WhatReallyHappened.com

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

the page for this

 

I might just be the only one to read this site here.. but I have noticed some things that just bug me. First, his constant quoting of one phrase that nobody can confirm was side, that quote is ' "We, the Jewish people control America, and the Americans know it."-- Ariel Sharon to Shimon Peres, October 3rd, 2001, as reported on Kol Yisrael radio. '

 

the webmaster of the page (Michael Rivero) is also walking a thin line, as he already has posted enough stuff to get called anti-semetic. It depends on if constantly repeating that Israel controls America is anti-semetic or just anti-Israeli.

 

He is proving the fact that if you say something enough, you can get some idiot to back you up on it.

 

Let me post one of his more recent rants..

 

BREAKING: IS ISRAEL ABOUT TO PROVIDE THE PROVOCATION FOR THE US TO SEIZE IRAQ'S OIL?

 

Israel's Mossad, you know, the "by way of deception thou shalt do war" boys, the ones who blew up American and British assets in Egypt and planted fake evidence to place the blame on Arabs, the same guys who planted a fake radio transmitter in Tripoli to trick the US into bombing Libya, the same guys who operated the largest spy ring ever uncovered in the United States, yeah, THOSE guys, have announced that they "know" Saddam Hussein is about to attack Israel and that therefore the US should smite Iraq first.

 

Oh yeah, with the entire US military ready to swoop down on Iraq and steal all their oil I'm sure that Saddam woke up this morning and decided just for the heck of it to attack Israel. I mean, setting aside the fact that Saddam is a little busy right now, Saddam knows that Israel has over 200 nukes which the American taxpayers paid for, which Israel will use at the slightest provocation (real or manufactured). Saddam may be as evil as Bush and Sharon, but he's no idiot. Saddam knows that any overt military act on his part plays right into the US' and Israel's hands. So attacking Israel is the LAST thing he is planning to do right now.

 

Israel, however, with a long history of being willing to kill civilians for its political aims, could easily set off a bomb in a remote area, claiming Saddam was attacking a city in Israel but missed, then ignite the war. It would hardly be the first time a world war was started with the aggressor faking an attack by the intended target. That German guy with the Charlie Chaplin mustache used the same trick.

 

Right now Bush and Sharon are desperate to start a war in Iraq, for oil (US) and regional power (Israel). Are they willing to fake an attack to kick off the war?

 

Hell, yes!

 

that all fits in with his belief that the US Government was behind 9/11, there were no hijackers and it's all a plot.

 

and, he might be one of those few with enough balls to quote himself on the quotes page of his site

 

So.. browse thru the site.. feel free to bring up stuff.. I plainly see him as a guy who keeps saying the same things over and over to try and convince people that it happened his way.

 

another sample of all this.. Jingus or somebody can dissect it.. The Flight of the Bumble Planes

 

Weird weird stuff.

 

apologies if I missed the right place for this. But with guys like Anti-Porn being beat up on these boards, I felt this would be a place for a Bumble Planes discussion

[Guest DJ Jeff]

Interesting, to say the least.

[Guest J*ingus]

Good Christ, but I barely know where to begin. I don't feel like tackling an entire website single-handedly, so I'll just stick with Bumble Planes for now. I'll have to cut this one into several parts, there's so much idiocy.

 

Flight Of The Bumble Planes

 

Wow, a title that already leaves the reader confused. Well, that's as good a nonsensical way to start us off as any.

 

by Snake Plissken

 

Oh my god, Kurt Russel is a conspiracy theorist!

 

as told to Carol A. Valentine

Curator, Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum

http://www.Public-Action.com

 

Who, what, and why should I care?

 

Copyright, March, 2002

May be reproduced for non-commercial purposes

 

Now, keep in mind that it does take time and money to copyright anything. That means that either A.This person is full of shit, or B.They're really fucking dumb for thinking that hordes of people around the world will want to steal this.

 

To hear the Bumble Planes, press here 

 

I didn't bother.

 

March 10, 2002 -- Eureka!  One of my readers, who calls himself "Snake Plissken," has put it together.  He tells us why the passenger lists of the four September 11 "suicide" jets were so small, how remote control was used, why the transponders were turned off, why the radar tracks of the four planes were confused, why there was no Boeing 757 debris at the Pentagon

By George, I think he's got it!

 

What the fuck are you talking about?

 

My e-mail exchanges with Snake took place over a series of days.  With Snake's agreement, I have consolidated the exchanges, inserted some reference URLs, and made minor edits.  My comments and additions will be bracketed thus [ ].

 

My comments and additions will be outside of the little boxes. And they'll be smarter and funnier than yours.

 

As you read what Snake has to say, keep the following in mind: 

 

Magic is the pretended performance of those things which cannot be done. 

 

I can only imagine what a Wiccan would think of that statement.

 

The success of a magician's simulation of doing the impossible depends upon misleading the minds of his audiences.  This, in the main, is done by adding, to a performance, details of which the spectators are unaware, and leaving out others which they believe you have not left out.  In short a performance of magic is largely a demonstration of the universal reliability of certain facts of psychology.

(John Mulholland, The Art of Illusion, Charles Scribner & Sons, 1944.)

 

Why am I not surprised that the only reasonable, intelligent statement in this entire crapfest is a quote from someone else?

 

In what follows, Snake unravels the illusions of the 9-11 magicians.

 

Be still my throbbing cock.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carol,

 

You did some fine research on 9-11.  You came within inches of solving the puzzle of the "suicide" jets, and now you need the rest of the story.  Let me explain by making a suggestion.

 

Oh no, let me make a suggestion: come here to this message board and enter into a debate on this subject with myself and all the other regulars in our Current Events folder. We'll try not to kill you too fast.

 

Go visit a bumblebee hive some time, and try to keep your eye on just one bee.  You can't do it.  You get confused.   Think of the 9-11 jets as bumblebees. 

 

Wow, such an awesome metaphor. You've completely invalidated all of my counterarguments already. There's just one tiny problem: BUMBLEBEES DON'T LIVE IN HIVES. Other than that, your Bum theory is just great.

 

Matter of fact, you could even call Operation 911 Flight of the Bumble Planes. 

 

How about: no.

 

I've worked in cryptology and there are many ways of hiding the truth. 

 

Translation for backward-ass leg-humping dumbshits (like the guy who wrote this menstrual smear of a theory): "I watch X-Files, and sometimes check books out at the library."

 

Substitute information, omit information, scramble the information out of sequence, and add nonsense (random garbage).  All four methods were used on the 9-11 incident. 

 

Funny you mentioned that, because I've been thinking "random garbage" for the entire time that I read your little diatribe here.

 

Let me lay out the clues and show you where they lead. 

 

Kinda like the long trail of junk food that the ninjas used to trap the fat chick in Big Money Hustlas?

 

THE CLUE

 

First Clue -- Few Passengers On The Four Flights:  Many have remarked about the short passenger lists on the four 911 jets.  You might get a low turnout for a 767 or 757 now and then, but four coast to-coast flights taking off from the East inside of a few minutes of each other, all with short passenger lists?  Nuts.  That's your first clue. 

 

This might actually mean something, if you'd provided any, y'know, PROOF to back it up. What were the actual numbers for passengers on the flight?

 

Second Clue -- First Report of First WTC Crash:  The second clue comes from the first New York eyewitness on NBC. She had no question about what she saw.  You could hear it in her voice.  If she was the state's witness, the defense team would have their heads between their knees before she stopped talking.

 

What did she say? She heard an airplane coming in low and looked up.  She saw a small private jet, and watched it fly into the first WTC tower, the North tower.  She was certain in her description -- most people know the difference between a big round-nose commercial jet and a smaller plane. 

 

People also see UFOs, Bigfoot, and the Loch Ness Monster. Eyewitnesses are infamously unreliable in describing traumatic events; ask any cop.

 

[ CV cmments: 

In his testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on October 25, 2001, NORAD commander Ralph Eberhart said of the first September 11 report:  "We were told it was a light commuter airplane.  It didn't look like that was caused by a light commuter airplane."

 

The first plane rammed into the tower at a good 100 stories up. That's a quarter of a mile away. Easily enough distance to mistake anything for anything else.

 

Later, some dodgy report came in from an anonymous source in the "United Airlines Command Center" that American Airlines had a hijacking, and they gradually padded the story out until the viewer felt like he was part of an unfolding revelation on the size and make of the plane.  So the firsteyewitness's story got shellacked. 

 

Well, God knows that most ongoing news coverage is not a gradual process. Reporters and newscasts always have ALL of the details the instant ANYTHING happens, we all know that of course.

 

Third clue -- Pentagon Crash:  The first report on NBC said there had been an explosion near the Pentagon heliport.  No mention of a plane. 

 

If you were watching ABC, the first reports cited eyewitnesses who said a business jet had crashed into the Pentagon.  Notice that this description is similar to the first report about the WTC.  A small plane, not a big, round-nosed passenger jet. 

 

Could the lack of details maybe be attributed to the fact that a bunch of paranoid soldiers were running around with M-16s and not letting any reporters anywhere near the Pentagon, nor telling people anything that had happened?

 

Then ABC interviewed some media executive who said he "saw the whole thing" from his car on the freeway.  It was an American Airlines passenger jet.  Good luck the road didn't need his attention while he was gawking.  And of course it was a big passenger jet scraping the light poles with it's belly as it came in low.  And that story paved the way for the official truth.

 

So you immedietly give credence to one arbitrarily chosen set of witnesses, but complete dismiss out of hand the stories of others who don't match your theory. Right. Gotcha.

 

Fourth Clue -- No Boeing 757 Debris at Pentagon Crash Site :  By now lots of people have realized there is something very wrong with the story of Flight 77's crash into the Pentagon.  What's the problem?   The wingspan of a 757 is about 125 feet, with about 35 feet between the two jet engines. 

 

The hole left by whatever hit the building was 70 feet across. 

 

Thus proving that this jerkoff knows nothing about the basic structure of an aircraft. A jet is mostly constructed of light, hollow metal. It crumples like aluminum foil whenever it hits something sold. The engines are the only really dense and compact structures on a plane.

 

After the smoke died down, everyone could see the Pentagon but no one could see the plane.  The Pentagon is made of masonry -- limestone -- not steel and glass.  The aluminum wings of the plane should have been ripped off and left outside the building.  We should have seen wing wreckage.  But there was none. 

 

Jesus wept, where the fuck did you learn your physics, watching Wile E. Coyote cartoons? Firstly, the wings wouldn't have just dropped off the plane, they would've snapped, but been dragged along with the rest of the wreckage. Secondly, the massive explosion of the fuel igniting would've obliterated most if not all of the plane's airframe.

 

[CV comments:

I have studied TV footage taken contemporaneously by various networks and reviewed photos from news magazines published just after 9-11.  After the smoke died down, no Boeing 757 debris was visible.

 

I already shot down this theory. Shut up.

 

See the following URLs at the website of the U.S. Army Military District of Washington, D.C., sent to me by researcher John DiNardo, <[email protected]>.  By the way, Mr. DiNardo suspects that inside explosives were used at the Pentagon on 9-11.  Certainly the damaged section of the building had just been renovated; explosives would have been easy to install.

 

Um, want to maybe bother providing a reason WHY someone would plant a bomb in the Pentagon, kill hundreds of people, and then cover it all up?

 

This photograph below, with caption, appeared on the US Army Military District of Washington site.  It unwittingly demonstrates that there was no Boeing 757 wreckage.  Think now: a hundred thousand pounds of seats, framework, skin plates, engine parts, flaps, wheels, luggage, interior panels, electronics, and this little out-of-context scrap of God-knows-what was shown by the Pentagon. 

 

Think now: a car is actually built more thickly and solidly than an airplane. And they travel at much, much lower speeds. Yet when a car rams into something at a mere 60 miles per hour, it's often completely destroyed, rendered into near-unrecognizable junk. Simply imagine what it would be like if it were going ten times that speed.

 

In the last several months, largely as a result of Mr. DiNardo's work, there has been growing Internet discussion of the lack of Boeing 757 debris outside the Pentagon.  Now, magically, new photos of "Boeing 757" Pentagon wreckage are beginning to appear.  Check out the websites of Mike Rivero <whatreallyhappened.com> and Joe Vialls for copies of these fakes.  Rivero and Vialls, by endorsing them as real, have surely identified themselves as members of the fake opposition. 

 

Now I'm starting to get mad. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a member of The Giant Conspiracy Which Spends Infinite Time, Money, & Effort In Order To Fool YOU.

 

OK.  Now back to Snake Plissken]

 

Bring it, bitch. On to Part 2!

[Guest J*ingus]

This guy is so damn goofy, this is actually easier than normal.

 

Fifth Clue -- Quality of Pilots in Pentagon crash:  As you point out in Operation 911: NO SUICIDE PILOTS

 

the flying instructors who trained the "suicide" pilots of Flight 77 said they were hopeless.  "It was like they had hardly even ever driven a car ..."  The flight instructors called the two, "dumb and dumber," and told them to quit taking lessons.

 

Yet the Washington Post described the maneuvers of Flight 77 before it hit the Pentagon.  The huge jet took a 270 degree hairpin turn to make its target.  The Post said Flight 77 had to be flown by expert pilots. 

 

Something is wrong here.  Now "dumb and dumber" are expert pilots.  That is your fifth clue.

 

Mind providing that quote from the Post, which of course like all newspapers is always accurate and never makes mistakes or exagerrations?

 

Sixth Clue -- Transponders Turned Off:  As you point out, the "hijackers" turned off the transponders which transmit information showing the airline names, flight numbers, and altitude.  But the FAA also uses conventional radar, so the "hijackers" must have known the planes were still visible.  Why would the "hijackers" shut the transponders off, you asked?  You are looking at your sixth clue.

 

Because transponders are a LOT more precise and accurate than civilian radar readings. Goddammit, do I have to draw you a fucking map dot by dot?

 

Seventh Clue -- Confusion On Radar Tracks:  As you point out, some of these flights disappeared from the conventional radar scopes.   [see above-cited URL.]  That's your seventh clue.

 

As pointed out by who? Where? Are you just making this shit up?

 

Eighth Clue  -- Second WTC Tower Barely Hit :  Have a look at the footage of the second WTC tower being hit.  The plane almost missed the tower and just managed to hit the corner.  Yet the first plane struck its target dead center.   That's your eighth clue.

 

Oh goodie, he's blind AND stupid. It didn't just barely miss the corner, it plowed directly into the building, albeit a bit off center. Ass.

 

HERE'S WHAT HAPPENED

 

Oh believe me, I'm waiting with baited breath... and hook.

 

*  A Boeing 767 was secured and painted up to look like a United Airlines jet.  It had remote controls installed in it, courtesy of some NORAD types.  Call that plane "Pseudo Flight 175" and leave it parked at a military airfield for the moment.

 

Here's the main question: why? Why bother? And since when did a relatively low-budget homeland defense Cold War relic of an organization like NORAD have access to state-of-the-art billion-dollar Air Force remote control technology?

 

* The number of the passengers on each flight was kept artificially low that day.  Easy to do.  Just monkey with the airline computers and show the fights full so no more tickets are sold.  Include some of your own operatives in each flight, maybe.

 

Your argument is like an old man after a swift punch to the prostate: it just doesn't hold water.

 

* After the planes are in the air, the transponders must be shut down.  There are a few ways to do this, maybe, but the simplest is this:  Have one of the NORAD insiders call the pilots and say: "This is the North American Aerospace Defense Command.  There is a national emergency.  We are under terrorist attack.  Turn off your transponders.  Maintain radio silence.  Here is your new flight plan.  You will land at [name] military air base."

 

Let's see, it could either be that... or hijackers flipping a switch and turning them off. It's called Occhiam's Razor, look into it.

 

*  The pilots turn off the transponders.  The FAA weenies lose the information which identifies the airline, the flight number, and the altitude of the planes.  Of course the planes can still be seen on conventional radar, but the planes are just nameless blips now. 

 

*  What did the radar show of the planes' flight paths?  We'll never see the real records, for sure.  But in the spy movies, when the spy wants to lose a tail, he gets a double to lead the tail one way while the spy goes the other.  If I were designing Operation 911, I'd do that:  As each of the original jets is flying, another jet is sent to fly just above or below it, at the same latitude and longitude.  The blips of the two planes merge on the radar scopes.  Alternately, a plane is sent to cross the flight path of the original plane.  Again, the blips merge, just like the little bees you're watching outside the hive.  The original planes proceed to the military airfield and air traffic control is thoroughly confused, watching the wrong blips ...

 

Um, excuse me, you're basing real-life covert tactics on what you saw in fucking spy movies?!? I KNOW a military intelligence officer, who was in charge of the Carlos The Jackal case for a period of time. She's a short soccer mom who considers Breakdown to be a "scary movie". The only other intelligence-involved person I know? Marney. Oh yeah, both of those people match up with the cinematic portrayal of spies to a fucking T!

 

Also, the blips wouldn't "merge" unless the two planes were REALLY close to each other, I mean close enough for you to smell the stale packets of peanuts on the other flight. Don't you think that the completely unaware not-in-on-the-scam pilots just MIGHT try to take evasive action if another aircraft flies directly at them?

 

That's probably close to the way it was managed.  Like I say, we'll never see the radar records so we won't know exactly. 

 

But you're basing your arguments on what you claim those records show. Smooth move, exlax.

 

* A small remote controlled commuter jet filled with incendiaries/explosives -- a cruise missile, if you like -- is flown into the first WTC tower.  That's the plane the first NBC eyewitness saw. 

 

* The remote controlled "Pseudo Flight 175," decked out to look like a United airlines passenger jet,  is sent aloft and flown by remote control -- without passengers -- and crashed into the second tower. 

 

Beautiful!  Everyone has pictures of that. 

 

There IS video and photographic footage of the first plane, you fucking waste of flesh.

 

Why did Pseudo Flight 175 almost miss the second tower?  Because the remote operators were used to smaller, more maneuverable craft, not a big stubborn passenger jet.  The operators brought the jet in on a tight circle and almost blew it because those jets do hairpin turns like the Queen Mary.  They brought it in too fast and too close to do the job right and just hit the corner of the tower.

 

I already destroyed this theory, thank you, drive through.

 

* Then another remote controlled commuter jet filled with incendiaries/explosives -- a cruise missileif you like -- hits the Pentagon, in the name of Flight 77. 

 

Um, question: what about your claims of a complete lack of debris at the Pentagon site? If you were right on that account (which you weren't), wouldn't that contradict this pathetic bowel movement as well?

 

* Eyewitnesses are a dime a dozen.  Trusted media whores "witness" the Pentagon hit and claim it was an American Airlines Boeing 757, Flight 77.  Reporters lie better than lawyers.

 

I can just imagine any reporter, or anyone who knows reporters, laughing their asses off at that statement. Trust me, the one thing that ALL reporters hate most is when the government tries to tell them what to say, whether through legislation or more direct tactics.

 

* Meanwhile, the passengers from Flights 11, 175, and 77, now at the military airfield, are loaded onto Flight 93.  If you've put some of your own agents aboard, they stay on the ground, of course. 

 

* Flight 93 is taken aloft.

 

* Flight 93 is shot down or bombed -- makes no difference which.  Main deal is to destroy that human meat without questions.  Easiest way to dispose of 15,000 lbs. of human flesh, and nobody gets a headline if they find a foot in their front garden.  No mass graves will ever be discovered, either.

 

So a few hundred completely innocent civilians are massacred. Yep, that's something our military does ALL THE TIME. Also, what about the numerous cell phone calls from victims on the planes (complete with descriptions of Middle Eastern hijackers) throughout the time that the planes were in the air?

 

* The trail is further confused by issuing reports that Flight 77 was actually headed towards the White House but changed course. 

 

It's not exactly a closely-guarded secret that the White House has anti-aircraft missles on the roof. The Pentagon did not. That explains it pretty handily.

 

* The trail is further confused by having the Washington Post wax lyrical about the flying skills of non-existent pilots on a non-existence plane (Flight 77). 

 

That statement ASSumes that your prior ASSumption was correct, cornholio.

 

* The trail is further confused with conflicting reports and artificial catfight issues, such as -- did The Presidential Shrub really see the first tower hit on TV while he was waiting to read the story about the pet goat ... 

 

Um, the first tower hit WASN'T ON TV when it first happened, genius.

 

So we know the Boeing that used to be Flight 93 was blown up. 

 

Actually "we" think you're the biggest fucking idiot I've ever ranted on, "we" being myself and my brother, who wishes to compare you to a hair growing in the center of a nipple, for reasons which escape me.

 

The other three original Boeings (Flights 11, 175, 77) still exist somewhere, unless they were cut up for scrap.

 

Insert your own joke here, it's too easy.

 

The passengers and crews of Flights 11, 175, 77, and 93 died in an airplane crash, just like the newspapers said.  Only for most of them, it was the wrong crash.  But that's as close to the truth as the news media likes to get anyway, so it works. 

 

Thus speaks a man who has NEVER spent a day in a newsroom.

 

Onward, to Parte: Ye Thirde!

[Guest J*ingus]

Only posting the third part now, since the sever mysteriously crapped out late last night.

 

Now the really fun part, where the junior-high schmuck who wrote this attempts to explain the motivation behind the Evil Government Plot.

 

WHY DO IT THAT WAY?

 

So there you have it.  Not four planes.  More than four planes.  There were the four original Boeing passenger jets that took off from the East Coast airports, the remote controlled Pseudo Flight 175 Boeing, and two small remote controlled jets or cruise missiles.  Figure in a couple of extra planes to confuse the flight paths of the original passenger jets. 

 

The four original Boeings had conventional controls. The look-alike Boeing and the two small jets were drones, rigged with remote control.  You called it Global Hawk, and that's good enough.  Themimic planes could have been piloted or remote controlled. 

 

Bullshit.

 

Why not just install remote control in four passenger jets like you described in NO SUICIDE PILOTS?   Here's why: You might get remote control gear installed on a passenger jet so pretty the pilot would not notice, but that would be more work, more time, and more people. 

 

No you couldn't. Pilots know the cockpits of their planes as well as your dick knows the palm of your hand.

 

Then you would have to control your special plane through maintenance dispatch and try to get it lined up for that day, that time, that flight.  Then you would have to multiply those efforts by four.  There would be too many chances of things going wrong.   Plane substitution would be much simpler.  You'd just need the NORAD insiders, the personnel at the military airfield, and maybe an agent or two inside the FAA air traffic control system to make sure things go smooth.  That should not be too difficult because NORAD has sent lots of its people over to the FAA to work on the FAA radars. 

 

You just described a simple way of doing it... and then proceeded to say that it was too complex, and then put forth an EVEN MORE COMPLICATED method.

 

[CV commens:

Gen. Eberhart, NORAD commander, told the Senate Armed Services Committee on October 25, 2001 that " . . . we've actually moved manpower on the order of about 200 people over the years to the FAA to operate these radars."

 

You know why? NORAD is a radar-based organization. The R in NORAD stands for radar. They've been using it for the past fifty years. Their technicians would only be natural working on other radar systems. And re-read the good general's quote: "about 200 people over the years". That averages out to 4 people per year, in the entire counry; less than that now, with budget cutbacks and automated systems. The odds are just a smidgen against a Evil NORAD Radar Conspirators just happening to be manning the sets which watched those airplanes.

 

Some people have suggested the original passenger planes were used with the flight computers hacked and loaded with the collision coordinates for the targets.  Maybe the job could have been done that way, but it was not.  You know for sure it was not because flight computers do not fly planes the way those were flown.  A flight computer is given a set of GPS points (geographic coordinates) to follow, and the computer charts the path between them, correcting for cross-winds and other errors.  The flight computer flies smooth and gentle, the way passengers like it, without jerky corrections. 

 

You know Flight 175 was not on that system when it hit the south tower because it came in fast (they say) in a tight hooking circle that almost missed the tower.  An autopilot wouldn't make that mistake.  The crash of flight 175 was not a preprgrammed flight computer finding the optimum path.  What you see there in the path of 175 is a real-time controller fighting the physics of flight - and almost losing it.

 

So you're using the poor flying ability of the pilots at the time of the crash to refute this theory. Well, cocknocker, what about the part a few paragraphs up where you claimed that the maneuvers made in the flight required an expert pilot at the helm?

 

You've already dealt with the Joe Vialls Home Run explanation, so I don't have to analyze that again.

 

Analyze this. ::Jingus grabs a specific body part::

 

I've seen another lame attempt to explain away what happened: Supposedly AWACS hit the planes with EMF and knocked out their manual electronics, then took over the 9-11 planes by remote and made them crash.  That's a pipe dream.  Anything that knocked out the electronics from a distance would turn a plane into a flying scrap heap.  Those plane are completely dependent on electronics, and no remote beam could pick and choose which circuits to destroy and which to leave intact. 

 

Wow... you're RIGHT this time. I'm shocked. Your tech knowledge is awfully intermittent in its accuracy, though.

 

OTHER DETAILS

 

* Pentagon Security Photos :  On March 7 CNN released four photographs taken by Pentagon security camera on September 11, 2001.  Look at the photos:

 

The Washington Post says: "The first photo shows a small, blurry, white object near the upper right corner -- possibly the plane just a few feet about the ground," but admits "the hijacked American Airlines plane is not clearly visible." ("New Photos Show Attack on Pentagon," March 7, 2002. ) 

 

Yeah, right, you can believe that the American Airlines plane is not visible. 

 

Yeah, right, I can believe that some random security camera (designed to watch things on the ground) would never, ever happen to be turned at such an angle that it wasn't pointing directly at an aircraft's flight path.

 

*   Fireman's Video of First Crash.  The NBC eyewitness said the plane that few into the North tower was small.  This is corroborated by the fireman's video taken on September 11:

 

I love how you're basing your entire theory on the testimony of one anonymous witness describing events, under great stress, which happened thousands of yards away from him.

 

In that clip, the camera shows a fireman with other workers casually discussing some street work.  The fireman looks up over his left shoulder, then behind him, as though he is following a sound.  The camera follows his gaze, finds nothing at the original location, then quickly moves to a shot of the WTC, visible through another corridor in the surrounding buildings. 

 

Why does the cameraman focus on the WTC?  I can only guess he heard the impact of the plane.  The camera does not show the plane in the air prior to impact, so I assume it has already crashed.

 

In the first frames we see a puff of smoke from the impact site that grows into a cloud and erupts into flame.  After a few seconds, the flame dies down and the smoke dissipates.  At that moment, the camera shows the huge S-shaped gash in the side of WTC North.

 

If the wings of a large jet made that gash, the gash should not be S-shaped.  The gash should be a straight line like the wings of the jet.  But more important:  if the impact of the jet made 

the gash, the gash should appear at the moment of impact when the camera is first drawn to the building. Instead, it appears AFTER the smoke and flame. 

 

You know what one of the least predictable situations on earth is? A bullet hitting something. Any knowledgable gunman will tell you that you're NEVER completely sure what is going to happen when an object moving at very high velocities collides with something. In other words, you're proved nothing, jerky.

 

The Hijackers:  I have read reports that some of the alleged hijackers are actually still alive. This suggests the hijacker scenario and the resultant mid-air telephone calls to the relatives is pure bull.  But I can't verify the alleged hijackers are still alive, so let's move on. 

 

What reports? Your stating of "facts" without any proof to back them up is becoming a real running theme here.

 

It would be easy for the 9-11 planners to collect the names of people with Muslim-sounding names who were taking flying lessons around the country.  Just before 9-11 happens, they are disappeared.  Then  mid-air phone calls are created, reporting hijackers who were never aboard the planes.  That would work.

 

"created"?

 

Okay, now I'm mad at you, you fucking piece of garbage. Those phone calls were made from passengers on the plane mostly to close relatives, spouses and the like. I dare you, I fucking triple-dog DARE you, to find just one relative whose last contact with their dead loved one was such a phone call, and then tell them that it was faked. Go ahead. I'll even come with you, to haul you to the hospital or morgue afterwards. You fucking unnecessary use of oxygen. These aren't your goddamned RPG characters you're playing with, these are real people, who lived, breathed, and died, and I'm sure that they would be FUCKING PISSED to discover you blissfully shitting on their graves.

 

As you and many people have noticed, the Muslim names don't appear on the passenger lists of the four flights.  The hijackers names don't even appear on the list of passengers released by United on September 12 -- the list of passengers on Flights 175 and 93.

 

Sure it was careless not to put the Arab names on the passenger lists, but nobody's perfect. 

 

Is this true? Anyone? Proof?

 

Just to show you how scripted the Flight 93 hijacking thing was, think about the alleged phone calls from the passengers on Flight 93 to their next of kin in the moments before the crash.  Supposedly, they learned of the attacks on the Pentagon and the WTC with their handy cell phones, and they figured out their own plane was hijacked for a similar purpose.  So they decided to be heroes and take the plane away from the hijackers.

 

According to the Dallas Morning News : "The fourth time Thomas Burnett Jr. phoned his wife, Deena, he acknowledged up front: 'I know we're going to die.  There's three of us who are going to do something about it.'"

 

Heroic, wasn't it?  And not a dry hanky in the house.  The heroes of modern America.  A high school basketball star, a college rugby player, a forest ranger, a woman police officer ...

 

You presented evidence from spy movies earlier to support your real life claims, and now you claim that real life events were too much like movies to be real. Fuck you, you sand-encrusted lesion on Osama's uncircumsized prick.

 

But why did it have to be suicide heroism?  "They knew their deaths were inevitable, according to some family members with whom they spoke on the phone, and they didn't want thousands more todie with them."  It makes a better story, of course.  "Suicide Heroes Defeat Suicide Hijackers."

 

Why did they have to die?  The crew was still alive and "herded at knife point to the back of the plane, where the passengers were being held," according to the same report.  They weren't dead.  If the passengers got control from the hijackers, couldn't the crew fly the plane?  Why didn't those brave heroes say things like, "There's a chance we might save this boat"?  But they said, "I know we're going to die."

 

Why did they die? BECAUSE THE TERRORISTS SAID THEY WOULD CRASH THE FUCKING PLANE IF THE PEOPLE TRIED TO FIGHT BACK. Fucko.

 

Obviously, this script was concocted in midnight a bull sessions like they had in Dustin Hoffman's mansion in "Wag the Dog".  And the American public has been trained on weak plots for decades on prime time TV, so they don't WANT to think their way out of a wet paper bag.  It spoils the show.

 

Christ on a cracker, you're using fictional events from a movie AGAIN to back up your points.

 

Only the writers and producers of Operation 911 knew that the passengers of Flight 93 had to die.  But the temptation was too much, so they put it in the passenger dialog, too.  And that's how you know the cell phone calls are just theater, not fact.

 

Do you have any idea, any idea at all of how difficult it would be to pull all this off? As in, "fucking impossible"?

 

By the way, if I was planning this operation, I'd put some fictitious names on the passenger list, so when the flight went down, the media could interview fake relatives. 

 

Um, hello, Mr. Continuity, you just stated before that they forgot to properly doctor the passenger registers.

 

Like that Operation Northwoods plan in which a fake Cuban jet would shoot down a fake American passenger jet.  Whoever planned that must have planned to use fake grieving relatives, too.

 

I'm sure that someone on this board knows someone who lost a friend or loved one on those flights. Tell them about this man, and this website. They deserve to know the libelous claims being made about them.

 

And then of course I've heard they can do marvelous things with voice simulation.  How about that fellow who called his mother from Flight 93 and said "Mom, this is Mark Bingham." That has all the truth of a plaster fish trophy.  That one guy, Todd Beamer, with the pregnant wife -- she didn't talk to him directly, she just got a message from the answering service. 

 

Translation: "I watched Scream 3 and thought those voice-masking thingies were SO KEWL~!"

 

Is this all too much for your to swallow? 

 

No, my penis is too much for you to swallow. This is just silly.

 

Don't you believe people would conspire to pull all this off?  Well, look at the stakes.  This current war will go on for years and blot out one of the world's great religions, legitimize military rule in the United States, redistribute the world's oil resources, and change the entire power structure of planet Earth.  All that's needed to make it happen is ambition, chutzpah, "a few good men," and a nation that is willing to be deceived. 

 

Eh? The United States already has more oil reserves in our own country than in the non-friendly Islamic states in the Middle East, especially oil-poor Afghanistan, which was the main focus for this whole mess.

 

The problem with people like you when you try to understand events like this, you are not a trained killer.  When you come to wiping out the whoever, you shrink back.  That's normal.  That is one of the things you have to train out of a soldier.

 

Oh, yeah, because "our kind" just doesn't understand things like this.

 

Fuck you.

 

But when a soldier plans something like this, he doesn't flinch at the killing.  He just takes that into the plans like one more or one less egg in the omelet.  If he has to kill the enemy or Americans or even himself, it doesn't matter because sometimes he has to do that to win.  He's trained that way. 

 

Do you actually know any soldiers? I do. And pretty much all of them would tell even a commanding officer to go fuck himself if they were ordered to murder innocent American civilians.

 

The only thing that matters is the Objective.  Whatever a soldier has to do to win the Objective, that is what he has to do.  All of this false piety about suicide bombers is nuts.  Well trained Americans would do that if you ordered them to.  If they didn't, they weren't well trained.

 

That's not training, that's brainwashing. And with this claim, you undermine your whole theory. If you're right in this case (which you're not) couldn't it be a lot easier to get a dozen or two "well trained" soldiers of Middle Eastern decent to pose as Muslim extremists and actually pilot the planes into the building for real? Why go through the Rube Goldberg method you described?

 

So you have to kill a hundred, a thousand, or five thousand civilians, you just do it in the best way that will help the Objective.

 

Everyone who wants this callous schizophrenic dumbfuck to be fed to a platoon of soldiers who have lost loved ones in the 9/11 tragedy and have read this egregious pimple-juice-stain of a manifesto, raise your hands.

 

 

In conclusion, fuck you.

[Guest MarvinisaLunatic]

Im trying to figure out why I wasted 20 minutes of my life reading this...

[Guest Incandenza]

After a couple of paragraphs, I gave up.

[Guest J*ingus]

Oh, come on, my incredibly witty retorts (like "fuck you", and "FUCK YOU" had to have been good for some entertainment value.

 

Even more incredible, that entire website is FULL of articles just like that. I could have ranting material for years, just based on the idiots on this one site.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

you could always open a website or your rants on other sites

[Guest kane3212321]

Another cool take apart Jingus. Your retorts are mostly interesting and/or funny, great reading during boring uni classes!

[Guest Ravenbomb]

Yeah. Good job

[Guest Samurai_Goat]

A tad bit late, but, YEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!! Let's hear it for the methodical dimemberment of shoddly written arguments.

[Guest phoenixrising]

Great dissection of that article, Jingus. A little actual know-how applied with common sense, something that the original author of the article lacks.

 

That guy watches way too many spy movies.

[Guest HartFan86]

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/bushlie.html

 

Weird. I think he's going in a tad too deep, though.

[Guest J*ingus]

I can sum up the entire "bushlie" story in one sentence: George W. Bush is a legendarily awful public speaker who makes huge mistakes in speeches all the time, so nothing he says can be treated as 100% true.

 

And thanks for the props, dudez.