Comment

Comment by illuminated-dj on November 19, 2010 at 12:08pm

vince i either believe they were just remote controlled planes or drones/missiles made to look like planes

Comment by JoJo on November 19, 2010 at 7:34am

Cris-thanks for the reply-There were no planes of any kind used to smash into buildings on 9/II
;Please do see this video first- whole affair 9/II is all pre planned acting
1) http://www.youtuhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aPvJSQtmoEbe.com/wa...

at this video ?-- now this comes from very sick youtube poster.Came across it while searching for the top reference
2)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aPvJSQtmoE&feature=related
BeLIEve it or Not--it's all a scam--Arabs did it--they hate our freedoms...... (to lie that is)

Comment by Christopher A. Brown on November 18, 2010 at 11:47pm

Jojo,

This question needs to be answered. It has the same justification for the "no planes" issue as it does for the remotes.

"Why did the perps make people think that WTC 1 was first hit by a plane then blow up WTC 2 first and create a backwards impact/fall sequence?"

There are only 2 answers that came back that had any reasoning at all, but it was flawed reasoning because to create that backwards impact fall sequence was very damaging to the credibility of the ruse.

1)WTC 2 fires were going to go out and there would be no reason for the building to go down after the fires went out so they dropped it.

2)The perps did it to make us wonder why they did it. (No kidding, somebody actually put that forth as a reason!)

The perps really needed the planes to justify war on Muslims and to make sure that they were identified the passport of Atta was planted.

I feel that 757's were used specifically because they cannot be remoted easily. In fact I have only heard of it being done once in the 1980's.

The proffesional aviation community would know for certain there were no remotes used because they know only "fly by wire" planes like the 747 can be flown remotely under those conditions.

So, accordingly the perps purposefully stayed away from planes that could be flow remotely.

Comment by JoJo on November 18, 2010 at 8:53pm

Can someone prove to us or show one TV network's video of actual planes hitting the World Trade towers? One's they did show were from 2 Quebec brother's videos day after.
You will not find such a video shown on Sept 11 2001.Only DOCTERED videos the NEXT day.After WTC1 BLEW up,it is understandable that no TV network/NYPD cameras were filming but hundreds of cameras were pointed afterwards towards both towers. BIG ZERO were shown upto minute reporting.WHY NOT? Because there were no planes . WTC1 2 each floor had tons of high explosives--Blasting sequence was top to bottom (not like WTC7 Bottom to top)
The first Explosive laden blasts in the top upper floors,were supplemented with large stored diesel flue.
If only Nano-thermate was used, by now examples of tested range explosion would have been shown--none.
Only Concrete Bunker Busting bombs were used, If they won't show Pentagon plane hitting,then you know that WTC's smashing planes are photo shopped.

Comment by Christopher A. Brown on November 18, 2010 at 8:03pm

Lawrence, you have a solid position. Absolutely, hopefully some of the detail I can provide will provide the capacity to explain HOW, what you know happened indeed did happen. And yes, the truth is shocking. Holding on to the certainty you have will pay off because now there is reason to understand.

I'll try to answer some of Vincents questions. I'm a part time equipment operator and the control of the 757 happen to be similar so I'm bringing some very pertinant info about "remotes".

Vincent L. Guarisco wrote:
"they flew the planes into the buildings as the official excuse to bring them down. If you don't believe this to be true, please explain yourself here on this thread."

Yes, planes were flown into the Twins, but the belief that cheny and rummy flew them probably cannot be substantiated. Planes had nothing to do with the towers coming down, just like Lawrence says.
As far as what did bring them down, pay special attention to the containment issue in the thermite answer with regard to "planting". It is NOT that simple.

Back to remotes, my question never got answered?

"Why did the perps make people think that WTC 1 was first hit by a plane then blow up WTC 2 first and create a backwards impact/fall sequence?"

I don't believe there is a good reason to do that, in fact there is good reason to do everything possible within the perps power to see that the first building his is the first to go down.

I already had logically determined that there were no remotes for the same reason.

Flight 11 hit the wrong tower. The above link explains how if remotes were involved, the impact/fall sequence would be correct. Meaning the Towers were on timers. The behavior of flight 11 indicates that its pilot did not know that its target hasd already been hit so had to reposition with the radical turn which CAN be completed by one pilot and another person to operate the throttles. 757's are "hydraulic over hydraulic" servo controlled and are extremely difficult to set up for remote flight. It's been done once, and that's it. They were used because people in the world of aviation technology know this making it obvious to that knowledgeable segment that there HAD to be Muslim pilots. From the movements correct perspective, the hijacked planes can only be seen as very important to the ruse and war it enabled.
If the planes were remoted you can be sure the pilot was under complete control and well informed. On the other hand if the hijacker was a mind controlled Muslim working with the infiltrated shadow government, he might not follow orders but would still hit a tower. He would gladly leave his passport with handlers to be placed where it would be found.

Vincent L. Guarisco wrote:
"had their assets plant exposives: Nano-thermite. Afterwards, using remote access,"

Nano Thermite explosives:
This misinformation is mostly ACCEPTED by the truth movement and the attempted use of it associated with 9-11 truth causes rejection of FACTS: A recent scientific analysis of WTC dust by Mark Basile finds evidence of thermite and nano sized particles of aluminum. No where in his report does he describe nano thermite as being a military grade explosive.
No researcher into the performance of nano thermite has ever stated pressure and velocity specifications for nano thermite including Neils Harrit who first analyzed nano sized particles found near the WTC. Here are independent papers.

http://algoxy.com/psych/images2/Making_Super_Thermite.pdf
http://algoxy.com/psych/images2/thermite report.pdf
http://algoxy.com/psych/images2/SolGelPyroLLNL2002.pdf

A letter from the Navy regarding "nano thermite"
http://algoxy.com/psych/images/dept.navy.indianhead.jpg

NOTE: The masses of molten steel underneath the WTC can ONLY be caused by ordinary thermite classed as an incendiary.
Accordingly uses of the nano thermite misinformation is not needed and any use of the nano misinformation serves to cause officials to ridicule 9-11 facts after consultations with experts reveal that nano thermite is not explosive and is not generally developed for any common uses although it may have many.

nano sized particle found at WTC:
Thermite in place immediately adjacent to detonations of conventional explosives in the basements, activated or un activated, would generate both components of iron oxide and aluminum oxide which would be reduced to extremely small particles by the high pressure gasses. This would extinguish combustion. If molten steel was present, small particulate iron would result as would aluminum which could then oxidize quickly in such small particle size.

Some of Niels Harrit comments on nano thermite.
http://rt.com/Politics/2009-07-09/Did_nano-thermite_take_down_the_W...

"It’s very, very possible that different varieties were used, and I personally am certain that conventional explosives were used too, in abundance.

RT: When you say “in abundance,” how much do you mean?

Niels Harrit: Tons! Hundreds of tons! Many, many, many tons!

RT: So we are not just talking about nano-thermite. In fact, we are talking about both nano-thermite and conventional explosives used in large quantities…"

Most of the uses of nano themite misinfo in the 9-11 truth movement omit mention of Harrits information on conventional high explosives. All mentions of nano thermite omit any description of how the containment for "nano thermite" might be done. "nano thermite" is subject to this requirement to achieve destruction of the structural elements of the Twin Towers as is the use of any conventional high explosive. Optimum placement and distribution ARE required to attain total pulverization of materials near detonations.

Comment by Christopher A. Brown on November 18, 2010 at 2:55pm

Vincent L. Guarisco wrote:
"I am a firm beliver that both planes that hit the twin towers were flown via remote tower".

Vincent,
Belief is one thing, logic is another.

IF the planes were remoted, WHY did the perps choose to have a backwards impact/fall sequence?

That sequence seriously compromises the ruse. The perps would not want people to think that though and I was on septembereleventh.org in 2004 reading posts by the first psyops plants that the "backwards sequence" didn't mean anything to them.

Later one of the admins from that site, provided r.gage with an excuse to ban me from ae911 when I had 3 threads there asking for proof of the steel core columns and gage never responded. Here is an accounting of my efforts to get the architect to use evidence.

http://algoxy.com/psych/whatis9-11disinfo_gage.html

Comment by bryan l on November 16, 2010 at 1:28pm

Lawrence i see there where holes in your screen, you should have tapped those up. ;) i use to do some silk screening.

Comment by Christopher A. Brown on November 16, 2010 at 3:47am

Hello Lawrence Edward Calcutt,
I read your post and have some input which is the product of many hours considering the issue of remotes or not.
It turns out the logical understanding, fairly well says there were no remotes while also developing a better understanding of what did happen.
The logic of there being no remotes hinges on one very big factor that had there been remotes, would very likely not exist. That big factor is the backwards impact/fall sequence. The first tower hit, hit hardest, burnt worst, was the last tower to go down.
The perpetrators agents downplay that factor. They come up with excuses like, "WTC 2 fires were about out so there would have been no reason for collapse if they went out so they brought it down first." I can't see the logic in that because my assertion is that if there were remotes, then why did the perps choose the backwards sequence? Remotes make last minute adjustments needed for a more credible ruse easy. Pilots are well trained and controlled. Impact sequences would be absolute.
On the other hand if there were hijackers and the wrong tower was hit first, then the remote contollers of the demolition intitiation could simply demo the first one hit by a plane first.

We don't have that. We have a backwards sequence. Based on the compromise to the ruse that represents I can only logically conclude there were pilots and the Towers detonations were on timers. There was a directional radio transmitter that worked with either tower and either plane headed towards a tower that worked with proximity. So at a preset distance from the tower and subterranean detonations occured to reduce the seismic signals at the final detonation of the building.

Recall that flight 175 showed up, and in this scenario saw its target already burning. It had to do a radical turn to reposition to hit WTC 2 which is exactly what we saw.

This makes flight 93 in a holding pattern until both towers were hit by planes. It was a backup. Imagine how much harder it would be to explain 3 towers "collapsing" but only one hit by a plane. As soon as both were hit, flight 93 was shot down.

Comment by JoJo on November 15, 2010 at 10:23pm

Ed, Many planned accidents happened 9/II ,here is just one
http://www.infowars.com/911-activist-who-sued-government-killed-in-...
check this Utube video
MOSSAD planned accident

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x8d7ot_beverly-eckert-9-11-widow-i...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hlVBcp_A6c

Comment by Christopher A. Brown on November 15, 2010 at 7:34pm

JoJo, its all possible. My point is, "Where do we use this information? What reaction do we expect." Now I realize that it can serve as a warning, but being prepared is in its own as well done as it might be. My point is that information that can be acted on has the capcity of being proactive, PREVENTING perhaps the very worst. I have info that has that quality.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 14
• 15
• 16
• 17
• 18
• …
• 24
• Next ›
• Page