More 9/11 conspiracy!

  • Thread starter polyb
  • Start date
  • #52
57
0
The FOX TV series The Lone Gunmen (X-Files spin off) airs their opening episode "Pilot" six months before 9/11 which depicts a secret U.S. government agency behind a plot to crash a Boeing 727 into the WTC via remote control and blame it on foreign terrorists in the hopes of generating a bigger military budget.

Despite the uncanny similarities between the Murdoch-produced film and the horrific reality of 9/11, rather than being discussed in the media as a prescient warning of the possibility of such an attack, the pilot episode of ?The Lone Gunman? series seemed to have been quietly forgotten.

"I don't think anybody could have predicted that...they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile," said National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice." -CBS (05/17/02)

"You hate to admit it, but we hadn't thought about this," Air Force Gen. Richard Myers said. -DoD (10/23/01)

From the episode:

"The Cold War's over, John. But with no clear enemy to stock pile against, the arms market's flat. But bring down a fully-loaded 727 into the middle of New York City; you'll find a dozen tin-pot dictators all over the world, just clamoring to take responsibility. And begging to be smart bombed."

Download and see the episode: http://www.plaguepuppy.net/public_html/Lone Gunmen/The_Lone_Gunmen_Episode_1.htm

http://propagandamatrix.com/multimedia_priorknowledge_lonegumen.html

-------------------------------
Video: Alex Jones Interviews X-Files/Lone Gunmen Star Dean Haglund who believes 9/11 was an inside job!
http://www.prisonplanet.tv/video/120105haglundteaserwmbb.htm [Broken]
--------------------------------------------
Another thing, have you folded the 20$ bill???

http://www.clydelewis.com/twenty.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #53
brewnog
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2,711
7
Sorry Grotesque_puppet, but that video oozes the same conspiracy theorist pap that all the others I've seen do. The porn film soundtrack made me giggle, though.

The thing I don't understand: Why are people so surprised that the inferno caused by the impact of a couple of airliners can actually bring down a building?
 
  • #54
russ_watters
Mentor
19,878
6,299
Burnsys said:
Despite the uncanny similarities between the Murdoch-produced film and the horrific reality of 9/11, rather than being discussed in the media as a prescient warning of the possibility of such an attack, the pilot episode of ?The Lone Gunman? series seemed to have been quietly forgotten.
Its not that it was forgotton, its that no one watched it in the first place. It was a dismal failure.
 
  • #55
russ_watters
Mentor
19,878
6,299
brewnog said:
The thing I don't understand: Why are people so surprised that the inferno caused by the impact of a couple of airliners can actually bring down a building?
Because that sort of thing doesn't happen very often, people don't have a basis for comparison. That's why you see comparisons to things like the Meridian buiding fire in Philly - that's the closest thing there is for a comparison and that building didn't collapse. Inevitable [fallacious] conclusion: fires don't make steel buildings collapse.

RE: that video. I watched part of it once, and it was just plain awful. Its almost like he's making the stuff up as he goes along. There is no basis in reality in what he's saying.
 
Last edited:
  • #56
The thing I don't understand: Why are people so surprised that the inferno caused by the impact of a couple of airliners can actually bring down a building?
I think it was the way it was brought down...Even the first time I watched it I thought it looked like a demolition job.
 
  • #57
russ_watters
Mentor
19,878
6,299
Grotesque Puppet said:
I think it was the way it was brought down...Even the first time I watched it I thought it looked like a demolition job.
Similar to what I told brewnog, that's people's instinct for finding comparisons. Since you've never seen a large building fall before except for by demolition, the fact that it looked like a demolition is meaningless. You connected it to the only thing you had for comparison simply because its the only thing you had for comparison.
 
  • #58
57
0
russ_watters said:
Its not that it was forgotton, its that no one watched it in the first place. It was a dismal failure.
It doens't matter if it had a lot of rating or a little. the point is that it predicted what happened in 911

-------------------------------------

"I don't think anybody could have predicted that...they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile," said National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice." -CBS (05/17/02)

"You hate to admit it, but we hadn't thought about this," Air Force Gen. Richard Myers said. -DoD (10/23/01)
 
  • #59
57
0
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165414,00.html
'Able Danger' Intel Could Rewrite 9/11 History

Rep. Curt Weldon (search), R-Pa., a champion of integrated intelligence-sharing among U.S. agencies, wrote to the former chairman and vice-chairman of the Sept. 11 commission late Wednesday, telling them that their staff had received two briefings on the military intelligence unit — once in October 2003 and again in July 2004.

"The impetus for this letter is my extreme disappointment in the recent, and false, claim of the 9/11 commission staff that the commission was never given access to any information on Able Danger," Weldon wrote to former Chairman Gov. Thomas Kean (search) and Vice-Chairman Rep. Lee Hamilton (search). "The 9/11 commission staff received not one but two briefings on Able Danger from former team members, yet did not pursue the matter.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #60
russ_watters
Mentor
19,878
6,299
It was also in Tom Clancy's "Debt of Honor", Burnsys, but so what? That's fiction, not a prediction. There is no reason to expect the government to start a study into every fictional story out there. Otherwise, NASA would get pretty bogged-down studying all manner of science fiction (they're all predictions, right?).

edit: A note about Tom Clancy. "Debt of Honor" is the closest thing in pop fiction to being an actual prediction for one reason: Tom Clancy does consult for the DoD on battle scenarios because of his knowledge and imagination. However, the fact that he wrote it in a book does not imply that he seriously considered the possibility (I honestly don't know if he did or not) any more than he considered the risk to the US from Japanese terrorists. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
  • #61
Skyhunter
After watching the second plane hit my first reaction was; "It is going to fall." I was aghast when I saw the firefighters rushing into that building. I was yelling "No when the steel melts it will collapse, they are going to their death."

It is obvious that the Bush administreation ignored the threat. They may have even allowed it to happen, but they did not blow it up.
 
  • #62
6
0
russ_watters said:
Because that sort of thing doesn't happen very often, people don't have a basis for comparison. That's why you see comparisons to things like the Meridian buiding fire in Philly - that's the closest thing there is for a comparison and that building didn't collapse. Inevitable [fallacious] conclusion: fires don't make steel buildings collapse.
EXACTLY!

These conspiracy theorists like to say: "No steel-framed building has ever collapsed as a result of a fire before!" Yeah, well, no steel-framed building has ever had a fuel-filled 757 fly into it at 400 mph before.
 
  • #63
God almighty you people irritate me so much, and this a quote “physics forum”, what a utterly unfunny and ironic joke it is that you people can not see something that you have to break the laws of physics to defend!

All you accredit PhD physics and structural engineering MIT dons….. would you please care to take a look at the collapse of this building, please?!



Videos Show Building 7's Vertical Collapse.
The survival of several video recordings of Building 7's collapse, though of low resolution, allow study of the building's motion and the time of collapse.

Each of the following videos shows the entire visible portion of the building falling with a vertical precision otherwise seen only in controlled demolition. Moreover, they show that the collapse took only about 6.5 seconds from start to finish. That rate of fall is within a second of the time it would take an object to fall from the building's roof with no air resistance.
http://www.wtc7.net/vdocs/wtc_7_cbs.mpg Video Broadcast by CBS - 1.4mb - mpeg
This 36 second video shows Building 7 from an elevated vantage point to the distant northeast.

http://wtc7.net/vdocs/wtc7_collapse.mpg Video from NBC news camera - 1.5mb
This 9 second video shows the Building 7 collapse from a vantage point about mile to the northeast on West Broadway.

http://www.wtc7.net/vdocs/wtc7_collapse2.mpg Video broadcast on CBS - 1.7MB - mpeg
This 9.6 second video shows the Building 7 collapse from a vantage point only about 1000 feet to the north.

Building 7 was the third skyscraper to collapse into rubble on September 11, 2001. According to the government, small fires levelled this building, but fires have never before or since destroyed a steel skyscraper.

The team who investigated the collapse were not allowed access to the crime scene. By the time they published their inconclusive report, the evidence had been destroyed.

Why did the government rapidly recycle the steel from the largest and most mysterious engineering failure in world history, and why has the media remained silent? (Some of the rubble from Ground Zero went to New Jersey, but all the sections that would explain the collapse were recycled as described above)

Half-way through Building 7's 6.5-second plunge, streamers suggestive of demolition charges emerged from the facade.
 
  • #65
russ_watters
Mentor
19,878
6,299
Rude Boi MC! said:
Each of the following videos shows the entire visible portion of the building falling with a vertical precision otherwise seen only in controlled demolition. Moreover, they show that the collapse took only about 6.5 seconds from start to finish. That rate of fall is within a second of the time it would take an object to fall from the building's roof with no air resistance.
So can you provide a video of a tall building collapsing, where it doesn't look like a controlled demolition? If not, how can the fact that it looks, to an untrained eye, like a controlled demolition mean anything at all?

This old, tired argument is essentially a big, bright neon sign that says "I don't know the first thing about structural or materials engineering, but based on my intuition, I think....." That's called argument from ignorance. And here's a news flash (that really shouldn't be) - if all it took to be an engineer or scientist was intuition, there'd be no need to go to school to learn it.

edit: btw, this issue (like many in science) requires only about a two sentence explanation(already provided) from someone who understands the issue. After that, the choice becomes yours to accept the explanation of the expert, flatly reject it, or to go to college and become an engineer yourself (so you can understand it instead of just having to accept it). Yes, it is probably unreasonable to expect you to go study engineering, but consider the logic of flatly rejecting the opinion of people who did study engineering.
 
Last edited:
  • #66
69
0
Greetings,

Here is an audio clip of Larry Silverstein saying he pulled the building, in contradiction of FEMA's "... I don't know"

http://www.prisonplanet.com/pullit.mp3

Is anyone else here dazzled by the lunatic doublethink going on here? I think if triplethink exists it should be in Physics Forums.
 
  • #67
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
16
I cant believe this issue is still being brought up. Someone made a hilarious video parodying all these 9/11 conspiracies... i wonder where it is...
 
  • #68
Pengwuino
Gold Member
4,989
16
Rude Boi MC! said:
All you accredit PhD physics and structural engineering MIT dons….. would you please care to take a look at the collapse of this building, please?![/B]
They already did and showed how dumb the conspiracy theories are.

Why did the government rapidly recycle the steel from the largest and most mysterious engineering failure in world history, and why has the media remained silent? (Some of the rubble from Ground Zero went to New Jersey, but all the sections that would explain the collapse were recycled as described above)
Good question. WHY. WHY would this be covered up? WHY would someone demolish it? Until you can answer that, you have simple heresay and banter by someone who is telling you how to think. And no, it is far from the "most mysterious engineering failure" in world history. Its very simple, many engineers have confirmed what happened, its been highly publicized... you just don't want to believe it.
 

Related Threads on More 9/11 conspiracy!

  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
35
Views
7K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
52
Views
13K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
39
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
94
Views
10K
Replies
42
Views
5K
Replies
35
Views
5K
Top