Hypothesis: No planes, No burning fuel, and No explosives

[Boojatta]

If a number of large paper bags were filled with air and simultaneously burst, then the resulting shock wave could have profound effects, especially if some special effect such as resonance is involved.

[zappaman]

1. that may be the best theory I've seen yet

all you have to do is greenscreen some planes for the video and viola!

[SDuderstadt]

2. Viola?

you greenscreen some planes for the video and you get a stringed instrument? WTF?

[Boojatta]

3. Typo?

Link:

http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861734500/voil%C3%A0.html

[SDuderstadt]

4. Dude...

Z-man and I joke back and forth all the time.

The problem is he really meant to say "viola" as he has this odd fixation on stringed instruments slightly larger than a violin. One might say he is "strung out".

[Ghost in the Machine]

8. Stringed instrument?

The flower would make a prettier picture:

[greyl]

5. I think the term you were reaching for is "bassnoo". nt

[SDuderstadt]

6. Quit being silly, dude...

that's a percussion instrument.

[zappaman]

7. sorry

I meant the jello, not the viola

[OnTheOtherHand]

9. dunno, what's snoo with you? n/t

[defendandprotect]

10. "Special effects" . . . that's a major question re 9/11 and MSM ....

basically no one has any idea of how much and what parts of 9/11 seen on TV screens

were real or hoaxed --

[NYMdaveNYI]

11. except for me....

and everyone else in Lower Manhattan that morning


I heard the first plane, and saw the second, from 1000 feet away.

[defendandprotect]

13. First, why wouldn't you "hear" a plane ... I'm sure that they used a plane

to come in from one direction and then from the other --

that doesn't mean that the "plane" actually hit anything -- or caused

the explosions!

Second, NYC residents believe it was either LIHOP or MIHOP --

which are you?

[zappaman]

14. "Second, NYC residents believe it was either LIHOP or MIHOP"

Of course, you can't back that up in any way shape or form, can you?

[NYMdaveNYI]

15. "First, why wouldn't you 'hear' a plane"

What?

“ Second, NYC residents believe it was either LIHOP or MIHOP <...>”

all of them do? Where’s that statistic from?

Many people I know strongly endorse the LIHTI theory.

I’m a LIHOPper. It’s the only theory that makes sense, when you consider 9/11 in its historical context.

History lesson: FDR was warned that the Japanese were going to attack Pearl Harbor, FDR ignored the briefing, fired the briefer, Japs bombed, we nuked, we won, war over.
Strategic move.

makes sense for Bush to do the same, right?

August 6, 2001, Bush receives briefing entitled “Bin LAden determined to attack inside US”, Bush ignores it, Al Qaeda attacks, Bush gets to take out Saddam, Halliburton gets to run a pipeline through Iraq (etc.)

I WAS a strong MIHOPper, but then I found explanations for the anomalies that had me skeptical.

You should too.
---
I only heard the first one come in, (and now my best plane imitation) WEEEEEEEEWWWWWW-BOOOOOOM

AA11 hit the NORTH side of the NORTH tower.

I was south of the Trade Centers, at 200 Rector Place (Liberty Court), my apartment building, with a window facing north, towards WTC, put my address in google earth, you’ll see my vantage point.

So, yeah, I was in my apartment, heard a plane (because of the doppler effect, it was loud, coming towards me), heard it crash.

looked out the window, couldnt really see much, it’s an obstructed view of the side of impact, just saw a plume,

and when UA175 came in, it was ten times louder, and I SAW IT go in.

These theories that the plane was photoshopped in when the MSM showed it on TV are inane.

I fucking saw the plane.

Get some sense into you.

[zappaman]

12. wow

:rofl:

[snooper2]

16. In your World are there flowers, birds, gravity?

Do you need to consume energy in your World or do you just live off the collective energy of each other?

[mrarundale]

17. Maybe

Do you mean some kind of electromagnetic thingy? I'm not going to pretend expertise, but I know such weaponry exists, as I recall from a documentary on Iraq and the evil being done there a few years back.

There is no convincing evidence for planes and explosives seem too complicated, although it is understandable that things would be exploding, so maybe there really were explosions, but not necessarily from the method of demolition the building owners used (oops did I say that? gee... what kind of stuff do you think is in all those Port Authority containers in NJ? I bet they get a lot more than bananas from South America....)

[zappaman]

18. "There is no convincing evidence for planes"

really?
:rofl:

[Theobald]

19. No convincing evidence?

There are multiple videos of the plane hitting the tower from both professional and amateur videographers.
There are multiple pictures of the plane hitting the tower from both professional and amateur photographers.
There are tens of thousands of eyewitnesses who saw the second plane hit the tower.

How are those three forms of evidence not convincing?

[mrarundale]

20. ok

gimme ONE clear shot of flight 11/flight 93/or flight 77 hitting their "targets". and one of 175 "AS IT HAPPENED", in other words televised live at the time of impact, because if it was not shown AS IT HAPPENED, then it could have been made at any time , and in fact most "amateurs" (who do not withstand scrutiny)claimed to have given their footage to the FBI. Oh, and how did "photographer" Evan Fairbanks (who was actually a video store owner) get that guy's upper torso AND the top of the WTC at the same time? Do you know how tall those buildings were???

Remember The Weekly World News? (Guess they went out of business, maybe their writers have gone to work for the New York Times from the crap I read there) with covers like "Mom Gives Birth to Alien Quintuplets"???? Well, why didn't "the government" stop them from publishing stuff that was not true? Because there are no laws mandating that media stories have to be true...The NYT/WaPost are held to no higher legal standards than The National Enquirer. Read the quality of some of the 911 victims stories about 911, they sound like they were translated from a rare Ukrainian dialect into English into Farsi then back into English-by a ten year old - whatever paper they are in!

"I know it's true, I read it in the Weekly World News"

"Tens of thousands of witnesses" How about you give me just FIVE - that don't work for the media/government or are professional professional actors - I'll settle for two.

I could only find ONE fireman/EMS from the first responder interviews who "saw the second hit" and he was in the middle of Brooklyn. Another said he saw it but he it was on tv and it was the FIRST HIT which was not televised live. Several did not see the first hit although they were at the scene!

[SDuderstadt]

21. Fucking unbelievable...

This post is so stupid, it doesn't need any response.

[mrarundale]

24. That is true of ALL of your posts...eom

[SDuderstadt]

25. Well, then...

don't respond.

See how easy that was, dude?

[mrarundale]

28. K...eom

[zappaman]

22. wow

:rofl:

[Theobald]

23. Obfuscate much?

I said there was multiple pictures and video of the second flight, flight 175, hitting the tower.
ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, CNN, FOX News, and MSNBC all had live video feeds of the the second crash as it happened and some of them were showing video as it happened. All of the video did not have a direct view of the crash, but taken in composite a clear picture emerges .

Go to google and do an image search for flight 175 and multiple images will appear that show flight 175 before and during the crash as well as the resulting fireball. Here is one that is not often shown .
http://www.questionsquestions.net/WTC/review.html
"2nd Hit TV Fakery?

Unlike the first hit, the multiple videos and photographs of the second hit clearly show a 767, so the no-planers are forced to claim that these videos were faked with computer graphics, overlaid in real-time on live TV or on tape afterward. Why the perps would resort to this risky operation when there was no technical obstacle to flying a plane into a building is never credibly explained.

Not surprisingly, the anomalies turn out to be amateurish image analysis mistakes."

[mrarundale]

27. ABC filed an FOIA with NIST for 911 footage

because only the NYPD was allowed in the airspace on 911. So where did the networks get all their footage? Didn't you ever wonder why it was so low quality?
Later, tons of fake SOURCELESS stuff emerged from Camera Planet (financed by Bank of America) and random internet sources ....we have been brainwashed since childhood into believing the "free press" and their impartial reporting, so when they show something we think it is real, which was why I put the tabloid cover in there.

There was an exercise I remember from a beginning art class in school where the teacher would have us look at something and draw it without looking at the paper, to really look at the object, most of the drawings turned out kind of bad but the point was to teach you how to SEE, how to really look at something.

Are you serious about that picture ? Or are you just messing with me?

[defendandprotect]

38. Film Fakery is "risky" for the perps, but simultaneously hijacking 4 planes isn't .....

PLUS keeping them in the air for an hour or so -- when you should be thinking

that NORAD is going to be by your side any second?

Of course, the Russians would have probably done this but they couldn't be sure

that NORAD was going to be AWOL -- and that Pentagon would be busy with four

simultaneously running exercise programs -- one of which just happened to be about

planes being hijacked and run into skyscrapers!


Who would be naive enough to believe this and not see how the field was cleared for

these alleged "hijackers"?

[NYMdaveNYI]

“The NYT/WaPost are held to no higher legal standards than The National Enquirer"

I object.

The New York Times is, arguably, the most respected newspaper in circulation; and The Washington Post is not far behind.

They have a reputation to defend.

I’d infer they’d want to retain that credibility, wouldn’t you think so?

------

"gimme ONE clear shot of flight 11/flight 93/or flight 77 hitting their 'targets'. and one of 175 'AS IT HAPPENED’”

"I could only find ONE fireman/EMS from the first responder interviews who "saw the second hit" and he was in the middle of Brooklyn. Another said he saw it but he it was on tv and it was the FIRST HIT which was not televised live. Several did not see the first hit although they were at the scene!”

^^^^
Bullshit, once more.

So, how often do you stand in front of landmarks in YOUR city all day with a camera, waiting to snap a pic of a random act of terrorism, as it happens?

I was there too. I wouldn’t typically stare out my window waiting for planes to hit the Trade Centers too often, so when the first one hit, I did not see it, only rising smoke.

------

Pull your head out of your ass.

[NYMdaveNYI]

26. “The NYT/WaPost are held to no higher legal standards than The National Enquirer"

I object.

The New York Times is, arguably, the most respected newspaper in circulation; and The Washington Post is not far behind.

They have a reputation to defend.

I’d infer they’d want to retain that credibility, wouldn’t you think so?

------

"gimme ONE clear shot of flight 11/flight 93/or flight 77 hitting their 'targets'. and one of 175 'AS IT HAPPENED’”

"I could only find ONE fireman/EMS from the first responder interviews who "saw the second hit" and he was in the middle of Brooklyn. Another said he saw it but he it was on tv and it was the FIRST HIT which was not televised live. Several did not see the first hit although they were at the scene!”

^^^^
Bullshit, once more.

So, how often do you stand in front of landmarks in YOUR city all day with a camera, waiting to snap a pic of a random act of terrorism, as it happens?

I was there too. I wouldn’t typically stare out my window waiting for planes to hit the Trade Centers too often, so when the first one hit, I did not see it, only rising smoke.

------

Pull your head out of your ass.

[mrarundale]

29. You can't do it, in other words

and the NYT is just written to fool a differnt type of person than the National Enquirer. There are no LAWS dicating the veracity of information...
As for my the comment about my ass, I'm not that flexible...

[NYMdaveNYI]

30. They’re called libel laws. nt

[mrarundale]

34. I didn't think I had to make that distinction.

Nat'l Enquirer gets sued for libel all the time. I thought, "Are these guys so dumb that I'm going to have to make the distinction between libel/slander (which every idiot knows about?) and news stories such as oh, I don't know.. Weapons of mass fucking destruction in Iraq? Where was the lawsuit there??

That thought went briefly through my mind when I was posting but then I thought "No these guys are just PRETENDING to lack even the most basic sense of the obvious..."

But I guess I was wrong..

[NYMdaveNYI]

37. The National Enquirer will NEVER lose a libel suit...

because we KNOW that it’s a load of horse shit, and so do celebrities. When you see “FMR. PRESIDENT CLINTON SECRETLY HAVING AFFAIR WITH ALIEN LIZARD,” you disregard it; therefore, Bill Clinton could not win a libel suit, because it is understood that none of what’s printed in Nat’l Enquirer is fact checked, and the celebrity defamed would not suffer any damages.


"Weapons of mass fucking destruction in Iraq? Where was the lawsuit there??”

- Yeah, we all know that was bull; however, do you think NYT knew ANYTHING to the contrary, at the time?

[NYMdaveNYI]

31. See, this is what we call a “non sequitur”

1) There are no LAWS dicating the veracity of information
2) The National Enquirer has no regard for journalistic credibility

THEREFORE: The New York Times, The Washington Post, and other reputable news sources knowingly published false information and doctored photos out of their lack of regard for journalistic credibility.

[SDuderstadt]

32. "non-sequitur"....n/t

[NYMdaveNYI]

33. I had thought so. Spellcheck didn’t catch that one.

Shouldn’t trust my computer anymore.

You know, there are no laws "dictating the veracity of information ."

[mrarundale]

36. I got "squirter" on spell check so

it's a good thing "there are no laws dictating the veracity of information "

[mrarundale]

35. Maybe , but it's YOUR "non sequitur"..

I never said that...I said that one paper does not have any more legal accountability than the other , despite reputation (or a reasonable person would conclude that that was my meaning)..