The best 9/11 video that you are ever likely to see.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

My question is what happened to the plane full of people that allegedly hit the building? All the very smart investigative people must have an answer, right?

---

What about the plane that crashed into soft earth? Russian planes crash into solid concrete runways and more debris, body parts and luggage is found. The last time we did this was 2012 and there were 854 posts on the thread. I've still got it in pdf.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

This is exactly the plan. As long as people are asking stupid questions like 'was it really a plane that hit the Pentagon?' then all the proper questions don't get asked.

It amazes me that 15 years on there are still people falling into the trap.

---

It amazes me that after 15 years the brilliant combined minds of people like Splott Dai haven't been able to provide enough evidence to prove such an obvious stitch up.

They need to up their game imo - even Slade would have figured out a solution after fifteen years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr Lecter

It amazes me that after 15 years the brilliant combined minds of people like Splott Dai haven't been able to provide enough evidence to prove such an obvious stitch up.

They need to up their game imo - even Slade would have figured out a solution after fifteen years.

---

'Amazed'? You accept the points made in the initial video then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Splott David

What about the plane that crashed into soft earth? Russian planes crash into solid concrete runways and more debris, body parts and luggage is found. The last time we did this was 2012 and there were 854 posts on the thread. I've still got it in pdf.

---

Exactly. These huge gaping holes in the story are mentioned and the subject can't be changed quickly enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr Lecter

Perhaps the Jews removed every copy of it on the Internet.

Or maybe It was all a dream.

---

No, I viewed it several times. I've seen comments from many others' who saw it. But I must confess I've failed to locate it anywhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

Exactly. These huge gaping holes in the story are mentioned and the subject can't be changed quickly enough.

---

I have no idea what story you are referring to. The initial video is there. The content is quite clear. The questions revolve around the points raised in that video.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

This is exactly the plan. As long as people are asking stupid questions like 'was it really a plane that hit the Pentagon?' then all the proper questions don't get asked.

It amazes me that 15 years on there are still people falling into the trap.

---

Unless I'm misinterpreting (apologies if so), you're implying it had to be a plane that hit the Pentagon, per the official line, and anyone who says differently is a nut. The fella in the video, a former US general, has tons of credibility. Worth a look as it's only 55 seconds duration.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wqX0YTTr14

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Organ Morgan.

Unless I'm misinterpreting (apologies if so), you're implying it had to be a plane that hit the Pentagon, per the official line, and anyone who says differently is a nut. The fella in the video, a former US general, has tons of credibility. Worth a look as it's only 55 seconds duration.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wqX0YTTr14

---

The usual suspects with their sarcastic naysaying approach, won't say what they think happened. Aware of the controversy over the event, but content to sit on a fence rather than commit to the official line and a report which some members of the 9/11 Commission have already disowned.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

My question is what happened to the plane full of people that allegedly hit the building? All the very smart investigative people must have an answer, right?

---

The problem is a simple one. How can any sane person believe the official 9/11 Commission Report when the Commission's own members have expressed so many doubts about it?


"Six years after 9/11, the American public have still not been provided with a full and truthful account of the single greatest terror attack in US history.

What they got was a turkey. The 9/11 Commission was hamstrung by official obstruction. It never managed to ascertain the whole truth of what happened on September 11 2001.

The chair and vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, respectively Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, assert in their book, Without Precedent, that they were "set up to fail" and were starved of funds to do a proper investigation. They also confirm that they were denied access to the truth and misled by senior officials in the Pentagon and the federal aviation authority; and that this obstruction and deception led them to contemplate slapping officials with criminal charges.

Despite the many public statements by 9/11 commissioners and staff members acknowledging they were repeatedly lied to, not a single person has ever been charged, tried, or even reprimanded, for lying to the 9/11 Commission."


https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...1thebigcoverup

By 1980, General Stubblebine commanded the Electronic Research and Development Command (ERADCOM). Stubblebine was strongly influenced by Lt. Col. Jim Channon's New Age document First Earth Battalion Field Manual (1979). Stubblebine became a proponent of psychic warfare and initiated a project within the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM), which he commanded from 1981 to 1984, to create "a breed of 'super soldier'" who would "have the ability to become invisible at will and to walk through walls". He attempted to walk through walls himself[2][3] — but failed, as he himself described in a 2004 interview.[4] (These activities feature prominently in Jon Ronson's 2004 book The Men Who Stare at Goats.[5][6])

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Splott David

The problem is a simple one. How can any sane person believe the official 9/11 Commission Report when the Commission's own members have expressed so many doubts about it?


"Six years after 9/11, the American public have still not been provided with a full and truthful account of the single greatest terror attack in US history.

What they got was a turkey. The 9/11 Commission was hamstrung by official obstruction. It never managed to ascertain the whole truth of what happened on September 11 2001.

The chair and vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, respectively Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, assert in their book, Without Precedent, that they were "set up to fail" and were starved of funds to do a proper investigation. They also confirm that they were denied access to the truth and misled by senior officials in the Pentagon and the federal aviation authority; and that this obstruction and deception led them to contemplate slapping officials with criminal charges.

Despite the many public statements by 9/11 commissioners and staff members acknowledging they were repeatedly lied to, not a single person has ever been charged, tried, or even reprimanded, for lying to the 9/11 Commission."


https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...1thebigcoverup

---

So what happened to the plane that went missing if it didn't hit the Pentagon?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

So what happened to the plane that went missing if it didn't hit the Pentagon?

---

We're going around in circles with this. The same questions came up in 2010 on here and again in 2012 when the debate went on for weeks.

A plane or no plane is not really relevant. A plane hit a building, but was it piloted or was it remotely controlled?

I repeat, the most interesting account, which attempted to deal with as many strands of connected information as possible comes from Christopher Bollyn.

Yes its relevant and no I don't remember what you said in 2012. So what happened to the hijacked plane full of passengers?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

Yes its relevant and no I don't remember what you said in 2012. So what happened to the hijacked plane full of passengers?

---

What proof do you have that a plane was hi-jacked? You have none whatsoever. Nobody does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Splott David

What proof do you have that a plane was hi-jacked? You have none whatsoever. Nobody does.

---

Ok as you're being pedantic, I'll change the question for you. What happened to the plane that took off full of passengers that is said to have hit the Pentagon?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

Ok as you're being pedantic, I'll change the question for you. What happened to the plane that took off full of passengers that is said to have hit the Pentagon?

---

by Christopher C. Kelly
Public Affairs, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology

What some experts have called "the most comprehensive forensic investigation in U.S. history" ended Nov. 16 with the identification of 184 of the 189 who died in the terrorist attack on the Pentagon.

A multidisciplinary team of more than 50 forensic specialists, scientists and support personnel from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology played a major role in Operation Nobel Eagle investigations, officials said. AFIP is an executive agency of the Army surgeon general.

You'll never get a straight answer out of splotter,he doesn't know how to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

Ok as you're being pedantic, I'll change the question for you. What happened to the plane that took off full of passengers that is said to have hit the Pentagon?

---

It's not about being 'pedantic' there is no proof whatsoever that any plane was hi-jacked. There is only a working assumption that they were hi-jacked. In other words the official line relies on a theory that planes were hi-jacked. Everything connected with those flights including the fictitious 'phone call' from one of the flights is pure speculation. It is unbelievable that so many people swallow the official line when people involved in the 9/11 Commission have already denounced it.

If fully qualified airline pilots say that a particular approach and descent is beyond the capabilities of most experienced pilots, then why should we be dismissive of their views that inexperienced people would find it impossible to carry out the same manoeuvre?

If we look at everything from a logical, evidenced based perspective, then it quickly becomes obvious that what the public have been told with regard to the whole events surrounding 9/11 simply do not add up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Splott David

It's not about being 'pedantic' there is no proof whatsoever that any plane was hi-jacked. There is only a working assumption that they were hi-jacked. In other words the official line relies on a theory that planes were hi-jacked. Everything connected with those flights including the fictitious 'phone call' from one of the flights is pure speculation. It is unbelievable that so many people swallow the official line when people involved in the 9/11 Commission have already denounced it.

If fully qualified airline pilots say that a particular approach and descent is beyond the capabilities of most experienced pilots, then why should we be dismissive of their views that inexperienced people would find it impossible to carry out the same manoeuvre?

If we look at everything from a logical, evidenced based perspective, then it quickly becomes obvious that what the public have been told with regard to the whole events surrounding 9/11 simply do not add up.

---

You haven't answered his question though.

Regardless of if it was hijacked or not, what happened to the plane?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dr Lecter

You haven't answered his question though.

Regardless of if it was hijacked or not, what happened to the plane?

---

If you're open to the possibility that none of the planes were actually hi-jacked, then the only possible answer is that they were flown remotely as a result of having their computers hacked into. That being the case they were crashed deliberately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

Ok as you're being pedantic, I'll change the question for you. What happened to the plane that took off full of passengers that is said to have hit the Pentagon?

---

"Although the adjustments required to maintain the shallow angle of descent may have challenged a human pilot, they would seem an easy task for a 757's autopilot, with its ability to read instruments and adjust control surfaces accordingly with great speed and accuracy."
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Splott David

If you're open to the possibility that none of the planes were actually hi-jacked, then the only possible answer is that they were flown remotely as a result of having their computers hacked into. That being the case they were crashed deliberately.

---

It wasn't so long ago you were claiming it might not have even been a plane, at least we are making progress.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Splott David

If you're open to the possibility that none of the planes were actually hi-jacked, then the only possible answer is that they were flown remotely as a result of having their computers hacked into. That being the case they were crashed deliberately.

---

Gosh yes. They could have been crashed deliberately. So many people think 9/11 was a big whoopsadaisy but maybe it was deliberate.

You're good....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

Gosh yes. They could have been crashed deliberately. So many people think 9/11 was a big whoopsadaisy but maybe it was deliberate.

You're good....

---

Then if they were not hi-jacked, there must be some other reason other than a master mind, in a cave, somewhere in Afghanistan who the FBI never named as a wanted man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Splott David

Then if they were not hi-jacked, there must be some other reason other than a master mind, in a cave, somewhere in Afghanistan who the FBI never named as a wanted man.

---

So what happened to the plane if it didn't hit the Pentagon?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TruBlue

It wasn't so long ago you were claiming it might not have even been a plane, at least we are making progress.

---

Before his ban he was claiming flight 77 flew over the pentagon and off into the wide blue yonder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

So what happened to the plane if it didn't hit the Pentagon?

---

That's not the issue and never has been. Clearly something hit the Pentagon that day.The available evidence (including the very first photograph) cast doubt as to whether it could have been a plane. Subsequently it was established that it was. We are way past that now as I have said earlier. What is indisputable is that there is no evidence at all that planes were taken over that day by hi-jackers. It was only a working assumption and no evidence has ever been produced which proves that the planes were hi-jacked.

Thus the very real possibility exists that the planes were remotely controlled, as opposed to any form of physical hi-jacking.

^^ flight 93 must have lost its wifi connection.

I despise some of the conspiracies on Dave Splott's twitter account.

The holocaust denial is pretty despicable. As I imagine all events prior to mass media could be quesitoned for lack of detailed information.

That is how the turkish try to get away with the armenian genocide.

This though, this stinks to high heaven.

I don't know if Bush and Blair etc actively planned it. But I'd strongly suggest they were not totally disappointed that they had an opportunity to carrying out the iraq war after it.

The fact the Bin Laden construction firm is still the biggest in arabia tells you everything.

Such a rich family being involved in such a plot is rather odd.

And the fact the bin laden group is based in saudi arabia, when we were always told bin laden hated the saudi royal family for allowing american forces on to sacred ground.

And this laughable verdict:

http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/...-terror-attack

It is very, very strange.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Splott David

That's not the issue and never has been. Clearly something hit the Pentagon that day.The available evidence (including the very first photograph) cast doubt as to whether it could have been a plane. Subsequently it was established that it was. We are way past that now as I have said earlier. What is indisputable is that there is no evidence at all that planes were taken over that day by hi-jackers. It was only a working assumption and no evidence has ever been produced which proves that the planes were hi-jacked.

Thus the very real possibility exists that the planes were remotely controlled, as opposed to any form of physical hi-jacking.

---

It's never been the issue? You yourself have suggested in the past that it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon. Post up your pdfs of previous discussions and let's take a look.

If it's never been an issue, then you should take it up with Organ Morgan and the video he posted on this very page.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by شهرستان کاردیف

I despise some of the concpiracies on Dave Splott's twitter account.

The holocaust denial is pretty despicable. As I imagine all events prior to mass media could be quesitoned for lack of detailed information.

That is how the turkish try to get away with the armenian genocide.

This though, this stinks to high heaven.

I don't know if Bush and Blair etc actively planned it. But I'd strongly suggest they were not totally disappointed that they had an opportunity to carrying out the iraq war after it.

The fact the Bin Laden construction firm is still the biggest in arabia tells you everything.

---

You're a fool, and a slanderer.

The whole of WW2 is open to investigation and examination from a historical perspective.

Aspects of history are open to to be re-examined all the time. That's what historians are trained to do. Examine what it is that we thought we knew and revaluate it in the light of fresh or new information.

Revisionist historians use facts and science to underpin their questioning approach, not fairy tales, stories, myths and quasi-religious mumbo jumbo.

"As I imagine all events prior to mass media could be questioned for lack of detailed information"

Mass media is dying on its arse. You only have to see the amount of information that comes out in seconds on social media which disputes what mass media outlets have put out on a particular item.

The latest being the 'dusty boy' photograph a few days ago, which went around the world with various newsreaders, CNN et al crying on screen, as if to add to the spin that followed the photos.

The reality was revealed on social media with photos and videos of the picture being staged, not just staged but staged by the same photographer who had a selfie with the head choppers who decapitated a 12 year old Palestinian boy, after dragging him from his hospital bed.

Mass media serves the corporate interests that own it firstly, rather than have any imperative to release news and inform its readership/viewers of facts in an unbiased way.

People who use ad hominem attacks and blanket unsubstantiated melo-dramatic perjoratives like "despise some of the conspiracies" are usually unable to articulate, or ever justify them as being "conspiracies." Rather they just turn out out to be uncomfortable facts which politically just don't sit well with that particular individual.

You need to research the Armenian genocide properly as it would take too long to go into on here, and the Bin Laden company built Mecca and every major road network in Saudi Arabia. They're a billionaire family, one that is very close to the Saudi Royal family.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

If it's never been an issue, then you should take it up with Organ Morgan and the video he posted on this very page.

---

It's a retired military general opining. There's nothing to take up.

Seven of the FBI named hi-jackers are still alive and well.

As I stated earlier there is a comprehensive overview of all the issues connected with this, including police tapes of someone phoning to say Palestinians were heading to a certain bridge in New York carried out by Chris Bollyn.

So far, we know now what we didn't know some years ago, that senior members of the 9/11 Commission have distanced themselves from their very own report.

No one can possibly stick to the official line as laid out in the 9/11 Commission's report. So what's left?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

It's never been the issue? You yourself have suggested in the past that it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon. Post up your pdfs of previous discussions and let's take a look.

---

Well I have to confess I have them in my documents in pdf format and if you know how I can post them I will gladly do so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Splott David

If you see the initial photo taken before the outside wall collapsed, then it is easy to see why people ask questions about the incident at the Pentagon.

---

What did you mean by this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

What did you mean by this?

---

It didn't leave a plane shaped hole like it does in cartoons

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

What did you mean by this?

---

The very first original photo showed a perfectly round hole on the exterior wall, the entrance hole, and then about 20 minutes later the whole section collapsed. The glass in the windows either side of the hole was still intact and unbroken,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Splott David

The very first original photo showed a perfectly round hole on the exterior wall, the entrance hole, and then about 20 minutes later the whole section collapsed. The glass in the windows either side of the hole was still intact and unbroken,

---

So when you say 'it is easy to see why people ask questions about the incident at the Pentagon', which questions are you referring to?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Splott David

You're a fool, and a slanderer.

The whole of WW2 is open to investigation and examination from a historical perspective.

Aspects of history are open to to be re-examined all the time. That's what historians are trained to do. Examine what it is that we thought we knew and revaluate it in the light of fresh or new information.

Revisionist historians use facts and science to underpin their questioning approach, not fairy tales, stories, myths and quasi-religious mumbo jumbo.

"As I imagine all events prior to mass media could be questioned for lack of detailed information"

Mass media is dying on its arse. You only have to see the amount of information that comes out in seconds on social media which disputes what mass media outlets have put out on a particular item.

The latest being the 'dusty boy' photograph a few days ago, which went around the world with various newsreaders, CNN et al crying on screen, as if to add to the spin that followed the photos.

The reality was revealed on social media with photos and videos of the picture being staged, not just staged but staged by the same photographer who had a selfie with the head choppers who decapitated a 12 year old Palestinian boy, after dragging him from his hospital bed.

Mass media serves the corporate interests that own it firstly, rather than have any imperative to release news and inform its readership/viewers of facts in an unbiased way.

People who use ad hominem attacks and blanket unsubstantiated melo-dramatic perjoratives like "despise some of the conspiracies" are usually unable to articulate, or ever justify them as being "conspiracies." Rather they just turn out out to be uncomfortable facts which politically just don't sit well with that particular individual.

You need to research the Armenian genocide properly as it would take too long to go into on here, and the Bin Laden company built Mecca and every major road network in Saudi Arabia. They're a billionaire family, one that is very close to the Saudi Royal family.

---

Whatever.

Slander, in what regard?.

You are clearly right and everyone else wrong. Why even bother debating when you throw a hissy fit.

You clearly have a set of views and do everything possible to find ways to fit it. Including labeling the media corrupt.

You worked in Iran, love assad I presume and hate the Jews. Whoopdy doooo. Open your eyes everyone, what the ayatollah tells the world is correct.

And I said the bin laden group was close to the saudis, that was my point.

You say I am unable to articulate it the majority of your opinions are based of what exactly.

Your hatred of Jews/Israel fuels your need to find an angle to deny the holocaust.

Everything is open to historical perceptive. Including the formation of israel. And the UK was perfectly within their rights to create it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lardy

What did you mean by this?

---

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/im.../911_90_07.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by شهرستان کاردیف

Whatever.

Slander, in what regard?.

You are clearly right and everyone else wrong. Why even bother debating when you throw a hissy fit.

You clearly have a set of views and do everything possible to find ways to fit it. Including labeling the media corrupt.

You worked in Iran, love assad I presume and hate the Jews. Whoopdy doooo. Open your eyes everyone, what the ayatollah tells the world is correct.

And I said the bin laden group was close to the saudis, that was my point.

You say I am unable to articulate it the majority of your opinions are based of what exactly.

Your hatred of Jews/Israel fuels your need to find an angle to deny the holocaust.

Everything is open to historical perceptive. Including the formation of israel. And the UK was perfectly within their rights to create it.

---

You brought up 'despise conspiracies'. You have no idea what my views are, as I've not articulated them to you.

Your own admission is 20 tweets out of what, 65,000+?

Why do you 'presume that I would hate Jews'? I have many friends who are Jews as well as famous Jewish followers on Twitter, such as Gilad Atzmon, Mira Barr-Hillel, Shlomo Sand, Jason Schuman, and Prof Norman Finkelstein.

Do you think that they would choose to follow or associate with someone who hated Jews?

I've already told you, Organ exposed your lack of knowledge, and I have neither the time or the inclination to go into the rest of your rambling smearing post and dissect it.