Congressman Walter Jones Exposes Massive 9/11 Conspiracy [who financed hijackers?]

[NewRightLibertarian]

God bless these wonderful patriots!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iwa3CrKtSc

[HOLLYWOOD]

Congressman Walter Jones submitted this House Res 428 on December 2, 2013. Only ONE co-sponsor since. Reveals the redacted 28 pages, which remains classified... under pretext of, wait for it, National Security, of the 9/11 Commission Report.
http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-resolution/428/cosponsorsH.Res. 428 - Urging the president to release information regarding the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks upon the United States. 113th Congress (2013-2014)

Resolution




Sponsor:
Rep. Jones, Walter B., Jr. [R-NC-3] (http://beta.congress.gov/member/walter-jones/612) (Introduced 12/02/2013)


Cosponsors:
1 (http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-resolution/428/cosponsors)


Latest Action:
12/02/2013 Referred to the House Committee on Intelligence (Permanent Select).


Major Recorded Votes:
There are no Roll Call votes for this bill.


Tracker:

This bill has the status Introduced
Here are the steps for Status of Legislation:

[Anti-Neocon]

In before knee-jerk cries of "TRUTHER TRUTHER!"

[Warlord]

Good on Walter Jones.

[Dianne]

Every time I get totally disgusted living in North Carolina, we get a few rays of sunshine. Hats off to you Walter Jones !!

[Warlord]

Walter Jones is a patriot

[sluggo]

Walter Jones also recently spoke favorably about medical marijuana in NC.

He's one of the good ones.

[69360]

In before knee-jerk cries of "TRUTHER TRUTHER!"

Hardly. Jones doesn't have some wacky conspiracy theory. He just wants to get to the bottom of the hijackers financing which has never been fully probed probably because it will be embarrassing for the Saudis. Hopefully Jones stays breathing.

[angelatc]

Hardly. Jones doesn't have some wacky conspiracy theory. He just wants to get to the bottom of the hijackers financing which has never been fully probed probably because it will be embarrassing for the Saudis.


That's perhaps the way it should be, but that isn't the way it is. Any mention of 9/11 seems to be a call to arms for the establishment and the media to start a Truther attack.

[donnay]

Hardly. Jones doesn't have some wacky conspiracy theory. He just wants to get to the bottom of the hijackers financing which has never been fully probed probably because it will be embarrassing for the Saudis. Hopefully Jones stays breathing.

I want that and I want the Pentagon tapes (all of them!) and I want to know what REALLY happened to Building 7. However, it doesn't stop some people here, from calling me a conspiracy theorist. Because that seems to be the knee-jerk reaction many people get when someone questions the actions/or inactions of our government on 9/11. I am still perplexed as to what Iraq had to do with what went down on 9/11 yet, we still occupy that land nearly 11 years later.

[angelatc]

I want that and I want the Pentagon tapes (all of them!) and I want to know what REALLY happened to Building 7. However, it doesn't stop some people here, from calling me a conspiracy theorist. .


You are a conspiracy theorist. Out of all the people who might ever possibly get access to the government secrets, who would you trust was telling you the truth?

[pcosmar]

That's perhaps the way it should be, but that isn't the way it is. Any mention of 9/11 seems to be a call to arms for the establishment and the media to start a Truther attack.
Which in itself begs the question,, "What are they hiding?".

[donnay]

You are a conspiracy theorist. Out of all the people who might ever possibly get access to the government secrets, who would you trust was telling you the truth?

It makes me a conspiracy theorist to ask questions? 13 years have passed, and the thing is-- we are never going to really know what happened. Hell, 50 years have come and gone and still people do not know what actually happened to JFK. So realizing how much government lies, then anything else government says from here on out needs to be questioned--that is what I do. We are also dealing with a hijacked government--Thomas Jefferson told us how we can change that...but their are too many people who have either Stockholm Syndrome or just too lazy and complacent or too brainwashed to care to fight the tyranny.

[69360]

we are never going to really know what happened.

We know what happened on 9/11. Jones is simply trying to find out who gave the mostly saudi nationals money. I'd like to know that too, but suspect it's not possible to get that answer without getting accidented or suicided to protect the saudi royals and/or government.

His questions are reasonable and he's not a truther or nutter in any way.

[Ender]

We know what happened on 9/11. Jones is simply trying to find out who gave the mostly saudi nationals money. I'd like to know that too, but suspect it's not possible to get that answer without getting accidented or suicided to protect the saudi royals and/or government.

His questions are reasonable and he's not a truther or nutter in any way.

We don't all know anything; 911 has been a complete coverup. Just the fact that it was used to usher in the PAs I & II should make anyone with any sense question the official non-report.

[enhanced_deficit]

This is very interesting move, but as always Saudi/neocon/Bush/Obama lobbies will join hands to stop this resolution from going any further for spreading civil wars bloodshed in Syria/Iraq/Lebanon to weaken Iran's friends greater good.

AJ is going almost mainstream lately. He should invite this guy one of these days also:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIRUeJYFZ94
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIRUeJYFZ94

Will Neocons-Al Qaeda alliance end well? (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?427051-Will-Neocons-Al-Qaeda-alliance-end-well&)



http://newsrescue.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/bandar-bush.jpg (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=evyDHUW53Kth8M&tbnid=iLndhaFroIlV3M:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fnewsrescue.com%2Freport-bandar-bush-assassinated-linked-alleged-role-damascus-july-18th-top-official-bombing%2F&ei=AyfLUrebLsGokQfouICABA&bvm=bv.58187178,d.eW0&psig=AFQjCNE6L8tooczouSY5yxTMqvHmfPlgLg&ust=1389131877666464)http://syrianetwork.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/bandar-bush-4.jpg (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=IcD4Cb_iNCdTDM&tbnid=dzDqlDomLsmISM:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fsyrianetwork.wordpress.com%2F2013 %2F08%2F30%2Fbandar-bush-threatens-president-putin-with-sochi-terrorist-attack%2F&ei=aifLUoXHH9T5kQfDxYGoDg&bvm=bv.58187178,d.eW0&psig=AFQjCNF48ZI_-GgKwpxUpwRPnFGTqjxvQw&ust=1389131987533165)
(http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?907-James-Woods-on-Obama-He%E2%80%99s-the-%E2%80%98gift-from-hell%E2%80%99&)http://ivarfjeld.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/03saudi6-600.jpg (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&docid=iLkAlr9VTi94VM&tbnid=eGfg13h02io77M:&ved=0CAUQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fivarfjeld.com%2F2013%2F06%2F05%2F turkish-war-with-israel-threatens-security-of-nato-soldiers%2F&ei=7gzGUrnDDMbMkQevoIDgCA&bvm=bv.58187178,d.eW0&psig=AFQjCNHKmwuXuN_LhtgMedMQBdvZIlUZ4Q&ust=1388797343424846)http://cf.specialopspac.com/images/2023/obama-bows-to-saudi-king.jpg (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/entry.php?907-James-Woods-on-Obama-He%E2%80%99s-the-%E2%80%98gift-from-hell%E2%80%99&)

[phill4paul]

We know what happened on 9/11.

Lol. :rolleyes:

Regarding the article, nothing will come of this. The Saudis were wading hip deep in the shit of 9/11. The ones that were running/financing the ops were allowed to be spirited out of the country on U.S. sanctioned flights while all other air travel was grounded.

[69360]

Lol. :rolleyes:

Regarding the article, nothing will come of this. The Saudis were wading hip deep in the shit of 9/11. The ones that were running/financing the ops were allowed to be spirited out of the country on U.S. sanctioned flights while all other air travel was grounded.

Wasn't that the Bin Laden family? I think it was out of FL and TX? Probably so rednecks didn't hang them from the nearest tree.

[FloralScent]

We don't all know anything; 911 has been a complete coverup. Just the fact that it was used to usher in the PAs I & II should make anyone with any sense question the official non-report.

From another thread but pertinent here also.


The US government actually passed a law to make using propaganda against Americans legal. (Normally we call this kind of thing "treason".) As such, anything that advances the causes of the MIC and gets lots of press should be assumed to be a propaganda effort until the weight of evidence shows otherwise.


amen

[donnay]

We know what happened on 9/11. Jones is simply trying to find out who gave the mostly saudi nationals money. I'd like to know that too, but suspect it's not possible to get that answer without getting accidented or suicided to protect the saudi royals and/or government.

His questions are reasonable and he's not a truther or nutter in any way.

Your response just entered the Conspiracy theory zone.

Most people who questioned any of the anomalies of the 'Official Story' were immediate labeled a conspiracy theorist.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-Hj-Y6o6ec

[Anti Federalist]

We know what happened on 9/11. Jones is simply trying to find out who gave the mostly saudi nationals money. I'd like to know that too, but suspect it's not possible to get that answer without getting accidented or suicided to protect the saudi royals and/or government.

His questions are reasonable and he's not a truther or nutter in any way.

We don't know shit about what really happened on 9/11

[JK/SEA]

seems someone is trying to get under Peter Kings skin.....

[Anti Federalist]

During the 1990s King enjoyed a close relationship with the Muslim community in his congressional district. King often gave speeches at the Westbury Islamic Center, held book signings in the prayer hall, took in Muslim interns, and was one of the few Republicans who supported U.S. intervention in the 1990s to help Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo. The Muslim community thanked King for his work by making him the guest of honor for the 1993 opening of a $3 million prayer hall. For years, a picture of King cutting the ceremonial ribbon hung on the bulletin board by the mosque's entrance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_T._King

[RickyJ]

I have researched it throughly enough to conclude with a high degree of confidence that there were no terrorist hijackings of planes that day, at least the ones we were told about were fake. The planes were diverted to military bases while a military plane took over its route as an impostor. The plan for this can be seen as far back as the The Northwoods documents when similar "hijackings" were planned by our government.

[RickyJ]

We don't know shit about what really happened on 9/11

Actually we can know a great deal about what happened and the people that have a high probability of being involved in it. We don't need to know everything to get revenge, that is never necessary.

[69360]

We don't know shit about what really happened on 9/11

I do. I know who did it, why they did and what happened. I don't believe any of the wide variety of conspiracies out there. If you do that's fine.

However, who financed it has never really been probed. It would be interesting to find out, but doubt we will ever get that info.

[dillo]

Anyone find it hard to believe that they found an intact passport from one of the hijackers from a plane that exploded?

[FloralScent]

I do. I know who did it, why they did and what happened. I don't believe any of the wide variety of conspiracies out there.

You believe the conspiracy your government spoon fed you. You don't know shit; unless you were involved somehow.

[RickyJ]

I do. I know who did it, why they did and what happened. I don't believe any of the wide variety of conspiracies out there. If you do that's fine.

However, who financed it has never really been probed. It would be interesting to find out, but doubt we will ever get that info.

You just believe the most far out wackiest conspiracy of them all, that's all!

[FloralScent]

Anyone find it hard to believe that they found an intact passport from one of the hijackers from a plane that exploded?

The rubes think that's perfectly plausible. They also see nothing out of the ordinary about a building not hit by a plane committing suicide over the loss of it's siblings.

http://islamgreatreligion.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/wtc-7.gif?w=480

[TheGrinch]

Before this turns into a pissing match, I'd say this is a pretty damn big deal. The fact that they've kept it secret up until now only makes it stink all that much worse.

The Saudis (or Israelis) would be the last group that they'd want to reveal were the financiers.

[HOLLYWOOD]

This could be great timing for Walter Jones' H.Res. 248, who can used it against the spineless prostitutes and criminals on Capital Hill/White House/DOJ.
US Appeals Court Revives 9/11 Families' Case Against Saudi Arabia
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?436108-US-Appeals-Court-Revives-9-11-Families-Case-Against-Saudi-Arabia&p=5348475&viewfull=1#post5348475

[Anti Federalist]

I do. I know who did it, why they did and what happened.

How do you know this?

[69360]

You believe the conspiracy your government spoon fed you. You don't know shit; unless you were involved somehow.


You just believe the most far out wackiest conspiracy of them all, that's all!


How do you know this?

I don't argue with thruthers on RPF anymore. I have better things to do with my time. Whatever you believe is fine with me. We probably agree on most other issues if we are here so it's not worth arguing about.

[asurfaholic]

Lol. :rolleyes:

Regarding the article, nothing will come of this. The Saudis were wading hip deep in the shit of 9/11. The ones that were running/financing the ops were allowed to be spirited out of the country on U.S. sanctioned flights while all other air travel was grounded.

Hey do you have a source reference for this? It is very interesting to me, never heard this before.

[phill4paul]

Hey do you have a source reference for this? It is very interesting to me, never heard this before.

My HD crashed not long go and it wasn't worth it to me to extract some of my files regarding many things. I'd say just google and take it from there. My pronunciation may have been a bit dramatic though. Still here are some quick references I found.

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/06/09/Tampabay/TIA_now_verifies_flig.shtml

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2115127/Why-Saudi-royals-links-9-11-allowed-leave-U-S-quizzed-FBI.html

[Neil Desmond]

I think I've found the person I'd like to see become the next POTUS: Walter B. Jones.


I do. I know who did it, why they did and what happened.
Care to share this information with all of us? I'd like to know who did it, why they did it and what happened. Right now I don't know any of that.

[erowe1]

In before knee-jerk cries of "TRUTHER TRUTHER!"

I don't think anybody's going to accuse Walter Jones of being a truther.

[coastie]

I do. I know who did it, why they did and what happened. I don't believe any of the wide variety of conspiracies out there. If you do that's fine.

However, who financed it has never really been probed. It would be interesting to find out, but doubt we will ever get that info.


Hmmm. Then maybe you also know why the "terrorists" would've bothered faking the video of Flight 77 going into the Pentagon. This 5 minute sequence proves beyond a reasonable doubt, that no plane hit the Pentagon. Damn the eyewitnesses, and damn any gov reports saying it did. It did not:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65-rRfkwwOk&feature=player_detailpage

[erowe1]

Hmmm. Then maybe you also know why the "terrorists" would've bothered faking the video of Flight 77 going into the Pentagon. This 5 minute sequence proves beyond a reasonable doubt, that no plane hit the Pentagon. Damn the eyewitnesses, and damn any gov reports saying it did. It did not:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65-rRfkwwOk&feature=player_detailpage

This is what's so annoying about truthers, when they make these sensationalistic absolute claims. Nobody who watches that video critically would conclude that it proves beyond reasonable doubt that no plane hit the Pentagon. All it proves is that whoever made the video doesn't believe that any plane hit the Pentagon.

[coastie]

This is what's so annoying about truthers, when they make these sensationalistic absolute claims. Nobody who watches that video critically would conclude that it proves beyond reasonable doubt that no plane hit the Pentagon. All it proves is that whoever made the video doesn't believe that any plane hit the Pentagon.


You obviously didn't even watch the video, critically or otherwise.

[coastie]

This is what's so annoying about truthers, when they make these sensationalistic absolute claims. Nobody who watches that video critically would conclude that it proves beyond reasonable doubt that no plane hit the Pentagon. All it proves is that whoever made the video doesn't believe that any plane hit the Pentagon.

Matter of fact, the video specifically addresses several questions to you LIARS(couldn't think of anything to counter the TRUTHer label), care to address them, or attack me?

[erowe1]

Matter of fact, the video specifically addresses several questions to you LIARS(couldn't think of anything to counter the TRUTHer label), care to address them, or attack me?

Case in point.

How am I a liar? How did I attack you? What do I need to address? You made a false claim that the video proves something beyond reasonable doubt. I corrected it. There was nothing more to my post than that.

[erowe1]

You obviously didn't even watch the video, critically or otherwise.

I watched the whole thing. If anybody else is thinking about it, go ahead, but know that I warned you, it's a waste of time. It doesn't prove anything. If you have 5 minutes to waste, you might want to watch it just to see what I'm saying.

[coastie]

Case in point.

How am I a liar? How did I attack you? What do I need to address? You made a false claim that the video proves something beyond reasonable doubt. I corrected it. There was nothing more to my post than that.


Case in point? YOU are the one that started with the ad hominem - NOT I. Either address the questions in the video, prove it wrong, or.....


You didn't correct anything. THE PLANE IS NOT THERE...as this video PROVES BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

How, and where, exactly, did you correct my statement? Merely dismissing it and calling me a truther does not mean you corrected anything, are you reading what you are typing?
Typical of the OCT's(Official Conspiracy Theorists).

[erowe1]

Case in point?

Yes. Notice the all-caps and the name calling.

[erowe1]

THE PLANE IS NOT THERE...as this video PROVES BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.


So you have a video that doesn't have a plane in it (although, as even the above video shows, even that is not certain), and that video is proof that no plane hit the Pentagon?

Take a minute before you reply and look up the definition of the word "prove."

And while you're at it, look up "ad hominem" too.

[coastie]

Yes. Notice the all-caps and the name calling.


So, in other words, like all of you OCT's, you're not gonna focus on the subject at hand, and makes this about something unrelated. If you're not gonna bother trying to prove the video wrong, then we are done here. Go away.

[erowe1]

So, in other words, like all of you OCT's, you're not gonna focus on the subject at hand, and makes this about something unrelated. If you're not gonna bother trying to prove the video wrong, then we are done here. Go away.

I don't beed to prove it wrong. That video doesn't prove anything in the first place. There's nothing in it to disprove.

And that is precisely the complaint I have about what you said in the post where you first presented that video.

[coastie]

So you have a video that doesn't have a plane in it (although, as even the above video shows, even that is not certain), and that video is proof that no plane hit the Pentagon?

Take a minute before you reply and look up the definition of the word "prove."

Video shows impact zone of where the explosion occurred. Neither video shows a plane. The frame where the plane should be visible, it's not there. How much more proof do you need????

[ClydeCoulter]

I watched the whole thing. If anybody else is thinking about it, go ahead, but know that I warned you, it's a waste of time. It doesn't prove anything. If you have 5 minutes to waste, you might want to watch it just to see what I'm saying.

@caostie's claim of what it proves may not be completely correct, but that claim does not negate the importance of the content of the video. To say that the video doesn't prove "anything" is also incorrect. IF, in fact, the analysis of the video frames is correct, then the result is that the frames in question were "touched". The question becomes, then, "Why?"

[coastie]

I don't beed to prove it wrong. It doesn't prove anything in the first place. There's nothing in it to disprove.

And that is precisely the complaint I have about what you said in the post where you first presented that video.


well, then get at it, mr. internet video analysis expert. The video specifically addresses your types, and you seem to know what really happened

I will patiently, and with an open-mind await your results.. As is typical, you avoid all technical discussion, and instead focus on things that annoy you.

[erowe1]

well, then get at it, mr. internet video analysis expert. The video specifically addresses your types, and you seem to know what really happened

I will patiently, and with an open-mind await your results.. As is typical, you avoid all technical discussion, and instead focus on things that annoy you.

Another case in point.

I never claimed to know anything beyond the fact that the video which you claimed proved something doesn't actually prove that. And it doesn't.

Given that this much is true, then what kind of technical discussion is even necessary?

Why is it so hard for you just to backtrack the tiniest bit and say, "OK, fair enough. I exaggerated. That video doesn't actually prove that no plane hit the Pentagon."?

When I encounter this kind of argument from truthers it just comes across like the whole thing is a religion to them.

Does the video itself even claim to provide proof that no plane hit the Pentagon? Or was that just your own claim? I don't recall it saying that, although it might have.

[coastie]

Another case in point.

I never claimed to know anything beyond the fact that the video which you claimed proved something doesn't actually prove that. And it doesn't.

Given that this much is true, then what kind of technical discussion is even necessary?

Hey, you're the one that refuses to see what your own eyes are showing you, and started off with an ad hominem and "what annoys you". You were never here to have a rational discussion, period, you were just itching to get a "truther" stab in there, your first post PROVES that.The video clearly proves there was no plane in it. PERIOD. The video addresses all angles, speed of the object(and even assumes it was a plane), max fluctuation of the speed and planes length, etc, etc. THERE IS NO PLANE.


Either address the VIDEO, not what I said, or STFU, for real.

[erowe1]

Hey, you're the one that refuses to see what your own eyes are showing you.

Which is what?


The video clearly proves there was no plane in it.

It clearly proves there was no plane in what? In the pictures that it showed me? Even that is disputable, since there are things in the pictures that I can't identify, and neither could the narrator of the video. But so what? You didn't say that the video proved that there existed some pictures that didn't have a plane in them. You said it proved that no plane hit the Pentagon.



Either address the VIDEO, not what I said, or STFU, for real.

I did address it. I already said that it never proved that no plane hit the Pentagon. And that is true. Do you still claim that it did prove that? If you actually watched the video, I don't see how you could possibly say that.

[TheGrinch]

People, we've had this pissing match a million. Can we instead focus on this concrete revelation of a coverup of Saudi involvement? It's a pretty big revelation if true.

But no matter what you believe, this is just more reason we need a proper investigation, not just a rubberstamp of what, who, why this happened.

[coastie]

I'll try this slower for you.


1. THERE IS NO PLANE IN THE VIDEO. This video was released under the pretense that that is exactly what it was - Flight 77 going into the Pentagon.

2. A video forensics expert did a detailed analysis of BOTH videos, and found major discrepancies...Namely, that the PLANE WAS NOT IN THE FUCKING FRAME IT SHOULD'VE BEEN, or ANY of the frames, for that matter. In fact, the video shows what was presented as the nose of the plane in one video, coming after the tail in the other video. This, obviously, is not possible.

3. You have done nothing here but focus on my statement that it proves beyond a reasonable doubt - and it does. So, the ball's in your court. Prove it doesn't, instead of calling me a truther every other post, you still have not addressed the video at all, instead focusing on a statement I made, which takes nothing away from the video.

You just merely keep claiming the video proves nothing, with nothing but your infinite wisdom and spidey-senses with regards to "truthers".

[ClydeCoulter]

@coastie, it's better not to feed the trolls. They will take you around in circles.

For one thing, you have to be very careful with how you word your comments on things. To say that the video proves there was no plane is not really correct. Instead, if you think about it, it only proves that the video frames were "touched". Imho, your interpretation of that is that that means there is no plane, but that the touched frames are covering up what "really" hit the pentagon (missile?) otherwise why would they be touched. In order to keep the trolls (on this subject) from attacking your stance, you have to stick with only the facts and not your interpretation of the meaning of the facts.

The trolls on this subject will attack your theories about what the facts show. So, it is better to stick with the facts that question the official story, and that the "released facts" by the PTB are fake. Then, ask the question, "Why?". Why release video that is touched, which the video you posted demonstrates.

[PRB]

which one is it? did somebody finance the hijackers? or were there no hijackers?

[erowe1]

I'll try this slower for you.


1. THERE IS NO PLANE IN THE VIDEO.
When you say "video" do you mean the time-lapse photographs that the video you linked is about?

If so, I'm not as certain that there is no plane in those photographs as you are. But so what? I've also never claimed that there is a plane in them.



2. A video forensics expert did a detailed analysis of BOTH videos, and found major discrepancies...Namely, that the PLANE WAS NOT IN THE FUCKING FRAME IT SHOULD'VE BEEN, or ANY of the frames, for that matter.
There you go again, saying "videos." The video you posted doesn't say anything about videos. It's about time lapse photographs, with a lapse of 1 second between each picture.

Where do you get the idea that there should have been a plane in any of those pictures? If the video really were to present proof beyond reasonable doubt that no plane hit the Pentagon, and if it were to do that by showing that there were no plane in a picture that it should have been in, then it would first have to prove that the plane should have been in that picture. Since it does not present that proof that any of the photographs ought to have had planes in them, it is invalid to claim that it proves that no plane hit the Pentagon.



3. You have done nothing here but focus on my statement that it proves beyond a reasonable doubt

Exactly. That's all I'm doing. I'm not claiming to prove anything myself. I'm just taking issue with that kind of exaggeration. The fact that you're insisting on sticking with that claim only further proves my point.

[coastie]

which one is it? did somebody finance the hijackers? or were there no hijackers?


That's a good question, actually. There's certainly more evidence pointing toward there were NOT any hijackers on board those planes, as opposed to the evidence there was.

I personally think the financing angle is being tossed in to give more weight to the official story, but who knows?

[PRB]

That's a good question, actually. There's certainly more evidence pointing toward there were NOT any hijackers on board those planes, as opposed to the evidence there was.

I personally think the financing angle is being tossed in to give more weight to the official story, but who knows?

well then, we agree, they can't both be right. Truthers better get their story straight.

[donnay]

which one is it? did somebody finance the hijackers? or were there no hijackers?

Somebody obvious financed the alleged hijackers. Somebody obviously had an agenda. The question people need to ask is cui bono--look at all the anti-liberty legislation that has been enacted in 12 1/2 years. It's a critical thinking exercise.

[TheGrinch]

In order to keep the trolls (on this subject) from attacking your stance, you have to stick with only the facts and not your interpretation of the meaning of the facts.

Yep, the burden of proof isn't on us, even if the anti-truther trolls want to act like it is. All that is needed for a proper investigation is sufficient reason to doubt their claims, and we certainly have more than enough of that.

I'd say the fact that they covered up Saudi involvement (if true) along with things like this are plenty good enough to have serious doubts about the "official" fairy-tale conspiracy theory.

[ClydeCoulter]

which one is it? did somebody finance the hijackers? or were there no hijackers?

Yes, that's an interesting twist in and of itself, isn't it. And I have thought a lot about it. This is not the only subject that such seemingly inconsistent things are linked into a subject.

It could be both are true. But any "theory" would be just that. We know that photos/videos of some of the "hijackers" have been released, although none with date/location time stamps that put them at the terminals at the date/location that would be needed to part of "the" plot. The only thing that I can say is that there needs to be pasties for a cover up, and that anyone in their right mind that wanted to pull something this big off would have alternate plans (A,B,etc) in place.

I'm also waiting to see how this whole "Saudi" thing plays out. There's something that stinks with the whole thing...always has. You know that Sadam was once an "ally", right, when it served a "purpose".

[PRB]

Somebody obvious financed the alleged hijackers. Somebody obviously had an agenda. The question people need to ask is cui bono--look at all the anti-liberty legislation that has been enacted in 12 1/2 years. It's a critical thinking exercise.

Either they financed actual hijackers, or there were no hijackers, how do you finance virtual or alleged hijackers? You pay them or somebody to say there were hijackers?

[TheGrinch]

well then, we agree, they can't both be right. Truthers better get their story straight.

OUR story? We didn't write the official story, the burden of proof isn't on us, it's on those who conducted the investigation.

So where are the videos of the hijackers, if that's the claim?

Why does it negate that they could have been financed to come here and learn to fly under the facade of hijacking, as part of the plot?

If they did actually hijack the planes, how does this negate that agents within our government (who we know are in bed with the Saudis) were involved and mayb have used them as patsies?

There are many possibilities, but we only know as much as what info we have, which is FAR more than enough to see that the official story is full of bullshit.

So don't be one of those assholes who acts like it's our claims that are in question, when we're ripping holes apart out of the official story.

[TheGrinch]

Either they financed actual hijackers, or there were no hijackers, how do you finance virtual or alleged hijackers? You pay them or somebody to say there were hijackers?

Again ,we all know that real people did take part in flying classes (they were awful pilots incapable of even flying a sesna, let alone a 757 which would be impossible to pull those manuevers).

However, there is not currently any proof presented that they actually ended up hijacking planes. See my above post, there are many possibilities that could still allow for an inside job. So stop being a troll.

[PRB]

OUR story? We didn't write the official story, the burden of proof isn't on us, it's on those who conducted the investigation.


You claim to be a truther? Do you have a story you want to share? Do you have a series of events of which you'd be willing to put to a test?



So where are the videos of the hijackers, if that's the claim?

Why does it negate that they could have been financed to come here and learn to fly under the facade of hijacking, as part of the plot?


So they were paid to learn to fly, then sent on the plane and killed by somebody else? So somebody with an agenda financed hijackers and didn't actually use them in hijacking?



If they did actually hijack the planes, how does this negate that agents within our government (who we know are in bed with the Saudis) were involved and mayb have used them as patsies?


If they hijacked planes and flew them into buildings, that negates any claims the hijackers were still alive, didn't exist, or planes were never hijacked (and instead remote controlled).



There are many possibilities, but we only know as much as what info we have, which is FAR more than enough to see that the official story is full of bullshit.

So don't be one of those assholes who acts like it's our claims that are in question, when we're ripping holes apart out of the official story.

You make claims, then we question.

[PRB]

Again ,we all know that real people did take part in flying classes (they were awful pilots incapable of even flying a sesna, let alone a 757 which would be impossible to pull those manuevers).

However, there is not currently any proof presented that they actually ended up hijacking planes. See my above post, there are many possibilities that could still allow for an inside job. So stop being a troll.

No, we don't know that, all you have is somebody paid to say they did it.

There's no proof anybody was in the planes or the buildings, if there was, you'd see remains of bodies.

[erowe1]

To say that the video doesn't prove "anything" is also incorrect. IF, in fact, the analysis of the video frames is correct, then the result is that the frames in question were "touched". The question becomes, then, "Why?"

That is a big if. And the video does not prove that they were touched. It does suggest that they were, but I don't think that the narrator even claims to have proven that they were. Nor does the video even get into any discussion at all of internal evidence within each of the two photographs in question that one or both of them were touched.

We could get into discussion of the problems with what the video does say about those pictures. But before even beginning to do that, I think it's important just to settle the point that, regardless what the video does with those pictures, it doesn't prove that no plane hit the Pentagon.

My first problem with the way the video presented the evidence of those two frames is that, from the very first time it showed the one picture, it described a certain very nondescript triangular shape in it as the tail of a plane. But it didn't look like the tail of a plane to me. It would be better to say just that there's this shape here, and we don't know what it is. But the rest of the video's argument depends on the claim that the shape is supposed to be a tail of a plane, such that if it the claim that it's the tail of a plane turns out not to be corroborated by the evidence of the photos from the other camera, then it must have been doctored.

And then similarly, the other shape in that same picture is called the exhaust from the plane, and then when the picture from the other camera gets mentioned, there's this shape that gets called the nose of the plane. And then at the end when they argue that this exhaust and nose are really the same thing, it's supposed to be some kind of evidence of something, when the truth is, I can't tell what either of those shapes are in either picture in the first place, and I don't see how the narrator can either. The whole aspect of identifying all these things just stacks the deck for showing that they're not what the video first suggested they were. Well, so why suggest that's what they were from the beginning? Answer, so that you can get to that conclusion where you say that they're not those things, and then jump to the conclusion that the only other explanation is that the pictures were doctored.

[coastie]

When you say "video" do you mean the time-lapse photographs that the video you linked is about?

If so, I'm not as certain that there is no plane in those photographs as you are. But so what? I've also never claimed that there is a plane in them.

Are you fucking serious? The title of the video sequence is PENTAGON VIDEO ANALYSIS, they are VIDEOS(TWO of them) shot at 1 fps. This makes it a VIDEO shot at 1 fps, not "time lapse photography". I'm really beginning to wonder if you really did watch it, all of this is clearly addressed in the video.

So what? Lemme shoot it to you like this...If I was charged with robbing a bank...and the security video shows me NOWHERE in the video robbing said teller at said bank, are you suggesting this would not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I didn't rob the bank?



There you go again, saying "videos." The video you posted doesn't say anything about videos. It's about time lapse photographs, with a lapse of 1 second between each picture.

Actually, it does, it talks of TWO SEPARATE videos, what the fuck else would they be comparing it to???


Where do you get the idea that there should have been a plane in any of those pictures? I dunno, maybe from the fact the gov TOLD us that's what was in the videos? That this video was presented as EVIDENCE and PROOF Flight 77 went into the Pentagon? Clearly, you did not watch the video.


If the video really were to present proof beyond reasonable doubt that no plane hit the Pentagon, and if it were to do that by showing that there were no plane in a picture that it should have been in, then it would first have to prove that the plane should have been in that picture. Since it does not present that proof that any of the photographs ought to have had planes in them, it is invalid to claim that it proves that no plane hit the Pentagon.

What? The whole premise of these videos being released in the first place was so the gov could "prove" Flight 77 hit the building. You're not even making sense at this point, just stop, really.

[donnay]

Either they financed actual hijackers, or there were no hijackers, how do you finance virtual or alleged hijackers? You pay them or somebody to say there were hijackers?

Read Operation Northwoods

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf

[erowe1]

I dunno, maybe from the fact the gov TOLD us that's what was in the videos?

I don't know either. Did the government tell us that? The video you linked doesn't mention that. But if so, then so what? Let's say the government said, "This here is a tail of Flight 77." And then let's say that the video you linked proved that what the government said was the tail really couldn't have been that. Then what? Even if the video you gave successfully proves that much, then all that proves is that the government was wrong about claiming that whatever that thing was was the tail of Flight 77. How do you get from that to saying that it proved beyond reasonable doubt that no plane hit the Pentagon?

[erowe1]

The whole premise of these videos being released in the first place was so the gov could "prove" Flight 77 hit the building.

Says who?

[TheGrinch]

You claim to be a truther? Do you have a story you want to share? Do you have a series of events of which you'd be willing to put to a test?



So they were paid to learn to fly, then sent on the plane and killed by somebody else? So somebody with an agenda financed hijackers and didn't actually use them in hijacking?



If they hijacked planes and flew them into buildings, that negates any claims the hijackers were still alive, didn't exist, or planes were never hijacked (and instead remote controlled).



You make claims, then we question.

Yes I am a truther, as in I don't think we've been told anywhere close to the truth of what really happened that day, there are an abundance of reasons why it couldn't have gone down how they said it did, but conspiracy theorist not so much. However, neither are the vast majority of truthers who just want answers. Afterall it is the official story making these outrageous claims. Just because some people like the Loose Changers want to act like they have it all figured out (which they can't, when there are still simply too many unkowns that we can't know, when all of this information remains private), does not mean you can just dismiss the questions, discrepencies and outright lies that msot truthers question.

Back on topic, I think this is just one more piece that shows that the 9/11 plot goes much deeper than the fairy-tale we've been told. I don't have to have all the answers to see that.

[coastie]

My first problem with the way the video presented the evidence of those two frames is that, from the very first time it showed the one picture, it described a certain very nondescript triangular shape in it as the tail of a plane. But it didn't look like the tail of a plane to me. It would be better to say just that there's this shape here, and we don't know what it is. But the rest of the video's argument depends on the claim that the shape is supposed to be a tail of a plane, such that if it the claim that it's the tail of a plane turns out not to be corroborated by the evidence of the photos from the other camera, then it must have been doctored.


The video isn't making the claim the tail is in the frame...it's calling into question the government's claim that was the tail of the plane. I don't know how you can't see this, without willfully ignoring it.


And then similarly, the other shape in that same picture is called the exhaust from the plane, and then when the picture from the other camera gets mentioned, there's this shape that gets called the nose of the plane. And then at the end when they argue that this exhaust and nose are really the same thing, it's supposed to be some kind of evidence of something, when the truth is, I can't tell what either of those shapes are in either picture in the first place, and I don't see how the narrator can either. The whole aspect of identifying all these things just stacks the deck for showing that they're not what the video first suggested they were. Well, so why suggest that's what they were from the beginning? Answer, so that you can get to that conclusion where you say that they're not those things, and then jump to the conclusion that the only other explanation is that the pictures were doctored.

Again...the video refers to these pieces of the plane because that's what the government claimed they were, not the narrator in the video.

[erowe1]

Lemme shoot it to you like this...If I was charged with robbing a bank...and the security video shows me NOWHERE in the video robbing said teller at said bank, are you suggesting this would not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I didn't rob the bank?


That's correct. A video like that could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that you did not rob the bank.

[erowe1]

The video isn't making the claim the tail is in the frame...it's calling into question the government's claim

That's not what you said that I took issue with.

What you said was that it proved that no plane hit the Pentagon.

What we're left with here are these two photographs that have things in them that we can't identify. We have been given no reason to believe that there ought to be a plane in either of these pictures, such that the absence of a plane from the pictures proves that no plane hit the Pentagon.

If all you really meant to say was that there exists this evidence that does not, by itself, prove that a plane hit the Pentagon, then, sure, that much is true. But there's a big difference between saying that and saying that this evidence is proof that no plane hit the Pentagon.

[PRB]

That's correct. A video like that could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that you did not rob the bank.

guilty until proven innocent, why should either side get benefit of doubt?

[TheGrinch]

That's correct. A video like that could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that you did not rob the bank.

Dude, stop being a contrarian. He should have just left it to the fact that the most-heavily guarded building in the world undoubtedly has footage of the plane hitting. Yet they went around confiscating videos from surrounding businesses, and only produce this video that doesn't show a plane and may even be doctored.

Coastie made a mistake of making claims, when he should have just left it to the fact that the government hasn't proven their claim, despite them clearly having the resources to do so.

[PRB]

Yes I am a truther, as in I don't think we've been told anywhere close to the truth of what really happened that day, there are an abundance of reasons why it couldn't have gone down how they said it did, but conspiracy theorist not so much. However, neither are the vast majority of truthers who just want answers.


If you like your answer, you can keep it. By answer, you mean answer that'll satisfy your hyperskepticism and denial.



Afterall it is the official story making these outrageous claims. Just because some people like the Loose Changers want to act like they have it all figured out (which they can't, when there are still simply too many unkowns that we can't know, when all of this information remains private), does not mean you can just dismiss the questions, discrepencies and outright lies that msot truthers question.


So point me to somebody who accurately and fairly represnets truthers.



Back on topic, I think this is just one more piece that shows that the 9/11 plot goes much deeper than the fairy-tale we've been told. I don't have to have all the answers to see that.

Do you have a less outrageous hypothesis which you'd like to test and explain?

[PRB]

Coastie made a mistake of making claims, when he should have just left it to the fact that the government hasn't proven their claim, despite them clearly having the resources to do so.

It's called being fair, admitting what you believe, and holding yourself to the same questions you hold official story to. Learn that sometime. Any idiot can ask questions, but if you want to be taken seriously, try actually setting a rule for what you're looking for, you might get something.

[erowe1]

Coastie made a mistake of making claims

Thus far, Coastie is still unwilling to concede that, which supports the initial response I made about exaggerating what was in that video.

[coastie]

That's not what you said that I took issue with.

What you said was that it proved that no plane hit the Pentagon.

What we're left with here are these two photographs that have things in them that we can't identify. We have been given no reason to believe that there ought to be a plane in either of these pictures, such that the absence of a plane from the pictures proves that no plane hit the Pentagon.

They are not "photographs", they are video frames. And no, they are not the same thing. "...Been given no reason to believe..." Have you gone insane, or has some giant stupid bomb landed on your head?

These two VIDEOS were presented as EVIDENCE, by the government(DOD), that Flight 77 went into the Pentagon. That's not a reason to believe there should be a plane there??? Because that's damn sure what they claimed.

And no, what we're left with is two still FRAMES of a video that should be showing a 757 in them - they do not.


EDIT: And I'm not exaggerating - that was my OPINION. Last I checked, we're not sitting in a courtroom. Where's is the reasonable doubt you're clinging to?

[ClydeCoulter]

From infowars, May 2006:


Scott Bingham of www.flight77.info/ has stated on his website:

"No one can say for sure why the FBI is reluctant to release the videos. it could just be a matter of policy, or it could have to do - as many suspect - with the notion that keeping the videos from the public is helping to fuel wild conspiracy theories. these theories - that no 757 hit the pentagon - helps discredit the 9/11 truth movement in general, and keeps people's focus away from such topics as WTC building 7."

We are in agreement with Mr Bingham. For over four years we at Infowars and Prisonplanet have remained neutral on the subject of flight 77, agreeing that unanswered questions need to be explored but warning against the Pentagon issue becoming the core focus of the 9/11 truth movement.

The danger is clearly that the government will use its media mouthpieces in particular Fox News to hype this until it becomes the de facto keystone of alternative explanations behind 9/11. At the point when that crescendo reaches its peak crystal clear footage of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon will be released, knocking down the straw man argument that the establishment itself erected.

We need to concentrate on the concrete facts that point towards a cover up of complicity and not on wild speculation that will only hinder the movement as a whole.


In other words, stick with facts, not interpretation of facts.

[erowe1]

They are not "photographs", they are video frames.

Frames that are shot once per second. What's the difference between that and photographs. And why the insistence on calling them videos? Is it because calling them videos makes it easier to pretend that we should expect to see a plane in one of the frames?

[erowe1]

These two VIDEOS were presented as EVIDENCE, by the government(DOD), that Flight 77 went into the Pentagon.

That's interesting and all. But everything I've said has been in response to the video you presented, and claimed that it proved beyond reasonable doubt that no plane hit the Pentagon.

I actually don't know anything about what the government ever said those pictures proved. The video itself that you linked also doesn't get into whether the government ever said they were evidence of anything.

I am not saying that they are proof that a plane hit the Pentagon. I am only saying that they are not proof that one didn't.

[erowe1]

And no, what we're left with is two still FRAMES of a video that should be showing a 757 in them

What's your basis for asserting that they should show a 757?

N.B. the video you linked never demonstrates that they should show a 757.

[ClydeCoulter]

Frames that are shot once per second. What's the difference between that and photographs. And why the insistence on calling them videos? Is it because calling them videos makes it easier to pretend that we should expect to see a plane in one of the frames?

It's because a video is a timed sequence of photos. That's all any video is (until it is edited). There are different "persistence" from one frame to another depending on the quality and setting of the video camera (lens open time per frame).

The difference between a simple photo (even a series of photos) and a frame of a video is the sequencing in known time (fps). But, you probably know that. It's obfuscation.

[TheGrinch]

It's called being fair, admitting what you believe, and holding yourself to the same questions you hold official story to. Learn that sometime. Any idiot can ask questions, but if you want to be taken seriously, try actually setting a rule for what you're looking for, you might get something.

That's stupid. What I believe is filled with unknowns and could change if more information comes out (such as Saudi involvement), what they know is full of secret information they haven't shared with us (such as Saudi involvement). So forgive me for holding those who conducted an official "investigation" full of gaping holes and discrepencies to a higher standard.

[coastie]

Frames that are shot once per second. What's the difference between that and photographs. And why the insistence on calling them videos? Is it because calling them videos makes it easier to pretend that we should expect to see a plane in one of the frames?

You're impossible. Admit you didn't even watch the video, and go the fuck away.

The DOD referred to them as videos. The government referred to them as videos. The video forensics expert that analyzed the VIDEOS was pretty sure they were VIDEOS.

The DOD camera syncing system thinks they are videos. Your ignorance of all this proves nothing, other than you're willing to use that ignorance to prove a point(of which, you still haven't).

Maybe that's why I insist on calling them videos - because that's exactly what they fucking are. Your ignorance of the difference between a photograph and a video frame does not make you right. Camera's(photographs) aren't specified in frames per second. They shoot much faster than that, as you don't have to hold your camera still for a (full) second to take a picture.

[TheGrinch]

Frames that are shot once per second. What's the difference between that and photographs. And why the insistence on calling them videos? Is it because calling them videos makes it easier to pretend that we should expect to see a plane in one of the frames?

A basic frame rate on a basic camcorder is at least 20/30fps. It is safe to assume the Pentagons cameras operate with at least this much for the most heavily guarded building in the world.

The real question is, why didn't they? Why the need to confiscate the proof they undoubtedly have about what really happened?

You wanna know why conspiracy theories exist, they exist because of secrecy.

[coastie]

A basic frame rate on a basic camcorder is at least 20/30fps. It is safe to assume the Pentagons cameras operate with at least this much for the most heavily guarded building in the world.


No, its not safe to assume that, as this particular video was shot at 1 fps. The other 83 missing videos, however, probably did.

[erowe1]

A basic frame rate on a basic camcorder is at least 20/30fps. It is safe to assume the Pentagons cameras operate with at least this much for the most heavily guarded building in the world.

The real question is, why didn't they?

Great question. Am I supposed to have an answer? I didn't make a bold assertion about what the video that Coastie presented proved.

Does the government have other videos that do conclusively show that a 757 hit the Pentagon? I don't know.

Does the government have other videos that conclusively show that something else caused the damage to the Pentagon? I don't know. (Actually, this is being generous. I'm pretty sure they don't.)

All I claim to know, as far as this thread is concerned, is that the video Coastie presented does not prove that no plane hit the Pentagon.

[otherone]

You wanna know why conspiracy theories exist, they exist because of secrecy.

Theories exist because the government has had conspiracies exposed in the past. It would be naive to believe they no longer exist.

[erowe1]

It's because a video is a timed sequence of photos. That's all any video is (until it is edited).

That's what I thought.

So there's no difference between one of these frames of a video that shoots one frame per second and a photograph from a camera that took one picture per second.

[TheGrinch]

Theories exist because the government has had conspiracies exposed in the past. It would be naive to believe they no longer exist.

Well yes, that too, but I think that's more the justification for skepticism, as the govenrment has lsot any benefit of the doubt they might have once had.

But I think the need to theorize is just as much due to the fact that we're not being told everything and in many cases being lied to. It's human nature to want to connect the dots, even if sometimes that might lead to an unprovable theory (based on available information anyway).

Thus, I prefer to continue to poke holes in their claims rather than act like I have all the answers and the burden of proof is on me. That is not the role of an investigator, it's to question claims.

[erowe1]

Your ignorance of the difference between a photograph and a video frame does not make you right. Camera's(photographs) aren't specified in frames per second. They shoot much faster than that, as you don't have to hold your camera still for a (full) second to take a picture.

I don't follow what you're saying? You can't mean that in capturing each of these 1-per-second video frames these cameras actually had full one-second exposures, can you? The pictures of the cars passing through don't seem to allow that. Each frame had to be a quick single photograph, with one photograph being taken each second. I still don't see why it makes a difference whether you call it one photograph per second and a video of one frame per second.

[erowe1]

Well yes, that too, but I think that's more the justification for skepticism, as the govenrment has lsot any benefit of the doubt they might have once had.

I don't have any problem with skepticism. I have a problem with obviously misplaced dogmatism.

In fact, if you're trying to get more people to be skeptical about any particular explanation for 9/11, then spouting off unsupportable dogmatic exaggerations will hurt you more than it will help.

[ClydeCoulter]

That's what I thought.

So there's no difference between one of these frames of a video that shoots one frame per second and a photograph from a camera that took one picture per second.

Yes, there is. A camera that someone clicks to take pictures at any rate is not a video, because it has no known sequencing. That's the difference. Now, if you take a frame of video out of context, without any consideration of the surrounding frames, then it is useless as a video frame since it has no "reference" and is no more useful than a photo.

Many digital cameras today can take a video, ie, a timed sequence of photos that constitutes a video.

A surrounding context gives a frame of video a different role than a simple photo.

[erowe1]

Yes, there is. A camera that someone clicks to take pictures at any rate is not a video, because it has no known sequencing. That's the difference. Now, if you take a frame of video out of context, without any consideration of the surrounding frames, then it is useless as a video frame since it has no "reference" and is no more useful than a photo.

Many digital cameras today can take a video, ie, a timed sequence of photos that constitutes a video.

A surrounding context gives a frame of video a different role than a simple photo.

Fair enough.

To me the big point isn't the calling of it a video. It's just recognizing the slow rate of only one frame per second. I see no reason to insist that a plane should have to appear in any of the frames at all given how briefly it would have appeared in the field of view. Nor do I know what would show up in a picture from something moving across it at the speed that Flight 77 would have even if it were in the field of view at the moment the picture was taken. The video Coastie linked doesn't get into these questions at all.

[osan]

I want to know what REALLY happened to Building 7.

You already know what happened. What you want is for Themme to admit it.

You're not alone.

[jmdrake]

We know what happened on 9/11.

Really? Cause some of us want to know what happened to WTC 7.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_ADYLUOk1I



Jones is simply trying to find out who gave the mostly saudi nationals money. I'd like to know that too, but suspect it's not possible to get that answer without getting accidented or suicided to protect the saudi royals and/or government.

His questions are reasonable and he's not a truther or nutter in any way.

The Saudi money got funneled through the Pakistani ISI. And the fact that this was covered up is one of the biggest questions that blows the whole door open on 9/11. Why was Osama Bin Laden allowed to escape into Pakistan? Why did we halt the invasion of Afghanistan to allow the Pakistanis to get their own soldiers out? Republican Dana Rohrabacker knows the aid we send to Pakistan gets funneled to Al Qaeda.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2MjsjhQxqE

And that's just a continuation of what we did going all the way back to the Soviet war in Afghanistan. It's not just Saudi money that goes to Al Qaeda. It's not just Pakistani money that goes to Al Qaeda. It's American money that goes to Al Qaeda.

[PRB]

Really? Cause some of us want to know what happened to WTC 7.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_ADYLUOk1I




The Saudi money got funneled through the Pakistani ISI. And the fact that this was covered up is one of the biggest questions that blows the whole door open on 9/11. Why was Osama Bin Laden allowed to escape into Pakistan? Why did we halt the invasion of Afghanistan to allow the Pakistanis to get their own soldiers out? Republican Dana Rohrabacker knows the aid we send to Pakistan gets funneled to Al Qaeda.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2MjsjhQxqE



And that's just a continuation of what we did going all the way back to the Soviet war in Afghanistan. It's not just Saudi money that goes to Al Qaeda. It's not just Pakistani money that goes to Al Qaeda. It's American money that goes to Al Qaeda.
Somebody in America funded the hijackers and then blew up WTC 7.

[Carson]

The rubes think that's perfectly plausible. They also see nothing out of the ordinary about a building not hit by a plane committing suicide over the loss of it's siblings.

http://islamgreatreligion.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/wtc-7.gif?w=480

Back, in I think the sixties, someone tried to convince me that the new Federal Court building was built with explosives in it that were suppose to be able to bring it down. There was suppose to also be a parking garage built the same way. The theory was that they were being proactive to the time when it would need to be torn down.

I never did buy it. It would be to risky, I'm thinking.

I do remember looking at the steal beams in the parking garage. The only thing I could see a little odd was a lump under the paint that looked like a ground wire running up the beam. Like if a ground wire was attached to the beam and painted over. Maybe that is what it was.

[Wolfgang Bohringer]

To investigate the 1963 coup-de-tat, Jim Garrison followed the trail of the assassins.

After the 9/11 attacks, while the entire "truther" movement watched freefall videos and speculated about termites in the WTC, only investigator Dan Hopsicker went to the scene of the crime: Venice, Florida--where the hijackers lived immediately prior to the attacks for over one year.

Hopsicker also attended the 9/11 Commission Hearings and was sitting in the audience when they flashed a receipt for a $70,000 money order on the screen. Hopsicker noticed the address was for 201 Nokomis Ave., Venice, FL. which was a Qwickie Mart that mysteriously closed down shortly after 9/11. Hopsicker found that the Qwickie Mart was owned by Makram Chams--a former Saudi contractor for San Diego based MIC outfit Titan Corporation.

Spoonerian posts on DU:



My favorite Makram Chams story is the one that Hopsicker attibutes to the psychiatrist who worked at the Venice Hospital a few blocks south of Chams' "Kwickie Mart"--which apparently performed the same function for the Venice Airport Mafia that Satriale's Meat Market provided Tony Soprano and his crew.

http://www.madcowprod.com/05172006.html

“Nokomis Ave runs right behind the hospital in Venice,” stated the psychiatrist. "Each day as I left the hospital for the office I'd head north on Nokomis. At the corner of Nokomis and Miami there was this little (Kwik-Chek) convenience store run by middle-eastern types.”

“Half the time I'd be late for the office and I'd stop in there and grab something awful for lunch. A woman and a large man were usually behind the counter. Some days I'd go in there and no one would be behind the counter but there would be loud talking in the back.”

“A few times I saw Atta in there, hanging around. Once I made eye contact with him—dead on! Emphasis on "dead" because when we locked eyes a chill went through me and I thought: "He's got 'dead' eyes."

“When you become a shrink you sometimes get attuned to what might be going on with a person just from seeing how they look—their faces and eyes—on the street or in public. The chill I got when I saw Atta was not the chill of fear. It was a chill about how sick he looked. He looked to be one of the most depressed persons I'd ever laid eyes on.”

“He looked so depressed that it was as if he was already gone. In retrospect I feel he may have been just as happy to die for the sake of ending it all as he was to die for Allah.”

“A couple of weeks after 9/11 the convenience store closed up,” stated the psychiatrist, who has since moved out of state. “I was down there last summer visiting the old psych unit crew, nurses and staff, at a yearly reunion at Sharkey's, and the store was still closed up. I found a reference to the store on the TERRORLAND website, and it got me thinking.”

“I wish I'd paid more attention back then… but who knew?”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x127242


With only 1 co-sponsor it doesn't look like Walter Jones is going to get the chance to subpoena Hopsicker's investigative research at Congressional hearings.

***

Ok, back to your regularly scheduled arguments about termites in the WTC...

[vita3]

H.R. 428

Who has called their Congressman/women?

[Neil Desmond]

Ok, back to your regularly scheduled arguments about termites in the WTC...

Termites? Oh, so all along it was just a typo?

[jbauer]

I am still perplexed as to what Iraq had to do with what went down on 9/11 yet, we still occupy that land nearly 11 years later.

The planes used oil. Iraq still has oil. Your quest for the truth is now over

[jbauer]

Anyone find it hard to believe that they found an intact passport from one of the hijackers from a plane that exploded?

No, haven't you ever played with firecrackers? Explosions cause stuff to go away from the detonation point. Now if you told me they found 100 passports rubber banded together sitting nicely in an evidence bag I'd say you'd be onto something.

[jmdrake]

I do. I know who did it, why they did and what happened. I don't believe any of the wide variety of conspiracies out there. If you do that's fine.

However, who financed it has never really been probed. It would be interesting to find out, but doubt we will ever get that info.

If you don't know who financed it then how do you know why it was ultimately carried out? Say the finance trail led back to the Bush family? Then what? Are you familiar with Riggs Bank (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/19/us/at-riggs-bank-a-tangled-path-led-to-scandal.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm) and its connections with terrorist money laundering? Are you aware of the fact that Jonathan Bush (http://thesrv.blogspot.com/2006/09/corporate-thieves-bush-cia-spook-fund.html), uncle to George W. Bush, was a top executive at Riggs bank? Being tied to unsavory characters through banking is nothing new to the Bush family. Family patriarch, Prescott Bush, was known as Hitler's banker.

[coastie]

No, haven't you ever played with firecrackers? Explosions cause stuff to go away from the detonation point. Now if you told me they found 100 passports rubber banded together sitting nicely in an evidence bag I'd say you'd be onto something.

A firework explosion and fuel explosion are two completely different things, way different pressures involved. I see what you're trying to say, sure it's not "impossible" for the passport to have survived, but twice? They found one in Shanksville as well. They also never found the black boxes for either plane that hit the towers...yet found passports, bandanas and a couple box cutters. Hmm, how convenient for the official story.

Couple that with the awfully convenient bag that didn't make Atta's flight that had his last will and testament, flight training manuals, etc. Because that's also totally plausible that you would take all that on a flight to be destroyed, because everyone writes a last will, just to destroy it...

Or, maybe Atta knew already they'd find someone's passport after the crashes, and figured the will and testament would survive the crash? Think of the firecrackers. Seems legit.:rolleyes:

[HOLLYWOOD]

Wow, the fastest and most costliest (taxpayers and also their liberties) of 'Asbestos Abatement' and 'Pentagon REFIs' we have witnessed in history.

[coastie]

Wow, the fastest and most costliest (taxpayers and also their liberties) of 'Asbestos Abatement' and 'Pentagon REFIs' we have witnessed in history.

Psht, silence you crazy fucking truther. These are all just coincidences.


You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists. We see where you stand.

Reported.

[InRonITrust]

I know it's fun to blame Saudi Arabia for supporting terrorism, but frankly there is no evidence to support that. The government of Saudi Arabia cracks down on al-Qaeda in its own country.

I also know that its fun to engage in conspiracy theories regarding Israel and 9/11, but that is just anti-Semitic stuff that has no place on a Ron Paul forum which is dedicated to supporting his son Rand.

Frankly, I am excited about the future Israel-Saudi alliance. This will take care of the Palestinian problem and Iran will be in the dustbin of history.

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/us-betrayal-opens-great-opportunity-for-israeli-saudi-alliance/2013/11/26/

[coastie]

I know it's fun to blame Saudi Arabia for supporting terrorism, but frankly there is no evidence to support that. The government of Saudi Arabia cracks down on al-Qaeda in its own country.

I also know that its fun to engage in conspiracy theories regarding Israel and 9/11, but that is just anti-Semitic stuff that has no place on a Ron Paul forum which is dedicated to supporting his son Rand.

Frankly, I am excited about the future Israel-Saudi alliance. This will take care of the Palestinian problem and Iran will be in the dustbin of history.

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/us-betrayal-opens-great-opportunity-for-israeli-saudi-alliance/2013/11/26/


-rep. You're just a shill. Anyone with an internet connection and 3rd grade level reading comprehension could see that. "The Palestinian problem"..."Iran will be in the dustbin of history"...


When do you grab your rifle, and head over there? Please do, ASAP.

[Tod]

I watched the second video last night.....


Interview discussing what happened to the twin towers, October 2011. For anyone who thinks the possibility of 911 being constructed/aided by America's own Government/Military is unrealistic, look up Operation Northwoods, Operation Gladio, the attack on the USS Liberty, the Patriot Act & how it was passed.

Dr Judy Wood's qualifications:

B.S. Civil Engineering, Structural Engineering
M.S. Engineering Mechanics (Applied Physics)
Ph.D. Materials Engineering Science, 1992 from the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia.

Her dissertation involved the development of an experimental method to measure thermal stresses in bimaterial joints. She has taught courses including:

•Experimental Stress Analysis,
•Engineering Mechanics,
•Mechanics of Materials (Strength of Materials)
•Strength of Materials Testing

Presentation of the evidence by Dr Judy Wood:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRLdPs... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zRLdPsY6f30) Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ussd44... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ussd44oIGeA) Part 2


And for a closer look at the claims it was Bin Laden (who the FBI officially admit was not wanted for 911 due to no evidence against him) see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9PGwm... (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9PGwmrWS9s)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yri3ZSVjjnA


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqbcsU0_RjU

[coastie]

I watched the second video last night.....




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yri3ZSVjjnA







https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RqbcsU0_RjU

I personally feel Dr. Wood is a disinfo agent.


NONE of her theories are repeatable by experiment.

Dr. Jones, Kevin Ryan, et al have ALL either lost their professional positions, or were forced to retire, and they all found actual evidence supporting their claims, and performed experiments backing them up.

Dr. Wood has done none of this, because her claims cannot be proven through experiment, you know, that whole science thing. Instead, she publishes a book full of pictures and references to food items.

Dr. Wood has never lost her professional position, and her theories are as whacked out as you can possible get, not to mention un provable. Why is that?

[InRonITrust]

-rep. You're just a shill. Anyone with an internet connection and 3rd grade level reading comprehension could see that. "The Palestinian problem"..."Iran will be in the dustbin of history"...


When do you grab your rifle, and head over there? Please do, ASAP.

Are you seriously saying that the Palestinians are not a problem?

[coastie]

Are you seriously saying that the Palestinians are not a problem?


For ME?!?!?!?!?! For this COUNTRY?!?!?!


Yep, that's what I'm seriously saying, shill. Go fuck yourself, and please don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.

[RickyJ]

Frankly, I am excited about the future Israel-Saudi alliance. This will take care of the Palestinian problem and Iran will be in the dustbin of history.

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/us-betrayal-opens-great-opportunity-for-israeli-saudi-alliance/2013/11/26/

Frankly I am excited about the Russian-China-Pakistan-Iran alliance, this will take care of the Israeli problem and leave Israel in the dustbin of history.

[coastie]

Frankly I am excited about the Russian-China-Pakistan-Iran alliance, this will take care of the Israeli problem and leave Israel in the dustbin of history.

LMAO, thread winner, sir!

+rep

[jmdrake]

Somebody in America funded the hijackers and then blew up WTC 7.

Two issues. 1) Even Ron Paul, whom most here think is not a truther (though I wonder if he secretly is) has questions about what happened to WTC 7, because the NIST "guestimate" is shady at best. 2) The evidence that's been there for a while and is apparently a part of this classified report is that Saudi money financed the attacks. But Riggs bank got was used to launder money to the hijackers (https://bitly.com/shorten/).

Who is al-Bayoumi? At various times, the affable father of four told people that he was getting his doctorate at San Diego State, though the school has no record he ever attended. He told others that he was a pilot for the Saudi national airline. He apparently did work for Dallah Avco, an aviation-services company with extensive contracts with the Saudi Ministry of Defense and Aviation, headed by Prince Sultan, the father of the Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar. According to informed sources, some federal investigators suspect that al-Bayoumi could have been an advance man for the 9-11 hijackers, sent by Al Qaeda to assist the plot that ultimately claimed 3,000 lives.

The Feds' interest in al-Bayoumi has been heightened by a money trail that could be perfectly innocent, but is nonetheless intriguing—and could ultimately expose the Saudi government to some of the blame for 9-11 and seriously strain U.S.-Saudi ties. It is too soon to say where the trail will wind up, but it begins with a very surprising name on a Washington bank account.

About two months after al-Bayoumi began aiding Alhazmi and Almihdhar, NEWSWEEK has learned, al-Bayoumi's wife began receiving regular stipends, often monthly and usually around $2,000, totaling tens of thousands of dollars. The money came in the form of cashier's checks, purchased from Washington's Riggs Bank by Princess Haifa bint Faisal, the daughter of the late King Faisal and wife of Prince Bandar, the Saudi envoy who is a prominent Washington figure and personal friend of the Bush family. The checks were sent to a woman named Majeda Ibrahin Dweikat, who in turn signed over many of them to al-Bayoumi's wife (and her friend), Manal Ahmed Bagader. The Feds want to know: Was this well-meaning charity gone awry? Or some elaborate money-laundering scheme? A scam? Or just a coincidence?

A spokesperson for Princess Haifa told NEWSWEEK that she had no idea the money was going to the al-Bayoumi family or that it might in any way be used for some nefarious purpose. Saudi officials and members of the royal family routinely give money to supplicants who need medical or financial help and write the embassy. Dweikat's husband, Osama Basnan, had first pleaded to the Saudi Embassy for help in 1998, saying that he needed money to treat his wife's thyroid condition. At the time, Prince Bandar wrote Basnan a $15,000 check. The monthly payments to his wife, Majeda, began in January 1999 and ended only last summer. Until she was contacted late last week by NEWSWEEK, Princess Haifa was unaware that the payments are being investigated by U.S. authorities, according to the spokesperson.

So the facts are that we have a Saudi national with ties to the Bush family laundering money to terrorists using a bank where a Bush family member was the CEO.

Try to laugh it off all you want to. I don't think the families of those killed find it funny.

[jmdrake]

I know it's fun to blame Saudi Arabia for supporting terrorism, but frankly there is no evidence to support that. The government of Saudi Arabia cracks down on al-Qaeda in its own country.

I also know that its fun to engage in conspiracy theories regarding Israel and 9/11, but that is just anti-Semitic stuff that has no place on a Ron Paul forum which is dedicated to supporting his son Rand.

Frankly, I am excited about the future Israel-Saudi alliance. This will take care of the Palestinian problem and Iran will be in the dustbin of history.

http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/us-betrayal-opens-great-opportunity-for-israeli-saudi-alliance/2013/11/26/

I know "InRonITrust's" megaphone account has been banned. That said, this shows the type of mentality we are up against. A sitting congressman says that the redacted 9/11 report fingers an ally of the U.S., and most other sources, including former 9/11 commissioner Bob Graham, say that the ally fingered is Saudi Arabia, and yet we still have someone saying "There's no evidence of that" followed by "If you look into this you're anti-Semetic". Not just "anti-Israel" but "anti-Semetic". Ummm....okay. Technically Arabs are Semites, but Palestinians are Arabs so they are also Semites. Folks, quit falling for this "There's no evidence of this or that" claptrap or "If you question the official story you're a racist" garbage!

[dillo]

No, haven't you ever played with firecrackers? Explosions cause stuff to go away from the detonation point. Now if you told me they found 100 passports rubber banded together sitting nicely in an evidence bag I'd say you'd be onto something.

Right but didn't the buildings fall because of the massive fires that the explosion caused?

[Tod]

I personally feel Dr. Wood is a disinfo agent.


NONE of her theories are repeatable by experiment.

Dr. Jones, Kevin Ryan, et al have ALL either lost their professional positions, or were forced to retire, and they all found actual evidence supporting their claims, and performed experiments backing them up.

Dr. Wood has done none of this, because her claims cannot be proven through experiment, you know, that whole science thing. Instead, she publishes a book full of pictures and references to food items.

Dr. Wood has never lost her professional position, and her theories are as whacked out as you can possible get, not to mention un provable. Why is that?


I have found several reference to Dr. Wood losing her position at Clemson after she studied the 9/11 situation. Maybe you have her and Dr. Jones mixed up?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RG3i-Ymm3Uc

I found the Wood presentation I watched to be very credible, in part because she looks at the evidence without making any claims as to what actually caused the collapses because she says she doesn't know. She suggests that the evidence points to the possibility of directed energy and shows how other explanations don't fit the evidence as well.

[coastie]

I have found several reference to Dr. Wood losing her position at Clemson after she studied the 9/11 situation. Maybe you have her and Dr. Jones mixed up?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RG3i-Ymm3Uc

I found the Wood presentation I watched to be very credible, in part because she looks at the evidence without making any claims as to what actually caused the collapses because she says she doesn't know. She suggests that the evidence points to the possibility of directed energy and shows how other explanations don't fit the evidence as well.

I don't have the two confused, but admit I'm hearing of her losing her position for the first time now...maybe I am thinking of someone else, but is most certainly not Dr. Jones.

Regardless, I have watched hours worth of her presentations, and was not convinced. I read her book, and was not impressed.

Her theories are not repeatable through experiment.

Others have proven their hypothesis through experiment.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwqLu8ZXIX0


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g&feature=player_detailpage


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvQDFV1HINw

[RickyJ]

I personally feel Dr. Wood is a disinfo agent.


NONE of her theories are repeatable by experiment.

Dr. Jones, Kevin Ryan, et al have ALL either lost their professional positions, or were forced to retire, and they all found actual evidence supporting their claims, and performed experiments backing them up.

Dr. Wood has done none of this, because her claims cannot be proven through experiment, you know, that whole science thing. Instead, she publishes a book full of pictures and references to food items.

Dr. Wood has never lost her professional position, and her theories are as whacked out as you can possible get, not to mention un provable. Why is that?

I agree with that. She is also kind of crazy, the perfect person to put forth as a "truther" to discredit the real truth of 9/11.

[ClydeCoulter]

I would hope that no one were to "follow" some other down some path blindly.

Truth comes from facing and examining facts.

I found Dr. Woods videos somewhat interesting. She has shown many phenomena that aren't easily explained that she has given names such as "dustification".

Whether her explanation of the possible "how" makes sense is another matter, but the how and why can't be explained with out further in depth research with access to all of the available data and evidence.

@RickyJ, do you disagree with much of her analysis of the available video and interviews from 9/11?