WTC was imploded

[Guest Astro]

Were 'Pod Missiles' Used in the World Trade Center Attack?

 

Paul Joseph Watson | April 20 2004

 

Several websites have garnered worldwide attention recently for exposing apparent evidence of a 'pod missile' which was fired from Flight 175 before it hit the WTC South Tower.

 

In my book, Order Out of Chaos, which was written over a year ago and published in August 2003, I cited the research of Leonard Spencer and featured a discussion of the use of missiles, specifically in the case of Flight 11, which hit the North Tower,

 

The story of the 'Fireman's Video' is well known. Two French filmmakers, the Naudet Brothers, were in New York on September 11 making a documentary about the New York Fire Service. The footage shows that, while filming in Canal Street, firemen and crew are distracted by a plane flying low overhead. The camera operator instinctively turns his camera towards the North Tower and, for little more than a second or so, we get a clear view of the plane crashing into the tower. It is a precious, priceless second. It is the one-second of video that really makes the sinister Bush junta nervous. It really gives them nightmares. They really didn't want a professional cameraman to catch that moment on broadcast-quality tape.

 

If you've got it on tape I strongly suggest you take another look at it, with the pause and frame-forward buttons at the ready. If you don't have it taped you can purchase the documentary in which it appears on video and DVD. It's called simply '9/11'.

 

When seen at full speed, you might first of all think that there isn't a great deal to see. There's half a second or so when we see the plane flying through the air then it smashes into the tower, creating an explosion and leaving a great gash across the building. Notice though that immediately before it hits the building the plane emits a brief, bright flash. Notice too that the scar it leaves on the building is rather larger than seems appropriate for the size of the aircraft.

 

Watch carefully what happens as the plane approaches and crashes into the tower. I leave you to come to your own conclusions about what you see (watch it over and over again, backwards and forwards), but I'll tell you what I see. Immediately before the plane strikes it fires a missile that blows a hole in the building's façade. This is the cause of that brief flash. The plane then begins to disappear neatly into this hole, leaving no wing impressions. (A plane disappearing into a hole? Where have I heard that before; wasn't there something about a plane at the Pentagon?) Just before it disappears however it fires two more missiles from somewhere near its tail. One goes to the left, one to the right (and up a bit) and it is the blast holes from these three separate missiles that form the great gash across the building.

 

Website with Videos of this

 

 

---------

 

When The Explosives Were Placed: WTC South Tower Upper Floors Closed on 9/8 & 9/9

 

San Francisco Indymedia | April 23 2004

 

Many people have theorized the World Trade Center was wired with explosives, causing the unprecedented collapse following the impacts of two jumbo jets. In fact, NYC firefighters remarked that day that it seemed like bombs were going off in the buildings, just prior to the tower's collapse. One glaring question remains unanswered: exactly how and when could such a monumental undertaking be accomplished. Read on for the answer...

 

Feedback from the Progressive Review's Undernews for April 22, 2004.

 

WE RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING from someone who worked for Fiduciary Trust on the 90th, 94-97th floors of the South Tower:

 

"On the weekend of 9/8,9/9 there was a 'power down' condition in WTC tower 2, the south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approx 36 hrs from floor 50 up. I am aware of this situation since I work in IT and had to work with many others that weekend to ensure that all systems were cleanly shutdown beforehand ... and then brought back up afterwards. The reason given by the WTC for the power down was that cabling in the tower was being upgraded ...

 

"Of course without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors and many, many 'engineers' coming in and out of the tower. I was at home on the morning of 9/11 on the shore of Jersey City, right opposite the Towers, and watching events unfold I was convinced immediately that something was happening related to the weekend work."

[Guest]

That's one of the stupidest fucking things I've ever heard, and it's in the wrong folder.

[Guest Astro]

Its not a current event, an its not a popular opinion, I expect to be flamed, Hardcore Discussion it is

[Guest]

Ok, fair enough.

[Guest Astro]

BTW, I'm not claiming this to be true, just "interesting"

[Giuseppe Zangara 0]

BTW, I'm not claiming this to be true, just "interesting"

And hey, you're an "idiot."

[Guest Dids]

LAME.

 

Conspiracy Theories can eat a dick.

[Guest Museite]

Interesting?... More like some crazy shit but whatever. How likely is it that a commercial jet was modified to fire missle for crying out loud?

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

I happen to own three.

[Ripper 0]

I happen to own three.

Commercial Aircrafts or Missles?

 

I only have one jet and 2 missles. Lets trade.

[Jingus 0]

Man, just earlier today, I was YEARNING for someone to post some dumbass conspi-racist theories for me to Dissect, and it looks like Christmas came early.

 

Were 'Pod Missiles' Used in the World Trade Center Attack?

 

Fuck no.

 

Paul Joseph Watson | April 20 2004

 

It's a bad sign when the article starts out with no source-of-publication attribution and an author we've never heard of, wouldn't you think? Theoretically, Astro could've found this manifesto written in crayon on a maple leaf and shoved under his front door.

 

Several websites have garnered worldwide attention recently

 

"Worldwide attention"? I read the paper and listen to news radio every day, and this is the first I've heard of this scintillating theory.

 

for exposing apparent evidence of a 'pod missile' which was fired from Flight 175 before it hit the WTC South Tower.

 

Okay, I know we've got a few people on this board who have background in the field of either aeronautics or military technology. So they can probably back up my own theory here:

 

Possibility of three or four half-trained hijackers modifying a civilian 747, in a very short time period, in the air, to be able to fire missles: 0%.

 

In my book, Order Out of Chaos, which was written over a year ago and published in August 2003, I cited the research of Leonard Spencer and featured a discussion of the use of missiles, specifically in the case of Flight 11, which hit the North Tower,

 

Firstly, why the sudden switch from talking about Flight 175 and the South Tower to this? At least try to keep your lies consistent, pally. And secondly, his "book"? The "research" of Leonard Spencer? Something tells me that neither one of these guys ever have or ever will hit the NYTimes Bestsellers' list, and it's not because The Evil Man Is Keeping Them Down.

 

The story of the 'Fireman's Video' is well known. Two French filmmakers, the Naudet Brothers, were in New York on September 11 making a documentary about the New York Fire Service. The footage shows that, while filming in Canal Street, firemen and crew are distracted by a plane flying low overhead. The camera operator instinctively turns his camera towards the North Tower and, for little more than a second or so, we get a clear view of the plane crashing into the tower. It is a precious, priceless second. It is the one-second of video that really makes the sinister Bush junta nervous. It really gives them nightmares. They really didn't want a professional cameraman to catch that moment on broadcast-quality tape.

 

SCREEEEEEEEEEEECH. That was the sound of my amusement crashing to a halt. Coming up with bullshit conspiracy theories about 9/11 is bad enough. But claiming the single most devastating attack on American civilians was perpetuated by their own president? Fuck this asshole, and I'm not gonna take it easy on him anymore.

 

Side note: even if we did live in Bizarro World and this guy was somehow right, how would he know the content of "the sinister Bush junta"'s dreams or nightmares?

 

If you've got it on tape I strongly suggest you take another look at it, with the pause and frame-forward buttons at the ready. If you don't have it taped you can purchase the documentary in which it appears on video and DVD. It's called simply '9/11'.

 

Oh, you done fucked up now, boy. Claiming the fine 9/11 documentary, which pretty much everyone has seen, as part of your evidence? You might as well try to powerbomb Kidman or kill Willow's latest girlfriend, cocknocker.

 

When seen at full speed, you might first of all think that there isn't a great deal to see. There's half a second or so when we see the plane flying through the air then it smashes into the tower, creating an explosion and leaving a great gash across the building. Notice though that immediately before it hits the building the plane emits a brief, bright flash. Notice too that the scar it leaves on the building is rather larger than seems appropriate for the size of the aircraft.

 

You know why the scar on the building is bigger than the plane itself?

 

Simple: REAL LIFE PHYSICS DON'T WORK LIKE FUCKING LOONEY TUNES. Objects crashing through something else at high speed tend to leave a hole larger than their own size.

 

Watch carefully what happens as the plane approaches and crashes into the tower. I leave you to come to your own conclusions about what you see (watch it over and over again, backwards and forwards), but I'll tell you what I see. Immediately before the plane strikes it fires a missile that blows a hole in the building's façade. This is the cause of that brief flash. The plane then begins to disappear neatly into this hole, leaving no wing impressions. (A plane disappearing into a hole? Where have I heard that before; wasn't there something about a plane at the Pentagon?) Just before it disappears however it fires two more missiles from somewhere near its tail. One goes to the left, one to the right (and up a bit) and it is the blast holes from these three separate missiles that form the great gash across the building.

 

Website with Videos of this

 

Wow. I mean, really, wow. With a pile of bullshit this high, where do you start shoveling?

 

First of all, like I previously stated, it's completely impossible for a handful of terrorists like the 9/11 hijackers to convert (IN AIR) a civilian aircraft to fire missles at a building. In fact, the whole idea of using missles is completely counterproductive. The fuel-filled 747 itself is more effective as a weapon than any missle that could've been fired from it; why whack a guy over the head with a stick when you're about to blow him in half with a cannon?

 

And secondly, the "wings left no holes" crap. Well met, old foe. No matter how many times I explain you away, some fuckstick keeps bringing you back up. In short: the wings are much smaller and lighter ('cept for the engines) than the main body of the plane itself, so they would've been snapped and crushed against the side of the fueselage, not making a giant perfectly-shaped Wily Coyote hole in the building.

 

---------

 

What the fuck happened here? Did his computer crash itself after being fed the above feces, so that he couldn't finish the piece? If so, good. Hell, I hope he had a goddamn stroke and died right in the middle of it.

 

When The Explosives Were Placed: WTC South Tower Upper Floors Closed on 9/8 & 9/9

 

San Francisco Indymedia | April 23 2004

 

Ho boy. "Indymedia." That just galvanizes my soul with confidence in the professional quality of the upcoming read. And from Frisco, no less. Nice to see that some stereotypes never change.

 

Many people have theorized the World Trade Center was wired with explosives, causing the unprecedented collapse following the impacts of two jumbo jets.

 

Actually, the towers WERE wired with explosives.

 

In 1993, remember?

 

Funny how the placed explosives didn't knock down the towers then, and yet you claim that more of the same did the trick years later. (And the buildings were not structually designed to withstand the impact of a 747 jet.)

 

In fact, NYC firefighters remarked that day that it seemed like bombs were going off in the buildings, just prior to the tower's collapse.

 

Which firefighters? Remarked to who? When? As reported by whom? Come on, assmonkey, your forked tongue can do better than that.

 

Also, some remarks might've been made like that, true. You know why? Because a massive building-consuming fire has a lot of strange effects. For chrissake, you can get a rock to explode by soaking it in water and then dumping it in the middle of a big campfire. A fucking ordinary run-of-the-mill ROCK, okay? Now imagine all the stuff a massive building like the WTC has in it. Wooden furniture, computer & electrical equipment, climate control systems, etcetera. Of course there would have been many smaller secondary explosions.

 

One glaring question remains unanswered: exactly how and when could such a monumental undertaking be accomplished. Read on for the answer...

 

Feedback from the Progressive Review's Undernews for April 22, 2004.

 

WE RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING from someone who worked for Fiduciary Trust on the 90th, 94-97th floors of the South Tower:

 

Yep, just as I expected, more weakly unidentified "anonymous sources". This article isn't a steaming pile of shit after all; it's a massive puddle of swirly diahrea.

 

"On the weekend of 9/8,9/9 there was a 'power down' condition in WTC tower 2, the south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approx 36 hrs from floor 50 up. I am aware of this situation since I work in IT and had to work with many others that weekend to ensure that all systems were cleanly shutdown beforehand ... and then brought back up afterwards. The reason given by the WTC for the power down was that cabling in the tower was being upgraded ...

 

"Of course without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors and many, many 'engineers' coming in and out of the tower. I was at home on the morning of 9/11 on the shore of Jersey City, right opposite the Towers, and watching events unfold I was convinced immediately that something was happening related to the weekend work."

 

That's it?

 

That's fucking IT?

 

"Well, a few days beforehand, the techies killed power for a little while (in ONE tower, mind you) over the weekend to do some maintenance work. Ergo, BOTH TOWERS WERE DESTROYED BY IMPLANTED BOMBS!"

 

Why is it so hard for people to accept that something as big, fast, and explosive as a 747 jumbo jet couldn't have knocked down a building? Especially people like this cock-gobbling, short-bus-riding, feces-sniffing, finger-licking, Pabst-blue-ribbon-drinking, evolutionarily-incorrect, waste-of-sperm-that-should've-been-a-blowjob piece of absolutely worthless fucking shit who somehow stopped picking his own lice long enough to sit down at a typewriter and bang away at it with his prehensile paws until he came up with this theory.

 

 

 

In other words, I disagree.

[Sandman9000 0]

REAL LIFE PHYSICS DON'T WORK LIKE FUCKING LOONEY TUNES.

Goddammit Jingys, you just have to go and destroy every dream I've ever had, don't you?

[Ripper 0]

Man, just earlier today, I was YEARNING for someone to post some dumbass conspi-racist theories for me to Dissect, and it looks like Christmas came early.

 

Were 'Pod Missiles' Used in the World Trade Center Attack?

 

Fuck no.

 

Paul Joseph Watson | April 20 2004

 

It's a bad sign when the article starts out with no source-of-publication attribution and an author we've never heard of, wouldn't you think? Theoretically, Astro could've found this manifesto written in crayon on a maple leaf and shoved under his front door.

 

Several websites have garnered worldwide attention recently

 

"Worldwide attention"? I read the paper and listen to news radio every day, and this is the first I've heard of this scintillating theory.

 

for exposing apparent evidence of a 'pod missile' which was fired from Flight 175 before it hit the WTC South Tower.

 

Okay, I know we've got a few people on this board who have background in the field of either aeronautics or military technology. So they can probably back up my own theory here:

 

Possibility of three or four half-trained hijackers modifying a civilian 747, in a very short time period, in the air, to be able to fire missles: 0%.

 

In my book, Order Out of Chaos, which was written over a year ago and published in August 2003, I cited the research of Leonard Spencer and featured a discussion of the use of missiles, specifically in the case of Flight 11, which hit the North Tower,

 

Firstly, why the sudden switch from talking about Flight 175 and the South Tower to this? At least try to keep your lies consistent, pally. And secondly, his "book"? The "research" of Leonard Spencer? Something tells me that neither one of these guys ever have or ever will hit the NYTimes Bestsellers' list, and it's not because The Evil Man Is Keeping Them Down.

 

The story of the 'Fireman's Video' is well known. Two French filmmakers, the Naudet Brothers, were in New York on September 11 making a documentary about the New York Fire Service. The footage shows that, while filming in Canal Street, firemen and crew are distracted by a plane flying low overhead. The camera operator instinctively turns his camera towards the North Tower and, for little more than a second or so, we get a clear view of the plane crashing into the tower. It is a precious, priceless second. It is the one-second of video that really makes the sinister Bush junta nervous. It really gives them nightmares. They really didn't want a professional cameraman to catch that moment on broadcast-quality tape.

 

SCREEEEEEEEEEEECH. That was the sound of my amusement crashing to a halt. Coming up with bullshit conspiracy theories about 9/11 is bad enough. But claiming the single most devastating attack on American civilians was perpetuated by their own president? Fuck this asshole, and I'm not gonna take it easy on him anymore.

 

Side note: even if we did live in Bizarro World and this guy was somehow right, how would he know the content of "the sinister Bush junta"'s dreams or nightmares?

 

If you've got it on tape I strongly suggest you take another look at it, with the pause and frame-forward buttons at the ready. If you don't have it taped you can purchase the documentary in which it appears on video and DVD. It's called simply '9/11'.

 

Oh, you done fucked up now, boy. Claiming the fine 9/11 documentary, which pretty much everyone has seen, as part of your evidence? You might as well try to powerbomb Kidman or kill Willow's latest girlfriend, cocknocker.

 

When seen at full speed, you might first of all think that there isn't a great deal to see. There's half a second or so when we see the plane flying through the air then it smashes into the tower, creating an explosion and leaving a great gash across the building. Notice though that immediately before it hits the building the plane emits a brief, bright flash. Notice too that the scar it leaves on the building is rather larger than seems appropriate for the size of the aircraft.

 

You know why the scar on the building is bigger than the plane itself?

 

Simple: REAL LIFE PHYSICS DON'T WORK LIKE FUCKING LOONEY TUNES. Objects crashing through something else at high speed tend to leave a hole larger than their own size.

 

Watch carefully what happens as the plane approaches and crashes into the tower. I leave you to come to your own conclusions about what you see (watch it over and over again, backwards and forwards), but I'll tell you what I see. Immediately before the plane strikes it fires a missile that blows a hole in the building's façade. This is the cause of that brief flash. The plane then begins to disappear neatly into this hole, leaving no wing impressions. (A plane disappearing into a hole? Where have I heard that before; wasn't there something about a plane at the Pentagon?) Just before it disappears however it fires two more missiles from somewhere near its tail. One goes to the left, one to the right (and up a bit) and it is the blast holes from these three separate missiles that form the great gash across the building.

 

Website with Videos of this

 

Wow. I mean, really, wow. With a pile of bullshit this high, where do you start shoveling?

 

First of all, like I previously stated, it's completely impossible for a handful of terrorists like the 9/11 hijackers to convert (IN AIR) a civilian aircraft to fire missles at a building. In fact, the whole idea of using missles is completely counterproductive. The fuel-filled 747 itself is more effective as a weapon than any missle that could've been fired from it; why whack a guy over the head with a stick when you're about to blow him in half with a cannon?

 

And secondly, the "wings left no holes" crap. Well met, old foe. No matter how many times I explain you away, some fuckstick keeps bringing you back up. In short: the wings are much smaller and lighter ('cept for the engines) than the main body of the plane itself, so they would've been snapped and crushed against the side of the fueselage, not making a giant perfectly-shaped Wily Coyote hole in the building.

 

---------

 

What the fuck happened here? Did his computer crash itself after being fed the above feces, so that he couldn't finish the piece? If so, good. Hell, I hope he had a goddamn stroke and died right in the middle of it.

 

When The Explosives Were Placed: WTC South Tower Upper Floors Closed on 9/8 & 9/9

 

San Francisco Indymedia | April 23 2004

 

Ho boy. "Indymedia." That just galvanizes my soul with confidence in the professional quality of the upcoming read. And from Frisco, no less. Nice to see that some stereotypes never change.

 

Many people have theorized the World Trade Center was wired with explosives, causing the unprecedented collapse following the impacts of two jumbo jets.

 

Actually, the towers WERE wired with explosives.

 

In 1993, remember?

 

Funny how the placed explosives didn't knock down the towers then, and yet you claim that more of the same did the trick years later. (And the buildings were not structually designed to withstand the impact of a 747 jet.)

 

In fact, NYC firefighters remarked that day that it seemed like bombs were going off in the buildings, just prior to the tower's collapse.

 

Which firefighters? Remarked to who? When? As reported by whom? Come on, assmonkey, your forked tongue can do better than that.

 

Also, some remarks might've been made like that, true. You know why? Because a massive building-consuming fire has a lot of strange effects. For chrissake, you can get a rock to explode by soaking it in water and then dumping it in the middle of a big campfire. A fucking ordinary run-of-the-mill ROCK, okay? Now imagine all the stuff a massive building like the WTC has in it. Wooden furniture, computer & electrical equipment, climate control systems, etcetera. Of course there would have been many smaller secondary explosions.

 

One glaring question remains unanswered: exactly how and when could such a monumental undertaking be accomplished. Read on for the answer...

 

Feedback from the Progressive Review's Undernews for April 22, 2004.

 

WE RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING from someone who worked for Fiduciary Trust on the 90th, 94-97th floors of the South Tower:

 

Yep, just as I expected, more weakly unidentified "anonymous sources". This article isn't a steaming pile of shit after all; it's a massive puddle of swirly diahrea.

 

"On the weekend of 9/8,9/9 there was a 'power down' condition in WTC tower 2, the south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approx 36 hrs from floor 50 up. I am aware of this situation since I work in IT and had to work with many others that weekend to ensure that all systems were cleanly shutdown beforehand ... and then brought back up afterwards. The reason given by the WTC for the power down was that cabling in the tower was being upgraded ...

 

"Of course without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors and many, many 'engineers' coming in and out of the tower. I was at home on the morning of 9/11 on the shore of Jersey City, right opposite the Towers, and watching events unfold I was convinced immediately that something was happening related to the weekend work."

 

That's it?

 

That's fucking IT?

 

"Well, a few days beforehand, the techies killed power for a little while (in ONE tower, mind you) over the weekend to do some maintenance work. Ergo, BOTH TOWERS WERE DESTROYED BY IMPLANTED BOMBS!"

 

Why is it so hard for people to accept that something as big, fast, and explosive as a 747 jumbo jet couldn't have knocked down a building? Especially people like this cock-gobbling, short-bus-riding, feces-sniffing, finger-licking, Pabst-blue-ribbon-drinking, evolutionarily-incorrect, waste-of-sperm-that-should've-been-a-blowjob piece of absolutely worthless fucking shit who somehow stopped picking his own lice long enough to sit down at a typewriter and bang away at it with his prehensile paws until he came up with this theory.

 

 

 

In other words, I disagree.

heh. You said ass-monkey.

 

 

Ripper - Scanning post for only the curse words since 1998.

[Guest Vitamin X]

Man, just earlier today, I was YEARNING for someone to post some dumbass conspi-racist theories for me to Dissect, and it looks like Christmas came early.

Well, I feel like playing Devil's Advocate, so here goes nothing...

 

Paul Joseph Watson | April 20 2004

 

It's a bad sign when the article starts out with no source-of-publication attribution and an author we've never heard of, wouldn't you think? Theoretically, Astro could've found this manifesto written in crayon on a maple leaf and shoved under his front door.

 

Agreed.

 

Several websites have garnered worldwide attention recently

 

"Worldwide attention"? I read the paper and listen to news radio every day, and this is the first I've heard of this scintillating theory.

 

Same here, though I think it's referring to the conspiracy theory that the American government unleashed 9/11 onto its own people, in order to flare up public opinion for war on the middle east..... More on this later..

 

for exposing apparent evidence of a 'pod missile' which was fired from Flight 175 before it hit the WTC South Tower.

 

Okay, I know we've got a few people on this board who have background in the field of either aeronautics or military technology. So they can probably back up my own theory here:

 

Possibility of three or four half-trained hijackers modifying a civilian 747, in a very short time period, in the air, to be able to fire missles: 0%.

 

This is true, but the theory in the article is that the hijackers weren't terrorists, but CIA-trained operatives. So therefore that point is irrelevant.

 

The story of the 'Fireman's Video' is well known. Two French filmmakers, the Naudet Brothers, were in New York on September 11 making a documentary about the New York Fire Service. The footage shows that, while filming in Canal Street, firemen and crew are distracted by a plane flying low overhead. The camera operator instinctively turns his camera towards the North Tower and, for little more than a second or so, we get a clear view of the plane crashing into the tower. It is a precious, priceless second. It is the one-second of video that really makes the sinister Bush junta nervous. It really gives them nightmares. They really didn't want a professional cameraman to catch that moment on broadcast-quality tape.

 

SCREEEEEEEEEEEECH. That was the sound of my amusement crashing to a halt. Coming up with bullshit conspiracy theories about 9/11 is bad enough. But claiming the single most devastating attack on American civilians was perpetuated by their own president? Fuck this asshole, and I'm not gonna take it easy on him anymore.

 

Side note: even if we did live in Bizarro World and this guy was somehow right, how would he know the content of "the sinister Bush junta"'s dreams or nightmares?

 

How would you know that there WASN'T a plan?

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, because I probably am, but when did the US government still ever come up with concrete evidence that al Qaeda was behind the 9/11 attacks? I haven't been able to keep up with news 24/7, but from what I remember in the past couple years, I don't ever remember them claiming responsibility for those attacks as they have for previous ones. Now if they DID claim responsibility, then there should be an even slimmer chance for a conspiracy theory to make any sort of sense, because that would mean that they would knowingly be bringing on American military might and claiming responsibility for something they didn't do.

 

If you've got it on tape I strongly suggest you take another look at it, with the pause and frame-forward buttons at the ready. If you don't have it taped you can purchase the documentary in which it appears on video and DVD. It's called simply '9/11'.

 

Oh, you done fucked up now, boy. Claiming the fine 9/11 documentary, which pretty much everyone has seen, as part of your evidence? You might as well try to powerbomb Kidman or kill Willow's latest girlfriend, cocknocker.

 

 

When seen at full speed, you might first of all think that there isn't a great deal to see. There's half a second or so when we see the plane flying through the air then it smashes into the tower, creating an explosion and leaving a great gash across the building. Notice though that immediately before it hits the building the plane emits a brief, bright flash. Notice too that the scar it leaves on the building is rather larger than seems appropriate for the size of the aircraft.

 

You know why the scar on the building is bigger than the plane itself?

 

Simple: REAL LIFE PHYSICS DON'T WORK LIKE FUCKING LOONEY TUNES. Objects crashing through something else at high speed tend to leave a hole larger than their own size.

 

Also true, and a good point.

 

Watch carefully what happens as the plane approaches and crashes into the tower. I leave you to come to your own conclusions about what you see (watch it over and over again, backwards and forwards), but I'll tell you what I see. Immediately before the plane strikes it fires a missile that blows a hole in the building's façade. This is the cause of that brief flash. The plane then begins to disappear neatly into this hole, leaving no wing impressions. (A plane disappearing into a hole? Where have I heard that before; wasn't there something about a plane at the Pentagon?) Just before it disappears however it fires two more missiles from somewhere near its tail. One goes to the left, one to the right (and up a bit) and it is the blast holes from these three separate missiles that form the great gash across the building.

 

Website with Videos of this

 

Wow. I mean, really, wow. With a pile of bullshit this high, where do you start shoveling?

 

First of all, like I previously stated, it's completely impossible for a handful of terrorists like the 9/11 hijackers to convert (IN AIR) a civilian aircraft to fire missles at a building. In fact, the whole idea of using missles is completely counterproductive. The fuel-filled 747 itself is more effective as a weapon than any missle that could've been fired from it; why whack a guy over the head with a stick when you're about to blow him in half with a cannon?

 

Again, the idea behind the conspiracy theory is that the US government was behind the 9/11 attacks. As for the idea of using missiles instead of just the fuel-filled 747, I was thinking about it, and there might possibly be a chance that the way it crashed into the building wouldn't have been enough to completely implode it, so firing explosives into the building would have been an effective way to make sure the entire building came down.

 

And secondly, the "wings left no holes" crap.  Well met, old foe.  No matter how many times I explain you away, some fuckstick keeps bringing you back up.  In short: the wings are much smaller and lighter ('cept for the engines) than the main body of the plane itself, so they would've been snapped and crushed against the side of the fueselage, not making a giant perfectly-shaped Wily Coyote hole in the building. 

 

Agreed. One other thing, how long did it take for the towers to have come down? If it took a long time, and someone had taken a picture of the hole, then this argument might be relevant to a still rather small extent, but the whole fucking building came crashing down regardless. Where's the proof of what the hole looked like?

 

---------

 

What the fuck happened here? Did his computer crash itself after being fed the above feces, so that he couldn't finish the piece? If so, good. Hell, I hope he had a goddamn stroke and died right in the middle of it.

 

I think that's him seperating two articles.

 

When The Explosives Were Placed: WTC South Tower Upper Floors Closed on 9/8 & 9/9

 

San Francisco Indymedia | April 23 2004

 

Ho boy. "Indymedia." That just galvanizes my soul with confidence in the professional quality of the upcoming read. And from Frisco, no less. Nice to see that some stereotypes never change.

 

I don't have to point out anything here that you haven't already..

 

Many people have theorized the World Trade Center was wired with explosives, causing the unprecedented collapse following the impacts of two jumbo jets.

 

Actually, the towers WERE wired with explosives.

 

In 1993, remember?

 

Funny how the placed explosives didn't knock down the towers then, and yet you claim that more of the same did the trick years later. (And the buildings were not structually designed to withstand the impact of a 747 jet.)

 

First, I don't think ANY building is structually designed to withstand the impact of a 747 jet, especially one as tall as the WTC. Second, I remember seeing something on why the bombing in 1993 didn't work as opposed to crashing a jet in 2001, and that was because the majority of the wiring was in the bottom part of the tower, and I remember also hearing that the 1993 terrorists' plan was to comically knock it into other skyscrapers, creating a cartoon-esque domino effect. If it were wired with explosives at the bottom, with a combination of being attacked higher up, would have given the WTC a better chance of imploding, I think.

 

In fact, NYC firefighters remarked that day that it seemed like bombs were going off in the buildings, just prior to the tower's collapse.

 

Which firefighters? Remarked to who? When? As reported by whom? Come on, assmonkey, your forked tongue can do better than that.

 

Also, some remarks might've been made like that, true. You know why? Because a massive building-consuming fire has a lot of strange effects. For chrissake, you can get a rock to explode by soaking it in water and then dumping it in the middle of a big campfire. A fucking ordinary run-of-the-mill ROCK, okay? Now imagine all the stuff a massive building like the WTC has in it. Wooden furniture, computer & electrical equipment, climate control systems, etcetera. Of course there would have been many smaller secondary explosions.

 

Agreed again. Where the fuck are the sources?

 

One glaring question remains unanswered: exactly how and when could such a monumental undertaking be accomplished. Read on for the answer...

 

Feedback from the Progressive Review's Undernews for April 22, 2004.

 

WE RECEIVED THE FOLLOWING from someone who worked for Fiduciary Trust on the 90th, 94-97th floors of the South Tower:

 

Yep, just as I expected, more weakly unidentified "anonymous sources". This article isn't a steaming pile of shit after all; it's a massive puddle of swirly diahrea.

 

It's an IndyMedia conspiracy theory from San Fran what do you expect?

 

Thanks for the visual imagery there, too.

 

"On the weekend of 9/8,9/9 there was a 'power down' condition in WTC tower 2, the south tower. This power down condition meant there was no electrical supply for approx 36 hrs from floor 50 up. I am aware of this situation since I work in IT and had to work with many others that weekend to ensure that all systems were cleanly shutdown beforehand ... and then brought back up afterwards. The reason given by the WTC for the power down was that cabling in the tower was being upgraded ...

 

"Of course without power there were no security cameras, no security locks on doors and many, many 'engineers' coming in and out of the tower. I was at home on the morning of 9/11 on the shore of Jersey City, right opposite the Towers, and watching events unfold I was convinced immediately that something was happening related to the weekend work."

 

That's it?

 

That's fucking IT?

 

"Well, a few days beforehand, the techies killed power for a little while (in ONE tower, mind you) over the weekend to do some maintenance work. Ergo, BOTH TOWERS WERE DESTROYED BY IMPLANTED BOMBS!"

 

Why is it so hard for people to accept that something as big, fast, and explosive as a 747 jumbo jet couldn't have knocked down a building? Especially people like this cock-gobbling, short-bus-riding, feces-sniffing, finger-licking, Pabst-blue-ribbon-drinking, evolutionarily-incorrect, waste-of-sperm-that-should've-been-a-blowjob piece of absolutely worthless fucking shit who somehow stopped picking his own lice long enough to sit down at a typewriter and bang away at it with his prehensile paws until he came up with this theory.

 

Wow. That is the definition of 0wned. I can't possibly respond to that.

 

In other words, I disagree.

 

Really, I wouldn't have guessed...

[Anakin Flair 0]

If you've got it on tape I strongly suggest you take another look at it, with the pause and frame-forward buttons at the ready. If you don't have it taped you can purchase the documentary in which it appears on video and DVD. It's called simply '9/11'.

 

Oh, you done fucked up now, boy. Claiming the fine 9/11 documentary, which pretty much everyone has seen, as part of your evidence? You might as well try to powerbomb Kidman or kill Willow's latest girlfriend, cocknocker.

~GOLD~

 

 

And I agree 100% This is a bunch of bullshit conspiracy theory. I've seen the footage recently, as well, and I didn't see any missles.

[Guest Museite]

Commercial Aircrafts or Missles?

 

I only have one jet and 2 missles.  Lets trade.

Grrr I'm jealous, I have no jet, and only 1 missile.

 

Such a stupid post&conspiracy...if you're gonna launch a missile at a tower, why fly your plane into it?

[Guest Frank_Nabbit]

Commercial Aircrafts or Missles?

 

I only have one jet and 2 missles.  Lets trade.

Grrr I'm jealous, I have no jet, and only 1 missile.

 

Such a stupid post&conspiracy...if you're gonna launch a missile at a tower, why fly your plane into it?

Because the idea behind the conspricy is that the government wanted a big terrorist occation to start the War For Oil. 2 planes crashing into the buildings may not have caused them to fall, thus lessening the emotional impact. So you jerry-rig some missles to gaurentee the towers fall. Not that I believe it, but thats the line of thinking.

[Guest Eyeball Kid]

Guys, Astro only has one testicle. Go easy on him.

[Ripper 0]

Guys, Astro only has one testicle. Go easy on him.

There is nothing wrong with having one testicle. Some of my best friends only have one testicle.

[Guest Eyeball Kid]

I wonder if anyone ever calls John Kruk "Johnny One Nut."

[Ripper 0]

I wonder if anyone ever calls John Kruk "Johnny One Nut."

keep joking and you could lose one of yours.

 

This one time, this guy that I knew...his just fell off. He was just walking and then something came out his pant leg and it was a testicle.

 

True Story.

[Guest Museite]

My apologies to Astro...

 

Wtf happened to Ripper's friend? Did his scrotum fall off? or did he have some massive hole in one... (worst ... pun...ever...i know)

[Guest Astro]

Hey Hitler and Napolean each only had one testicle...it just makes us all the more determined to prove our manhood

 

 

/dances fruitily

[Guest Museite]

Hey Hitler and Napolean each only had one testicle...it just makes us all the more determined to prove our manhood

 

 

/dances fruitily

That explains a great deal

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

I knew a kid with one testicle. Everyone called him Wingnut.

[Ripper 0]

We called the guy with one nut that we knew "Jason".

 

 

We weren't that creative.