• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Clear evidence that 9/11 was an inside job

.
As in the Sherson Lemmon Bros.? An obvious fraud, since Jack Lemmon was an only child.


Unless you're suggesting that Walter Matthau was in on it, too?


Waitwaitwait -- Jack was born in an elevator. And what did they have in the Towers?



That's right, elevators. The plot thickens ... and then drops to the lobby floor.
.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
You seem to have missed the point. I was referring to the crash site–not the craft in flight.
Click to expand...


Unless your hypothetical missile is invisible, it would have been seen. Which, incidentally, Flight 77 was. By numerous eyewitnesses. As has been remarked earlier in this thread. Which you have so conspicuously avoided mentioning.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
That article prefers witness testimony to physical evidence. Witnesses can be planted.

Look at the fourth picture from the top in this link.
http://www.physics911.net/missingwings

There's no sign of the wings having hit the wall.

The pictures here show what would happen if the wings from a jet hit a wall.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20163

Here's what happened when a 767 hit the tower.
http://jabbajoo.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c0ac653ef00e5537c495d8834-pi

Here's some more stuff about the Pentagon if anyone wants to delve further.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showforum=5
Click to expand...

Prove witnesses were planted. You'll need more than one sentence to say that wings didn't hit the wall. Explain in detail, show your work. This topic deserves better than your shoddy work.
 
What kind of missile? What kind of aircraft fired it?
Click to expand...
It was probably some kind of figher such as an F-4. Look at the nose of the craft in this picture.
http://www.g7welcomingcommittee.com/blog/wp-content/images/pentagon1_plane.jpg

It's pointed like the nose of a fighter. That's not the nose of a 757.

In the top picture on this page...
http://0911.voila.net/index3.htm

...we can see the tail of the craft that hit the Pentagon. From behind the left side of the box we can see smoke. That's probably from a missile being fired. The crash site seems to be consistent with this theory.
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticlesMeyer3March2006.html

What happened to the Airliner, it's Passengers and Crew?
How did DNA from the Passengers, Crew and Hijackers get to the Pentagon?
Click to expand...
In this link...
http://www.question911.com/linksall.htm

...there's a documentary entitled "Painful Deceptions". It's also on YouTube. In the last five minutes of part one, an explanation is put forth. I answered this earlier in the thread.

And exactly how were these 'planted' witnesses recruited? Signs next to the water coolers in the Pentagon? "Wanted--volunteers to participate in treasonous conspiracy."
Click to expand...
Who knows. Are you saying it's impossible to find lots of people willing to lie for money? The press would never report it if someone were to try to come forward with the truth later.

Not true. The stone has been knocked off the facade between the windows. Explain how that happened, if not from the impact of the wings.
Click to expand...
A wing wouldn't have simply knocked the stones off of the wall.

If 767 wings can do this to metal columns...
http://jabbajoo.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c0ac653ef00e5537c495d8834-pi

...imagine what 757 wings would do to stone.

According to the link, the aircraft was moving at less than 85 knots when it struck the wall. American 77 was going around 500 knots when it impacted the Pentagon. Do you understand the difference in kinetic energy between the two impacts?
Click to expand...
See above picture of the tower after having been hit by a 767.

The Pentagon and the World Trade Center were constructed completely differently.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that there would be no sign of a wings having hit the Pentagon wall after seeing what a 767 wing could do to the metal columns of the tower? You're seeing what you want to see.

Yes there is, you're looking at the hole left by the left wing, even according to this truther site:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/docs/damage_comp.jpg
Click to expand...
That seems to be a disinfo site.
http://911review.com/disinfo/sites.html
http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en#h...x=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=1094ef709d0d25e

Look at the fourth picture from the top on this page.
http://www.physics911.net/missingwings

The windows are still intact. A wing would have at least broken the windows.

Of course if you're pushing "pilots for truth" I don't suppose you'll be very interested in facts.
Click to expand...
Empty rhetoric isn't going to sway thinking people. Tell us why you think the judgement of pilots couldn't be trusted.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?act=idx

How did aircraft parts wind up on the lawn, on the highway, and inside the Pentagon?
Click to expand...
Parts could have been planted before, or after the crash.

How did the light poles get knocked down by the wings of the aircraft as it crossed low over the highway before impacting the wall of the Pentagon?
Click to expand...
I addressed this in post #20.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=9632

Read post #1 of the above thread from "Pilots for 9/11 truth".

Unless your hypothetical missile is invisible, it would have been seen. Which, incidentally, Flight 77 was. By numerous eyewitnesses. As has been remarked earlier in this thread. Which you have so conspicuously avoided mentioning.
Click to expand...
I posted the wrong link in post #20. I meant to post this link.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=10632

Witnesses can be planted and witness testimony doesn't make evidence go away. Physical evidence trumps witness testimony.

Prove witnesses were planted
Click to expand...
You're demanding the impossible. You know what people are going to think if you use that tactic.
http://www.opposingdigits.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1222
(excerpt)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The fact that it's plausible that those witnesses were planted means that the witnesses' testimonies are not conclusive proof. The only thing we can take seriously is the physical evidence which points to a small aircraft hitting the Pentagon.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
...
This link where I did the measurements comes up blank.
http://www.flugplatzsiedlung.de/Pent_gate.pdf
Click to expand...

I know. In that image, the angle between line of sight and flight path is 145°, not 140°. So the apparent length of the plane would not get shortened by (1 - sin(140°)=36% but by (1 - sin(145°)=43% - that's even further from your erroneous estimate of 20%.

Also in that image, the distance from camera is not "about equal" as you claimed, and also not 65:75 as in my first estimate, but (on my screen) 102:116. The apparent length of the plane would be thus reduced not by (1 - 65/75)=13% but by (1 - 102/116)=12% - that's nearly my previous result and not close to your erroneous estimate of 0%.

As a result, the apparent length of the plane would be shorter not by 20%, but by 50%. It would fit behind the yellow box even more easily than according to my own first draft.

FatFreddy88 said:
Here's the picture on another forum.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...ssage-non-9-11-truthers-3.html#post1059427768

I did those measurements years ago when I was posting here.
http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/48507-911-pentagon?p=891577#post891577
Click to expand...

You are not Laguna2, right? Can you point to a post of yours? :confused:

FatFreddy88 said:
I just did them again today and they came out a little different; maybe I just remembered it wrong. The point on the Pentagon wall that's as far from the camera as the place where the yellow line meets the red line is about a third of the way further down the wall. In order to see how long the craft would be if it were at a ninety degree angle, I just compared the lengths of the red line from where it touches the yellow line to the wall and the distance from that point straight to the wall. The difference was 27.6 percent. I took trig back in 1979 but I can't remember enough of it to use trig to find the figure but just measuring the different distances will give a close enough figure for our purposes.
Click to expand...

Ah, there's your problem: You want and need to do math, but you simply don't have the necessary skills ;)

FatFreddy88 said:
In my full page blow-up of this picture...
http://0911.voila.net/index3.htm

...I measured the height of the pentagon at that point further down the wall. It was 16 millimeters (it was hard to estimate but there'd be hardly any difference). The space between the left side of the box and the tail is 20 millimeters. 20 millimeters increased by 27.6 percent is 25.5 millimeters. In order to be twice as long as the Pentagon is high at that point it would have to be 32 millimeters long.

The nose of the craft doesn't protrude on the left side of the box. We don't know how far to the right the nose actually is so this is only the maximum possible length.

The crash site seems to be consistent with what would happen if a small craft fired a missile just before hitting the Pentagon.
http://www.physics911.net/missingwings
http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticlesMeyer3March2006.html

Here's a link to some more stuff.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/consp...message-non-9-11-truthers.html#post1059425552

I'd just post it all here but I've been told not to post long lists of info.
Click to expand...

If it's original work, then long posts are welcome.
If you link to another side, it is not okay to copy and paste very long tracts from there. Then, a brief quote of ther core content should suffice.
 
I know. In that image, the angle between line of sight and flight path is 145°, not 140°. So the apparent length of the plane would not get shortened by (1 - sin(140°)=36% but by (1 - sin(145°)=43% - that's even further from your erroneous estimate of 20%.
Click to expand...
The difference in the length of two sides of a triangle can be found with trig, and by just measuring the sides. Tell us why just measuring the sides and comparing the lengths isn't valid.

I simply measured the lengths to get the difference. Why did you come up with completely different numbers? Why don't you just measure them and tell us what you come up with just to check your calcs?
 
I just noticed FatFreddy88 has a thread open in the CT section about the Manson murders being a government black op and he has also been posting in the moon hoax thread, supporting that no one landed on the moon. I think it's safe to say that the power of woo is strong with this one...
 
I have to ask Freddy; it's clear that you are not new to CTs. It is also clear that you have been at it for a while as different names on different forums. What do you hope to accomplish by posting here? I assume that you haven't much changed your arguments, so the rebuttals will not be much different from what you have already seen. So, with that in mind, why did you even bother coming here and posting stuff that (at least for the regular debunkers here) has been debunked time and time again?
 
FatFreddy88 said:
Who knows. Are you saying it's impossible to find lots of people willing to lie commit treason resulting in the deaths of thousands of people for money?
Click to expand...

Fixed that for you. Maybe not impossible but it sure pushes the realms of what is possible.

The press would never report it if someone were to try to come forward with the truth later.
Click to expand...

LOL! Yeah, I'm sure a reporter for no reason whatsoever would choose to not break the biggest story of the century and in the process turn down a guaranteed Pulitzer Prize and notoriety for the rest of his/her life. :rolleyes:

It's incredible how out of touch with reality some people are.
 
FatFreddy88 said:
That article prefers witness testimony to physical evidence. Witnesses can be planted.
Click to expand...
"Can be" does not provide enough reasonable doubt. You need to show that the witnesses were planted. In a court of law, if you do not provide this evidence your case gets thrown out.

FatFreddy88 said:
Look at the fourth picture from the top in this link.
http://www.physics911.net/missingwings

There's no sign of the wings having hit the wall.

The pictures here show what would happen if the wings from a jet hit a wall.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=20163
Click to expand...
Lunacy... You're comparing the impact of a plane traveling at 500 miles per hour to one that failed to take off and was traveling at no where near the former's speed. Kinetic energy rises exponentially with a linear increase in velocity, so it's hardly surprising that the results of between your comparisons are so vastly different.

FatFreddy88 said:
Here's what happened when a 767 hit the tower.
http://jabbajoo.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c0ac653ef00e5537c495d8834-pi
Click to expand...
The towers had an aluminum cladding system that was less rigid than the masonry wall of the Pentagon, ergo the wings made a visible scoring of the cladding along the outer-most edges of the impact without penetrating the steel columns completely. Again, the Pentagon has no cladding, it's exterior wall is masonry which is much heavier than the aluminum cladding of the towers. That the same scoring didn't show on the pentagon is absolutely no surprise to any reasonable thinker on this forum. Nobody expects a looney toon style cookie-cutter hole.

Again, search the forums, this stuff has been discussed countless times over the years. If you're not changing your mind after reading those then you know full well none of the answers here will "convince" you.
 
Last edited:
What do you hope to accomplish by posting here? I assume that you haven't much changed your arguments, so the rebuttals will not be much different from what you have already seen. So, with that in mind, why did you even bother coming here and posting stuff that (at least for the regular debunkers here) has been debunked time and time again?
Click to expand...
I think that the proof that 9/11 was an inside job and that the Apollo moon missions were faked in a studio is so clear that it's impossible to convince people otherwise once they've seen it. I don't think your attempts to obfuscate the proof have much effect on objective people.

I just made a collection of evidence to share with other people who may not have enough time or interest to do the research it takes to see all of the evidence and I like to post it at forums where there isn't much of that being posted. Here's some stuff I've posted.
http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/182662-video-message-non-truthers.html#post3774590
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/19657-we-never-went-moon-65.html#post3526599
http://www.politicalforum.com/history-past-politicians/149071-american-imperialism.html

When you pro-official version people just talk to each other, you probably sway a lot of people who haven't seen the evidence. I think that as soon as people have seen the evidence, you pro-official version people have lost; the evidence is simply too clear. I just stay and debate so you'll have to say lame things to maintain your positions just for good measure. You can pretend all you want but your success rate is probably close to zero with objective people who've seen the evidence. Of course there will always be people who go into cognitive dissonance....
http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/dissonance.htm

...which means they believe one thing and say another. People like that have to wake up in stages. At least their seeing the evidence starts the process.

Of course any seventh grader could argue the points I argue; it's just a question of having an interest in the subject. Also, debating with professional sophists is kind of a hobby with me. I actually enjoy it.

LOL! Yeah, I'm sure a reporter for no reason whatsoever would choose to not break the biggest story of the century and in the process turn down a guaranteed Pulitzer Prize and notoriety for the rest of his/her life.
Click to expand...
His editors would never accept the story as they work for the people with big money.

This link is from a post from a moon-hoax thread but it deals with the same issue.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4731597&postcount=1090

It's about why we can't take anything in the mainstream seriously including science journals. I'd just post all the info here but I've been told not to.
 
Last edited:
Thank God in an actual court of law one has to actually provide evidence of any planting or tampering with evidence, or that witnesses were manipulated or planted instead of just claiming it could have been done in order for it to be thrown out as evidence.

I mean no accused has ever tried to wrangle himself an innocent verdict by claiming he was framed, right?
 
FatFreddy88 said:
It's about why we can't take anything in the mainstream seriously including science journals. I'd just post all the info here but I've been told not to.
Click to expand...

It simply looks to me that this is your rationalization for not accepting anything that doesn't support your world view. It's called confirmation bias, and you're dripping with it.
 
Last edited:
FatFreddy88 said:
I think that the proof that 9/11 was an inside job and that the Apollo moon missions were faked in a studio is so clear that it's impossible to convince people otherwise once they've seen it. I don't think your attempts to obfuscate the proof have much effect on objective people.

I just made a collection of evidence to share with other people who may not have enough time or interest to do the research it takes to see all of the evidence and I like to post it at forums where there isn't much of that being posted. Here's some stuff I've posted.
http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/182662-video-message-non-truthers.html#post3774590
http://www.politicalforum.com/moon-landing/19657-we-never-went-moon-65.html#post3526599
http://www.politicalforum.com/history-past-politicians/149071-american-imperialism.html

When you pro-official version people just talk to each other, you probably sway a lot of people who haven't seen the evidence. I think that as soon as people have seen the evidence, you pro-official version people have lost; the evidence is simply too clear. I just stay and debate so you'll have to say lame things to maintain your positions just for good measure. You can pretend all you want but your success rate is probably close to zero with objective people who've seen the evidence. Of course there will always be people who go into cognitive dissonance....
http://www.learningandteaching.info/learning/dissonance.htm

...which means they believe one thing and say another. People like that have to wake up in stages. At least their seeing the evidence starts the process.

Of course any seventh grader could argue the points I argue; it's just a question of having an interest in the subject. Also, debating with professional sophists is kind of a hobby with me. I actually enjoy it.


His editors would never accept the story as they work for the people with big money.

This link is from a post from a moon-hoax thread but it deals with the same issue.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4731597&postcount=1090

It's about why we can't take anything in the mainstream seriously including science journals. I'd just post all the info here but I've been told not to.
Click to expand...

Why does every other conspiracy kook that comes along, always think they are the first one to come alone with this crap, and they will be the one that converts everyone with irrefutable proof? Oh if i only had a nickel for everytime i've seen this...

And it's so comical too... like noone has ever heard of 9/11 conspiracy or the moon landing conspiracies, LOL. Like everyone is just sitting around waiting for you to come along with such solid evidence that you will convert and save the world because by instantly convincing anyone who sees it!!! yadda yadda yadda (snicker) Any 7th grader could argue it even!!! blah blah blah... (snicker)

Do you know how many times i've seen this type of sales pitch... You seriously sound like bad 4am infommercial... LOL

Meanwhile back in reality, 9/11 traitors have been around for 10 years now and the Moonbats for 40, we've all heard. Most people know about these delusions and they have been debunked to death and most of the claims are so ridiculous that they require no debunking. Most people easily see through the dishonesty, the juvenile tactics and the arrogant performances. Most people aren't so gullible that they instantly believe any crap that anyone spews on the internet as you have. That's why noone believes you. It is you that has long ago "lost" in your imaginary futile little war against reality.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom