[Moderated]175 did NOT hit the South tower.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I take my lead from these witnesses,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw


Malcolm, did you even read Arkan_Wolfshade's post #2271 above??

Just because someone heard a loud sound, that does not prove the sound was caused by an explosion. And just because someone heard or saw an explosion, that does not prove that explosion was caused by explosives. We know there were fuel-air explosions in the elevator shafts, and many other things normally found in high-rise buildings (such as electrical transformers) can explode in the right conditions.

Initial media reports are frequently confused. A perfect example: at one point on September 11, ABC News (and possibly other media) reported that a car bomb had gone off in front of the US State Department Building in Washington, D. C. I remember this very vividly, as I immediately called my best friend, who works in downtown Washington, to make sure that he and his wife were okay. It later developed that the "car bomb" was a sonic boom from a jet fighter.

Now Malcolm, a direct question. Please explain how anything on the tape constitutes actual evidence of explosive devices.
 
I will accept any evidence that the plane that hit the south tower was 175.
No one has been able to produce any such evidence because 175 did not hit the south tower.
This case is easy.
1. Moslems didn't do it, unless Bin Laden was able to hypnotise Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bush and others. Then Bin Laden had to get explosives into the twins and WTC7. Then he had to get British troops posted close to Iraq etc etc. There's just too much to list.
2. It WAS an inside job.
3. Someone had to OK that inside job. Who would approve a mish mash of six stone weaklings taking over four planes when they have the clean and guaranteed two remotes from Offutt plus a pentagon flyover.
It was an inside job and somebody had to approve it.
No one would approve the hijack bit, ergo the attack came from Offutt.
It's called logic.

Ok Malcolm. According to you it went something like this. Bush Chenney and Rumfeld came up with a great plan, the greatest plan in the history of great plans. That was on the morning of 911 fly a remotely operated plane was to be flown into WTC 2 in front of the entire worlds media who were broadcasting it live at the time and hope nobody noticed it was not Flight 175. The other planes were all remotly controlled including one that took a suicide run towards the Pentagon in broadday only to fly over it and disapear into clear blue sky , again hoping nobody would notice.The towers are then blown up infront of the entire planet and destroyed in a demolish that was so brilliant it fooled the entire planet into beleiving they were brought down by the planes and fires. Just to top it all some six hours later a building called WTC 7 was blown up infront of the entire worlds media whom had been informed that it was was about to collapse so were actually filming it and broadcasting it live to the entire planet.

In the meantime troops were being edged towards Iraq for an invasion that would come two years later. But the in the meantime they decided to pin it on UBL who happened to be in another country. UBL goes along with it and actually confesses over and over again to it, or maybe he did not, maybe Bush Chenney and Rumfeld faked him confessing from another country were the British troops were not being pushed towards.

And they hoped that nobody would notice?

And this makes sense to you ? This is logical ? You would approve such an insane plan ?

Malcolm, it sounds crazy because it is crazy. The truth is the US was attacked by Islamic terrorists, they attacked you because you ignored them for years,you failed to take notice of what they were saying, so in shear frustration they sent you a message. " STOP IGNORING US,start taking notice of us". You Malcolm did not get the message. Maybe , just maybe you should start to ask the hardest question of all. Why would anybody hate my nation so much they would die and kill thousands to sent me that message?

I wish you was correct , I wish all it would take to put this world right was to lock up Bush,Chenney and Rumsfeld, but you are not.The truth is far more horrific than anything your silly truth movement could dream up and it is actually staring you in the face.

Back to the popcorn, for me, please wake up Malcolm, the world was a mess before 911, it is a bigger mess after it.. Please stop living in this make beleive world whereby everything that is wrong has to be blamed on the USG, there really, really are people that really really do want to hurt us and they are prepared to go to great lenghts to do so.

Wise up Malcolm.
 
No.
You say explosions can be caused by things other than CD.
You now prove that all the explosions were not caused by CD.
Fail on just one and we have an inside job.

As mentioned before, it's not my job to prove that the explosions were caused by CD. It's your job to prove that it was called CD. Can you prove that?
 
Malcolm, did you even read Arkan_Wolfshade's post #2271 above??

Just because someone heard a loud sound, that does not prove the sound was caused by an explosion. And just because someone heard or saw an explosion, that does not prove that explosion was caused by explosives. We know there were fuel-air explosions in the elevator shafts, and many other things normally found in high-rise buildings (such as electrical transformers) can explode in the right conditions.

Initial media reports are frequently confused. A perfect example: at one point on September 11, ABC News (and possibly other media) reported that a car bomb had gone off in front of the US State Department Building in Washington, D. C. I remember this very vividly, as I immediately called my best friend, who works in downtown Washington, to make sure that he and his wife were okay. It later developed that the "car bomb" was a sonic boom from a jet fighter.

Now Malcolm, a direct question. Please explain how anything on the tape constitutes actual evidence of explosive devices.
Here's a small selection of explosions - explosive devices - explosions going off - explosives going off,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atSd7mxgsGY&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3U_GISl3aAA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nqIf3Pazxc&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23DB_6ASkdE&mode=related&search=
 
To quote,
"It can't possibly be aluminium".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDiL_q1m67k
Trumped again eh, this is getting monotonous.


An interesting pattern. Whenever your fabrications and outright lies are exposed, you trot out Steven Jones, who has a few credibility problems of his own. It turns out that his dust sample is highly questionable, having been collected by a fantasist. Then there's Dr. Greening's papers discussing the presence of aluminum and sulfur. And let's not forget Dr. Jones's unwillingness to engage any real scientists in debate. Finally, you might try explaining to us why Jones refuses to submit any of his work to peer review (no, publishing in a bogus "journal" that he founded himself and receiving glowing, uncritical reviews from like-minded charlatans is NOT peer review).

Your faith-based sand castle has been washed away, Malcolm.
 
Ok Malcolm. According to you it went something like this. Bush Chenney and Rumfeld came up with a great plan, the greatest plan in the history of great plans. That was on the morning of 911 fly a remotely operated plane was to be flown into WTC 2 in front of the entire worlds media who were broadcasting it live at the time and hope nobody noticed it was not Flight 175. The other planes were all remotly controlled including one that took a suicide run towards the Pentagon in broadday only to fly over it and disapear into clear blue sky , again hoping nobody would notice.The towers are then blown up infront of the entire planet and destroyed in a demolish that was so brilliant it fooled the entire planet into beleiving they were brought down by the planes and fires. Just to top it all some six hours later a building called WTC 7 was blown up infront of the entire worlds media whom had been informed that it was was about to collapse so were actually filming it and broadcasting it live to the entire planet.

In the meantime troops were being edged towards Iraq for an invasion that would come two years later. But the in the meantime they decided to pin it on UBL who happened to be in another country. UBL goes along with it and actually confesses over and over again to it, or maybe he did not, maybe Bush Chenney and Rumfeld faked him confessing from another country were the British troops were not being pushed towards.

And they hoped that nobody would notice?

And this makes sense to you ? This is logical ? You would approve such an insane plan ?

Malcolm, it sounds crazy because it is crazy. The truth is the US was attacked by Islamic terrorists, they attacked you because you ignored them for years,you failed to take notice of what they were saying, so in shear frustration they sent you a message. " STOP IGNORING US,start taking notice of us". You Malcolm did not get the message. Maybe , just maybe you should start to ask the hardest question of all. Why would anybody hate my nation so much they would die and kill thousands to sent me that message?

I wish you was correct , I wish all it would take to put this world right was to lock up Bush,Chenney and Rumsfeld, but you are not.The truth is far more horrific than anything your silly truth movement could dream up and it is actually staring you in the face.

Back to the popcorn, for me, please wake up Malcolm, the world was a mess before 911, it is a bigger mess after it.. Please stop living in this make beleive world whereby everything that is wrong has to be blamed on the USG, there really, really are people that really really do want to hurt us and they are prepared to go to great lenghts to do so.

Wise up Malcolm.
Close, but let me get you closer.
Bush, Cheney (let's call them all BushCo) are puppets.
I can refer you to posts on here that echo that truth.
When the likes of Rothschilde/Rockefeler (the owners of the Port Authority - the Federal Reserve) whatever makes up this clique of Banksters.
When these Banksters say rabbit, the likes of Bush jump.
That's why I included references to Boystown in my opening page.
A Bankster is not going to promote someone who might renage when power goes to their head. The Bankster is only going to promote someone he has a hold over. Years ago no doubt homosexuality would have sufficed, nowadays paedophilia will be closer to the mark. Hence persuading the military to accept a civilian presence at Offutt and then seeing who can be enticed via Boystown.
You know the truth when you read it.
These Banksters thought they had all the bases covered.
They were wrong, now they are going to pay.
Everyone seems to be assuming that the New World Order (NWO) required a new 'PEARL HARBOUR' in order to progress their agenda and that the twins fitted that profile nicely.
I have no problem with the NWO bit being floated first.
But, what about the 'New Pearl Harbour' bit?
In other words, was the 'New Pearl Harbour' line, concocted to fit in with the necessary demolition of the twins?
The owners of the twins (those who owned the private Port Authority of NY, which in turn leased out the twins), were faced with a pair of white elephants.
Occupaton of the office space was dwindling, communication outlets weren't available (nowhere to plug into the internet etc). Galvanic corosion was a concern as far back as 1989.
The asbestos content was illegal. Demolition had been twice refused, except for beam by beam dismantling, at a cost of around $5billion.
Similarly, refurbishment, stripping out the asbestos, re-doing the fascia, installing up to date wiring, was again priced at around $5billion.
Apart from that being a lotta dosh. In the world that these fly boys live in, somebody seen to be holding that kind of a lemon, would also be seen to be losing it and therefore ripe for being eaten alive.
Two 'condemned' notices had been issued and then extensions granted because of the asbestos.
All in all, a pair of real white elephants.
Maybe a van bomb might do the trick, just blame it on 'arab terrorists'.
When that didn't work, maybe time to do a more comprehensive job.
Building collapses in NY were a daily occurence years ago, why not recruit a NY landlord who knew the ropes, to assist?
Maybe, get someone to make a film, then get someone else to float the idea of a new Pearl Harbour.
I think this possibility/probability needs to be explored. A better conclusion can be reached, when the chronology is established.
Reputations mean a lot and $5billion is a lotta dosh in anybody's book.
The towers proved to be well built. The van job was a joke.
The main thing this time is that there can be no room for errors, the plan has to work. That's why Raytheon proved they could do it prior to the event.
That's why attack planes were chosen. A guaranteed 2 planes for new York, one flyover for the pentagon. The cover story would be four 'hijacks'.
What a mess of a cover story it has turned out to be. If I had paid out money for a staged crash scene and got Shanksville, I would want my money back.
Only misguided people with misguided allegiances are now supporting these mass murderers. The net is closing.

As I say, you know the truth when you read it.
 
Restating your premise does nothing to support your premise. We all perfectly understand your opinion; you've not substantiated it in a logically consistent manner.

When are you ever going to stop ducking and diving?
Now you're trying on that when someone says they heard an explosion that it doesn't mean a loud bang caused by an explosive device.
The universally accepted meaning when someone says an explosion, is that some explosive device like a bomb has gone off.
You seem to think that unless something can be proven to the level of a scientific law, then it can't stand. Yet at the same time, you have no difficulty in following the doctrine of a pre-emptive strike, where mere suspicion is enough.
You may seem to think that you can somehow have the half penny and the gingerbread.
Not with me.
You cannot show one piece of evidence that the plane that hit tower 2 was 175, it is now time to move on.
 
so malcolm where is your evidence of explosives residue that you say proves CD? we've been waiting

btw, thermate is not an explosive, so stop trotting out Steven Jone's claim to prove that explosives were used
 
When are you ever going to stop ducking and diving?
Now you're trying on that when someone says they heard an explosion that it doesn't mean a loud bang caused by an explosive device.
The universally accepted meaning when someone says an explosion, is that some explosive device like a bomb has gone off.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/03/23/plant.blast/

So I guess there was a bomb placed at this refinery?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_Humber_Refinery_explosion

This one too?

I saw someone shake up a can of Coke and open it. They then remarked that their Coke exploded. So, was it "BushCo" or CocaCola that planted a bomb inside the Coke can?

:rolleyes:
 
Here's a small selection of explosions - explosive devices - explosions going off - explosives going off,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atSd7mxgsGY&mode=related&search=

Right off the bat he admits that the video has been edited because the "camera was moving too much" so there is no way of knowing if anything else was changed,he brings up the "pancake theory, and has no sound in the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3U_GISl3aAA

"Coverstory 1" the sound doesn't match the lip movements of the Guy in the Harley Tshirt. Do you know where the original video is? Also was he the only person interviewed that day?

"Coverstory 2" An interview with someone who is making an educated guess as to what happened. also the vid seems to beedited due to a sudden jump in the school closings at 3:35. Shortly there after the vid says "watch how he changes the subject" when we have no idea what the context is.

"Coverstory 3" Who wrote this elaborate story and got it on air so quickly?" We'd about OBL and AQ for a while at that point. Even Clinton fired a few shots at him.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw

Already has been addressed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nqIf3Pazxc&NR=1

Yes there were explosions and things that sounded like explosions. Nothing that sounded like CD charges though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23DB_6ASkdE&mode=related&search=

No explosions just the rumble of the tower collapsing.
 
Nope

Raytheon themselves admit to landing a PILOTLESS plane using the system.
How did that PILOTLESS plane get airborne?

Where did they admit that?

1. 'Pilotless' = The pilots DID NOT INTERFERE with the instruments, but they were on board. Digg out the Spiegel Article. I am pretty sure it mentions six pilots on boards, since this Raytheon nonsense came up in a German truther book a while ago, where the author quote-mined that very article.
2. The system IS DESIGNED to *land* an airplane. JPALS = JOINT PRECISION APPROACH AND *LANDING* SYSTEM

And that's all there is to it. Again: There was no one on the ground steering these planes with a remote control as you imply.
 
Last edited:
so malcolm where is your evidence of explosives residue that you say proves CD? we've been waiting

btw, thermate is not an explosive, so stop trotting out Steven Jone's claim to prove that explosives were used
Any evidence of thermite or thermate (and there is plenty at GZ) is, under normal circumstances, enough for a police and fire authorities investigation into arson.
Why did this not happen after 9/11?

Why did Ghouliani have the site swept clean - which is another criminal offence.
 
These planes that run by autopilot.
Can this autopilot be over ruled by remote control?


What I'm saying is that the conspirators wouldn't need to install a NASA style 'remote control system' because it's sort of a built-in feature in the 767. By "sort of" I mean - a nearly fully autonomous flight control system - kind of like a cruise missile, rather than an RC airplane. The only thing missing is an automatic takeoff system(the 767 autopilot is already capable of tracking the runway centerline after touchdown during autolands), a means to raise the landing gear electronically after takeoff(the flaps needn't be extended), and a way to communicate with ATC.

To answer your question - it's really kind of moot. Any conspirator who knew anything about modern airliners wouldn't install an RC system to begin with, they'd augment the existing one. To install an RC system on the 767, independent of the autopilot computers and autopilot servos - you'd need to redesign the flight controls, adding servomotors to the cable inputs to the aileron, elevator and rudder actuators(and in the case of the ailerons, servos that can overcome the 3000 psi of hydraulic pressure sitting at the aileron input cables), new cable runs to accommodate the new servos, and possibly control linkage if you wanted to tap the hydraulics and bypass the actuators. After all that work, they'd probably elect not to use the existing autopilot for their drone flying. If they did, well, the control cables would probably snap.
 
...
You cannot show one piece of evidence that the plane that hit tower 2 was 175, it is now time to move on.

Pardon me for coming in late, what is your theory about what happened to flight 175?

Here is an account from CNN.


http://216.239.51.104/search?q=cach...ight+175+transcript&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us

United Flight 175

United Flight 175 left Boston at 8:14 a.m. The controller watching the plane was the same one tracking Flight 11. At about 8:47 a.m., someone on United 175 changed the transponder code twice. The change went unnoticed for four minutes. After trying for several minutes to reach the cockpit of 175, the controller told a co-worker that there might be another hijacking.

The word of a second hijacking made its way up the chain of command, but top-level managers were in a meeting, presumably discussing Flight 11.

About 9:01 a.m., a manager from the FAA's New York Center called the national Air Traffic Control System Command Center.

New York Center: We have several situations going on here. It's escalating big, big time. We need to get the military involved with us. ...

We're, we're involved with something else; we have other aircraft that may have a similar situation going on here.

At about the same time, the FAA's New York Center contacted the New York terminal approach control about Flight 175.

Terminal: I got somebody who keeps coasting, but it looks like he's going into one of the small airports down there.

New York Center: Hold on a second. I'm trying to bring him up here and get you. ... There he is right there. Hold on.

Terminal: Got him just out of 9,500 ... 9,000 now.

New York Center: Do you know who he is?

Terminal: We're just, we just we don't know who he is. We're just picking him up now.

New York Center (at 9:02 a.m.): All right. Heads up man, it looks like another one coming in.

United 175 crashed into the south tower of the World Trade Center at 9:03 a.m.

In Boston, a manager discussed the first hijacker transmission from American 11 on a ongoing conference call.

Boston Center: Hey ... you still there?

New England Region: Yes, I am.

Boston Center: I'm gonna reconfirm with, with downstairs, but the, as far as the tape ... seemed to think the guy said that "we have planes." Now, I don't know if it was because it was the accent, or if there's more than one, but I'm gonna, I'm gonna reconfirm that for you, and I'll get back to you real quick. OK?

New England Region: Appreciate it.

Unidentified female voice: They have what?

Boston Center: Planes, as in plural.

Boston Center: It sounds like, we're talking to New York, that there's another one aimed at the World Trade Center.

New England Region: There's another aircraft?

Boston Center: A second one just hit the trade center.

New England Region: OK. Yeah, we gotta get ... we gotta alert the military real quick on this.

NORAD was notified at 9:03 a.m., and five minutes later decided to change the course of the fighters that had been scrambled from Otis Air Force Base.
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atSd7mxgsGY&mode=related&search=

Right off the bat he admits that the video has been edited because the "camera was moving too much" so there is no way of knowing if anything else was changed,he brings up the "pancake theory, and has no sound in the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3U_GISl3aAA

"Coverstory 1" the sound doesn't match the lip movements of the Guy in the Harley Tshirt. Do you know where the original video is? Also was he the only person interviewed that day?

"Coverstory 2" An interview with someone who is making an educated guess as to what happened. also the vid seems to beedited due to a sudden jump in the school closings at 3:35. Shortly there after the vid says "watch how he changes the subject" when we have no idea what the context is.

"Coverstory 3" Who wrote this elaborate story and got it on air so quickly?" We'd about OBL and AQ for a while at that point. Even Clinton fired a few shots at him.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw

Already has been addressed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nqIf3Pazxc&NR=1

Yes there were explosions and things that sounded like explosions. Nothing that sounded like CD charges though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23DB_6ASkdE&mode=related&search=

No explosions just the rumble of the tower collapsing.
There's none so blind as those who refuse to see and none so deaf as those who refuse to hear.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom