Sorry, meant to start a new thread with this so it is duplicated elsewhere ...
Socrates,
As a regular reader, I was surprised to hear that you haven't dug up the details behind 9/11. Researching reveals a similar situation to the Chemtrails internet awareness movement, but with more levels and a vastly larger disinformation campaign.
Level 1 - You realise the OCT (Official Conspiracy theory) is a lie
Level 2 - LIHOP .. the government let it happen on purpose (NORAD standdown, FBI had advance warning but did nothing etc.)
Level 3 - MIHOP .. the government *made* it happen on purpose (The obvious demolition of WTC7, the fact that the Twin Towers "collapsed" at freefall speed etc.)
Level 4 - NPT .. "No Plane theory", getting to the truth now. (Missiles or maybe Military Planes hit the towers)
Level 5 - TV Fakery .. hang on .. all the footage shown live was faked. This is where they *really* don't want anyone to go. It shows total complicity in the attack from the Media.
Level 6 - DEW .. Hi-tech Direct Energy weapons were used to destroy WTC 1 & 2. This is why the Twin Towers were literally turned to dust and proves military involvement.
The layers have gradually been peeled back, despite a huge campaign of disinfo. There are currently 2 court cases pending, which you won't hear reported on FOX news ... see
forum.911movement.org
This is one of the few websites where discussion of all levels of the conspiracy is allowed. The more mainstream truth sites like Loose Change simply ban talk of NPT, and anyone who breaks this rule. They are a level 3 site, as are Alex Jones Jeff Rense etc. The whole movement seems to have been organised by the 9/11 perpetrators to manage things their way.
Also see pumpitout.com.
All Aircraft Are Not Involved
To Socrates re. 9/11
by socrates2 on Thu Oct 18, 2007 5:54 pm
Hi Turkeyneck,
I deleted that post, so no problem with the duplicate.
I probably know about as much as the average person about 9/11 conspiracy theory.
On the surface, it seems you are admitting that your ideas sound nutty. To me, that doesn't mean they aren't true.
It can be overwhelming to even just the put basics together, enough so to reach a point where these more exotic ideas can be considered.
The other thing that comes immediately to mind is your use of the word government. To me, if it was an inside job, it was "authorized" and implemented by only a few. But perhaps this is simply semantics.
Level 1 to me is the most important. We need to show that beyond any doubt the three buildings were brought down deliberately and not the result of two airliners flying into the buildings. This appears to have been accomplished.
Level 2 and 3 to me are the same. I say this based on my belief that the conspiracy would consist of the fewest people possible.
Made it happen or let it happen are the same to me.
Chemtrails and 9/11 are completely different in the following way. 9/11 was a criminal act no matter how one views it. Those involved know that they went to the dark side.
Chemtrails, however, are not viewed by those involved as chemtrails. They are being done by people in the Air Force, perhaps some drones? It is kind of strange that no one from the Air Force or the NOAA/Navy has stepped forward to whistleblow. That is a problem with the chemtrails theory. Yet, perhaps if such people step forward, they will be arrested for revealing national security interests. A year or two back there was word that climate change was now seen as being a national security problem. Thus, maybe that is why we don't see any whistleblowers. Plus, if one looks at the Montreal Chemtrails- TVA News story in the top section, there does seem to be a total clampdown on this topic. Except for Paul Moyer, we have gotten nothing in America on chemtrails.
The no planes theory could be true, imho, because you're not talking about holograms or anything too outlandish. The tv fakery, perhaps. I think the no planes theory is plausible because ur saying missiles or military planes might have been involved. It is tough enough to get folks to observe chemtrails when they are blatantly in our faces, so how many people actually did see the planes hit the Towers?
There is plenty of evidence that the CIA has infiltrated the media in the past, so there could very well have been some type of fakery. But then again, if there is proof that people were on those flights, etc., and they are gone, that becomes another thing your people will have to explain.
If you are for real, no offense, you need to realise how everything appears to the audience. The no planes at the Pentagon, that kind of makes sense to me, because the plane would have been going so fast and so close to the ground, it makes one wonder how a novice pilot could have done that.
My problem with your comments tend to be with the sweeping charges- the total media complicity, the government complicity. If it can be shown that only a few would need to be involved, then I'd be more likely to consider those claims.
My opinion is that these more exotic theories are getting too far ahead of the story. That doesn't mean I think it is wrong what you have posted. It is simply beyond the scope of my knowledge.
I think it is most important to get the simple facts figured out.
*** the put options
*** the norad standdown
*** the way the buildings fell
*** etc.
The key I guess is to be able to put the theory together in accessible language for newbies and those on the fence, and again, to always keep in mind how the theories appear to Joe/Jane Q. Public.
So, maybe you can share with us this story in your own words, in easy to understand words. Of what you think exactly happened, how many you think were involved, theories on what the plan was and what might have been changed on the fly.
It doesn't have to be a novel, just simple, to the point. I admit that it is tough to prove the why's behind the chemtrails. We can prove that they are deliberate activity, but the why is tough to prove. I leave with the uv-b radiation theory, perhaps some enmod. For your theory, it is the same thing. You can easily prove that the official coincidence theory is a joke. But as regards to the how of 9/11, that is beyond the scope of this forum. But I do appreciate your post and hope I made some sense in return.
And I thought us "chemmies" had it tough to prove our case. I can see that you are well up against the tide, more so than "chemmies." I think this is because 9/11 was a crime which the perpetrators never want revealed. The chemtrails, on the otherhand, the proverbial "they" want a blank check to do whatever they want to with the atmosphere. That's why "they" tried to pass those federal weather modification bills the last couple years.
I deleted that post, so no problem with the duplicate.
I probably know about as much as the average person about 9/11 conspiracy theory.
On the surface, it seems you are admitting that your ideas sound nutty. To me, that doesn't mean they aren't true.
It can be overwhelming to even just the put basics together, enough so to reach a point where these more exotic ideas can be considered.
The other thing that comes immediately to mind is your use of the word government. To me, if it was an inside job, it was "authorized" and implemented by only a few. But perhaps this is simply semantics.
Level 1 to me is the most important. We need to show that beyond any doubt the three buildings were brought down deliberately and not the result of two airliners flying into the buildings. This appears to have been accomplished.
Level 2 and 3 to me are the same. I say this based on my belief that the conspiracy would consist of the fewest people possible.
Made it happen or let it happen are the same to me.
Chemtrails and 9/11 are completely different in the following way. 9/11 was a criminal act no matter how one views it. Those involved know that they went to the dark side.
Chemtrails, however, are not viewed by those involved as chemtrails. They are being done by people in the Air Force, perhaps some drones? It is kind of strange that no one from the Air Force or the NOAA/Navy has stepped forward to whistleblow. That is a problem with the chemtrails theory. Yet, perhaps if such people step forward, they will be arrested for revealing national security interests. A year or two back there was word that climate change was now seen as being a national security problem. Thus, maybe that is why we don't see any whistleblowers. Plus, if one looks at the Montreal Chemtrails- TVA News story in the top section, there does seem to be a total clampdown on this topic. Except for Paul Moyer, we have gotten nothing in America on chemtrails.
The no planes theory could be true, imho, because you're not talking about holograms or anything too outlandish. The tv fakery, perhaps. I think the no planes theory is plausible because ur saying missiles or military planes might have been involved. It is tough enough to get folks to observe chemtrails when they are blatantly in our faces, so how many people actually did see the planes hit the Towers?
There is plenty of evidence that the CIA has infiltrated the media in the past, so there could very well have been some type of fakery. But then again, if there is proof that people were on those flights, etc., and they are gone, that becomes another thing your people will have to explain.
If you are for real, no offense, you need to realise how everything appears to the audience. The no planes at the Pentagon, that kind of makes sense to me, because the plane would have been going so fast and so close to the ground, it makes one wonder how a novice pilot could have done that.
My problem with your comments tend to be with the sweeping charges- the total media complicity, the government complicity. If it can be shown that only a few would need to be involved, then I'd be more likely to consider those claims.
My opinion is that these more exotic theories are getting too far ahead of the story. That doesn't mean I think it is wrong what you have posted. It is simply beyond the scope of my knowledge.
I think it is most important to get the simple facts figured out.
*** the put options
*** the norad standdown
*** the way the buildings fell
*** etc.
The key I guess is to be able to put the theory together in accessible language for newbies and those on the fence, and again, to always keep in mind how the theories appear to Joe/Jane Q. Public.
So, maybe you can share with us this story in your own words, in easy to understand words. Of what you think exactly happened, how many you think were involved, theories on what the plan was and what might have been changed on the fly.
It doesn't have to be a novel, just simple, to the point. I admit that it is tough to prove the why's behind the chemtrails. We can prove that they are deliberate activity, but the why is tough to prove. I leave with the uv-b radiation theory, perhaps some enmod. For your theory, it is the same thing. You can easily prove that the official coincidence theory is a joke. But as regards to the how of 9/11, that is beyond the scope of this forum. But I do appreciate your post and hope I made some sense in return.
And I thought us "chemmies" had it tough to prove our case. I can see that you are well up against the tide, more so than "chemmies." I think this is because 9/11 was a crime which the perpetrators never want revealed. The chemtrails, on the otherhand, the proverbial "they" want a blank check to do whatever they want to with the atmosphere. That's why "they" tried to pass those federal weather modification bills the last couple years.
- socrates2
by socrates2 on Thu Oct 18, 2007 6:02 pm
just thought of something else. There was a time gap between the first plane hitting and the second one. I find it hard to believe that no one got a good picture or other video of the second plane. Parts of your post make sense to me. Others, I am not so sure. And again, this is beyond my knowledge base.
- socrates2
by socrates2 on Thu Oct 18, 2007 6:48 pm
On third thought, I am finding it hard to believe that the 2nd airliner wasn't witnessed hitting the WTC by many people. At that altitude, I believe one would be able to tell whether it was a commercial plane or a missile or military plane. WTC#7 and #1,#2 free falling- those seem to be the smoking guns. Ur theories are just too much for me, to be honest.
- socrates2
by turkeyneck on Fri Oct 19, 2007 3:41 am
Be aware these are not my theories, I am just setting out in a nutshell the combined research of many. From your Chemtrail research you will appreciate the concept of disinformation being designed to provide a "limited hangout" which the perpetrators can then "manage" as they desire. The level of vehemence of the disinformation against certain lines of inquiry seems to provide strong pointers as to the next level.
For example, early on in the 9/11 truth movement it was taboo to suggest no plane at the pentagon. It was initially ridiculed, then violently opposed and then accepted as fact. Next, suggesting controlled demolition was the taboo subject. It was initially ridiculed, then violently opposed and finally accepted as fact.
Currently, no planes hitting the Twin towers is the big no no. Most of the 9/11 boards refuse to allow discussion of the subject. TV fakery is treated likewise, and users who attempt to discuss it on most boards are banned. First these topics were ridiculed, now they are violently opposed.
Watch the above video for proof that the live coverage was faked. I refer to the section of the clip after 0:50s when the camera zooms into the towers. Notice how you can constantly see the East side of the South Tower from the camera's viewpoint, ie. the camera is relatively stationary. Pay attention to the background, which is rotating around the towers. This is impossible, therefore the video must be faked, it seems using a composite made up of real footage of the towers inserted into a computer model of New York (think a visually enhanced Microsoft Virtual Earth).
Re. no planes, high school physics explains that hollow aluminium planes can't slice through solid steel however fast they are travelling. Planes crash into steel, not through it. Follow the link above for the Morgan Reynolds website/analysis of no planes.
For example, early on in the 9/11 truth movement it was taboo to suggest no plane at the pentagon. It was initially ridiculed, then violently opposed and then accepted as fact. Next, suggesting controlled demolition was the taboo subject. It was initially ridiculed, then violently opposed and finally accepted as fact.
Currently, no planes hitting the Twin towers is the big no no. Most of the 9/11 boards refuse to allow discussion of the subject. TV fakery is treated likewise, and users who attempt to discuss it on most boards are banned. First these topics were ridiculed, now they are violently opposed.
Watch the above video for proof that the live coverage was faked. I refer to the section of the clip after 0:50s when the camera zooms into the towers. Notice how you can constantly see the East side of the South Tower from the camera's viewpoint, ie. the camera is relatively stationary. Pay attention to the background, which is rotating around the towers. This is impossible, therefore the video must be faked, it seems using a composite made up of real footage of the towers inserted into a computer model of New York (think a visually enhanced Microsoft Virtual Earth).
Re. no planes, high school physics explains that hollow aluminium planes can't slice through solid steel however fast they are travelling. Planes crash into steel, not through it. Follow the link above for the Morgan Reynolds website/analysis of no planes.
- turkeyneck
Hey turkeyneck
by may41970 on Fri Oct 19, 2007 9:02 am
The website that turkeyneck linked to is one I've been aware of for a while.
I first came across them after a moderator at Progressive Independent named Tinoire banned socrates, me, and then someone called "the last name left" because she publically claimed that all of us were the same person. I made only one post ever at PI. Someone, forget the name, responded to it with an incredible lie. My post was then deleted by Tinoire, I was accused of being socrates, and I was banned without a chance to defend my position.
From that awful experience, I did some searches and came across an intense, but kinda charming youtube link about how Tinoire is a fascist. Don't have the link handy now, but it caught my interest. The video also came down hard on someone named "factfinder"
From that Tinoire video on youtube, I was led to another youtube link. The soundtrack was to a Simon and Garfunkel song (sung by someone else, I think) It was something about "No Planes" If I recall correctly, the guy who made the video claimed that he had been threatened. In truth, I didn't really agree with what this person said, but my intuition was that it was...sincere. I'm willing to open my mind to the No Planes theory.
Turkeyneck, if you've got a link to that or any other relevant video, please provide it.
Finding sincere+sane sounding stuff on the net is a real treat these days.
I think some of these people at that 911movement site sound real.
Now at first impression, "No Planes" sounds like bullshit to me. But I need to keep an open mind. I gotta remind myself that chemtrails, to many, sound like bullshit too. And there is something about that site that feels really sincere. Like it's real people who really believe in what they are talking about.
Are you guys for real? I hope so. Wouildn't it be great if we were both for real and we could join up?
I also couldn't help but notice that someone named "killtown" is a prolific poster at that site. Are you there killtown? Do you remember me from the old days on the Yahoo messageboards? Do you remember how you and I would tagteam against the frauds in regard to questions about the Pentagon attack? I think we may have even e-mailed each-other a few times. If I didn't respond to your last one (from a few years ago), please accept my apologies.
may41970
PS - this post was made while tipsy. If I made any horrendous faux pas and it bothers someone out there ----well, you can just go FO
I first came across them after a moderator at Progressive Independent named Tinoire banned socrates, me, and then someone called "the last name left" because she publically claimed that all of us were the same person. I made only one post ever at PI. Someone, forget the name, responded to it with an incredible lie. My post was then deleted by Tinoire, I was accused of being socrates, and I was banned without a chance to defend my position.
From that awful experience, I did some searches and came across an intense, but kinda charming youtube link about how Tinoire is a fascist. Don't have the link handy now, but it caught my interest. The video also came down hard on someone named "factfinder"
From that Tinoire video on youtube, I was led to another youtube link. The soundtrack was to a Simon and Garfunkel song (sung by someone else, I think) It was something about "No Planes" If I recall correctly, the guy who made the video claimed that he had been threatened. In truth, I didn't really agree with what this person said, but my intuition was that it was...sincere. I'm willing to open my mind to the No Planes theory.
Turkeyneck, if you've got a link to that or any other relevant video, please provide it.
Finding sincere+sane sounding stuff on the net is a real treat these days.
I think some of these people at that 911movement site sound real.
Now at first impression, "No Planes" sounds like bullshit to me. But I need to keep an open mind. I gotta remind myself that chemtrails, to many, sound like bullshit too. And there is something about that site that feels really sincere. Like it's real people who really believe in what they are talking about.
Are you guys for real? I hope so. Wouildn't it be great if we were both for real and we could join up?
I also couldn't help but notice that someone named "killtown" is a prolific poster at that site. Are you there killtown? Do you remember me from the old days on the Yahoo messageboards? Do you remember how you and I would tagteam against the frauds in regard to questions about the Pentagon attack? I think we may have even e-mailed each-other a few times. If I didn't respond to your last one (from a few years ago), please accept my apologies.
may41970
PS - this post was made while tipsy. If I made any horrendous faux pas and it bothers someone out there ----well, you can just go FO
- may41970
by socrates2 on Fri Oct 19, 2007 4:49 pm
Here's the Tinoire video.
Fascist Forum of the Afternoon
It seems that the internet has gotten to the point where convolution and "everything is an enigma" has taken over. No Planes, Holocaust revisionism, Ron Paul, search engines, on and on, the thing has become a real mess. It becomes very difficult to figure anything out as we spend more of our time trying to figure out who is a fake, who is a useful idiot, who is mistaken, who has come up with profound insights, etc..
I am making no judgements on the "no planes" because it would force me to spend hours upon hours looking for the nuggets. Yes, I did a bit of running around when Turkeyneck joined us here. And yes, there is stuff that backs what has been posted.
As to the "Killtown" person and others, I always wonder what they are thinking about when they start talking about holocaust #'s.
link
I've made it clear that the more controversial stuff can be posted in this section. But to be honest, if that holocaust revision crap makes it in here, I won't allow it. It's one thing to be philosophical like may41970 and wonder if Israel uses the Holocaust for geopolitical reasons. It's ok to me that Turkeyneck has brought the "no planes" in here, as long as he or she doesn't mind that I don't simply buy into it all. I'll try my best not to be a fascist.
Is WTC7 the smoking gun? If this was a controlled demolition, why not just say so?
Maybe this website has some answers.
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Fascist Forum of the Afternoon
It seems that the internet has gotten to the point where convolution and "everything is an enigma" has taken over. No Planes, Holocaust revisionism, Ron Paul, search engines, on and on, the thing has become a real mess. It becomes very difficult to figure anything out as we spend more of our time trying to figure out who is a fake, who is a useful idiot, who is mistaken, who has come up with profound insights, etc..
I am making no judgements on the "no planes" because it would force me to spend hours upon hours looking for the nuggets. Yes, I did a bit of running around when Turkeyneck joined us here. And yes, there is stuff that backs what has been posted.
As to the "Killtown" person and others, I always wonder what they are thinking about when they start talking about holocaust #'s.
link
I've made it clear that the more controversial stuff can be posted in this section. But to be honest, if that holocaust revision crap makes it in here, I won't allow it. It's one thing to be philosophical like may41970 and wonder if Israel uses the Holocaust for geopolitical reasons. It's ok to me that Turkeyneck has brought the "no planes" in here, as long as he or she doesn't mind that I don't simply buy into it all. I'll try my best not to be a fascist.
Is WTC7 the smoking gun? If this was a controlled demolition, why not just say so?
Maybe this website has some answers.
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
- socrates2
by socrates2 on Fri Oct 19, 2007 7:52 pm
How can someone like "Tinoire" be so stupid?
Here's more proof that she messes with threads.
Not that I am going to crap websites that much anymore.
I'm trying to value my internet time better.
screenshot
How can someone respond to a post that hasn't arrived yet?
Why do disinfo creeps like "Tinoire" make such blatant errors?
Here's more proof that she messes with threads.
Not that I am going to crap websites that much anymore.
I'm trying to value my internet time better.
screenshot
How can someone respond to a post that hasn't arrived yet?
Why do disinfo creeps like "Tinoire" make such blatant errors?
- socrates2
by socrates2 on Fri Oct 19, 2007 11:21 pm
This video looks good, lots of witnesses talking about bombs, explosions, a blown-out lobby, anomalies. I think one witness near the beginning said the second WTC was bombed, that there was no plane.
posted by NufffRespect
posted by NufffRespect
9/11 Coincidences (Part Eighteen)
----------------------------
"Something Wasn't Right That Day"
----------------------------
PLEASE RATE THIS VIDEO : )
The witnesses you see in this video are just the tip of the iceberg. These witnesses include fire crew, police officers and media reporters - who all heard and saw explosions going off inside the towers and building 7, long before they actually fell. Many witnesses reported powerful explosions in the basements of the buildings long before they collapsed.
Controlled demolition experts agree that the collapses of these three buildings bear all of the hallmarks of a controlled demolition. For example, we see demolition "squibs" shooting out of the windows of the buildings before they started to collapse. All three buildings collapsed at near freefall speed. Building 7, which wasn't hit by a plane and contained only small scattered fires, came down symmetrically in just 6-seconds.
And 6-weeks after 9/11, liquified steel was found under the rubble of all three buildings and the temperature was still in excess of 1500F. Jet-fuel simply cannot burn hot enough to reach that sort of temperature, let alone stay that hot for 6-weeks. Only thermite explosives can do this. Many of the steel beams found in the rubble of the three buildings were cut diagonally - in exactly the same way as shaped-charges slice through steel diagonally to bring a building straight down. Sulfur residue was also found on the steel beams. Sulfur used with thermite is called thermate -- which produces even faster results than thermite, reaching temperatures of over 4,000F. We also see red-hot molten steel dripping from the windows of the towers prior to their collapse. How much more evidence do we need before we accept that those 3 buildings were brought down in a controlled demolition?
- socrates2
by socrates2 on Sat Oct 20, 2007 2:44 pm
I think planes did hit the WTC's. The "No Plane" theory would only have a bit of a chance of making sense, if it is an abbreviated way of saying "the planes said to have hit the buildings were not the original commercial planes."
In this next video at around 23 seconds a plane does smash into the second building hit. For WTC#7, yeah, "No Plane" hit that building, yet the thing still dropped as if it were a victim of "controlled demolition."
Never before seen Video of WTC 9/11 attack
I took a screen shot. But it's tough to see. One only has about a second to see the plane.
And here is Bill Maher being an asshole. He acts like he is Mr. Free Speech, Mr. Let's Hear the Truth, and yeah, he was getting heckled, but he responded like Michael "Kramer" Richards. He snapped. He acted like a bully. He showed that he really isn't a comedian. Stand up comics are supposed to make some of their funniest jokes in response to hecklers, not act like Tinoire or Tony Soprano.
He says the word audience is from the latin meaning to listen. He is a fascist pig. He can't explain WTC7, so he has to call so many of us nutcases. He has to invoke authority and keep propping up fakes like Chris Matthews.
The more of us speak out, the safer we are.
I am impressed with all who are standing tall.
In this next video at around 23 seconds a plane does smash into the second building hit. For WTC#7, yeah, "No Plane" hit that building, yet the thing still dropped as if it were a victim of "controlled demolition."
Never before seen Video of WTC 9/11 attack
JmanFIVEk wrote:At the time I received this video it was not released publicly. It's the personal video of someone i met.
After the first plane hit one of the towers, this cameraman set up his home video camera on a balcony 1 block from the world trade centers and left the room to let it record unknowing a 2nd plane would hit and he would catch it on tape.
For information and to download original higher res version:
jeremymorrison.com/wtcplane.html
I took a screen shot. But it's tough to see. One only has about a second to see the plane.
And here is Bill Maher being an asshole. He acts like he is Mr. Free Speech, Mr. Let's Hear the Truth, and yeah, he was getting heckled, but he responded like Michael "Kramer" Richards. He snapped. He acted like a bully. He showed that he really isn't a comedian. Stand up comics are supposed to make some of their funniest jokes in response to hecklers, not act like Tinoire or Tony Soprano.
BitBucketXBL wrote:Some 9/11 conspiracists in the audience of Bill Maher's show start heckling, and Bill gets up and helps toss one of the crackpots out!
He says the word audience is from the latin meaning to listen. He is a fascist pig. He can't explain WTC7, so he has to call so many of us nutcases. He has to invoke authority and keep propping up fakes like Chris Matthews.
The more of us speak out, the safer we are.
I am impressed with all who are standing tall.
- socrates2
18 posts • Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests