In my defense

by **darkbeforedawn** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 9:50 am

Well, I think Reynolds IS a sincere man, who mostly spent his life in academic communities. I think he is truthful and I think he may have some rightwing views on law enforcement etc. I don't think anything in his record shows any previous involvement with the Bush bunch. I repeat, I haven't made up my mind about the planes. There exists evidence either way. I am still completely dubious that a hollow blunt-shaped, aluminum structure such as a plane wing could penetrate a row of massive steel girders or go through stone. If that is so easy to do why has it never happened before? If it were possible then we could arrange a test scenario. The following is from Humint conditions online: A summary of the evidence for no planes: 1) flight 11 never took off, and the flight that was labelled flight 11 by air traffic control was 10 miles from manhattan at 8:46am 2) for a few reasons, the footage of flight 175 hitting the south tower is clearly fake 3) in the footage of both strikes, the planes slide into the towers without slowing-- this is impossible according to laws of physics 4) No black boxes were found at ground zero (officially). It's not that boxes were found where the data was destroyed-- NO BOXES WERE FOUND AT ALL. These devices are meant to withstand incredibly extreme conditions. 5) plane wings shouldn't slice through the steel beams of the WTC and leave a perfect imprint 6) almost no plane parts were found in the WTC rubble that was SIFTED for human remains 7) witnesses exist who saw the south tower explode but didn't see a plane <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/glasses.gif ALT="8)"> plane parts, such as the too small engine found in the streets of lower Manhattan, look planted. Why would they need to plant plane parts if real planes were used? 9) a good case for no planes can be made at the Pentagon or Shanksville; why would planes be used to strike the WTC and not these other sites? 10) unlikely the terrorists could have piloted planes so effectively; logistically, using missiles/pre-planted bombs easier to control than real commercial planes Summary of the evidence for planes: 1) the gov't told us there were planes; the news media repeated this as fact 2) a plane was shown hitting the South WTC tower on TV, many times, from many angles 3) the Naudet movie of first hit appears real and appears to show a plane hitting the North tower 4) witnesses claim to have seen planes 5) some plane parts were found posted by Spooked at 7:56 AM 0 comments

by **nomo** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 1:59 pm

Oh please. Next you're gonna tell us 9/11 never happened at all??? There were thousands of people in downtown Manhattan that morning who didn't watch it on TV. Or is that where the holograms come in? There's a fine line between healthy skepticism and batshit nuttery. Careful where you tread.

by **CyberChrist** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 3:04 pm

I agree with nomo on this one-- it's one thing to examine evidence that shows that 19 hijackers weren't exactly capable of doing this and it's another thing to sit here and tell everyone that the footage that they saw of airplanes hitting the skyscrapers in broad daylight are not really airplanes. If you look around, you can find pictures of pine straw penetrating through stone because the straw was flying around inside a tornado at terrific speeds. I have no problem in believing that the material that the airplanes are made of can penetrate the concrete and steel of the skyscrapers at the speeds that they were going in. Now, please stop giving the 9/11 skeptics a bad name. No, you are not going to become famous and somehow think of something that everyone has somehow overlooked and you are not going to convince anyone that airplanes didn't strike the 2 buildings Manhattan buildings. -- CyberChrist http://www.hackerjournal.org My brain is hung like a horse.

by **thoughtographer** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 3:07 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>No, you are not going to become famous and somehow think of something that everyone has somehow overlooked and you are not going to convince anyone that airplanes didn't strike the 2 buildings Manhattan buildings.<hr></blockquote> If only this were true... "A crooked stick will cast a crooked shadow."

by **PeterofLoneTree** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 3:41 pm

Perhaps readers would like to research the collision of a B-25 into the Empire State Building on July 28, 1945. The following description of events is taken from the website <a href="http://www.disastershq.com/features/empire.asp">www.disastershq.com/features/empire.asp</a> "Colonel Smith could no longer avoid collision, and the nose of the B-25 smashed through the windows on the 79th floor. The cockpit flattened on impact, killing all three men on board. The wings sheared off as the plane smashed into the building, sending rivulets of flaming gasoline down the sides of the building. Indoors, flaming fuel rained down over desks and office cubicles. Three of the relief workers were trapped in the flames." Googlesearching empire+state+building+airplane+collision+1945 at <a href="http://tinyurl.com/mkago">tinyurl.com/mkago</a> yields over 100,000 hits.

by **thoughtographer** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 3:45 pm

Great! Now I know what happens when a B-25 crashes into the Empire State Building. "A crooked stick will cast a crooked shadow."

by **nomo** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 5:35 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Perhaps readers would like to research the collision of a B-25 into the Empire State Building on July 28, 1945.<hr></blockquote> And if you really have too much time on your hands, why not research ramming your tricycle into a stuffed pony too! Or is there something about a small propellor plane slamming into a brick building at low speed that can enlighten us about the (no) planes on 9/11? <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/eyes.gif ALT=":rolleyes">

by **darkbeforedawn** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 8:21 pm

I think it is a silly arugment. I have repeated several times in other places I haven't made up my mind about the planes. I simply believe that there are alot of reasons to suspect all kinds of sheenanigans with the planes. As for witnesses--there are plenty of witnesses who thought they saw a missile launched from the roof of the building next door which hit the south tower. The gigantic impact and huge damage to the heavy construction grade girders would be better explained by cutter charges. These buildings were created to take a hit like this with no problem. I don't believe the plane impact could have caused the building to move. It would have had to be demolition charges timed to go off when the "plane" contacted the building. Anyway it is not the important topic and I hope no one wastes any more time on it. If it is true there were no planes, this would increase the guilt of the media as they would have had to knowingly set up a lot of stuff before time--which it looks like they did whether you believe the plane stuff or not....

by **StarmanSkye** » Tue Apr 11, 2006 9:45 pm

Man, I've resisted jumping in on this because at this point, anybody who isn't capable of seeing the HUGE problems with the no-plane thesis plainly DOESN'T WANT TO. So nothing I say is gonna make any diff. But it just perplexes me why people seem determined to hang-onto this utterly discreditted fairy-tale -- WHY? I can't read Reynold's website for more than a couple minutes now without clenching me teeth in disgust --yes, disgust-- as he mangles truth and plain-out lies about incontrovertable facts -- he makes so many egregious faults, anyone who can't find a dozen mistatements or errors in the first five minutes of reading plainly has an extremely poor grasp of the subject material. "towers fell in their footprint" -- WHAT? Yet he admits debris was expelled up to 500 feet, more than twice the tower's 200 ft diameter! Clearly a case where he wants it both ways. Have YOU ever bothered checking this Reynold's 'fact' with a debris chart? "black boxes not found" -- C'mon, it's been widely reported on alternative sites and discussed on this form, 3 of the 4 black boxes were recovered by FEMA and handed-over to the FBI --in great secrecy and still not officially acknowledged, but it was an open secret by the site workers and at least one FBI official admitted it 'anonymously'. How could you have missed this critical detail? Hundreds of people in the buildings reported the airplane-impacts causing the buildings to sway so severely those at the upper floors were knocked to the floor. The south tower rocked when the north tower was struck. <img src="http://images.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/gtowers2.gif" style="border:0;"/> The above is a detailed chart assembled by USA Today that marks where some 200 people were on the 78th floor skylobby waiting on elevators when flight 175 struck the south tower between the 78th and 84th floors -- only 12 people survived who were on the 78th floor as the Boeing's left wing ripped thru the core where crowds waited in front of the elevator banks. READ the story of seven survivors here -- http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002-09-03-floor-usat_x.htm--excerpt-- A deafening explosion and a searing blast of heat ripped through the lobby. The air turned black with smoke. Flames burst out of elevators. Walls and the ceiling crumbled into a foot of debris on the floor. Shards of glass flew like thrown knives. The blast threw people like dolls, tearing their bodies apart. No one knew it was a plane. Judy Wein flew through the air and landed on her side, shattering her forearm, breaking three ribs and puncturing a lung. Oh my God, she thought. Why didn't I keep walking down? As the blow from the jet made the building rock first north, then south, she felt herself sliding across the floor toward the express elevators. A minute before, the elevator doors had been a route to safety. Now they were useless, gaping and askew. Flames burned in the shafts. This is how I'm going to die, she thought. In a burning elevator. What a waste. Donna Spera's arms were burning. Her watch felt like it was melting, and she flicked her wrist to get it off. She dropped her cell phone, the one she had been using to try to call her friend Paulie in the north tower. She dropped her pocketbook. It fell on the motionless body at her feet: Casey Parbhu, her friend and comforter, was dead. The fire in the other tower must have caused an explosion, she thought. The smoke was so dark she could barely see. She remembered a childhood lesson: In a fire, get to the floor. She got on her hands and knees. Everything seemed to be happening in slow motion. She started crawling past bodies, alone. The impact threw Kelly Reyher, on his way to retrieve his Palm Pilot, headfirst into the back wall of the local elevator he had just stepped into. The floor of the elevator buckled, and the car dropped 2 feet. The walls were blown in and flames shot from the shaft. Hot, black smoke filled the elevator car. By Todd Plitt, USA TODAY Kelly Reyher: He never made it back to his 100th floor office, but he did make it back to his family, Daughter Caitlin, now 2 1/2, gives Dad a kiss. I don't want to burn to death, Reyher thought. I'll stand up, I'll breathe in the smoke as hard as I can, and then I'll die and I won't know I'm burning. Then Reyher saw that the doors were still open just an inch or so. He pulled them apart and wedged his briefcase between them. He crawled up, over the briefcase, and out into the lobby. "Howard!" Judy Wein was yelling to Kestenbaum, her boss. It was Vijay Paramsothy who called back: "We're over here!" Paramsothy was sitting up, scratched and bloody. Marble slabs had fallen onto Richard Gabrielle and broken his legs. Wein tried to move the slabs with her good arm, and he cried out. Howard Kestenbaum lay flat and still. To Wein, he looked peaceful. Dead and wounded covered the floor of the lobby like a battlefield after cannon fire. A ghostly dusting of plaster lay over everyone. Reyher crawled past a decapitated body, through and over bodies and limbs and puddles of blood. He could hear people crying, moaning, screaming. --unquote-- Interactive Documentary: Life, death on the 78th floor http://www.usatoday.com/graphics/news/gra/wtc2002/flash.htm Site above also links to other special reports. There were HUNDREDS of people who videotaped and photographed the towers on 911 and recorded the image of flight 175 slamming into the south tower -- WHY do you keep harping on a single video played by the MSM that day that you insist is doctored, and therefore MUST be fake? This is one of the most perplexing incidence of willful fixation that seems to have totally captivated you -- like those who say the NASA moonwalk video shows the USA flag 'waving' in the breeze of a soundstage fan -- forever disproving the US actually sent manned flights to the moon. Cheap, lazy, bunkum. What else? The damage to the tower's facade was NOT (again, I say) NOT clean, crisp, cookie-cutter wing-shaped. LOOK at the photographs. You're too smart to fall for the absurd no-plane-at-the WTC suspension-of-thought premise. Starman

by **darkbeforedawn** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:31 am

I have looked at the photos. They pretty much match up with the supposed angles of the planes entry and the lengths of the wings. Cutter charges would also account for the mayhem and chaos you write of. It is a futile debate, though, I agree. I have chosen to examine another set of evidence. This set of evidence is, I feel, a lot more objective. MSM ran those tapes over and over again that day and all the next too. I think there is something very wrong with those videos, most of which do show the plane passing seamlessly through the solid steel girdered walls, without exploding on impact and without slowing down. The different videos also contradict each other in path and angle of flight and many show signs of cutting and pasting. There are, by the way, only 28. It is possible these 28 were set up beforehand. But I agree with the many other posters who say enough already. We know who did this. And it wasn't a bunch of kids with boxcutters directed by a boogey man in a cave on kidney dialysis.

by **pugzleyca3** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 12:42 am

"And if you really have too much time on your hands, why not research ramming your tricycle into a stuffed pony too!" Thanks, I needed that. I'm not making fun of anyone's theories here, but I will weigh in and say I believe planes hit the buildings. I won't rule out the possibility that there could have been explosives on board, but I have seen nothing that convinces me of that either. I have wished I could use Reynold's website as proof that 9/11 was an inside job, but it's too dangerous to my own credibility on other political websites I frequent, I'd be laughed out of town with some of the stuff he has on there. It just goes against what I find credible, anyway. Shame, though, he does have some Republican credentials behind him and that goes a long way when trying to talk to another Republican about 9/11 being an inside job.

by **darkbeforedawn** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 1:07 am

You are very smug. I suggest you check out Jim Hoffman's site 911research. He says a lot of the exact same things that Reynolds does, but uses a lot more charts and graphs physics formulas. Please take a look at Steven Jone's evidence for CD as he is a physics professor. Oh, I forgot. It's all a waste of time to you, since you know everything. I am glad you are so secure in your world view and are able to keep the high opinion of your fellow bloggers. That's what is important, I'm sure.

by **thoughtographer** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 1:11 am

Oh man, I love charts, graphs and physics formulas! "A crooked stick will cast a crooked shadow."

by **robertdreed** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 1:13 am

"I suggest you check out Jim Hoffman's site 911research. He says a lot of the exact same things that [ Morgan ] Reynolds does" No, he doesn't. I haven't been through Hoffman's entire site, but I can tell you that much.

by **darkbeforedawn** » Wed Apr 12, 2006 1:16 am

Hoffman disagrees about the planes, but as for CD-which is the major portion of his site-- they are on about the same page. Or can you tell me where they differ except for the planes stuff?

In my defense

In my defense

Re: In my defense

Re: In my defense

Re: In my defense

Re: In my defense

Re: In my defense

Re: In my defense

planes etc.

Re: planes etc.

Re: planes etc.

This is too damn funny

Re: This is too damn funny

Re: This is too damn funny

Re: This is too damn funny

Re: This is too damn funny

Who is online