Do you have a favorite dvd? I watched several back in the spring that were by far the most mind boggling dvd's Ive ever seen. I sunk in my seat, I fought sleep to hear it, til 1am. What I heard was frightening. Say im a wimp, its ok.
After it was over I asked myself, what do you think happened to the 747 scrap metal from the plane that crashed into the Pentagon? has anyone seen luggage from any of the videos, bodies? Did you? Do you believe the towers could fall as they did by fire and gasoline? Have you ever seen a structure fall by fire? Do you know anyone who can answer questions about structural steel? My mind raced, my heart raced. I watched video zooming the plane at the tower. It was not a passenger plane.
I watched 5 dvds about our goverment, our military and off the wire conspiracy theory on 911. It blew my mind what I heard and saw in these recordings and the scientific facts of it all, down to what type of plane would create the smoke we saw on tv, from the only released pics. I will have to rewatch two dvd's at least 2 more times to grasp the mere subject! It was incredible. Or maybe I should start listening to off wire radio more. I know, Im a little behind schedule.
I heard firefighters tell of what they saw and heard, a woman frantically screaming, proclaiming ' that was not a passenger plane". It was by far the freakiest dvd's Ive ever watched.
I trust the individual who mailed them to me but some people call friends like him fanatics. Do you have any input on conspiracy theories of 911 or is there a discussion posted here already?
My objective after watching them became urgent! Its as if I have to send copies to everyone in my life, everyone i know. I have to know what others think on the subject. They simply will not believe what they hear. I need to ask them did they beleive what they heard?
I called my father, an elder ex military man to tell him about these dvd's. He began to ponder the articles, the media releases. He faxed a new article to me, insisting there was something to it, regarding the new videos. After asking him, do you see anything significant in this article that states it happened? No its just mentioning one persons name who was a relative to someone on the flight. Nothing more.
He began to call me and ask me questions about the towers, ask me questions about these dvd's. I asked him if he thought such a huge structure could fall by fire. Our conversations have lapsed on the subject so maybe im asking this blog bunch your input. If youve discussed it already, so be it.
Maybe I just need to call good ole dad and watch them with him. He's old.
favored posted on Jul 26, 2006
| views: 317
Comments
-
favored said on Jul 27, 2006....
i can no longer see any comments in this post, can you? -
favored said on Jul 31, 2006....
As I was saying before ..... This Physics Dept at Brigham Young University has a different opinion. http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html To see the paper, scroll farther down the page at this site and new questions and answers will begin. -
Expendable said on Jul 31, 2006....
They never investigated the possibility of the aluminum-magnesium alloy both aircrafts were made of catching fire and burning their way down the core of the building. Magnesium makes oxygen as it burns so it keeps going until it's gone. But let's look at the squibs. If this was a controlled explosion as some have suggested, then two things have to have happened. 1. Someone had to know about the plan to ram airplanes into the world trade center. 2. Charges were rigged to the building in advance of the attack. Maybe the bombers could have rigged the subbasement in advance without anyone seeing them, but if that's a squib going off on the upper part of the building then someone had to plant charges up there too - how come nobody noticed? -
favored said on Aug 03, 2006....
Some heard it, saw it later. Maybe the plan was so sophisticated, the naked eye wouldnt see it. IE: Second WTC Janitor Comes Forward With Eye-Witness Testimony Of 'Bomb-Like' Explosion in North Tower and 'Eye Witness Hears Explosions at WTC; Scientific Group SPINE Provides Sophisticated Analysis' A second WTC maintenance worker has now come forward with eye-witness testimony that a massive explosion erupted in the lower levels of the north tower at approximately the same time the jetliner struck the tower's top floors. Jose Sanchez, 45, of New Jersey in a never-released tape recorded statement made in early 2002 to William Rodriguez, the first WTC maintenance man to claim a bomb exploded in the north tower basement, said he heard what sounded like a "huge bomb," causing lights to flicker on and off, while he worked in a small sub-level 4 workshop. (country after foriegn country has published amazing reports of other facts on 911 we Americans may or may not have seen) the article above is from switzerland. Were you aware of Mr Rodriquez and the other eyewitness? Can you imagine how many others may be silenced? You should find this intersting as well - [url]http://100777.com/node/1223 From[/url] what Im reading 65% of Americans beleive its a phony war on terror. -
favored said on Aug 04, 2006....
For more scientific scenerios on the flights, see Since March of 2002, persons probing the web for further information about the 9/11 attacks could not fail to encounter, sooner or later, a scenario sketched by Carol Valentine. Called the "Flight of the Bumble Planes" (Valentine 2002), it allegedly came from an informant who would only identify himself as "Snake Plisskin," the name of the hero of the movie, Escape from New York. The informant outlined the basic hijacking method in an email message to Carol Valentine, comparing it to a flight of bumble bees. Watching bees as they buzz around among flowers, it is very difficult to follow individual bees, since they are always passing close to one another. The metaphor translates into the flight of two aircraft in a confined locale of airspace. If the separation between them is small enough, radar operators will see not two aircraft, but one. On the morning of September 11, 2001, according to the bumble planes scenario, all four "hijacked" aircraft landed at a single airport or air base, transferring passengers to one aircraft, the one that crashed in Shanksville, PA. The scenario, as presented by Valentine, consists of little more than this. The Operation Pearl scenario adds enough detail to the Valentine scenario to make a feasibility check possible. At the same time, it allows for other disposal methods, including burial at sea. Specifically, Operation Pearl examines the possibility that passengers from three of the hijacked aircraft were placed aboard a single aircraft and were then flown out to sea. at Physics 911 - ||{1}|| -
Expendable said on Aug 04, 2006....
And the plane that crashed in Shanksville where the passengers called their familes who knew they were on this flight and not some other flight and told them about Arab terrorists who'd seized control of the airplane using disposable knives and were going to rush the cockpit just before the crash actually did happen were making all this up? Doesn't this seem a little too complicated? And while the two aircraft appearing as one works on older radar systems, there are other radars that can show planes at different heights AND there's the transponders. If two planes were flying in tandem there would still be two transponder tags. If one of them vanished in the middle of a flight, they send out a crash team. And how does four planes land at an airport without separating and revealing everything? How wide is this air strip? Plus what about all the people they'd need to pull off this conspiracy? You'd need a team in a flight tower to bring the planes in. You'd need troops on the ground to shuffle people between planes. You'd need to convince the pilots that they have to divert. You'd need fuel to make up for what was lost in the diversion. You'd need someone suicidal to fly the planes to their scattered destinations. And you need to make sure the bodies and possessions that got recovered all wind up at the right site. Not to mention someone's going to notice four civilian commuter flights landing at a military base. Communities build up around bases. Are you going to order some soldier to go home and kill his family? You really think they'd do that? And you need time. Those planes were expected to be someplace. They appear on radars at expected times and are handed off between controllers. Alarms go off if airplanes get to close to one another. People start yelling when planes are off their filed flight path. So for this to work, the controllers have to be in on it too. That's too many people. Conspiracies are best small. Too many people mean too many things can go wrong. Too many mouths that would talk. There's only one way anyone could pull this off. You get a handful of men. Disguise them as arabs. Get them aboard the planes with smuggled knives. They take over the planes in flight. They crash into their targets. [color=red]Just like the terrorists would have done it.[/color] No having to dance around with American hostages on some remote air base runway. No juggling planes on radar. No soldiers to point out this is an illegal order. No controllers to bribe. No hundreds of records to change. No missing passengers to crash into the ocean. Little chance of anything overly complicated going very wrong very quickly. -
Expendable said on Aug 05, 2006....
Ok, I read all your links. It's still too complicated. I think you want it to be complicated because you don't want to believe a handful of men could have done this almost without any support. You want Bush to be guilty, the mastermind. Please. Bush is an idiot. The terrorist plan was simple, exploiting holes in the system. It worked. That the Army picked the WTC as a target 25 years ago in a terrorist study doesn't surprise me. What haven't they picked as a target? And sadly, that nobody closed the holes that study found doesn't surprise me either. -
favored said on Aug 06, 2006....
That is how it all began for me with the dvd's and all the questions. as the site reads.... A radar screen is essentially a cathode ray tube, like a television screen, that displays aircraft within the circular airspace represented on the screen. Radar operators are the only people who can be directly aware of which aircraft are presently in the sky and where they are going. The vast majority of people are completely unaware of such details and, when an aircraft passes overhead, can usually not tell one type from another, let alone what airline or aviation company may own it. This observation, while something of a commonplace, has important implications. If an organization wishes to substitute one aircraft for another without anyone knowing it, the only people it has to deceive are the radar operators. Suicide mission prospects should be easy. next question: do you believe Osama's face is aired on wired media because he's a terrorist? -
Expendable said on Aug 06, 2006....
That radar screen is just a part of a larger system designed to track planes. It's not just the operators you'd be trying to fool. And it's a needless complication. Conspiracies have to be as simple as possible. What's the point of taking people off a plane if they're going to die anyway? If you're trying to inflame passions, you need bodies. Osama's face isn't aired because he's a terrorist. It's aired because he is the leader of a terrorist group responsible for 9/11 and other attacks against Americans. -
Expendable said on Aug 06, 2006....
Oh - to drop a building by controlled implosion, it's not enough to plant explosives. You also have to weaken the building first, cutting critical supports. And that would definitely have been noticed. Adding explosives is the last step. A plane crashing into the weakened towers would have toppled them immediately - and not straight down. It was the cascading collapse of the floorpans in a building that was mostly air that made the towers fall inward.