# Politics and News > Rants, Opinions, Observations >  Very simple, it can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt ....

## n0spam4me

That 9/11/2001 was a FALSE FLAG
However, the mainstream media propaganda war is very powerful.
How many people are going to resist the evil that is currently promoting war & destruction as alleged solutions to problems?

----------


## HawkTheSlayer

...in the valley of echos

----------


## Frankenvoter

OKC was an Al Quida event as much as it was loner white guys, Terry Nichols went to the Phillipines and got a mail order bride in order to cover for trips he made there to meet with Ramzi Yousef, that has been documented and yet covered up by the MSM who never saw a story looking for an investigation they didn't want to bury and pour concrete on.

Building 7 is another story they won't look at, even though the footage clearly shows controlled demolition, I wouldn't doubt it if the hijackers thought it was a hijacking only, and then the CIA remote controlled them into the towers.

I'd still like to know about that Malaysian flight that went down, our "news" kept showing flight paths either arcing north or arcing south giving "possible search areas" in those areas, and never once brought up the idea that the Earth was rotating under that plane travelling east, had that plane flew due west the coast of Somolia would be coming up in quick order in the same way a trip from New York to LA is about 3 1/2 hours, but going back is twice that. I think that plane was landed in Somolia, disassembled and is right now somewhere loaded up with who knows what ready to make a surprise appearance somewhere, that's my theory anyway. 

The main thing is I can't count on our "news" do do anything like resembling critical thinking, or investigation on credible claims.

----------


## Kodiak



----------

Crunch (04-10-2018),MedicineBow (04-09-2018)

----------


## Thing 1

Prove it, then.

----------

Coolwalker (04-10-2018)

----------


## Fly Paper

9th November 2001.

----------


## Fly Paper

I watched the news live as it happened. Two planes hit the towers. One hit the Pentagon.

----------


## Thing 1

> 9th November 2001.


September 11, 2001 : Attack on America
Text of a Letter from the President to the Speaker of the House; November 9, 2001 

For Immediate Release
 Office of the Press Secretary
 November 9, 2001 

*Text of a Letter from the President*

Dear Mr. Speaker: 

In accordance with provisions of Public Law 107-38, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States, FY 2001, today I have authorized transfers from the Emergency Response Fund totaling $9.3 billion for emergency recovery and response and national security activities listed in the enclosed letter from the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. As provided in Public Law 107-38, $1.7 billion will be made available immediately and $7.5 billion of these funds will be made available 15 days from the date of this transmittal. 

These funds are in addition to the $9.7 billion that I previously authorized for transfer and will allow our Government to continue to address the consequences arising from the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. 

With this action, I have transferred all but $1 billion of the funds that were made available to me. It is now time for the Congress to act without delay on the final $20 billion in critical defense and domestic needs that I requested on October 17. My Administration does not intend to seek additional supplemental funding for either domestic or defense needs for the remainder of this session of Congress. 

The details of these actions are set forth in the enclosed letter from the Director of the Office of Management and Budget. I concur with his comments and observations. 

Sincerely, 

GEORGE W. BUSH 

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/sept11/president_092.asp

----------


## Trinnity

This topic is a never-ending  :Facepalm:

----------

Coolwalker (04-10-2018),MedicineBow (04-09-2018)

----------


## Thing 1

The whole day was a false flag? That means that the work I did on 9/11/01 and the money I was paid in return was all a sham!

----------

Coolwalker (04-10-2018)

----------


## n0spam4me

> The entire premise of your thread is an illusion.


I'm sorry that you believe as you do, however, its still at least a marginally free country here so you may believe as you wish.
as for the logic and reason involved here, the argument has been honed over more than a decade of attempted debate
with various individuals on various forums and it turns out rather predictably most times, people refuse ( on any number of excuses ) 
to actually engage on the subject .... oh well ..... 
Your loss ... 

Have a nice day   : )

----------


## Thing 1

> Not necessarily.  The events of 9/11, much like Paddock on Las Vegas and these chlorine bombs in Syria are done to make us respond in a certain way, but the information released is unsatisfactory at best and corrupt at worst.  Did 9/11 happen?  Yes.  Did it happen exactly like how the MSM & our government tell us it did?  No.  I gather we know about 30 maybe 40 percent of what actually happened.


His premise is that no airliners hit the building. I address only that. Any analysis of what happened that day has to begin with the foundation of what we know happened. n0spam rejects the most basic fact - that airliners hit the buildings. This could be a fascinating discussion if he would remove that particular log from his eye.

----------


## Knightkore

{Sometimes the media at large gives us clues as to what will happen or what they planning.  Well, not us but rather I think they speak to each other in "codes" like this.}

----------


## Knightkore

> His premise is that no airliners hit the building. I address only that. Any analysis of what happened that day has to begin with the foundation of what we know happened. n0spam rejects the most basic fact - that airliners hit the buildings. This could be a fascinating discussion if he would remove that particular log from his eye.


True.  Because I do believe planes did hit the building.  He isn't too far off on how the explosions came out.  There is a lot of inconsistencies & a lot of issues with the narrative force fed to us.  And then you get Building 7.

----------

Thing 1 (04-11-2018)

----------


## Thing 1

@Knightkore. what n0spam does is pick one particular counterargument (if it can be called that) to the "official story" and then conclude that anyone who does not follow through 100% on his "no planes" theory must buy the entire "official story". It is a classic tactic in conspiracy circles. It has no basis in logical reasoning.

----------

Knightkore (04-11-2018),NuYawka (04-11-2018),Rickity Plumber (04-11-2018)

----------


## tiny1

> INCORRECT - - - it is logically possible to know that an illusion has been done, without any obligation to explain how the illusion was done.
> You can watch a magic show and KNOW that its all a trick, and have no idea how the trick was pulled off, but it is what it is.
> the fact that it can be shown that the mainstream media LIED,  is sufficient to launch the case against the forces of evil here
> be that the Military Industrial Complex, CFR, Federal Reserve, or the prince of darkens himself, whatever, WE THE PEOPLE
> have sufficient evidence to make the case that we were lied to.


Yanno, I get the Mods' approach on this.  I know you can't regulate this sort of thing.  I know this person has the right to speak, but not necessarily the right to be heard.  He'll(or she'll)continue to not show any REAL evidence, and we'll keep rejecting his(or her) crud, and in the end, no progress.  None.
I know what I saw.  I know who I lost in that fiasco.  I hurt for their families, and all the families who IMAGINE their loved ones are gone.  (The allegation itself is enough to become subject to corporal punishment.)
And, I salute those who can cause such a catastrophe with invisibility and impunity.  Must have been a real trick, wiring those buildings with  TNT without being seen by the tens of thousands who frequent those places.  And, how in the world they set off mega quantities of explosives, without all the smoke and debris that occurs when you implode a building.
And, making those missiles look like Passenger Jets, so well, that even on TV, they looked real.
Now, this is the part where he/she claims that this or that is deceptive, or they have thus or so wrong, and the always infamous, "Are you sure what you saw, really happened?"
Amazing.

----------

Knightkore (04-11-2018),Thing 1 (04-11-2018)

----------


## Knightkore

> Yanno, I get the Mods' approach on this.  I know you can't regulate this sort of thing.  I know this person has the right to speak, but not necessarily the right to be heard.  He'll(or she'll)continue to not show any REAL evidence, and we'll keep rejecting his(or her) crud, and in the end, no progress.  None.
> I know what I saw.  I know who I lost in that fiasco.  I hurt for their families, and all the families who IMAGINE their loved ones are gone.  (The allegation itself is enough to become subject to corporal punishment.)
> And, I salute those who can cause such a catastrophe with invisibility and impunity.  Must have been a real trick, wiring those buildings with  TNT without being seen by the tens of thousands who frequent those places.  And, how in the world they set off mega quantities of explosives, without all the smoke and debris that occurs when you implode a building.
> And, making those missiles look like Passenger Jets, so well, that even on TV, they looked real.
> Now, this is the part where he/she claims that this or that is deceptive, or they have thus or so wrong, and the always infamous, "Are you sure what you saw, really happened?"
> Amazing.


Ever seen the movie The Walk?  Why would one need to be invisible to set impact explosives and/or timed explosives?

When a car crashes or even a plane crashes into the ground or a side of the mountain it does not explode in a fiery ball of flame.

----------


## NuYawka

> @Knightkore. what n0spam does is pick one particular counterargument (if it can be called that) to the "official story" and then conclude that anyone who does not follow through 100% on his "no planes" theory must buy the entire "official story". It is a classic tactic in conspiracy circles. It has no basis in logical reasoning.


Exactly.

----------

Knightkore (04-11-2018),Thing 1 (04-11-2018)

----------


## Rickity Plumber

> Here is a much more detailed argument for anyone interested in diving in.
> Picture the aircraft traveling at 540 mph and its nose contacts the wall, 
> Now there is allegation that the nose of the aircraft would crush against the building acting as a "Shock Absorber" 
> for the rest of the aircraft, HOWEVER, at some point the crushing would have to stop, and some real energy transfer would have to occur because in order to make the initial nose punch out hole in the tower wall, there would have to be tons of mass displaced. so even among the faction that supports the official story, the 20g figure is recognized as being at the very least plausible, so lets examine what that means.
> In the case of the wings, there would be an aprox 60 ft lever from the point of attachment out to a wing tip 
> ( this may be more like 65 ft bear with the use of approximations to make a point ) now lets pick an a point at the wing tip, 
> say the last 2 ft or so, as this bit weighs say 50 lbs, now under 20g deceleration force, the stress to the wing would 
> be 50 X 20 or 1,000 lbs and given a 60 ft lever for the force to act on the point of attachment, there would be 60,000 ft/lbs torque on the wing to body interface.
> 
> ...


Even the tail section of the plane traveling as fast as it was (500+mph) is going to eventually get atomized into oblivion striking the concrete and steel structure. 

Cripe, even one of the engines continued its forward momentum and sailed THROUGH the tower and landed three blocks away. 

Your theory makes absolutely no sense. The wing and tail sections are not going to stop their momentum just because the nose collapses. 

Picture a 30.06 rifle shell with a mass of a thousand times more.

It ain't gonna stop. It is going to keep traveling in its direction until all energy is used.

There are higher levels of intelligence here on this forum than you could accomplish in a lifetime of education. Are you the only one that keeps on with this nonsense? 

Apparently so.

----------

Knightkore (04-11-2018),Thing 1 (04-11-2018)

----------


## Rickity Plumber

> Nobody has as yet addressed the physical science part of the argument, simply stating that somebody saw an airliner
> or something that they believe was an airliner penetrate the WTC tower wall. is not sufficient proof in the face of a video
> that clearly shows something totally fraudulent.


Then it is your responsibility to SHOW us something totally fraudulent. 

Not the other way around Jackson.

----------


## Rickity Plumber

> True.  Because I do believe planes did hit the building.  He isn't too far off on how the explosions came out.  There is a lot of inconsistencies & a lot of issues with the narrative force fed to us.  And then you get Building 7.


I am down with @nonsqtr  's explanation. Cover up for the JFK assassination by Bush sounds much better than nospam's theory of nothing-ness.

----------

Knightkore (04-11-2018),nonsqtr (04-11-2018),Thing 1 (04-11-2018)

----------


## n0spam4me

> @Knightkore. what n0spam does is pick one particular counterargument (if it can be called that) to the "official story" and then conclude that anyone who does not follow through 100% on his "no planes" theory must buy the entire "official story". It is a classic tactic in conspiracy circles. It has no basis in logical reasoning.


again people make unfounded assumptions about what I believe or do not believe.
Lets put it this way, because eye witnesses had various descriptions to offer, that is the alleged "FLT175" was a small commuter jet
or it was a missile or a military aircraft or for that matter one witness said NO plane at all, it was a BOMB in the tower.
so what if, whatever it really was, just happened to be a specially modified military aircraft? or? whatever it may have been
the idea that it may have been a commercial airliner is extremely remote because of the video that has been widely circulated
alleging to show an airliner penetrating a skyscraper wall "like a hot knife through butter" and when I submit my detailed 
reasons why the video is obviously bogus, people refuse to engage.  

If we can agree that the purpose of discussion here is to seek truth, 
then can we have a discussion of the facts about the alleged airliner crash?

----------


## n0spam4me

> Ever seen the movie The Walk?  Why would one need to be invisible to set impact explosives and/or timed explosives?
> 
> When a car crashes or even a plane crashes into the ground or a side of the mountain it does not explode in a fiery ball of flame.


Do you assume that a commercial airliner could perform as would a missile in its capacity to penetrate a target?

----------


## n0spam4me

> Even the tail section of the plane traveling as fast as it was (500+mph) is going to eventually get atomized into oblivion striking the concrete and steel structure. 
> 
> Cripe, even one of the engines continued its forward momentum and sailed THROUGH the tower and landed three blocks away. 
> 
> Your theory makes absolutely no sense. The wing and tail sections are not going to stop their momentum just because the nose collapses. 
> 
> Picture a 30.06 rifle shell with a mass of a thousand times more.
> 
> It ain't gonna stop. It is going to keep traveling in its direction until all energy is used.
> ...



This is either your idea of a joke or you are very out-of-touch with the physical science argument here
"The wing and tail sections are not going to stop their momentum just because the nose collapses."
The way to define this is in the fact that at the time the nose of any aircraft were to meet an obstacle,
The aircraft would be impeded from forward motion, obviously it would not come to the proverbial screeching halt
but in slowing down, parts of the airliner, notably the wings, would attempt ( by their inertia  ) to continue moving
at their original speed, this would cause intense stress to the airplane.  Now the airliner in question, and at the speed 
alleged, would have a minimum of 60 milliseconds between the time the nose first touched the wall and the time when
the wings had any chance of touching the wall, plenty of time to rip the wings off the aircraft.

----------


## Thing 1

> again people make unfounded assumptions about what I believe or do not believe.
> Lets put it this way, because eye witnesses had various descriptions to offer, that is the alleged "FLT175" was a small commuter jet
> or it was a missile or a military aircraft or for that matter one witness said NO plane at all, it was a BOMB in the tower.
> so what if, whatever it really was, just happened to be a specially modified military aircraft? or? whatever it may have been
> the idea that it may have been a commercial airliner is extremely remote because of the video that has been widely circulated
> alleging to show an airliner penetrating a skyscraper wall "like a hot knife through butter" and when I submit my detailed 
> reasons why the video is obviously bogus, people refuse to engage.  
> 
> If we can agree that the purpose of discussion here is to seek truth, 
> then can we have a discussion of the facts about the alleged airliner crash?


Say what?

----------


## n0spam4me

> Say what?


Please tell me if you have a specific point to discuss
simply saying "say what?"  ... isn't productive, do you have a specific point to question?

----------


## Thing 1

> Please tell me if you have a specific point to discuss
> simply saying "say what?"  ... isn't productive, do you have a specific point to question?


I'd be happy to discuss a specific point when you make one that is even semi-comprehensible. You can assist yourself in doing so by becoming educated about physics. Where do you live? I can point you in the right direction.

----------


## NuYawka

> "like a hot knife through butter"


Yet afuckin'gain!

FUCK your hot knife.

FUCK your butter.

I now challenge you to get through the rest of your limited time here without mentioning hot knives, butter or even margarine.

By you being unmoving by not moving off the phrases "the Towers were sliced like a hot knife through butter" and the phrase "COMPLETELY DESTROYED" in ANY OF YOUR EIGHTEEN FUCKIN THREADS, you're purposely SPAMMING, INSULTING, ABUSING and INSTIGATING on this forum (of which YOU were SPECIFICALLY warned against by the Mods).










And now we (CONTINUE to) await your permaban.

----------


## Thing 1

> Yet afuckin'gain!
> 
> FUCK your hot knife.
> 
> FUCK your butter.
> 
> I now challenge you to get through the rest of your limited time here without mentioning hot knives, butter or even margarine.
> 
> By you being unmoving by not moving off the phrases "the Towers were sliced like a hot knife through butter" and the phrase "COMPLETELY DESTROYED" in ANY OF YOUR EIGHTEEN FUCKIN THREADS, you're purposely SPAMMING, INSULTING, ABUSING and INSTIGATING on this forum (*of which YOU were SPECIFICALLY warned against by the Mods*).
> ...


Ahem. 



> Be civil or I'll thread ban you too. @NuYawka
> 
> 
> 
> Just because his theory is widely discredited, you all still have to be basically civil. If you can't, then stay out of the thread.

----------


## NuYawka

> Ahem.


I'm being as civil as I can.


You should see what I REALLY want to say.

----------

Thing 1 (04-11-2018)

----------


## Fly Paper

Well, this must rank as the most useless thread in the forum's history.

Conspiracy theories are labor-saving devices and home remedies for anxiety and depression.

----------

Rickity Plumber (04-11-2018)

----------


## Rickity Plumber

> This is either your idea of a joke or you are very out-of-touch with the physical science argument here
> "The wing and tail sections are not going to stop their momentum just because the nose collapses."
> The way to define this is in the fact that at the time the nose of any aircraft were to meet an obstacle,
> The aircraft would be impeded from forward motion, obviously it would not come to the proverbial screeching halt
> but in slowing down, parts of the airliner, notably the wings, would attempt ( by their inertia  ) to continue moving
> at their original speed, this would cause intense stress to the airplane.  Now the airliner in question, and at the speed 
> alleged, would have a minimum of 60 milliseconds between the time the nose first touched the wall and the time when
> the wings had any chance of touching the wall, plenty of time to rip the wings off the aircraft.


I am through with your nonsensical BS. So is everyone else here. Even the mods are starting to tire of your putrid vile.

----------


## Rickity Plumber

> Well, this must rank as the most useless thread in the forum's history.
> 
> Conspiracy theories are labor-saving devices and home remedies for anxiety and depression.


This zero spam dude is like a boil on my ass.

----------


## n0spam4me

> I'd be happy to discuss a specific point when you make one that is even semi-comprehensible. You can assist yourself in doing so by becoming educated about physics. Where do you live? I can point you in the right direction.


First of all, can you get your head around the concept that if people in the street reported seeing a "commuter jet" or a "missile" or a "military aircraft"
that there is the distinct possibility that whatever it was ( if indeed anything hit the tower ) wasn't any commercial airliner. Therefore the official story is a LIE.  Can we get that far in this discussion?

----------


## FirstGenCanadian

> Very simple, the video that the media has presented that allegedly supports the idea of "FLT175" striking & penetrating the south wall of the south tower, proves conclusively that no airliner was involved in this attack.  If an actual airliner had struct the tower, there would be consequences to the airliner such that it would suffer catastrophic structural failure before the wings had any opportunity to touch the wall.  If there was sufficient energy/time to bust a hole in the wall, there most certainly would be time/energy sufficient to bust up the airliner.





> Note  that the alleged airliner penetrates completely and with no visible slowing down or deformation of the aircraft on the way in .... it was lubricated for easy penetration? or?


So, you expected this?  



Cause, that's what most of the conspiracy theorists like to point to, when talking about what's real.  Wait, wasn't there also a picture that proves it to be a hoax?  From the same movie, in point of fact?



Boy, this is fun...

----------

Knightkore (04-12-2018)

----------


## Thing 1

> First of all, can you get your head around the concept that if people in the street reported seeing a "commuter jet" or a "missile" or a "military aircraft"
> that there is the distinct possibility that whatever it was ( if indeed anything hit the tower ) wasn't any commercial airliner. Therefore the official story is a LIE.  Can we get that far in this discussion?


Link to those reports, please? Why do you believe them rather then the people (including people on this forum) who saw a commercial airliner?

----------


## Thing 1

I would like to hear n0spam's excuse for what happened to the passengers.

----------


## NuYawka

> I would like to hear n0spam's excuse for what happened to the passengers.


Don't hold your breath.

----------


## Trinnity

> *YOU aren't going to last here if you can't talk about anything else. 
> IS THIS ALL YOU'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT?*
>  @n0spam4me



You don't get to ignore a question from an administrator when you've been called to account with a @mention.
You're thread banned. Tread lightly and don't make it worse.

----------

Knightkore (04-12-2018),NuYawka (04-11-2018)

----------


## FirstGenCanadian

Sounds like a liberal tactic.  Get called into question, and dodge.

----------


## Knightkore

> Do you assume that a commercial airliner could perform as would a missile in its capacity to penetrate a target?


No.  However impact explosives could.  The planes circled around and seemed to it certain areas of the building.  Explosives could have been set up beforehand in between floors.  Then all the planes needed to do is hit the right areas and BAMM.....explosives triggered.

Either way.....we do not know the whole story and anything we posit here is speculation at best.  We do know that 9/11 did NOT happen as the official narrative suggests.

----------


## QuaseMarco

> That 9/11/2001 was a FALSE FLAG
> However, the mainstream media propaganda war is very powerful.
> How many people are going to resist the evil that is currently promoting war & destruction as alleged solutions to problems?


You are spamming our Forum !!!

----------

Knightkore (04-12-2018)

----------


## FirstGenCanadian

He’s thread banned

----------


## Thing 1

> No.  However impact explosives could.  The planes circled around and seemed to it certain areas of the building.  Explosives could have been set up beforehand in between floors.  Then all the planes needed to do is hit the right areas and BAMM.....explosives triggered.
> 
> Either way.....we do not know the whole story and anything we posit here is speculation at best.  We do know that 9/11 did NOT happen as the official narrative suggests.


The explosives could have been triggered remotely by a radio signal. I can imagine the explosives being set and the airliners being used as a distraction from the real cause of destruction of the building. That is of course a monstrous strategy because it means that the people on the airplane did not have to die, but it is great theater if you want to create plausible deniability and point the finger at the other guy. Of course the other guy might not mind being used if the role he is supposed to play serves his purposes.

----------

Knightkore (04-12-2018)

----------


## Knightkore

> The explosives could have been triggered remotely by a radio signal. I can imagine the explosives being set and the airliners being used as a distraction from the real cause of destruction of the building. That is of course a monstrous strategy because it means that the people on the airplane did not have to die, but it is great theater if you want to create plausible deniability and point the finger at the other guy. Of course the other guy might not mind be used if the role he is supposed to play serves his purposes.


It would explain Building 7 as well.

----------

Thing 1 (04-12-2018)

----------


## Crunch

This is the only truth in this thread.

----------


## Trinnity

*Closed.*

----------

NuYawka (04-12-2018)

----------

