[Vote] Who did 911?

[Hugroll]

holy, can't believe 88% people are saying it was the government. that makes no sense, why would they do that?

[1715185140]

1715185140

[1715185140]

1715185140

[1715185140]

1715185140

[1715185140]

1715185140

[popcorn1]

holy, can't believe 88% people are saying it was the government. that makes no sense, why would they do that?

oh go away dumbass
yer and the other 12% are stinking rich

plus this is why and how they done it.. BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH..go back and read some pages which have already been posted you lazy FUCKER

[Hugroll]

holy, can't believe 88% people are saying it was the government. that makes no sense, why would they do that?

oh go away dumbass
yer and the other 12% are stinking rich

im curious how does me having a different opinion than you make me a rich dumbass?

[Hugroll]

holy, can't believe 88% people are saying it was the government. that makes no sense, why would they do that?

oh go away dumbass
yer and the other 12% are stinking rich

im curious how does me having a different opinion than you make me a rich dumbass?

oh god i just realized its 88 people not 88% .
guess i am a dumbass

[popcorn1]

holy, can't believe 88% people are saying it was the government. that makes no sense, why would they do that?

oh go away dumbass
yer and the other 12% are stinking rich

im curious how does me having a different opinion than you make me a rich dumbass?

NEVER SAID YOU WAS RICH JUST SAID YOUR A DUMBASS

[popcorn1]

holy, can't believe 88% people are saying it was the government. that makes no sense, why would they do that?

oh go away dumbass
yer and the other 12% are stinking rich

im curious how does me having a different opinion than you make me a rich dumbass?

oh god i just realized its 88 people not 88% .
guess i am a dumbass

WELL I GUESS YOU ARE THEN

[popcorn1]

holy, can't believe 88% people are saying it was the government. that makes no sense, why would they do that?

plus your too late robin batman fucked off  HOLY COW ...ZAP..POW
WHAT WAS YOU EXPECTING ME TO POST LOADS OF VIDEOS FOR YOU AND HAVE ME BABBLING ON ...
YER RIGHT ..YOUR THE DUMBASS REMEMBER

www.youtube.com/watch?v=85LUuF6ZXaU

[no-ice-please]

holy, can't believe 88% people are saying it was the government. that makes no sense, why would they do that?

Government is a  manufactured beast.

If it wasn't "our government" it would be "them".

So it's better.

[Tusk]

holy, can't believe 88% people are saying it was the government. that makes no sense, why would they do that?

Haha yes if we take prediction markets seriously then this just confirms the US Gov is complicit: -

1) Either directly through some spook CIA Mossad Saudi cluster fuck conspirecy. Like the Reichstag fire by the Nazi's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire

      or

2) The US Government's foreign policy has been such a dismal failure, that it pissed off the attackers to the point where the attack was carried out.

Take your pick both involve the US government. The problem is I don't think their foreign policy has improved post 911. Its got worse, with with more people wanting to do bad things and hundreds of thousands of people displaced and on the move.

Europe is about to learn the price it cost for supporting the US in this insanity in destabilising the ME.

You reap what you sow

[ObscureBean]

Probably not the most thrilling continuation to this thread but how about forget the whole thing ever happened and move on? Does it really matter at this point who did it? Everyone alive at the time it happened invariably learned something from it. Perhaps that whole mess happened just so you could learn that one thing.

[Spendulus]

Probably not the most thrilling continuation to this thread but how about forget the whole thing ever happened and move on? Does it really matter at this point who did it? Everyone alive at the time it happened invariably learned something from it. Perhaps that whole mess happened just so you could learn that one thing.

Because people have agendas.  Because people that hate the Evil Jews, or the Great Satan, would like to cast doubt on reality, both making the objects of their hate look hateful, and diverting attention from killers, murderers and terrorists.

[Spendulus]

holy, can't believe 88% people are saying it was the government. that makes no sense, why would they do that?

oh go away dumbass
yer and the other 12% are stinking rich

im curious how does me having a different opinion than you make me a rich dumbass?

oh god i just realized its 88 people not 88% .
guess i am a dumbass

"You're in the wrong line!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1c5iH_SWTg0

[Nemo1024]

Another video for general consideration:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zt1oTYhcgo

Take especially note of how a wooden telephone pole cuts off an aitplane wing in a real-life crush-test simulation:
https://youtu.be/2zt1oTYhcgo?t=65

[Spendulus]

Another video for general consideration:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zt1oTYhcgo

Take especially note of how a wooden telephone pole cuts off an aitplane wing in a real-life crush-test simulation:
https://youtu.be/2zt1oTYhcgo?t=65

Apparently the logic here is "If a wooden telephone pole cuts an airplane wing off in a ground test, then a jet ramming a building cannot cut the 14" steel beams."

The right way to figure this is simply impact velocity and total momentum of impact, which is based on the ballistic coefficient.  At time of impact of high velocity aluminum with a steel beam, the aluminum instantly turns to liquid and continues forward in the same direction.   One example is waterjet cutters.  High velocity water cuts steel, stone, etc.

Analogy with the tree is false due to difference in impact velocities.  Tree impact looks like at the most 100 mph, jets hitting skyscrapers more than four times that.  Remember that each doubling of the speed quadruples the momentum.....

[Spendulus]

flight 93

www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vV3fjfeb9Q

so now explain the phone calls on the hijacked plane made to loved ones..
remember the passengers on the plain tackled the hijackers and brought it down..
but now Dick Chaney saying he give the order to shoot it down..

So?  It didn't get shot down.

What difference does it make what order he gave?

Two situations.

1.  "Fire at my command."
2.  "Fire at will."

#1 is almost always the way things work, look at how engagement in Afganishtan was handled.

So he set a standing order, more like #2.  But your video leaps then to the conclusion that "giving the order" implies "they shot it down on his order."  That makes NO SENSE.

He says he gave the order to shoot down a plane that was heading for Washington..
You work for something to do with government..spendy i know you do

plus explain the worker in the pentagon she said no plane hit the building..now she was there..
so now explain..
Dick chaney give the order to shoot a passenger plane that was heading to washington..
now ok lets say it was nothing to do with 9/11 ..
someone posted that imagine the government saying they shoot a passenger plane down there be hell fire..it be all over the news..
well he did say it and no its not a fake video..
try prove me wrong on the pentagon you just will not do it......

And one of my relatives had just walked out of the tower to the starbucks across the street when the plane hit.  So?

So Cheney gave an order, but that DOESN'T mean a jet shot the 4th plane down.  

Here's what the LA Times had to say about that.

...Cheney did not hesitate. He authorized fighter aircraft "to engage the inbound plane."

In the decision to issue a lethal order without precedent in American history -- to shoot down a plane filled with American civilians -- Cheney both struggled with the confusion of that morning and personified it, according to a staff report issued Thursday by the national commission investigating the terrorist attacks.

The order given by Cheney was never received by the fighter pilots, and, in the end, it came too late to interrupt the assault.

Perhaps in his haste to act -- President Bush was in Florida at the time -- Cheney might have shortcut White House protocol, the report said. The normal chain of command for military "engage" orders goes from the president to the secretary of Defense, and not through the vice president, it said.

Although Cheney said he conferred with the president before giving the order, the commission staff could not confirm that a phone call took place in that time frame. Several minutes after giving the order, Cheney informed Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that he had done so.

"So we've got a couple of aircraft up there that have those instructions at the present time?" Rumsfeld asked.

"That is correct," Cheney replied. "And it's my understanding they've already taken a couple of aircraft out." That understanding turned out to be mistaken.

Anyway, SO WHAT?  I'm okay if the jets had rammed the planes.  They didn't have ammo IIRC, so that's what they would have had to do.  Meaning the pilots would have probably been killed.  But it didn't happen.  I can't see why something like this would have been covered up if it had happened.  People would understand that the MUSLIM TERRORISTS' EVIL INTENTIONS needed to be fought.

[popcorn1]

flight 93

www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vV3fjfeb9Q

so now explain the phone calls on the hijacked plane made to loved ones..
remember the passengers on the plain tackled the hijackers and brought it down..
but now Dick Chaney saying he give the order to shoot it down..

So?  It didn't get shot down.

What difference does it make what order he gave?

Two situations.

1.  "Fire at my command."
2.  "Fire at will."

#1 is almost always the way things work, look at how engagement in Afganishtan was handled.

So he set a standing order, more like #2.  But your video leaps then to the conclusion that "giving the order" implies "they shot it down on his order."  That makes NO SENSE.

He says he gave the order to shoot down a plane that was heading for Washington..
You work for something to do with government..spendy i know you do

plus explain the worker in the pentagon she said no plane hit the building..now she was there..
so now explain..
Dick chaney give the order to shoot a passenger plane that was heading to washington..
now ok lets say it was nothing to do with 9/11 ..
someone posted that imagine the government saying they shoot a passenger plane down there be hell fire..it be all over the news..
well he did say it and no its not a fake video..
try prove me wrong on the pentagon you just will not do it......

And one of my relatives had just walked out of the tower to the starbucks across the street when the plane hit.  So?

So Cheney gave an order, but that DOESN'T mean a jet shot the 4th plane down.  

Here's what the LA Times had to say about that.

...Cheney did not hesitate. He authorized fighter aircraft "to engage the inbound plane."

In the decision to issue a lethal order without precedent in American history -- to shoot down a plane filled with American civilians -- Cheney both struggled with the confusion of that morning and personified it, according to a staff report issued Thursday by the national commission investigating the terrorist attacks.

The order given by Cheney was never received by the fighter pilots, and, in the end, it came too late to interrupt the assault.

Perhaps in his haste to act -- President Bush was in Florida at the time -- Cheney might have shortcut White House protocol, the report said. The normal chain of command for military "engage" orders goes from the president to the secretary of Defense, and not through the vice president, it said.

Although Cheney said he conferred with the president before giving the order, the commission staff could not confirm that a phone call took place in that time frame. Several minutes after giving the order, Cheney informed Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that he had done so.

"So we've got a couple of aircraft up there that have those instructions at the present time?" Rumsfeld asked.

"That is correct," Cheney replied. "And it's my understanding they've already taken a couple of aircraft out." That understanding turned out to be mistaken.

Anyway, SO WHAT?  I'm okay if the jets had rammed the planes.  They didn't have ammo IIRC, so that's what they would have had to do.  Meaning the pilots would have probably been killed.  But it didn't happen.  I can't see why something like this would have been covered up if it had happened.  People would understand that the MUSLIM TERRORISTS' EVIL INTENTIONS needed to be fought.

they shot it down ..he said he done it quickly   watch and learn..

www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1BJQOHAs-M
plus you think your government covers nothing up ..Because you work for them

[Spendulus]

flight 93

www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vV3fjfeb9Q

so now explain the phone calls on the hijacked plane made to loved ones..
remember the passengers on the plain tackled the hijackers and brought it down..
but now Dick Chaney saying he give the order to shoot it down..

So?  It didn't get shot down.

What difference does it make what order he gave?

Two situations.

1.  "Fire at my command."
2.  "Fire at will."

#1 is almost always the way things work, look at how engagement in Afganishtan was handled.

So he set a standing order, more like #2.  But your video leaps then to the conclusion that "giving the order" implies "they shot it down on his order."  That makes NO SENSE.

He says he gave the order to shoot down a plane that was heading for Washington..
You work for something to do with government..spendy i know you do

plus explain the worker in the pentagon she said no plane hit the building..now she was there..
so now explain..
Dick chaney give the order to shoot a passenger plane that was heading to washington..
now ok lets say it was nothing to do with 9/11 ..
someone posted that imagine the government saying they shoot a passenger plane down there be hell fire..it be all over the news..
well he did say it and no its not a fake video..
try prove me wrong on the pentagon you just will not do it......

And one of my relatives had just walked out of the tower to the starbucks across the street when the plane hit.  So?

So Cheney gave an order, but that DOESN'T mean a jet shot the 4th plane down.  

Here's what the LA Times had to say about that.

...Cheney did not hesitate. He authorized fighter aircraft "to engage the inbound plane."

In the decision to issue a lethal order without precedent in American history -- to shoot down a plane filled with American civilians -- Cheney both struggled with the confusion of that morning and personified it, according to a staff report issued Thursday by the national commission investigating the terrorist attacks.

The order given by Cheney was never received by the fighter pilots, and, in the end, it came too late to interrupt the assault.

Perhaps in his haste to act -- President Bush was in Florida at the time -- Cheney might have shortcut White House protocol, the report said. The normal chain of command for military "engage" orders goes from the president to the secretary of Defense, and not through the vice president, it said.

Although Cheney said he conferred with the president before giving the order, the commission staff could not confirm that a phone call took place in that time frame. Several minutes after giving the order, Cheney informed Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld that he had done so.

"So we've got a couple of aircraft up there that have those instructions at the present time?" Rumsfeld asked.

"That is correct," Cheney replied. "And it's my understanding they've already taken a couple of aircraft out." That understanding turned out to be mistaken.

Anyway, SO WHAT?  I'm okay if the jets had rammed the planes.  They didn't have ammo IIRC, so that's what they would have had to do.  Meaning the pilots would have probably been killed.  But it didn't happen.  I can't see why something like this would have been covered up if it had happened.  People would understand that the MUSLIM TERRORISTS' EVIL INTENTIONS needed to be fought.

they shot it down ..he said he done it quickly   watch and learn..

www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1BJQOHAs-M
plus you think your government covers nothing up ..Because you work for them

So where are all the pieces?

Pretty hard to hide a plane that's been shot down.

Pretty hard to hid the searchers for the debris.  There would be hundreds of them and dozens of helicopters.  Over a big area.  And body parts everywhere...

And since the fighter jets were not armed, they would have had to ram the planes.  Where are the pieces of the fighter jets?  What about the families of the dead pilots of the fighter jets?

I don't think you can present this theory well and make it hold up.  There are simply too many loose ends that won't wrap up nicely.  Too many flaws in the theory, for it to explain what happened.

[no-ice-please]

....

www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1BJQOHAs-M
....

That link goes to a video called "Cleaning your ears safely" from the Henry Ford Department of Otolaryngology.

Anyway there were military spokespeople on that day that said an f16 was sent up to deal with a second plane heading for the pentagon, i.e., flight 93 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-5Gks3MFww

[Nemo1024]

Another video for general consideration:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zt1oTYhcgo

Take especially note of how a wooden telephone pole cuts off an aitplane wing in a real-life crush-test simulation:
https://youtu.be/2zt1oTYhcgo?t=65

Apparently the logic here is "If a wooden telephone pole cuts an airplane wing off in a ground test, then a jet ramming a building cannot cut the 14" steel beams."

The right way to figure this is simply impact velocity and total momentum of impact, which is based on the ballistic coefficient.  At time of impact of high velocity aluminum with a steel beam, the aluminum instantly turns to liquid and continues forward in the same direction.   One example is waterjet cutters.  High velocity water cuts steel, stone, etc.

Analogy with the tree is false due to difference in impact velocities.  Tree impact looks like at the most 100 mph, jets hitting skyscrapers more than four times that.  Remember that each doubling of the speed quadruples the momentum.....

I do remember that. However, your analogy to water jet is false as the aluminium, even if it got liquefied, would also become dispersed  from contact with uneven surfaces - quite the opposite from a directed water jet. Also remember that the mass of the engines and the mass of the wingtips is different, with different thicness and breaking point : there would have been distortion and would not have gotten the perfect cartoon-cut-out, but rather a jumble of damage, even if your water-jet therory was right.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=8714
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=8764

Someone rally should do an experiment - accelerate an airplane wing to 400 mph (or maybe slightly less - at that speed the airplane would have already been unstable at such a low altitude) and run it into a steel beam.

And I love it when people do experiments. Here' some more:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDFV1HINw

[Spendulus]

Another video for general consideration:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zt1oTYhcgo

Take especially note of how a wooden telephone pole cuts off an aitplane wing in a real-life crush-test simulation:
https://youtu.be/2zt1oTYhcgo?t=65

Apparently the logic here is "If a wooden telephone pole cuts an airplane wing off in a ground test, then a jet ramming a building cannot cut the 14" steel beams."

The right way to figure this is simply impact velocity and total momentum of impact, which is based on the ballistic coefficient.  At time of impact of high velocity aluminum with a steel beam, the aluminum instantly turns to liquid and continues forward in the same direction.   One example is waterjet cutters.  High velocity water cuts steel, stone, etc.

Analogy with the tree is false due to difference in impact velocities.  Tree impact looks like at the most 100 mph, jets hitting skyscrapers more than four times that.  Remember that each doubling of the speed quadruples the momentum.....

I do remember that. However, your analogy to water jet is false as the aluminium, even if it got liquefied, would also become dispersed  from contact with uneven surfaces - quite the opposite from a directed water jet. Also remember that the mass of the engines and the mass of the wingtips is different, with different thicness and breaking point : there would have been distortion and would not have gotten the perfect cartoon-cut-out, but rather a jumble of damage, even if your water-jet therory was right.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=8714
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=8764

Someone rally should do an experiment - accelerate an airplane wing to 400 mph (or maybe slightly less - at that speed the airplane would have already been unstable at such a low altitude) and run it into a steel beam.

And I love it when people do experiments. Here' some more:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDFV1HINw

B52 aircraft routinely flew just a couple hundred feet above the ground at Mach 0.5, which is about 375 miles per hour, about 500 feet per second.  Waterjet cutters velocity of water stream is 1000 feet per second and higher.  The analogy to waterjet cutters is correct, the jet stream simply has a velocity and a momentum component.

You happen to be wrong about (bolded above).  Ever heard it said that a person falling off a bridge into water hits a surface as hard as concrete?  It's strictly a matter of momentum and inertia.  A "liquid" like kerosene at 500 feet per second tends to continue going  exactly in the direct of its momentum.  It does not just "flow around things," on the contrary diverting that stream takes energy.

You are proving the opposite of what you think is true.