To the Person Who Is Hung Up On the Motive For Planting a Plane Wheel and Columns in the Street
The anonymous person who said this:
First of all, the key point is that we are being presented with evidence that doesn't make sense by itself.
But if we posit that the evidence is planted, then it could make more sense.
If you think the evidence by itself makes sense, then say so.
If the evidence doesn't make sense to you, then what is wrong with hypothesizing that it was planted?
Second, why are you trying to second guess the people who may have done the planting? There could be any number of reasons for why they did what they did. How can you know what they are thinking?
The key question is: does the evidence conform to logic and normal laws of physics?
"Why in God's name would the government/media spend time and money to fake something that not only doesn't have the slightest impact on the "official version" of the events of that day, but would also risk exposing the inside job????"
First, I strongly disagree that this "doesn't have the slightest impact on the "official version" of the events of that day". It obviously supports the official story that a large plane hit WTC1.
Second, if they were afraid of easily exposing themselves, why would they create such an obviously fake crash site as the Shanksville crater?
I think they WEREN'T OVERLY WORRIED ABOUT EXPOSING THE INSIDE JOB BECAUSE THE MEDIA WOULD COVER FOR THEM and therefore left a lot of damning and incriminating details (for various reasons).
"And you ignore the question so you can go about believing the photos are nefarious and praising yourself and others like you for being "the only ones who can see the truth""
I haven't ignored the question. I specifically put up a post about how the perps were shoving this sort of nonsense in our faces, which addresses this same issue. And while I don't think "praise" is the right word, I can certainly respect someone who can look at this evidence and call foul.
Let's agree that the evidence is fishy, and then we can discuss what it means.
Is that so much to ask?
I'm sorry that your lack of common sense fails to show you how having a reason for faking a 6-ton section of columns laying in the street when it's not necessary to keep up the appearance of an "conspiracy" might be helpful.
Why in God's name would the government/media spend time and money to fake something that not only doesn't have the slightest impact on the "official version" of the events of that day, but would also risk exposing the inside job????
You can't give an answer. And you ignore the question so you can go about believing the photos are nefarious and praising yourself and others like you for being "the only ones who can see the truth".
It's pathetic.
First of all, the key point is that we are being presented with evidence that doesn't make sense by itself.
But if we posit that the evidence is planted, then it could make more sense.
If you think the evidence by itself makes sense, then say so.
If the evidence doesn't make sense to you, then what is wrong with hypothesizing that it was planted?
Second, why are you trying to second guess the people who may have done the planting? There could be any number of reasons for why they did what they did. How can you know what they are thinking?
The key question is: does the evidence conform to logic and normal laws of physics?
"Why in God's name would the government/media spend time and money to fake something that not only doesn't have the slightest impact on the "official version" of the events of that day, but would also risk exposing the inside job????"
First, I strongly disagree that this "doesn't have the slightest impact on the "official version" of the events of that day". It obviously supports the official story that a large plane hit WTC1.
Second, if they were afraid of easily exposing themselves, why would they create such an obviously fake crash site as the Shanksville crater?
I think they WEREN'T OVERLY WORRIED ABOUT EXPOSING THE INSIDE JOB BECAUSE THE MEDIA WOULD COVER FOR THEM and therefore left a lot of damning and incriminating details (for various reasons).
"And you ignore the question so you can go about believing the photos are nefarious and praising yourself and others like you for being "the only ones who can see the truth""
I haven't ignored the question. I specifically put up a post about how the perps were shoving this sort of nonsense in our faces, which addresses this same issue. And while I don't think "praise" is the right word, I can certainly respect someone who can look at this evidence and call foul.
Let's agree that the evidence is fishy, and then we can discuss what it means.
Is that so much to ask?
posted by spooked at 3:59 PM
25 Comments:
You think it's fishy because you don't see damage where you expect to see damage and immediatly assume that no damage is there.
From a couple photos that you saw on the internet. You think that's all you need, which is laughable.
Feel free to speculate all you want, but if you ask me, you're holding on to this because what you feel it represents backs up your "no-planes" theory.
Yes, I would expect to see more damage, but I didn't see it fall. I don't know where it hit. I don't know how it came to rest at that spot. You guys don't think any of that matters.
You see 3 or 4 pictures and feel you can rationally speculate that it's faked. I just find that unbelievably stupid.
From a couple photos that you saw on the internet. You think that's all you need
i posted a link to an entire site devoted to analyses of obvious fakery to be found in officially released 9/11 photos. why have you in your anonymity ignored that? here it is again:
http://www.911studies.com/index.html
what you feel it represents backs up your "no-planes" theory.
no-planes theory.
is that ultimately what your by now weak distractions are all about?
do you see any real evidence of a boeing anywhere at shanksville, pentagon or wtc1? produce it.
do you think that the obvious fakery of the images of alleged ua175 confirm that a boeing 767 really did hit wtc2?
go get your dad.
anonymous, do you or do you not believe that 9/11 was an inside job? yes or no?
if yes then after that it is only a matter of degrees.
if no then you have come to the wrong blog.
until you state your mind you are unfortunately lumped into the same category as pinch, conspiracy smasher and sword of truth who all realize that 9/11 was an inside job yet for some reason continue to pretend that they do not.
Anonymous said:
"I just find that unbelievably stupid."
Then why bother with it?
Are you a truthling, anonymous?
http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/slithering.html
"You see 3 or 4 pictures and feel you can rationally speculate that it's faked. "
Exactly. We are rationally speculating. You might want to look up the "speculation." According to my Oxford American, it's pretty much synonymous with "thinking."
Anonymous:
"I don't know how it came to rest at that spot. You guys don't think any of that matters."
Umm, that's what we've talking about for the last two days. We've ruled out the story that it was dislodged from a building 500 feet away by aircraft debris that passed through the building, so we are speculating about other ways that the object could have come to rest where it is.
"Feel free to speculate all you want, but if you ask me, you're holding on to this because what you feel it represents backs up your "no-planes" theory."
I don't need your permission to speculate.
I didn't ask you.
Yes, I think it helps disproves the "planes" thesis and that is exactly why I am interested in it.
That said, planted evidence is important on its own. Simply said, it's "fishy" and a sign of action on the ground on 9/11 that is completely inconsistent with the official story.
I've tried to get the truthlings at 9/11 Blogger to not dismiss it just because it supports a theory they refuse to discuss.
Anything else?
wow conspiracy pinch must monitor this blog for the sole purpose of bandying about the word nutjob, always with a trailing string of periods....
what is that called, the pinch effect?
5 bux says that anonymous will never address whether he believes that 9/11 was an inside job or not.
anon,
do you believe it's possible for the rubbber tire and wheel hub section from ua175 coud dislodge a 7 ton perimeter column section from WTC2 after traveling through the entire tower, as shown by NIST?
do you believe it's possible for the rubber tire and wheel section to then wedge itself between the columns while sending the perimeter section traveling some 500 ft onto the street and curb below, as shown by NIST?
do you believe it's possible for this rubber tire and wheel section, now ledged between two steel beams of a 7 ton perimeter section of WTC2 and traveling 500 ft out, to then hit the street and curb section without showing damage, as shown by NIST?
stop pretending these columns are gonna travel anywhere from where they land. anon, they are 7 tons, have basically fallen 1000 ft down. do the math, they are moving fast with some force. you can find some pictures of these suckers stuck in the asphalt like lawn darts. they don't bounce!
any finallly, anon,
do you believe 9/11 was an inside job?
No... I've seen no evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. I've been looking at both sides for the better part of a year now, and have yet to see anything to convince me the government had a hand in the attacks.
H Is For Shut The Hell Up: Yes, I saw your site. Besides the fact that it doesn't go into the photographs we're discussing here, it's all speculation. I don't see why you keep bringing it up.
Ningen: You say you've ruled out the possibility that it was removed by a plane impact. Please show your work.
And you're right... You don't need my permission to speculate. But if that's all you're doing, then there is no way in hell you can rule ANYTHING out.
Smasher Did A Job On My Nut: Please point to me the specific page of the NIST report where it says that the WHEEL is solely responsible for dislodging that section of columns. Thanks. No, 9/11 was not an inside job. And until you can prove to me how the section of columns in question landed, you cannot DEFINITIVELY claim anything about where they ended up or the damage they "should've" caused.
Honestly... is this the best the truth movement has to offer? You guys are obsessing over a couple pics of some columns to back up your story? Has your version of events been spread THAT thin?
Tell ya' what. Come up with a cognizant timeline of events (with proof, mind you), and you can consider me a convert to your movement.
if you're not on the inside job bandwagon, then you better not tred too deep! stay in the swallow end and check out some films like fahrenheit 911 and everybody's gotta learn sometime-- those'll give you just enough info to raise awareness, but keep as uninformed as you appear to be.
you cannot DEFINITIVELY claim anything about where they ended up or the damage they "should've" caused.
face it dude, those columns are 7 tons and they have fallen ~1000ft. do you need to go back and get a physics lesson in force and acceleration of falling objets? those suckas wouldva crushed that white van had it been closer!
Honestly... is this the best the truth movement has to offer? ... [y]ou can consider me a convert to your movement.
whoa now, i don't think you'll be finding much of a movement over here. most regulars here seem to be able to think of themselves and see beyond those who jump to the front and pronouce themselves deciders of truth. if you're looking for a movement, like i said above, i suggest you stay in the shallow end (pun intended). your unwillingness to accept inside job should fit in nicely with what the movement would want you to think ;-)
anon said:
No... I've seen no evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. I've been looking at both sides for the better part of a year now, and have yet to see anything to convince me the government had a hand in the attacks.
on the one hand we are supposed to believe that you have been looking @ 9/11 for a year and yet have not seen anything that leads you to believe that 9/11 was an inside job.
and on the other hand we are supposed to believe that after a year of looking @ 9/11 you still haven't seen anything that leads you to believe that 9/11 was an inside job.
this from a guy who knows what no-planes is all about.
wow does it get any more disingenuous than that?
what about the analyses of the photos taken @ the pentagon - do you deny that some photos of a precise location show 2 damaged autos and subsequent photos of the exact same location show that the autos have been swapped for 2 completely different autos?
or do you agree that is the case but deny that is a clear indication of an inside job?
staying with the pentagon, do you deny that the section where the pentagon was allegedly hit by aa77 remained standing for more than 20 minutes (after allegedly being hit by aa77) before it just slumped over in a loose heap?
or do you agree that is the case but deny that is a clear indication of an inside job?
Ningen: You say you've ruled out the possibility that it was removed by a plane impact. Please show your work.
ningen, i don't believe that he actually has any interest in seeing your work, but rather finds the thought of you spinning your wheels trying to convince him amusing.
see what i'm saying?
anyway the bushco mcmedia has still not explained exactly what/how that panel was knocked out to begin with.
h
speaking of obvious inside job:
the "missing" CCTV security cam tapes of the "hijackers" boarding the flights they are supposed to have hijacked - at the security cam honeycombs of Logan, Dulles and Newark airports. as if!
that's as stupid as the London 7/7 cameras being "out of order" at that precise moment.
they don't even care if their fairytale is believable or not.
after all what is anyone going to do about it - embark on a blogging fury?
GRRR! i'm pinching your cyber head!
h
"Ningen: You say you've ruled out the possibility that it was removed by a plane impact. Please show your work."
My work is cited by Spooked so I thought you had seen it. Sorry.
http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2007/01/little-wheel-that-could-not-part-2.html
"But if that's all you're doing, then there is no way in hell you can rule ANYTHING out."
This is getting tiresome. If you don't agree, move on.
and speaking of obvious inside job:
both wtc towers turned completely into powder from the top down in only 10 seconds each & wtc7 collapsed from the bottom in a classic controlled demolition in only 7 seconds and it wasn't hit by even a pretend airplane.
the mayor of cleveland said that a 757 landed safely at cleveland airport and then the media says that the same 757 was crashed into the ground and shows us a little campfire of a hole with no debris. an explosion occurs at the pentagon and 20 minutes later the wall where the explosion occurred falls over and the fire is put out.
then they tell us that a 757 hit it right there and the media show us video of a trailer filled with a fuel/oil mixture is on fire and producing lots of black smoke but again there is no debris and only officially sanctioned photographers are allowed anywhere near there for several days.
they don't even care if their fairytale is believable or not.
after all what is anyone going to do about it?
h
Anon-- PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE tell me how an extremely elongated 6 ton piece of debris crashes to the ground producing terrible damage, such as a large hole in the street, but then bounces away to a distant spot without producing any significant damage.
Is this really a possibility in your mind?
Cause that makes NO SENSE to me.
Ningen, I've seen your website. All you state is that "it couldn't have happened". According to you. But you provide no mathematical work to back that up.
Now. If you're speculating, then fine. But you're going on about how it's been conclusively proven that it couldn't have happened.
You can't conclusively prove jack shit from speculation.
And who's the fucking moron that said the towers COMPLETELY turned to powder? Lame's your name? How appropriate.
And who's the fucking moron that said the towers COMPLETELY turned to powder?
i did you fucking "genius".
my name is anonymous+.
do you dispute that we can see with our very eyes that both towers turned into powder from the top down at the astounding rate of 11 floors per second?
not only did the concrete turn to powder but much of the steel simply disappeared into thin air before it even hit the ground.
you latch onto the word "completely" as if the 3 little lumps of concrete that somehow managed to survive being rendered into powder indicates that 9/11 was not an inside job.
i have suggested before that you should go get your dad.
why have you not done so?
Anonymous:
"You can't conclusively prove jack shit from speculation."
It's good enough for me.
"But you provide no mathematical work to back that up."
I use others' mathematical work the best I can. As I make clear.
You disagree. Fine. Move on, anonymous. BushCo08 is right-I'm just spinning my wheels with you.
Thank you for this post. From the start I knew it was all a set up. I know that the news does not show the footage of the real stuff that goes on. Mainly because every news station seems to have a different story or point of view on it. Then you turn on Al-Jeezera and the truth is all laid out right there. However, no one bothers to notice the truth because all Arabs seem to be terrorists right? And i do agree that there are so many brainwashed people out there, its ridiculous.
Dude... the complete powder thing is fantastic!!! I love it.
So you're saying it took YEARS to just sweep up an 11-story tall pile of POWDER. Steel disappeared. There were no concrete chunks. It was all fine powder. The clean up crews were armed with nothing more than push-brooms and dust-pans.
You. Are. Fucking. Stupid.
I'll make sure they get a nice padded room for you in the FEMA camp. I wouldn't want you hurting yourself.
So you're saying it took YEARS to just sweep up an 11-story tall pile of POWDER. Steel disappeared. There were no concrete chunks. It was all fine powder. The clean up crews were armed with nothing more than push-brooms and dust-pans
no anonymous. i'm saying that we all saw both towers turn into dust from the top down in the same amount of time that it would take a bowling ball to hit the ground if dropped from the same height.
i also said that much of the steel disappeared as if it simply evaporated. you know all this as well as we do.
You. Are. Fucking. Stupid.
and you. are. a fucking. lying. bastard.
anonymous,
Your tone is different now. No more stupid, just different. Are you OK?
i concur that anonymous' tone is different today.
notice the use of a period after each word of his declaration as if he is stamping his little foot for added emphasis of his certainty.
---
does anyone concur that we all saw both towers turn into dust from the top down in the same amount of time that it would take a bowling ball to hit the ground if dropped from the same height and that much of the steel disappeared as if it simply evaporated?
10 seconds to poof!
"does anyone concur that we all saw both towers turn into dust from the top down in the same amount of time that it would take a bowling ball to hit the ground if dropped from the same height and that much of the steel disappeared as if it simply evaporated?"
That sounds about right to me.
Post a Comment
<< Home