - who put them there? How exactly did they get in there? Where did they get the bombs from? A demolition team was at the scene *after* the buildings fell, sure, but how about before? Anyone?

I could go on and on and on.

For every single point in that video you claim is a smoking gun, I can point to something (or someone) that claims it isn't. Some experts say that the jet fuel absolutely could've caused the collapse, others don't agree. The documentary chooses to quote only those whose opinions fit into their conspiracy theory - but they fail to present any arguments to the contrary, even though on most points there are many more.

Applaud them for a neat little video and lots of research, but it's completely skewed to suit their message. It's not investigative journalism because it doesn't allow for a counter-point. It's not fact, it's opinion.

I'm off to bed.

60grand · 03-07-2006, 12:50 AM

never bought into conspiricies and the like but damn, thats helluva alot evidence /proof to discredit just like that. good video.

stickyfingerz · 03-07-2006, 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scootermuze

Ok... I watched yours.. now watch mine

That video has mold on it and has been debunked ova and ova. lol

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

SmokeyTheBear · 03-07-2006, 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevsh

Not to dodge the question, but that's for the FBI and/or government to explain. But the fact they have not released them doesn't mean this conspiracy is true at any level.

It does raise questions, certainly, but as I pointed out a few pages back "holes in the plot" aren't by themselves a smoking gun: Hard evidence is. From the evidence at the scene, there was more to show a plane hit than a missile.

For example, at what point were scraps of a plane brought in and dumped at the scene? No explanation.

They had 1 guy saying he saw a windowless plane. If 500 people witness a plane slamming into a building you are surely going to get a few different descriptions. Show me *any* video that clearly shows a windowless plane or drone - you can't.

The 2nd plane was caught on a few cameras and no one is questioning it was a commercial plane .. so the first was a drone or cargo plane but the second was a commercial plane?

Is there even a tiny shred of *physical* evidence that bombs were in the WTC? Sure the area was closed off (it was a crime scene) but to date no has produced any evidence bombs were there - who put them there? How exactly did they get in there? Where did they get the bombs from? A demolition team was at the scene *after* the buildings fell, sure, but how about before? Anyone?

I could go on and on and on.

For every single point in that video you claim is a smoking gun, I can point to something (or someone) that claims it isn't. Some experts say that the jet fuel absolutely could've caused the collapse, others don't agree. The documentary chooses to quote only those whose opinions fit into their conspiracy theory - but they fail to present any arguments to the contrary, even though on most points there are many more.

Applaud them for a neat little video and lots of research, but it's completely skewed to suit their message. It's not investigative journalism because it doesn't allow for a counter-point. It's not fact, it's opinion.

I'm off to bed.

Im not trying to create any of the fantasy scenario's you created.. theres really no need the evidence is right there in front of us " or the lack of )

We know for a certainty the videos exist , theres no need to come up with a "theory" about what happened to know this..

We know beyond ANY doubt there is film of the pentagon crash, im not asking YOU personally , im saying , the fact it doesnt exist is the only thing i personally KNOW is FALSE . i know beyond any doubt there are 3 videos so until i hear a reasonable explanation as to why they dont exist/cant be shown. then THATS the conspiracy. i already said i am under the assumption everything else is eaxctly the way the 9/11 report issued it.

There are many other HARD evidence things that are simple questions that apparantly haven't been answered , but these i dont personally know , im trusting the people who tell me the facts ( as we all are ) that they are . SUCH AS the molten red "stuff" at the base of the wtc buildings.. RED HOT weeks later , after the fires were out , hey you know what im a fairly smart guy but honestly i dont know the exact details of molten metals and what makes them that way , but it seems like a valid question . Can a short kerosene and office materials fire create a fire that would burn for an hour , yet leave molten red metal weeks later. hmmm common sense says no

But im not even asking for that , lets first go with the easiest to answer , hardest to dodge question , wheres the video of the pentagon crash , its not hard , if you cant explain that then your agreeing its a conspiracy of SOME sort..

SmokeyTheBear · 03-07-2006, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerzdotnet

That video has mold on it and has been debunked ova and ova. lol

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

that snopes page is idiotic i usually respect that site as they mostly come up with vaild material..

but that page is beyond moronic..

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

look at the top of the page for the 2002 pic of the rebuilding of the pentagon

"Below is a recent (11 March 2002) photograph of the the rebuilding effort underway at the Pentagon, demonstrating that far more than just the "outside" of the building was damaged and needed to be repaired:"

of course a building will look like that after you rebuild and tear parts of it down rebuild it better, look at the very bottom of the page on the bottom right.. THATS the real damage , a tiny tiny wall collapse

look at the top pic that they use to explain what the damage was , then look at the very last pic and see what the real damage looked like.. does that look like a plane crash ? nope..

SmokeyTheBear · 03-07-2006, 01:20 AM

that page looks over the EASIEST fact of all and makes them look stupid..

we know what hit the pentagon , we have several videos of it, we just haven't been shown them..

Why not simply show the videos and say haha shut the fuckup 9/11 nuts , look heres the video see plane fuck off.. quit yer yabberin liberal whiny pantys..

Any republican would cream their pants for that op , and they can do it so why not ? hmmm

imafuckingaussie · 03-07-2006, 05:20 AM

Saw "confronting the evidence" the other week, some really strange stuff on there that needs explaining like:
* Flash coming just before the planes hit at the front of them - weird - NOT reflections.
* The 1st plane that hit has a strange shape for a passenger liner, it has a part sticking out underneath that looks like a similiar size us military plane
* Some of the larger buildings surrounding the towers were completely totalled and no one knows why, they were hardly burning at all

Lots of other little bits and pieces, anyone interested should at least check it out ), u can get a free copy at http://www.reopen911.org/

Greg B · 03-07-2006, 08:35 AM

What also gets me is the employees of the hotel watched the video over and over again BEFORE the FBI showed up to confiscate the vids.

Why can't the employees talk about what they saw?

Phoenix · 03-07-2006, 08:48 AM

you ever wonder why this is such a big todo?

because even the people who dont believe it was a hoax...dont truly believe themselves.

this debate will rage on until our kids speak about it in certain tones that the governement fucked us over in 2001

King Adam · 03-07-2006, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pleasurepays

well.... i do remember watching a show on the discovery channel about the security specialist for Morgan Stanly who also had some role in the security of the buildings and he was saying for many years BEFORE 9/11 that terrorists were going to fly planes into the building. he was saying before the FIRST attack that terrorists were going to try to bring the towers down. he was constantly drilling people in morgan stanly on evacuating the towers which is why they are not dead today.

he died in the building helping people evacuate... so apparently, he sucked at helping the government plant bombs in the building.

how do i explain this... how do i explain that... blah blah blah. dude. just because i or you dont have an immediate answer for something does not mean there is a massive government conspiracy, that it was all staged by the US Government and that a coverup exists today. if you are that simple minded, you are a danger to yourself.

furthermore, asking me how i explain everything assumes that what was said was 100% fact. i think there are a lot of holes in the video and in his assumptions. do i think he is right? i dont know. i would say its all possible... but highly unlikely.

how do you explain that nothing says makes sense and no one notices? how do you explain that a guy can make a scathing video, exposing a massive conspiracy that resulted in the deaths of ... oh, i don't know... 3000 people on US soil and however many tens of 1000's abroad and was the basis for 2 wars and wasn't silenced? that in itself doesn't make sense.

if you want to know "why" .... like any rational person, you start by looking at the explanations, the testimonies, the facts, investigate and draw your own conclusions. you dont take the word of someone with an agenda at face value and believe everything he is feeding you just because you have issues, hate bush or are paranoid in general. you certainly dont ask some idiot on a messageboard called "go fuck yourself" to explain it all to you.

I agree with some of the things you have said. But I don't agree that the idea of a conspiracy is retarded. You are talking about billions of dollars that may have been put in certain peoples pockets because of this. When money comes into play, with many people anything is possible.

There are just too many question marks here. Also, he is not the only one that has been preaching this, there are many. Everyone can not be silenced plus if "they" did silence him and everyone else, it would make it all look more true.

03-06-2006, 10:35 AM	#163
vod Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 3,510	some inside and some outside __________________ Adult Merchant Account

03-06-2006, 11:20 AM	#165
SmokeyTheBear ►SouthOfHeaven Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: PlanetEarth MyBoardRank: GerbilMaster My-Penis-Size: extralarge MyWeapon: Computer Posts: 28,609	i see once again none of the DOUBTERS can answer my questions Why cant we see the 3 lvideos of the plane hitting the pentagon.. we kNOW they exist. we know the exact angle of the cameras and we know they record 24 hours a day. And thats just the 3 videos we KNOW about.. lets be realistic , this is the pentagon.. dont you think they have LOTS of cameras recording.. Until we can get easy answers to questions like this , there is only 1 reasonable explanation , Theres something on those videos they dont want us to see.. So i ask the doubters.. lets assume for the moment everything the government has told us about 9/11 is exactly how they told us. Explain a reasonable scenario that involves why we cant see the 3 videos of the actual crash.. __________________ hatisblack at yahoo.com

03-06-2006, 01:54 PM	#168
Linkster Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: DeltaHell Posts: 3,216	Might help if the FAA was strict about how they handle their databases online - but they kinda let things slide so here ya go: http://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinqu...um_inquiry.asp When a plane crashes it is given a removal reason as "destroyed" as you can see from the tail numbers for flights AA11(334AA is the N number for the tail) and AA77(644AA) - these are the two AA flights that went to NYC from Logan. Interestingly - the two flights for the pentagon UA175 (612UA) and the Pa "crash" UA93 (591UA) were still in the database as of 10/12/2005 with the registration fee paid for their tail numbers which gets updated annually. They have recently been cancelled (not destroyed) The two AA flights were never scheduled to be flown that day according to the FAA's database as well - no traffic database lists those flights as scheduled - kinda spooky __________________ Porn Links Crak for your bank account - Get Addicted FREE LIVE CAM SHOWS

03-06-2006, 09:53 PM	#175
High Plains Drifter Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: ♠ ♣ ♥ Posts: 2,341	I've seen many of the conspiracy videos, websites, etc, and they do bring up some interesting questions... but my main question is what happened to the passengers that were suppossedly on these flights? Did they ever release the passenger lists? It isn't easy to make that many people disappear. And people taking cross-country flights usually aren't the dregs of society and can't just vanish without some people asking questions. __________________

03-07-2006, 12:50 AM	#177
60grand Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Toronto Posts: 100	never bought into conspiricies and the like but damn, thats helluva alot evidence /proof to discredit just like that. good video. __________________ 1,2

03-06-2006, 08:21 AM	#152
yol_yo_yo So Fucking Banned Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 122	I think that was a very good video, i watched it a while ago. But I doubt that the government would do it because it was such a big thing with the media , hense the crime being too perfect. Nah this type of movie just keeps michael moore in business.

03-06-2006, 09:46 AM	#158
Scootermuze Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 4,513	Here's a nice little piece about all of the cell phone calls that were supposedly made.... Following a delay in its scheduled departure time of 8:01 am, Flight 93 reached its cruising altitude of approximately 30,000 feet about 40 minutes into the flight. At about this time the takedown would have been initiated. And at about this time, the aircraft was "hijacked," according to several cellphone calls. (Note that at this altitude the calls were flat-out impossible.) Any analysis of the cellphone and "airfone" calls from Flight 93 must begin with some basic, high-altitude cellphone facts. According to AT&T spokesperson Alexa Graf, cellphones are not designed for calls from the high altitudes at which most airliners normally operate. It was, in her opinion, a "fluke" that so many calls reached their destinations. ............... Once above 10,000 feet, however, calls rarely get through, if ever. Here is the statement of an experienced airline pilot: "The idea of being able to use a cellphone while flying is completely impractical. Once through about 10,000 feet, the thing is useless, since you are too high and moving too fast (and thus changing cells too rapidly) for the phone to provide a signal." (AVWeb, 1999) It must also be remarked that the alleged hijackers of the Cellphone Flight were remarkably lenient with their passengers, allowing some 13 calls. ....... Article Article linked from

03-06-2006, 10:34 AM	#162
AntiDrama Guest Posts: n/a	I saw the entire video... interesting.

03-06-2006, 06:06 PM	#170
blackfeet Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 589	symbols https://youtube.com/watch?v=aHvmmZDGLPs

03-06-2006, 08:45 PM	#171
blackfeet Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 589	more on symbols https://youtube.com/watch?v=w7DkSnhKk...rch=illuminati

03-06-2006, 08:50 PM	#172
Greg B So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: EARTH (for the time being) Posts: 7,014	http://www.capitolhillblue.com/blog/...freedom_o.html Oh now this is fucked up if true.

03-06-2006, 09:36 PM	#174
Greg B So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: EARTH (for the time being) Posts: 7,014	No shit! I can't believe it. I'm gonna keep double checking to see if this shit is true.

03-07-2006, 01:20 AM	#181
SmokeyTheBear ►SouthOfHeaven Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: PlanetEarth MyBoardRank: GerbilMaster My-Penis-Size: extralarge MyWeapon: Computer Posts: 28,609	that page looks over the EASIEST fact of all and makes them look stupid.. we know what hit the pentagon , we have several videos of it, we just haven't been shown them.. Why not simply show the videos and say haha shut the fuckup 9/11 nuts , look heres the video see plane fuck off.. quit yer yabberin liberal whiny pantys.. Any republican would cream their pants for that op , and they can do it so why not ? hmmm __________________ hatisblack at yahoo.com

03-07-2006, 05:20 AM	#182
imafuckingaussie Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: In the fucking outback Posts: 1,497	Saw "confronting the evidence" the other week, some really strange stuff on there that needs explaining like: * Flash coming just before the planes hit at the front of them - weird - NOT reflections. * The 1st plane that hit has a strange shape for a passenger liner, it has a part sticking out underneath that looks like a similiar size us military plane * Some of the larger buildings surrounding the towers were completely totalled and no one knows why, they were hardly burning at all Lots of other little bits and pieces, anyone interested should at least check it out ), u can get a free copy at http://www.reopen911.org/ __________________ You can get it ploughing a paddock, you can get it makin some porn sites, matter of fact I've got it now. For a hard earned thrist, you need a big cold beer.

03-07-2006, 08:35 AM	#183
Greg B So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: EARTH (for the time being) Posts: 7,014	What also gets me is the employees of the hotel watched the video over and over again BEFORE the FBI showed up to confiscate the vids. Why can't the employees talk about what they saw?

03-07-2006, 08:48 AM	#184
Phoenix BACON BACON BACON Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Poems everybody, the laddie fancies himself a poet Posts: 35,462	you ever wonder why this is such a big todo? because even the people who dont believe it was a hoax...dont truly believe themselves. this debate will rage on until our kids speak about it in certain tones that the governement fucked us over in 2001 __________________ Skype Phoenixskype1 Telegram PhoenixBrad https://quantads.io