911 Plot Uncovered!

Realality.net has broke the story. It is what we have all been dreading--government complicity in 911. I cannot believe this. And apparently, CNN is also tied into the mix, so they are on the run too. Can someone please check the channel, I don't have cable in my room.

So, who in the House of Representatives can take over as Commander in Chief (assuming that the administration does not put up a stand tonight)?

This is soooo not LBN.

But seriously, new members should be encouraged to lurk for a while before they embarrass themselves.

Boy, the mods moved fast on getting this out of LBN.

Sorry! Didn't realize you were new here. Welcome to DU!

I disagree with the conclusion that Kerry is as bad as Bush at this site, though.

NOTHING is worse than Bush and his Nazi regime.

They need to stay on the video and get off Kerry's back otherwise this may be just more blackops coverup itself.

It should probably be locked but I appreciate the link.

It is incredible video, but van it be verified?

starboard jet, the flash of light is the reflection of the sun off the jet against the building.

No qualified pilot would miss a goddamn MISSILE LAUNCHER during his pre-flight walkaround.

That's all I have to say about that.

This is just some wishing.

This is just some wishing.

The most it could do would be to blow a nice big hole in the building. An airplane fully loaded with jet fuel will do that just as well.

I have a copy of it on my computer from over a years ago and none of the crappola some claim to see is on my version.


It fake.

It's pretty funny how some people are so gullible.

Thanks for the link. It cements the ideas I've had for a very long time in my paranoid mind.

much as i DO believe in at LEAST lihop, and also in a "gross negligence" form of mihop (stupidly triggered predictable reactions),
and would not be surprised if the HAD be direct orchestration.

this is way too pathetic evidence.

first, it's an easy photoshop.
second, it could easily be sunlight reflecting, direct or off the building.
third, who the hell would PLAN on such EXACT timing as to LAUNCH a missile 1/3 second before impact.
fourth, why didn't they just DETONATE the missile. why is a launch even necessary. it's already arrived at its target.
fifth, why not use bombs already in the target? this has been suggested before, and while i don't buy that either, it's nevertheless far more plausible.


to all the conspiracy theorists, regarding bombs and missiles:

was it really that important to level the towers? wouldn't this serve as an "american reichstag" just as well if it had "merely" been 4 hijackings, many hundreds dead, and a few dozen floors ruined? think about it, due to structural damage, they probably would have had to level the towers ANYWAY. and if your conspiracy theory insists that there was evidence that needed obliterating, well then, surely the conspirators could have condemned the towers poste-haste and demolished it before any such evidence could be found.

I'm not really sure why I am writing this as I don't believe that there were bombs detonated at the WTC (although I admit it is POSSIBLE). But anyhow, if 9/11 was directly carried out by some shadow government organization, then I should think that they fully intended for the towers to collapse because of the impact it had on the psyche of the American people. Yes, hundreds dead would have been big in itself, but had the towers not collapsed it probably would not have had the air of an event that "changed everything."

Who cares about the missile on Tower 2, look at all the other evidence in the "911 Revealed" section, on the left panel.

that they failed to track down the terrorists for months while they took flight lessons but were able to come up with their pictures in less than 24 hours. How did they know for sure who the 19 hijackers were? Bullshit.

but this is total disinfo. Missiles weren't needed on WTC, as the planes themselves served that purpose.

A question that should be asked is how those buildings completely collapsed in 8 and 10 seconds, respectively. How could they collapse at near free fall speeds with all that resistance?

It seems the law of physics was ordered to stand down that day as well.

It appears to me to be a flame throwing missile that enters the building a split second prior to the plane. Thus the guaranteed Hollywoodesque ball of fire.

If you mean an incendiary missile, it would put out a bright flash which would be a different colour than the gasoline/kerosene explosion. Hence you would need a kerosene bomb...and all that kerosene would be stored where?

I'm curious to why some people refer to the impact of Flight 175 with WTC2 in this manner? There were explosions when Flight 11 hit WTC1, but there were no cameras in "sympathetic" positions. Hence there was no "dramatic" ball of fire, at least as far as 3rd person observers are concerned. I'm sure it was quite different for people in the building.

Since there really was no precedent for this event, how can anyone really say what it should've looked like? I've seen other, much smaller things explode and burn and the process can be quite dramatic.

What kind of room are you in? :)

http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/theme_home6.jsp

where I don't see any video?

What am I missing here?

The link still goes to "Homeland Security" :eyes:

...that that the knuckleheads who produced the video decided to change their link to go to the Homeland Security office themselves?

To make it appear that HS has clamped down on them?

Of course, if the government really had clamped down on the video, do you think that they would actually link the URL to themselves? Would we just get a message that the link was no longer valid?

Sheesh.

...is the fusing system of an undercarriage bomb (the infamous pod seen in several photos) being triggered prior to building entry.

Why? The plane alone could not be guaranteed to bring the building down. So a bomb set to explode after the plane was in the building was added.

This requires the following assumptions:

• The plane striking the building was not the "real" aircraft


• The bomb was needed to bring down the building

Naturally, none of these ideas are my own. My paranoia concerns stuff within arm's reach.

for posting this.

This is kind of a touchy subject, don´t want to stick my head out too much on this right now, but your link really gives it a twist that makes more sense than there´s been there before.

it would be empty, right? Why mess with the aerodynamics by attaching anything to the belly of the airplane when there was a pretty big (and empty) fuselage to fill with whatever explosives you'd care to use?

n/t

Yes, missiles are used for reasons. There was just no reason to use one in this case. The only contribution a missile would have made was to draw attention to itself. It makes no sense that anybody would want that.

That's like saying: "Why did the terrusts have to hit more than one building?"

or

"There was no reason for the terusts to strike in two different cities".

Silly. If that's how you really see things, then you need to work on your ability to THINK.

The terrorist's actions were quite overt on 9/11. Their goal was to make a very high-profile statement. That's why they used multiple attacks on very public buildings.

A missile used against the WTC towers would not have any real purpose. In addition, it would have called attention to itself...something that whomever engineered the plot would not have wanted.

See, the terrorists WANTED people to notice their actions and used methods that would insure that. Any MIHOP engineers would NOT have wanted people to notice anything that would conflict with the official version. A missile would be contrary to this goal.

It's not a difficult concept, Abe. They wanted two different things (if the MIHOP people did, in fact, exist).

Obviously, you don't. Just because YOU say you can't see any reason why the perps might use missiles doesn't mean anything. After all, who would expect an apologist for the "Evildoer Cavepeople Did It" Conspiracy Theory to even acknowledge the possibility. THAT really would cause you to have to do some major spinning...if you were forced to explain how the Evildoers came into possession of some missiles.

So, from YOUR perspective, that's one of those issues that you absolutely cannot ever even countenance.

I understand, but I can't help wondering if you don't realize that makes people all that more suspicious that there's a whole lotta spinnin' goin' on.

missile?? What sense does THAT make?

...and why is it that any reasoning that doesn't match yours dismissed as "spin"?

I've asked you repeatedly why using at missile at the WTC towers makes any sense. Care to give me your "spin" on the issue?

Where did you get the idea that the Perps wanted people to sea a missile? And, why do you keep making up things like that? It doesn't change the facts and only a professional spinner would have an interest in wanting to fool impressionable people who are uninformed about 9-11.

Why use a missile when it

1) would be totally unnecessary, and

2) would be visible to anybody standing on the street in the most populous city in America?

The subject line of my last post was followed by not one, but two question marks. That commonly denotes that the sentence is a question, not a statement.

They (the government) obviously WOULDN'T want people to see a missile. That's why this missile theory makes no sense; it would have been seen and it would have been completely unnecessary.

:shrug:

fairy tales for the seriously deluded and the clinically insane.