| Author | Message | ||
    Hugo Member Post Number: 221 Registered: 04-2015 |
Matthew, do you have an logical explanation for WTC 7 and Pentagon? The P's and Billy won't comment on them. Is that because those two were inside jobs? Is that the logical answer there? | ||
Kiwilove Member Post Number: 182 Registered: 02-2005 |
Here's a recap of why 757s were not involved - if you deny the poor video evidence of planes disappearing into a hard target or of video footage which simply show a plane in the air - then the explosion - but not the impact (an editing trick movies often use because they don't have the budget to include the dramatic shot). Experienced airline pilots of 757s say they could not have done what these amateur pilots achieved. There was not the expected wreckage of shorn off wings and engines ending up outside the buildings. You don't have eye witnesses saying - I see the plane! I see the plane! And confirming it did hit the building. When you have not just one perfect strike - but two on the same day - what you don't have, are amateurs at work, but military precision involved. It defies real world physics and that of chance/luck/etc. Your common sense should have said plainly that 757s could not have been used at all. (At that low attitude the planes would have been extremely difficult to control - and for some amateur to have done a perfect hit on a target building - is impossible to comprehend - but wait, there was another!) I think Judy Wood's explanation is more credible - that new physics were at work. Although crazy mad terrorists were not involved with 9-11 but professionals - I think the crazy terrorists would have rejoiced at being credited with 9-11 because it helped their cause enormously. The reason why 9-11 was created - has been achieved - to get the public to fear foreigners and let the majority of people be fearful of a very small terrorist group who were small and disorganised - who now become ever larger and more determined to get on with their life mission. But the truth about them is never public aired and discussed - how they are completely mad or 'programmed' to be that way. Even if you go with the planes and/or explosives being used - there is someone who is funding all of this - some shady person or persons or such organisations - and that is more frightening than those individuals who carry it out. Harvey | ||
Matthew Member Post Number: 133 Registered: 03-2011 |
From Microsoft Flight Simulator 2000 including over New York and the Twin Towers around 3:37: https://youtu.be/OnhtdwlXf78 Flight simulator software was available in 1998 and had flight paths over New York and the Twin Towers as is shown in this video around 8:40: https://youtu.be/5VzUY4_gwns Matthew | ||
Matthew Member Post Number: 134 Registered: 03-2011 |
Kiwilove - They weren't 757s... they were 767s. Planes do atomise upon impact into hard surfaces at speed as this test shows: https://youtu.be/q5DcL8pJZs0 Please try to research things before asserting them. Hugo - Two possibilities. The burning debris from the twin towers fell upon and brought building 7 down, or, the building was "pulled" due to the security nightmare due to it catching on fire and having to be evacuated. The pentagon was hit by a plane. There's lots of eyewitness reports that attest to that and photos that conclusively prove this to be true. Matthew | ||
Hugo Member Post Number: 224 Registered: 04-2015 |
Matthew, those two possibilities do not add up if you look into it further. I'm not going to say why because it has been addressed several times in the archives. | ||
Matthew Member Post Number: 135 Registered: 03-2011 |
Hugo, Let the archives show that things on fire can cause other fires to start if they fall on them and that photos of a jet heading towards the pentagon near the ground on 9/11 suggest that a jet was heading towards the pentagon near the ground on 9/11 as do independent witnesses support. Also, don't know if you noticed, but, I just added to the archive so no need to be clinging onto it so desperately as it can change as can 9/11 dogma. Matthew | ||
Hugo Member Post Number: 225 Registered: 04-2015 |
Matthew, WTC7 building collapsed in complete simultaneous controlled demolition fashion. Fire does not do that. There was no large plane that flew into the Pentagon. The hole was too small and there was no evidence of that plane wreckage there. Just some airplane wheels and junk that belonged to a much smaller plane. Perhaps that junk was planted there straight after or it was a small plane or drone that stuck it. I tend to think it was missile or bomb. Either way there was no evidence of that large passenger plane hitting the Pentagon. The damage done to the Pentagon does not match the plane that should have hit it. | ||
Kiwilove Member Post Number: 183 Registered: 02-2005 |
The conclusive proof that planes were not used is the video evidence of a plane disappearing into the building. The public needed a shot of this to be convincing (instead of plane appearing to hit the building - but not shown in the same frame). A plane cannot disappear into a building - exactly like that in real life, with real physics - and only via computer graphics effects is this ever possible. And it was done so very poorly - that anyone with a basic knowledge of SFX knows what it really is. There is an elephant in the room - and this is it. Large jet planes were not used - because the 3 impacts were too precision guided and too clean on impact - the damage would have been far more extensive and spread over a large area. Those people who spent years of their life - to collate the evidence and present it simply and clearly - show the details that tell an altogether different story of what really happened. Survivors at the scene and the emergency people present tell their own story - in which a large plane crash, is not part of their story at all. Nor the aftermath of a plane crash/strike. where are all the plane parts that are missing? Seats, fuselage, etc and passengers' luggage - you cannot have 3 crashes which are atomised completely which is so unlike any other aircrash scene. The odds are against it - chance like this does not happen 3 times by hijackers using large jetliners. | ||
Matthew Member Post Number: 136 Registered: 03-2011 |
Hugo, Well, your credibility just went out the window, or, is your assertion that there is "no evidence" just a hologram too? On your following statements... "WTC7 building collapsed in complete simultaneous controlled demolition fashion. Fire does not do that." Yes, they do: Kader Toy Factory in Singapore in 1997, The Dogwood Elementary School in Virginia in 2000, Mumbai High North Platrform in 2005, Windsor Building in Madrid in 2005. Why are they putting concrete cores in the new WT7 building and Freedom Tower? Is it because steel can melt with extreme heat and collapse causing a pancaking of floors which sound and look like controlled demolitions. "There was no large plane that flew into the Pentagon." http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5659/debunking-911-myths-pentagon/ "The hole was too small..." http://http://911review.com/articles/stjarna/eximpactdamage.html "...and there was no evidence of that plane wreckage there." http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm "Either way there was no evidence of that large passenger plane hitting the Pentagon." https://youtu.be/0f6t4dMtc00  The 9/11 conspiracy dogma goes to prove that the Plejaren were right about controversy being the most effective way to get people interested in something. Matthew | ||
Hugo Member Post Number: 228 Registered: 04-2015 |
Matthew, we have to agree to respectfully disagree. | ||
Michael_horn Member Post Number: 1176 Registered: 07-2009 |
I know that people may think I'm gullible because I'm still going with Meier's 1989 statement about commercial airliners being used to destroy the WTC...as well as my having turned the TV on just in time to see the second plane hit the building. Of course that was just a..."hologram" that they used - in broad daylight! - along with the perfectly timed explosion, etc. Please show us where we can see just ONE example of a hologram being used, let alone in broad daylight, ad in connection with an event of such magnitude...and so many eyewitnesses. | ||
Scott Moderator Post Number: 2630 Registered: 12-1999 |
Matthew, Without going to far off track, I looked up the fires which you mentioned in regards to the collapse of WTC 7. From what info I could find, those fires were extreme in nature and don't appear to support your assertion this was the reason for the collapse of WTC 7. I think at this time in history, information on the internet could be compromised which doesn't allow anyone (myself included) a complete analysis leading to an honest conclusion. imo | ||
Matthew Member Post Number: 136 Registered: 03-2011 |
Scott/Hugo - We are going to have to agree to disagree. I have now shown evidence of means (pilots using flight simulators), we know the motive (attack the US) and we know they had the opportunity (flight and passenger records). The main thrust of the truther argument is that 9/11 was used as a false flag to start a war in Iraq. This argument is so flawed: 1/ If they wanted to invade Iraq, why use 15 (out of 19) Saudi terrorists, as that link to Iraq was tenuous back then and still is today. 2/ Britain (Tony Blair) only needed the lie that "Saddam has WMDs" as the precursor for the invasion and mass killing of Iraqis. 7/7 was never cited as the reason that Britian got involved in Iraq. Therefore, the US did not need 9/11 to start the war with Iraq. 3/ When have the US ever need solid evidence for any of its wars? Think Vietnam (no attack) Libya (no attack). If the US wants war, they have many deceitful ways to do that, as history shows. They certainly would not destroy their own buildings to achieve that as that would be seen as stupid by the elite. Personally, I think US citizens just cannot get over the fact that they are not invulnerable. I mean, are you over Vietnam yet? Egos just cannot handle it. Also, people assume naively that terrorists could not plan something so well and execute that plan so effectively. That would be a dangerous assumption. Ego is also a factor in the idea that the US government needs the support of the people to do anything... they really don't and have shown that many times in history. All they need to do is wind up the propaganda machine and have you all hating Iraq in months. It's much cheaper and there's less mess - which is probably why they used the attack as a tenuous precursor, as it saved them propaganda money. Matthew | ||
Michael_k Member Post Number: 14 Registered: 02-2016 |
As Dimitri Khalezov also confirm in his presentation what Billy said that the government was not involved in the 911 conspiracy with the explanation that only two FBI agents knew something but did not took it serious about the outcome of the terror attack. Real physics verses FX/CGI physics Conclusive Evidence the 9/11 Planes were NOT REAL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUoqwUVOxHE Real physics AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHT 77. (Pentagon Crash)????? AMERICAN AIRLINES FLIGHT 77. (Pentagon Crash)????? El Al Flight 1862 Flight 1862, a Boeing 747-200F, crashed into a 12-story apartment block in the Amsterdam suburb of Bijlmer. What has THE BIJLMER CRASH, Amsterdam October 1992, in common with pentagon? http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/pentagon/Bijlmer/bijlmer.htm - | ||
Kiwilove Member Post Number: 184 Registered: 02-2005 |
It is very plain and simple - if the official 9-11 story is true. To stop conspiracy theories starting - all they had to do - was to collect the wreckage at these sites - and reassemble them (enough debris was present at the Pentagon crash to do) and simply show what it is/was. The same with any video footage - show the large passenger plane en route towards it's crash. But there is no video evidence released - except for the explosion/impact. With the Twin Towers - there were enough people present to verify if a large plane did crash into the Twin Towers on the second occasion. There is a clear video of the time before and during the explosion - but this clip does not show a large plane but a small ball object that is likely to have caused the explosion. The various details available concerning both 9-11 incidents don't support the official story at all, but tell of a very different story altogether. Even the EPA did not do it's job properly on this day - it should have warned everyone of the lethal toxic dust present. Anyone breathing this in - do so at their own peril. Consequently the death toll from 9-11 will be considerably greater than those who died on that day. While the US government is likely not to be directly? involved with 9-11 - why do they tell and support a story that is simply not true at all? Why was the site of the Twin Towers so quickly cleared. If 'they' did not want conspiracy theories to bloom - all they had to do was to allow independent people access to the remains - instead of keeping such things secret or off limits. To pass off bogus video footage - purported to be of the 767 (or whatever) crashing into and disappearing into a Twin Tower - is the most stupid thing of all. They dare not let that footage be shown in prime time media today - because it will be seen for what it is. Unbelievable, not convincing and shoddy computer animation. | ||
Matthew Member Post Number: 137 Registered: 03-2011 |
IMO, 9/11 gave the government the near-perfect excuse to invade Iraq, but, plans were already in place to invade Iraq, Afganistan, Syria, Libya and Iran years ago: http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/01/10/oneill.bush/ Truthers cite this plan to "prove" that the US planned 9/11 instead of thinking that 9/11 was an attack in response to that plan. The blind dogma around 9/11 is not unlike the dogma of Meier skeptics as truthers ignore the evidence. In their mind, evidence doesn't exist, or, was put there on purpose (see posts above). Truthers also demonstrate a cowardly approach to addressing the many crimes of the US government. There's been more outrage over a fictional attack on 9/11 than there has been about any of the illegal wars and invasions by the US. Maybe real acts of criminality just aren't "sexy" enough for people? Maybe 9/11 disguises a psychology of fear where there's no real interest in proving the US government has committed criminal acts against innocents and the focus on 9/11 fiction is so supported as citizens subconsciously imagine exposure and a sense of powerlessness if the government were really locked up for real crimes - a kind of unconscious acquiescing to the tyrants, who, whilst seemingly despised and castigated by 9/11 truthers, are also loved as their "daddy" is bigger, badder and more evil than your "daddy", so that the acquiescing is accepted unconsciously so that US citizens feel protected from all the retribution they feel and know people around the world would like to see. 9/11 conspiracies demonstrate a psychological weakness then IMO. Matthew | ||
Scott Moderator Post Number: 2631 Registered: 12-1999 |
Hopefully everyone has had their say on this subject. Please lets get back to FIGU related discussions Thanks | ||
Michael_horn Member Post Number: 1180 Registered: 07-2009 |
New information on the Iceman: http://theyflyblog.com/2016/07/17/otzi-gives-skeptics-ulcers-and-fits/ | ||
Kiwilove Member Post Number: 186 Registered: 02-2005 |
All the time we are being programmed to believe in this or that value - and so more often than not, we are being led down the wrong path. It is very simple as to which way to go - that which is fair - is always right. That which is unfair and unjust is always wrong. Religions do not endorse this - and more often than not lead us away from such values. Also common sense, or everyday living teaches you a lot, and you should pay attention of what you see everyday. You can see that Billy teaches values which align to one's common sense, and that of equality. | ||
Jacobus Member Post Number: 51 Registered: 07-2006 |
Referring to these delusional individuals who take enormous trouble to falsify the Meier material, I may have accidentally spotted something on the future of mankind web page. Under the "Gallery of the Week" section, where it is explained that high resolution scans where donated "by an anonymous person who recently bought them on ebay", I picked up something inconspicuous. In one of the pictures there is a clear line appearing above the beamship, as if its hanging or swinging from a string. Is this another dirty attempt to slander the authenticity of Billys photos? Who is this "anonymous" person? In order to see this line, you have to zoom in, because it is almost undetectable when viewed normally. I am just a little perplexed as to why/how this has ended up on thefutureofmankind? Does anyone share my concern? Who should be contacted? Thanks. The link to the picture: http://www.futureofmankind.co.uk/w/images/b/be/08_03_1975_Hintere%2C_Sadelegg_Schmidruti_494.jpg | ||
Borthwey Member Post Number: 256 Registered: 09-2007 |
It's really great to see these photos in high res. I don't share Jacobus's concern. Those are just scratches. They appear randomly on almost every photo. Besides, to fake these photos the model would be static, not swinging. The line would have to be completely straight and upright. If a model was swinging from a line with such a wide movement, it would display blurring, which it doesn't. And then there is also the question of how does one balance a model on the end of a line and shoot a photo at the same time, with only one arm. And without this swinging adding anything to the photo, but the opposite. Still, if someone wants to think that this is a line and thereby dismiss the case without even taking a better look, be it.  | ||
Jacobus Member Post Number: 56 Registered: 07-2006 |
Interesting what you discovered in the picture Borthwey. Now its clear to see that the scratch goes through the image of the ship. There is nothing more to say really, other than, thanks for looking deeper into it. | ||
Votan Member Post Number: 546 Registered: 12-2011 |
Has anybody hears about stem cells coming from plants. joe |
