The Core of Corruption, the one video that will shatter your beliefs about 9/11

[Tri-ring]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Flying an airplane is much easier than driving a car. At least in terms of the actual flying of the thing (if you can handle the up and down part). Turning is something you feel in your body as you do it. You don't turn hard in a small aircraft anyway (turning hard gives you a 2+g turn at 45+ degrees and you can feel it in your face). Turning a larger 757 takes about the same amount of turn on the controls to turn like a Cessna. The turn will not be as tight, but as mentioned, you have 20 miles to correct your course, plus how ever long it is from when you took over the plane to your destination to get a feel for the aircraft...and that doesn't take very long. (They also had to get the aircraft down from altitude if I recall correctly...I don't recall them being in control of the aircraft from takeoff, but took over after the planes were in the air on their way to cruising altitude).

None of these civilian craft are high preformance aircraft. You don't turn them like you do a car, nor do they turn like a jet fighter...they handle in a lazy way like one is out for a country drive on a gradually curving road. You turn the control about 30 degrees, wait until the plane is roughly 30 degrees as indicated on you turn indicator, level out the control, maybe pull back a little so you don't loose altitude. When you near your desired heading, turn the control 30 degrees the other way until you are flying level again and turn the controls back to level. If you want to target a location, look out the window until it is right in front of you. Correct as needed. You can see even farther the higher up you are, so you might even have as much as a 30 mile lead before you hit the target....if the target is large enough to see at that distance....and the World Trade Center Towers, has tall as they were, stood out...the Pentagon is a large uniquely shaped building that can also be seen at quite a distance from the air.

A seven year old can do that.

The reason flying an airplane is easier than driving a car is because aside from the ground, you don't have anything to run into most of the time in an airplane. With a car you are constantly having to stay in your lane of the road...not hitting other cars. Stopping when needed, and so on. In the air, you get to your altitude and at that point you basically can fly witout much worry. Keep a eye out for other airplanes and weather. Keep an eye on your map in case of restricted flight zones if there are any in your area, and more or less follow your flight plan. It was harder to learn how to drive than to fly. The hard part of flying is the techinal stuff (radio and navigation) and landing. Unless you have trouble with up and down movement...then you will have another sort of trouble.

Do I have a pilots license? No. Why? Because it is expensive to fly and I don't have the money, nor do I really have a place I would need to fly to often. My father has a license. He is a flight instructor. Before 9/11 we flew to by grandparents twice a year on holidays to avoid the traffic on Interstate 5 and Highway 101. Also it was a two hour flight as oppose to a seven hour drive. We did that since I was a year old. He doesn't fly much now because it got more expessive, and he didn't approve of the Federal Goverment's stance of civil aviation after 9/11 (the whole shooting you down thing). But mostly because it was expensive...it drove away flight students.


(Too much rant on my part is likely...apologies if this is too much)

It doesn't matter if it is easy or not I agree that you would probable be able to fly the plane but that is not the point. The point is to perform a certain task with no prior knowledge of the handling characteristics that is the problem.
In a vacant lot anyone who has a driving license would probably be able to drive any car but if they had no prior knowledge they would not be able to preform a task like driving in a predetermined course at a certain speed or stop at a predetermined point decelerating from a certain speed from a certain distance.
A range of 20 miles to adjust may sound simple but in actuality you only have about 2~5 mile to adjust since you are flying only through visual confirmation since there are no radar guidance. During that time in low altitude you are constantly needed to adjust against various factors like cross wind and air pressure. You may be able to fly it but that is not the point, the point is could you successfully reach the target and smash it during a turn.
I drove enough cars to say that in a similar situation I would say no not on my first try and faster the speed the more difficult it gets to trace a predetermined course and it gets more difficult still without a guide line.

[synaesthetic]

You do know the 9/11 hijackers had some flight training, right? More than they needed in order to do what they did.

[Ithekro]

I did a little checking. The four guys that flew those planes were not new to jumbo jets. The least experianced of them was the one that almost missed the towers (the one that hit in that turn). The most experiances was the one that never made it to the target due to passager interference. All four pilots had at least a year or more of training plus simulator time on large jumbo jets. So these were not new controls for them at all.

[Tri-ring]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

I did a little checking. The four guys that flew those planes were not new to jumbo jets. The least experianced of them was the one that almost missed the towers (the one that hit in that turn). The most experiances was the one that never made it to the target due to passager interference. All four pilots had at least a year or more of training plus simulator time on large jumbo jets. So these were not new controls for them at all.

Well within "Loose Change" vid it claims that BBC reports that the hijackers are alive.
So which information do you believe?

[Roger Rambo]

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

Well within "Loose Change" vid it claims that BBC reports that the hijackers are alive.
So which information do you believe?

I'd be much more interested in those ACTUAL news stories themselves, then what Loose change claims was said in those articles. I'd also be interested in any follow up on those stories.

[Tri-ring]

Originally Posted by Roger Rambo

I'd be much more interested in those ACTUAL news stories themselves, then what Loose change claims was said in those articles. I'd also be interested in any follow up on those stories.

Well I really haven't heard of any reputable source refute this claim including BBC since it was their name used.
If anything they should have filed a suit for slander or false claim under their name that would certainly mar their reputation.

= Edit =
I sometime find it interesting to hear some Americans completely in defense about this case as if they are in denial of any possibility that may damage the integrity of their country.
If corporations can be classified as psychopaths then people should at least accept the possibility that nations can also act as socialpaths. Right now the teabagger GOP are resisting the Oval office just to make spite even if it causes a global economic panic due to their irresponsible actions.

[Ithekro]

The BBC reports, from my understanding, was from data of the peoples names only just after the attack, and before the FBI released photos of the hijackers. The BBC identified that they were wrong after the actual identies were released.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditor..._theory_1.html

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

Well I really haven't heard of any reputable source refute this claim including BBC since it was their name used.
If anything they should have filed a suit for slander or false claim under their name that would certainly mar their reputation.

= Edit =
I sometime find it interesting to hear some Americans completely in defense about this case as if they are in denial of any possibility that may damage the integrity of their country.
If corporations can be classified as psychopaths then people should at least accept the possibility that nations can also act as socialpaths. Right now the teabagger GOP are resisting the Oval office just to make spite even if it causes a global economic panic due to their irresponsible actions.

We're interested in FACTS... not brainstorming speculation with assertions pulled out of thin air by people not knowledgeable about the topics involved.

Why should the BBC waste its time and money with stuff that has the credibility of the World Weekly News?

Personally, I think Bush always planned to move into Iraq and simply used the 9/11 as the opportunity he needed by falsely conflating Saddam with the Al Qaeda / Taliban. He refocused from Afghanistan to Iraq as fast as possible, conjured false reports of "mass destruction weapons". Meanwhile Cheney was already dividing Iraq up with his oil buddies and the Saudi's (close friends of the Bush family) stood to gain in profit and in that the US could now base in Iraq and cool the heat they got from their own internal criticism of having US bases.

I don't need to wear a tinfoil hat for that because its all been fairly well documented. Bush was a very successful president for HIS constituency, which was exclusively his small circle of very wealthy family and friends. The US as a country.. and Iraq paid horrible prices for this little game. There was corruption, but the sort of stuff this video puffs up just adds murkiness and clouds of diversion. People start thinking all the "information" is all crackpot nonsense and miss the real trick.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by Vexx

We're interested in FACTS... not brainstorming speculation with assertions pulled out of thin air by people not knowledgeable about the topics involved.

Why should the BBC waste its time and money with stuff that has the credibility of the World Weekly News?

Personally, I think Bush always planned to move into Iraq and simply used the 9/11 as the opportunity he needed by falsely conflating Saddam with the Al Qaeda / Taliban. He refocused from Afghanistan to Iraq as fast as possible, conjured false reports of "mass destruction weapons". Meanwhile Cheney was already dividing Iraq up with his oil buddies and the Saudi's (close friends of the Bush family) stood to gain in profit and in that the US could now base in Iraq and cool the heat they got from their own internal criticism of having US bases.

I don't need to wear a tinfoil hat for that because its all been fairly well documented. Bush was a very successful president for HIS constituency, which was exclusively his small circle of very wealthy family and friends. The US as a country.. and Iraq paid horrible prices for this little game. There was corruption, but the sort of stuff this video puffs up just adds murkiness and clouds of diversion. People start thinking all the "information" is all crackpot nonsense and miss the real trick.

Quite right, there was a conspiracy of sorts, sure. But it was ultimately quite small. I don't see why people pay so much attention to 9/11, but pretty much nothing to the buildup to the invasion of Iraq. In fact, 9/11 was not used as a justification then, only after the invasion was begun. The major impetus was WMDs, which of course, were never there. And the remarkeable thing was that within the US no major political figures opposed the prognosis of WMDs being there, while outside the US there was a lot of contreversy (with most of the US's traditional allies not following them).

The 9/11 incident occured 10 years ago, and in that time no one that could have been directly involved has come out and debunked it as a conspiracy. Everything else that has the semblance of a conspiracy (and is recognised as such) has had the whistle blown on it, or otherwise publicly shown to be false.

If the Bush Administration(and friends) couldn't properly cover up the fact they couldn't find WMDs in Iraq, how have they covered up something as big and inflammatory as a 9/11 conspiracy?

And besides, what's so extraodinary about a bunch of disgruntled radicalised muslims getting together, hijacking planes and flying them into buildings? We're not talking something super complicated here. Hijacking planes is nothing new, and it's not much of a stretch to talk about flying em into a building.

[Ithekro]

I would point out that reports of WMD in Iraq have been there since the Clinton administration, and they had wanted to go in at that time, but couldn't for whatever reason. By 2003, the general public was overall just sick of hearing about Saddam and what was considered his ability to cover up and ignore the West...so when the greenlight to invade was given...people more or less said "finally we can end what was started in 1991".

[Tri-ring]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

The BBC reports, from my understanding, was from data of the peoples names only just after the attack, and before the FBI released photos of the hijackers. The BBC identified that they were wrong after the actual identies were released.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditor..._theory_1.html

According the link they have not refuted their original story only to state that the names. They only confirm;

The confusion over names and identities we reported back in 2001 may have arisen because these were common Arabic and Islamic names.

I do not believe BBC nor FBI did any further investigation concerning this story and the names and photo of the hijack suspects still stands.

Here is the link to the original story.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1559151.stm

Saudi Arabian pilot Waleed Al Shehri was one of five men that the FBI said had deliberately crashed American Airlines flight 11 into the World Trade Centre on 11 September.

His photograph was released, and has since appeared in newspapers and on television around the world.

He told journalists there that he had nothing to do with the attacks on New York and Washington, and had been in Morocco when they happened. He has contacted both the Saudi and American authorities, according to Saudi press reports.

He acknowledges that he attended flight training school at Daytona Beach in the United States, and is indeed the same Waleed Al Shehri to whom the FBI has been referring.

But, he says, he left the United States in September last year, became a pilot with Saudi Arabian airlines and is currently on a further training course in Morocco.

Since the FBI had released the photo with name not BBC and that person stepped out stating the above, casts shadow of doubt to the accuracy to the information that FBI announced not BBC.

[Ithekro]

Try this instead, as it will have links to just about all the sources and arguments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijacke...ber_11_attacks


Course I don't know why I care...since my concern was about facts about how airplanes handle.

[GundamFan0083]

Okay Sugetsu, I watched the whole thing.

Am I'm glad I did.
I didn't know about Building 7, nor the "Lone Gunman Episode," nor the whole affair with Dr. Graham.

That evidence clearly shows that 9/11, was at one level or another, an inside job.
I think the "Lone Gunman" episode gives the best plausible theory that a conspiracy hatched by the military industrial complex (aka the Continuity of Government) had a hand in 9/11.

They really are the only ones who've gained from the "War on Terror."
The unnecessary wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, and the huge police-state apparatus that has now been set up in the US all feed the corporatist beast that is the military industrial complex of the USA.

Guess I better stop dissing Alex Jones.
Maybe he really does know what he's talking about.

Anybody know which is the best film of his to start off with?

[Sugetsu]

Glad you finally finished watching it

I hope that other members here soon follow suit.

As for me, what really convinced me that something was amiss were two things:

1: The numerous reports from many news sources and witnesses about the explosions coming from the baseman levels of the towers as well as from the subway system. Strangely enough all those reports were never heard from again.

2. The way the towers collapsed, specially building 7. The official report stipulates that the 3 buildings collapsed due to fires, but they all fell down on their own foot print at near free fall speed as in a controlled demolition. They were also the only 3 high rise buildings in the world to collapse due to fires.


The detailed reports on able danger, and of course, the Lone Gunman episode were also very persuasive.


I don't think you should believe everything Alex Jones says though. The guy truly believes that there are evil people, he believes in black and white reality. Of course it doesn't mean that there isn't some truth to some of the things he talks about.

If you are interesting in something credible from him then I suggest the following report. It catapulted him to national fame after he successfully infiltrated a Bohemian Grove gathering.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Sugetsu

Glad you finally finished watching it

It took some time but I finally got a free night to do so.

1: The numerous reports from many news sources and witnesses about the explosions coming from the baseman levels of the towers as well as from the subway system. Strangely enough all those reports were never heard from again.

2. The way the towers collapsed, specially building 7. The official report stipulates that the 3 buildings collapsed due to fires, but they all fell down on their own foot print at near free fall speed as in a controlled demolition. They were also the only 3 high rise buildings in the world to collapse due to fires.

I agree also.
The footage of building 7 coming down, where it was located, and how it had so little damage, yet came down like the 2 main towers just doesn't add up.
Something is amiss.

I don't think you should believe everything Alex Jones says though. The guy truly believes that there are evil people, he believes in black and white reality. Of course it doesn't mean that there isn't some truth to some of the things he talks about.

See that's why I've stayed clear of him.
I'm not the type to view things in black and white terms, I know there is always a gray area.
Even when I'm ranting about socialism.
It isn't that socialism is a bad idea on paper, it's that is fails in practice.
Thus, the idea is good, but the execution never pans out the way it is intended to.

If you are interesting in something credible from him then I suggest the following report. It catapulted him to national fame after he successfully infiltrated a Bohemian Grove gathering.

Is that for real?
Because if it is there are some pretty damn sickos in positions of power they ought not to be in.
The Cremation of Care ritual is straight out of Aleister Crowley's writings (not sure if it was one of the Libri or Majick, been too long since I read those).
That's not a good/positive energy ritual.
It's intended to allow the participants to become cold-hearted and thus unmoved by emotions for their fellow man.
That's the last kind of ritual our politicians should be partaking of, assuming this video is true.

[Sugetsu]

The video went viral years ago. I do not have absolute proof that it is real. I have looked into it myself and I can't confirm nor deny its authenticity. But I wouldn't be surprised if it were true, because from an spiritual point of view people who rise to position of high power must also posses very big egos. A big ego acts as a strong shell which completely blocks all outside feedback from the environment and the individual ends up disconnected from reality. If you want power in this society you must play dirty when you have to in order to ascend.


Anyway, back on topic, the documentary mentions nano-thermite explosives being found in the world trade center dust 2 years ago, around 2009. The microscopic explosive is able to melt or pulverize steel as well as any other hard materials. Nano thermite leaves very fine dust as a byproduct.

The following three videos, with a combined time of 26 minutes, are from a Danish scientist called Niels Harrit whom, along with 8 other scientist, have worked for over 2 years in a forensic study of 911. Needless to say the guy is utterly convinced, thanks to his scientific evidence, that high-tech nano-explosives were used in order to bring down all 3 buildings. The first video is good enough intro if you don't have time.

Here is the PDF of the full 25 page report published by the Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2, 7-31

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/t...001/7TOCPJ.SGM

[Kamui4356]

This tower 7 thing is bullshit. http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Not heavily damaged? Are you actually looking at pictures of the thing? It had significant damage to the south wall and more importantly structural supports in said wall. Further it had a fire raging for hours. There's nothing mysterious about it at all, and the idea of a controlled demolition is beyond ludicrous. You cannot simply do that without people noticing. Controlled demolitions take WEEKS of set up and require the buildings to be completely stripped inside to access the structural supports. It is a huge, involved task, far too large to secretly do while the building is occupied. Of course I've been over this before in the old 9-11 tread Sugetsu.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

This tower 7 thing is bullshit. http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Not heavily damaged? Are you actually looking at pictures of the thing? It had significant damage to the south wall and more importantly structural supports in said wall. Further it had a fire raging for hours. There's nothing mysterious about it at all, and the idea of a controlled demolition is beyond ludicrous. You cannot simply do that without people noticing. Controlled demolitions take WEEKS of set up and require the buildings to be completely stripped inside to access the structural supports. It is a huge, involved task, far too large to secretly do while the building is occupied. Of course I've been over this before in the old 9-11 tread Sugetsu.

Not according to the NYC firefighters.

http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?page_id=158

You'll have to forgive me for believing the people who were actually in the buildings over individuals who are accepting the Bush Administration's explanation.
I don't have much faith in a President or any commission he set up to investigate an event that gave him the "moral high ground" to lie about Iraqi WMDs and go to war with the middle east.
Considering the sheer volume of money that the Bush family and all involved in the financial end of the "War on Terror" have made, it is entirely plausible that the 9/11 event was sanctioned and/or orchestrated by rogue elements of the US government and their financial backers.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Sugetsu

The video went viral years ago. I do not have absolute proof that it is real. I have looked into it myself and I can't confirm nor deny its authenticity. But I wouldn't be surprised if it were true, because from an spiritual point of view people who rise to position of high power must also posses very big egos. A big ego acts as a strong shell which completely blocks all outside feedback from the environment and the individual ends up disconnected from reality. If you want power in this society you must play dirty when you have to in order to ascend.

Agreed.
Considering what Thelemism teachs (the power of the will), it is troubling that our politicians are engaging in these activities.
Thank you for showing me that Alex Jones video.
I've found his website.
http://www.infowars.com

I'll have to start listening to this guy to see if he's on target or off the charts crazy.
It's my understanding he's quite popular.

Anyway, back on topic, the documentary mentions nano-thermite explosives being found in the world trade center dust 2 years ago, around 2009. The microscopic explosive is able to melt or pulverize steel as well as any other hard materials. Nano thermite leaves very fine dust as a byproduct.

The following three videos, with a combined time of 26 minutes, are from a Danish scientist called Niels Harrit whom, along with 8 other scientist, have worked for over 2 years in a forensic study of 911. Needless to say the guy is utterly convinced, thanks to his scientific evidence, that high-tech nano-explosives were used in order to bring down all 3 buildings. The first video is good enough intro if you don't have time.

Here is the PDF of the full 25 page report published by the Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, 2, 7-31

http://www.benthamscience.com/open/t...001/7TOCPJ.SGM

Thank you again Sugetsu.
I'll watch them when I get the chance and tell you what I think.
I certainly looking at 9/11 with new eyes.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Not according to the NYC firefighters.

http://firefightersfor911truth.org/?page_id=158

You'll have to forgive me for believing the people who were actually in the buildings over individuals who are accepting the Bush Administration's explanation.

If you read the link I posted you'll notice it quotes firefighters involved as well. You'll further note that the firefighters in that video you posted did not say it was a controlled demolition but where comparing the collapse to one. The "no smoke or fire problems" statement in it for example was made several floors below where the fire was, and the isolated two pockets of fire was also made before they reached the main fire. The comments were taken out of context and twisted to support that nuttery.

I don't have much faith in a President or any commission he set up to investigate an event that gave him the "moral high ground" to lie about Iraqi WMDs and go to war with the middle east.
Considering the sheer volume of money that the Bush family and all involved in the financial end of the "War on Terror" have made, it is entirely plausible that the 9/11 event was sanctioned and/or orchestrated by rogue elements of the US government and their financial backers.

Except that it didn't do any of that. You said yourself there that he had to resort to lies about WMDs to get his invasion of Iraq. He could have done that 9-11 or no 9-11. Lies that Saddam was trying to spread himself as well mind you, making it easier for the Bush administration to make a case. He was playing a dangerous game of trying to show the west just enough evidence that he didn't have WMDs while at the same time leaving enough doubt that he could use threats as a deterrent against Iran. Cheney mentioned repeatedly he believed Iraq was behind 9-11 a few times, but Bush himself while initially supportive of the idea, backed off that position rather quickly and subsequently denied any connection.