What's your theory about 9/11?

The difference between JFK and 9/11 is that 9/11 was advanced weaponry, and JFK was killed with a bullet shot from a gun. With 9/11, you have to explain to people that new technology was used. Nothing about an airplane crash is sufficient to turn steel buildings into powder. Nothing about bombs of any type can turn steel buildings into powder at low enough temperatures that the nearby people survived without burns. Airplanes are not advanced technology. Bombs are not advanced technology. The fact that most of you people are confused about what happened on 9/11 is because you are stuck trying to explain the events of the day with technology you already know of. Wrong. It's advanced weaponry, not some combination of bombs + planes. JFK was killed by a bullet shot from a gun. We already had words for "bullet" and "gun" in the 1960's, so it wasn't difficult to explain what happened. Today, in 2013, there is no commonly acceptable word or phrase for "turn steel into powdered steel quickly and at low temperature", but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
 
Hi WTC Dust,

I do not know how and why the WTC was destroyed.

But I just read a message from 1987, that it will happen in 2001.
14 years befor ! This could be the time, where the "screenplay" was made.

It is a message in icons, and they are :

fog bomb, cowboy dead, the press (magazins, TV), burning WTC.

I think, that the cowboys in this case are the honest US-citizens, who are upright.

That's what I found, and I do not know what it means, but is amazing.

Regards Hans
 
Hans Peper said:
Hi there

Some people say, that Stanley Kubrick placed his 2001 monolithe in the background of "Full Metal Jacket" scene, where cowboy is put to death.
There is in an object burning looking like the monolithe.

They are looking for a connection between 2001 Space Odyssey and Full Metal Jacket.

My profession is to find hidden messages in paintings, and just for fun, I had a look at the film, to find more about the message of Stanley Kubrick, thinking that a film is nothing else than a summit of paintings. So I found, that Kubrick used the same rules as the painters did.

So I found in the final scene of the film, what kind of burning monolithes Kubrick is talking about. It is the WTC !

We have to understand the connection to the 2001 movie as a hint to the year 2001. Its a hint to a date, where the monolithes will burn and "die"

If Kubrick was involved in the moon landing fake, it could be, that he wrote the screenplay of 9/11, because pictures are needed, which drill directly into the heart of man.

..
Click to expand...

Your "job" is to find hidden messages in paintings? What sort of job is that? Is the scientific training involved offered at Oxford?

Also, hijacked airplanes destroyed the buildings. Duh...

Also, you'll find that "some people say" is not going to fly around these parts...
 
Last edited:
Hans Peper said:
I never thought, that a regisseur of a film use the same tricks, as the old master painters. But I think he did.
Click to expand...

If you were wrong, how would you know?

It's an important question that skeptics always ask themselves to make sure their ideas have substance and aren't just fantasy.
 
Hans Peper said:
A film is a chain of paintings, and he has new tools like camera move and cutting the film.

At last he has the voices of the actors.
An example :

In the final scene of FMJ (Full metal jacket) the GI's are marching home out of the burning Hue. In the background are burning ruined houses. At that moment, two houses which are not burning scroll from the left into the background. Private Joker is marching in the forground and in that moment, where the two houses are looking like the WTC and are placed directly behind him, Joker said:

"My thoughts drift back to errect-nippel wet dreams..." (he is from Manhatten Island):D
Click to expand...

Let's say you're correct, and the director intended to refer to the world trade center. What, if anything, does this imply?
 
aggle-rithm said:
Let's say you're correct, and the director intended to refer to the world trade center. What, if anything, does this imply?
Click to expand...

That is the reason for me to come to this forum. I want to know, if other facts, you maybe know, make it harder. It is amazing, that the plan of the WTC attack is maybe older than 1987.
I can imagine, that "they" asked him for a screenplay which touches the subconscious. And the pics of the burning WTC did it perfectly.
I am from the "architekture" genre and I use this iconologic way to check paintings in churches and castles for hints to hidden rooms and underground vaults. It is an often used mode to store informations about that building, in which the painting is hanging.

So "conspiracy theorys" are not my playground. I hoped, that I can get facts from this forum. But until now, there was no substance in the replys.

Regards Hans
 
Just so we're clear, Hans...you think Stanley Kubrick scripted the events of 9/11 many years ago and placed hints in both the films 2001 and FMJ?
 
Hans Peper said:
That is the reason for me to come to this forum. I want to know, if other facts, you maybe know, make it harder. It is amazing, that the plan of the WTC attack is maybe older than 1987.
I can imagine, that "they" asked him for a screenplay which touches the subconscious. And the pics of the burning WTC did it perfectly.
I am from the "architekture" genre and I use this iconologic way to check paintings in churches and castles for hints to hidden rooms and underground vaults. It is an often used mode to store informations about that building, in which the painting is hanging.

So "conspiracy theorys" are not my playground. I hoped, that I can get facts from this forum. But until now, there was no substance in the replys.

Regards Hans
Click to expand...


You will not find facts ahead of time from movies. Kubrik had no idea about the future of the trade towers. There is no reason to think so.

You will go nowhere without defining your terms.

Who are "they"?
What is your "profession"?
Why can't it be taught in universities?
Why do you claim your playground is not conspiracy theories while proposing that "they" asked Kubric to "touch the subconscious" about the future destruction of buildings?
 
Sabretooth said:
Just so we're clear, Hans...you think Stanley Kubrick scripted the events of 9/11 many years ago and placed hints in both the films 2001 and FMJ?
Click to expand...

I do not think, that he has the idea of 9/11 at that time, when he made 2001.
In that time he had enough to do with the moon landing fake.

But he did such a good job, that they maybe asked him years very later on.
So he used 2001 as a basement of his messages in FMJ.

Look at the final scene, seconds befor the end of the movie, when the WTC is first visible, and Joker walks in front of it, Kubrick makes a cut and the moving camera change to a fix position. The GI's are marching and the background is not visible, because of dust. But only the twin towers can slightly be seen in the dust at the right side of the background. They are like a shadow in the dust until the movie ends.

regards Hans (the horses are waiting, sorry)
 
@ Maurice :

Who are "they"?-----I really do not know.
What is your "profession"?----Iconology
Why can't it be taught in universities?---Read it by Panofsky, he gave the answer. If you cant find it, I give you the answer.
Why do you claim your playground is not conspiracy theories while proposing that "they" asked Kubric to "touch the subconscious" about the future destruction of buildings?
---- I found a message, and I found it amazing.
 
Last edited:
Hans Peper said:
Hi WTC Dust,

I do not know how and why the WTC was destroyed.

But I just read a message from 1987, that it will happen in 2001.
14 years befor ! This could be the time, where the "screenplay" was made.

It is a message in icons, and they are :

fog bomb, cowboy dead, the press (magazins, TV), burning WTC.

I think, that the cowboys in this case are the honest US-citizens, who are upright.

That's what I found, and I do not know what it means, but is amazing.

Regards Hans
Click to expand...

In an age of terrorism, the WTC was a natural target. That creative people were imagining the possibility doesn't say much. Even non-creative people were imagining that the WTC could be attacked.

The key point is that these people did NOT imagine that the WTC would be turned into steel powder at low temperature with advanced weaponry. All they were imagining was a normal attack.
 
Supertramp (the band) were also involved

Linky

Notice how the 'UP' of SUPERTRAMP, reversed, makes an excellent 9 11 right above the Twin Towers. Were they connected to Arthur C Clark?

Man, I used to love that album, but now I know they were just NWO lackeys out to mess with our minds.
 
Perhaps Hans Peper would be kind enough to start a thread about how "they" are in cahoots with Stanley Kubrik so we can shred the arguments apart while remaining on topic?
 
Maurice Ledifficile said:
Perhaps Hans Peper would be kind enough to start a thread about how "they" are in cahoots with Stanley Kubrik so we can shred the arguments apart while remaining on topic?
Click to expand...

He's off track anyway. The real clue to how the towers were destroyed is in the Moonstruck movie poster:

picture.php
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom