![]() |
|
Post Reply ![]() |
Page <1 56789 18> |
Author | ||
maani ![]() Special Collaborator ![]() ![]() Founding Moderator Joined: January 30 2004 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2632 |
![]() |
|
Let me add a little more fuel to the fire. There is an extraordinary video called "Mohammed Atta and the Venice Flying Circus," created by an award-winning investigative journalist in 1. Atta and three of his cronies were trained at two flight schools in 2. Less than three months prior to the beginning of their training, both of these flight schools were purchased by Dutch nationals. 3. Both of these Dutch nationals either worked for or with the CIA station in The Netherlands. 4. Both of the flight schools were sold by these Dutch nationals within a few months after 9/11. 5. 6. During their stay in There is also the fact that someone in the Finally, add one indisputable fact to all this: that on 9/11, the U.S. Government had no clue as to who was responsible for the attacks. Yet less than 72 hours later, they were able to come up with the names and photographs of "all 19" hijackers - despite the fact that none of their names appeared on the passenger manifests for the hijacked flights (nor was there any indication that they were using aliases)! (Which begs the question: how, exactly, did they get on board the planes?) Since we know that the CIA and FBI are direct descendants of the Keystone Kops, this would have had to be an unusually, almost unbelievably productive moment for them. My guess? Atta, and many if not most or all of the others, were CIA operatives or otherwise working with the CIA. This would explain why they were training at CIA-owned flight schools in a CIA family town (staying with CIA families), and how they got on the planes without appearing on the passenger manifests - i.e., escorted on by government officials or otherwise "permitted" on via some sort of credentials. It would also explain the discrepancy between the "19" names and faces shown on 9/14 and the fact that many of them were seen over a year later: they simply chose not to go through with the plan, and left at the last minute; since the government would not have known this, they would have presumed all 19 to have been on the planes, which is why they confidently released the names and photos of "all 19" hijackers. Finally, let's not forget that Osama bin Laden was a CIA-controlled leader of the mahujadeen during the skirmish with the Russians. And that the In a court of law, individual pieces of "circumstantial" evidence may mean little or nothing. But when an attorney provides a wealth of "circumstantial evidence" that clearly points to a particular storyline, then the jury may accept that storyline as a legitimate possibility and use it in their deliberations. I believe that all of the above "circumstantial" facts create such a storyline. Peace. |
||
![]() |
||
Tony R ![]() Special Collaborator ![]() ![]() Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin Joined: July 16 2004 Location: UK Status: Offline Points: 11979 |
![]() |
|
Ok when you get to the 404 error,edit the address bar by deleting the "%20" after the ".htm" at the end. Then it works! |
||
![]() |
||
Peter ![]() Special Collaborator ![]() ![]() Honorary Collaborator Joined: January 31 2004 Location: Canada Status: Offline Points: 9669 |
![]() |
|
![]() HELLOOO, Maani me ol' c*ck!
![]() How's d' balls of yer feet?
![]() ![]() Remember me?
![]() Edited by Peter Rideout - May 19 2006 at 14:09 |
||
"And, has thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy! O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!' He chortled in his joy. |
||
![]() |
||
Blacksword ![]() Prog Reviewer ![]() ![]() Joined: June 22 2004 Location: England Status: Offline Points: 16130 |
![]() |
|
maani
Those who doubt Washingtons complicity would say that the investiagtive journalist who uncovered the above 'facts' was just a nut , with an axe to grind with the Bush admin. However, I think it's worth pointing out that many of the points DID actually make into the mainstream news. It's not actually undercover stuff. In particular, the fact that a number of the hi-jackers did turn up alive and well after the event, and that their names were not on passenger lists. This was reported on the BBC at the time, albeit just once. As was the fact Bin Laden was a former employee of the CIA, being bankrolled to boot the Russians out of Afghanistan. |
||
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
|
||
![]() |
||
Ghandi 2 ![]() Forum Senior Member ![]() Joined: February 17 2006 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 1494 |
![]() |
|
After watching a significant portion of Loose Change and reading most of that document, I must say that I side with the document: It cites its claims and shows more than one photograph of each item in question, and Loose Change does not. Edited by Ghandi 2 - May 19 2006 at 23:33 |
||
![]() |
||
Tony R ![]() Special Collaborator ![]() ![]() Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin Joined: July 16 2004 Location: UK Status: Offline Points: 11979 |
![]() |
|
![]() |
||
![]() |
||
cobb ![]() Forum Senior Member ![]() Joined: July 10 2005 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 1149 |
![]() |
|
Here's an excellent reconstruction of what we should have seen on the released video if the official story was true. Please note, this is not actual footage, but a well made version of what you should have seen. So what was the tiny white streak on the offical released video? http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/13233/What_the_Pentagon_Video_Should_Have_Shown Edited by cobb - May 19 2006 at 18:45 |
||
![]() |
||
Tony R ![]() Special Collaborator ![]() ![]() Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin Joined: July 16 2004 Location: UK Status: Offline Points: 11979 |
![]() |
|
Well the plane was travelling at over 500 MPH,and the camera was obviously stop-frame judging from the full video : http://youtube.com/watch?v=L75Gga92WO8 notice how the patrol car moves in and out of shot? The camera could not record the whole incident. |
||
![]() |
||
cobb ![]() Forum Senior Member ![]() Joined: July 10 2005 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 1149 |
![]() |
|
Yes, Tony, but look at the image in the original. Don't you see that the white blur is too small to be a commercial airliner. Plus, you see in the explosion how many frames per second were taken by the camera. Where are the missing frames? Do these clearly show a missile impacting the Pentagon?
|
||
![]() |
||
Tony R ![]() Special Collaborator ![]() ![]() Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin Joined: July 16 2004 Location: UK Status: Offline Points: 11979 |
![]() |
|
After a brief discussion with Jody,I decided to spend some solid time reading into all this stuff. I love a good conspiracy theory but tend treat them like novels.
There is a hell of a lot of 9/11 debate out there on the web.My head is spinning with over-dosing on the info. Some of the video documentaries do not stand up to repeated viewing,and I have watched the one on Googlevideo (1hr20mins) three times now! Hell there is more to the whole thing than meets the eye but as far as I can see Occam's Razor applies here. I now stand in the same camp as MTS,for now....capricious moi? |
||
![]() |
||
Tony R ![]() Special Collaborator ![]() ![]() Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin Joined: July 16 2004 Location: UK Status: Offline Points: 11979 |
![]() |
|
There are no missing frames. Whatever the technical term for the type of CCTV used it wasnt up to capturing an object moving at over 500 mph. |
||
![]() |
||
cobb ![]() Forum Senior Member ![]() Joined: July 10 2005 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 1149 |
![]() |
|
But it can capture 4 frames of an explosive impact!!! How quickly does that happen? [edit]Why does everything (not just the Pentagon, but everything) to do with this defy logic? Edited by cobb - May 19 2006 at 19:09 |
||
![]() |
||
Tony R ![]() Special Collaborator ![]() ![]() Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin Joined: July 16 2004 Location: UK Status: Offline Points: 11979 |
![]() |
|
The explosion is not fully captured.
|
||
![]() |
||
BaldJean ![]() Prog Reviewer ![]() ![]() Joined: May 28 2005 Location: Germany Status: Offline Points: 10387 |
![]() |
|
I have no idea what you are calculating, but 500000 meters/3600 seconds is approximately 138.89 meters per second, so a plane at 500 km per hour moves with a speed of 138.89 meters per second. Divide that by 24, and you get less than 6 meters for the plane to move forward per pic. Since a plane is more than 6 meters long, you should see it disappear bit by bit into the building. Even if the cameras take only 4 shots per second, you should clearly see the plane disappear into the building, since it is over 100 meters long. The official pictures suggest something smaller moving at a much higher speed. Edited by BaldJean - May 19 2006 at 19:17 |
||
![]() A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta |
||
![]() |
||
Tony R ![]() Special Collaborator ![]() ![]() Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin Joined: July 16 2004 Location: UK Status: Offline Points: 11979 |
![]() |
|
580 MPH...928 KPH >272 mps
However I think the camera does not take continuous pictures,I may be wrong,of course. Edited by Tony R - May 19 2006 at 19:29 |
||
![]() |
||
cobb ![]() Forum Senior Member ![]() Joined: July 10 2005 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 1149 |
![]() |
|
No, not in the video you linked to. There are two. Find the one that shows the frames in the made up video. The Pentagon footage is original, only the plane has been added. [added] The 2 videos are here, but you will have trouble getting them- understandably they are having bandwidth problems on these. http://judicialwatch.org/flight77.shtml Edited by cobb - May 19 2006 at 19:40 |
||
![]() |
||
Tony R ![]() Special Collaborator ![]() ![]() Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin Joined: July 16 2004 Location: UK Status: Offline Points: 11979 |
![]() |
|
The video you linked to with the jet added is does not represent a plane travelling at 550 MPH!! |
||
![]() |
||
BaldJean ![]() Prog Reviewer ![]() ![]() Joined: May 28 2005 Location: Germany Status: Offline Points: 10387 |
![]() |
|
Even if the plane went 500 miles per hour instead of 500 kiilometers,
this is only a factor of 1.609. You should still be able to see
the plane disappear into the building, even at 4 pics shot per second
only.
Edited by BaldJean - May 19 2006 at 19:32 |
||
![]() A shot of me as High Priestess of Gaia during our fall festival. Ceterum censeo principiis obsta |
||
![]() |
||
Tony R ![]() Special Collaborator ![]() ![]() Honorary Collaborator / Retired Admin Joined: July 16 2004 Location: UK Status: Offline Points: 11979 |
![]() |
|
Sorry Jean where did you get the 4 frames per sec? I missed that. |
||
![]() |
||
cobb ![]() Forum Senior Member ![]() Joined: July 10 2005 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 1149 |
![]() |
|
So I ask again, how quickly does an explosion occur. Look at the second video (new link in above post). Clearly 4 frames capture the explosion |
||
![]() |
Post Reply ![]() |
Page <1 56789 18> |
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions ![]() You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |