Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

9-11 Scenario by Peter Meyer

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 12:14 AM
Original message
9-11 Scenario by Peter Meyer
1. AA 11 and AA 77 did not fly on 9/11. UA 93 and UA 175 flew, and landed somewhere. Some or all of the passengers were killed soon after landing so as to provide DNA "evidence".

2. A remotely-controlled aircraft or missile (previously prepared by the perps) flew into WTC1, which had previously been primed with explosives at the impact point so as to produce a huge explosion.

3. A remotely-controlled aircraft loaded with napalm flew into WTC2, also previously primed, with aircraft parts contained in a large cannister ejected a few seconds later from the north side (so as to provide bogus evidence of impact by a commercial jetliner).

4. After sufficient time for photo ops and Reality TV drama broadcast nation- and worldwide, the bases of the central steel columns in each tower were destroyed by explosives (possibly small nukes), and explosives throughout the rest of the buildings were detonated, to bring them down (in a bit under 15 seconds).

5. A remotely-controlled aircraft, a mock-up of an AA Boeing 757 (but smaller), and perhaps a couple of cruise missiles, flew into the Pentagon (the aircraft having been blown into fragments just prior to impact). The entrance hole being obviously too small for a 757, the perps arranged for the "collapse" of the wall about 20 minutes after impact so as to eliminate this inconvenient item of evidence (nevertheless captured in photos).

6. An aircraft flying over Shanksville was exploded in mid-air or was flown into the ground, the purpose being to produce a crater, later said to have been produced by UA 93 hitting the ground.

7. Bogus stories were put out (planted in Newsweek and other media organizations where the CIA has influence) about cellphone calls from alleged victims (even though such calls were impossible from high-flying aircraft in 2001), and were used to support a bogus story about "plucky passengers" designed to fool the American public.

8. All physical evidence was collected by the FBI and sequestered or shipped overseas to blast furnaces, and all security camera footage was confiscated by the FBI, so as to minimize the forensic evidence available to anyone later able to conduct an investigation, official or otherwise.

Note that:

(a) This scenario does not require Arab hijackers, but also does not exclude their playing a minor role, in particular, as patsies who were set up by their FBI or CIA handlers with visas, flight school courses, etc., and who were told to make themselves as conspicuous as possible before 9/11 so as to support the FBI's bogus claims.

(b) This scenario does not require any black technology or fake videos planted in the mainstream media, although it does not exclude the possibility that such fake video evidence was produced and deployed. It requires only known technology (high explosives, remotely-controlled aircraft, maybe missiles) and thus does not embroil itself in debates concerning the existence of technology not known to exist or not well understood.

(c) This is a possible scenario, not claimed to be the final truth, but a hypothesis to be tested against such evidence as is available .

(d) It draws upon not only my own thoughts on the matter over the last four years (almost) but also those of Fintan Dunne, Kathy McMahon, Carol Valentine, Leonard Spencer, Thierry Meyssan, Gerard Holmgren and others too numerous to mention but whose contributions will one day be generally recognized.

Regards,
Peter Meyer
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/911scenario.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 01:28 AM
Response to Original message
1. About as unlikely as a really unlikely thing
Just a couple of points:
(2) There was a fireball at WTC 1. It was caused by the jet fuel that spilled from the plane on impact.

(5) Pentagon "The entrance hole being obviously too small for a 757," It was 90 feet wide. I think you can fit a good chunk of 757 through that hole.

(7) "such calls were impossible from high-flying aircraft in 2001". Most of the calls were made either (1) from airphones, (2) from planes whose altitude could not be determined because the transponder had been switched off, or (3) from United 93 after it had apparently descended.

I don't know all the people listed in (d), but I really don't think much of Thierry Meyssan. Pentagate is a hurriedly knocked together crock of shit - the video stills are obvious fakes and the fact that Meyssan et al. (Pierre-Henri Bunel wrote the bit about the explosions on the video stills) take them seriously completely negates their arguments.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MrSammo1 Donating Member (788 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 02:08 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. (5) Pentagon "The entrance hole being obviously too small for a 757," It w
A mark from a 757's vertical stabilizer is missing from the wall.

Any other question?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 02:28 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Tail
The hole is high enough to admit the lower part of the tail. The rest of the tail, being made of aluminium, disintegrated on impact.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 08:32 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. rebuttals
The fireball upon impact at the WTC 1 looks more like one initiated by a bomb or missile. Compare its preponderantly greyish coloration to the massive orange plume we see at the WTC2. Why are the fireballs from these two crashes so different in coloration?

The plane exploded just prior to impact. This doesn't need to be proven by the video but is exhibited by the massive inferno that was located at the very fore of the building streching out into the yard. If the plane would have penetrated the building cutting a ninety foot swath it would have exploded deeper inside it and the inferno would not have been located at the very fore of the structure. Where is the photographic evidence of the fuselage? seats? Why did the FBI confiscate ALL photographic evidence of the crash within ten minutes after the crash? Why would the government release either a bogus or tampered video to the public? Why is the video evidence of the crash showing the plane(object) held in perpetual secrecy away from the public?

Many of the bogus phone calls from 93 would have been made at a higher altitude than 5000 feet. The official line is that many of these calls were made by cell phone.A commercial jet plane flying at very low altitudes at very high speeds for a long duration of time would have been noticed and reported by eye witnesses.

The validity or lack of validity of the video stills in no way negates argumentation that the object that hit the Pentagon was not a 757. There is no way of explaining how the hole into the A-E drive was made by a 757. It is physically impossible. The nose - fuselage would have disintegrated plowing through the flooring between the first and second floors. Bear in mind that the fuselage is 17 feet high on a 757 and the height of each floor at the Pentagon is something less than fourteen feet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kevin Fenton Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 12:22 AM
Response to Reply #4
18. Various
Haven't heard the one about the fireball before. I'll look into it. Are you saying American 11 wasn't real, but United 175 was?

Pentagon
"The plane exploded just prior to impact."
Maybe, maybe not. Anyway, it doesn't prove anything. The plane may have exploded/started to explode when it hit something on the lawn.

"This doesn't need to be proven by the video but is exhibited by the massive inferno that was located at the very fore of the building streching out into the yard."
Why do you think there was a massive inferno there? Again, I don't think this proves anything even if there was.

"If the plane would have penetrated the building cutting a ninety foot swath it would have exploded deeper inside it."
Why? The planes that hit the WTC exploded all over the place. I don't think there's any way to say with any sort of certainty where the plane should have exploded.

"Where is the photographic evidence of the fuselage?"
There are some photographs of plane parts.

"seats?"
OK, there are no seat photos. However, this does not mean there was no plane there.

"Why did the FBI confiscate ALL photographic evidence of the crash within ten minutes after the crash? Why would the government release either a bogus or tampered video to the public? Why is the video evidence of the crash showing the plane(object) held in perpetual secrecy away from the public?"
To keep people engaged in the no-757 argument, which goes nowhere, instead of looking at the things the government did related to 9/11 which deserve further scrutiny (who were the hijackers, money from Saudi, WTC collapse, etc.).

"Many of the bogus phone calls from 93 would have been made at a higher altitude than 5000 feet."
OK, some of them seem to have been - at least the initial ones. There were lots of people calling off United 93 and I don't think there were that many airphones.

"A commercial jet plane flying at very low altitudes at very high speeds for a long duration of time would have been noticed and reported by eye witnesses."
5000 feet is nearly a mile up. I don't think a plane a mile up would attract that much comment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 10:21 AM
Response to Original message
5. As much as I appreciate Peter Meyer and his website...
...but this scenario is really not the state of the art of 9/11 research.

My biggest criticism is that point 1 is WAY too short. Points 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 only deal with the last seconds of the attacks, 7 and 8 with the disinformation afterwards.

No problem with that, but again, to summarize the whole events before in three short sentences AA 11 and AA 77 did not fly on 9/11. UA 93 and UA 175 flew, and landed somewhere. Some or all of the passengers were killed soon after landing so as to provide DNA "evidence" is not sufficient, therefore this piece doesn't deserve the designation "scenario".

Peter Meyer ignores, among other things, the wargames, the radar holes and the duplicate planes in Boston and Cleveland. Somewhere he said the evidence in The Cleveland Airport Mystery is "inconclusive", though every claim is supported by two independent sources, which is the old BBC postulate to use only confirmed info. This is probably because the article doesn't fit into the stuff of two guys publishing on his site, Gerard Holmgren and Leonard Spencer.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. state of the art
Meyer is just doing a brief summary of possible events. I know he ignored the more "state of the art" research like the 757 that plunged into the the Pentagon lagoon. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Woody Box Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. But he concentrates too much

on the remote planes and impacts and neglects what happened to the original planes. The summary is brief, that's okay, but it is skew, and that's what I don't like.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. okay.
I can't argue with you there but I do believe that Meyer,Spencer et al tackle ideas that have been marginalized by most others in the 911 skeptics movement, for instance the pod and the capsile that probably was ejected from the northeast wall of WTC2.


This exit hole looks too clean to me to be from the plane or parts of the plane
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 01:03 PM
Response to Original message
8. How to do everything in the most complicated way.
You could just use infiltrators to manipulate cells of real fundamentalists into doing this or appearing to do this and make sure they succeed.

If you logically decide not to leave it to amateurs, you could devise ways of doing it by remote control.

But hell, why not do everything in the most absurdly complicated way. Debris canisters. Missiles dressed as planes. Dozens of faked calls. Executions of civilians. Completely fictional flights. Why not? It's fun!!!

Is this supposed to be a parody of 9/11 skepticism? It's working.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 01:15 PM
Response to Original message
9. This is a limited hangout.
I have to conclude Mr. Meyer is an NWO agent dispatched to miminize the truth of 9/11.

He left out the most important part. My analysis proves that the prehensile borough of Manhattan was elevated so that the plane-shaped meteor shower (which NASA knew was coming) could appear to crash into the hologram-towers. Meanwhile, the real towers (which had been sent by Tesla beam and landed at Johnstown Airport) were pulverized and had the gold removed before being beamed back to the original site as ruins.

Oh, and when the Nazis did the Reichstag, they dug a tunnel in from Cameroon, rather than using the one that went from Goering's house straight to his office at the parliament (as this would have been too obvious and easy).

Hey, I only said it's a theory! Why not?! What's to forbid us from thinking through all the possibilities?

You're not a gatekeeper, are you?!


Ahem.

9/11 was an inside job: this is almost a slam dunk. What am I to think of people who turn it into a shot from 150 feet?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Well...Jack
Well...Jack... tell me how you think it was done. No pods no missiles no bombs inside buildings nothing to enhance the effect of the explosion??? If you want the job done well you do it yourself and you make a fine display of it. You don't rely on others. You don't leave anything to chance. Analysis of how the job was done involves trickery at the highest levels of technical expertise. That's a slam dunk!! :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 06:44 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. I agree Jack......
I don't pretend to have this figured out, but any plan had to minimize risks of exposure. I think 77 hit the Pentagon, only because the risk of "something else" being exposed would bring down the whole official story.

I have no clue why official Pentagon security cam videotapes that would clearly show an airliner going into the Pentagon have not been released, unless it is planned to discredit all questions about 9/11 in a single moment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 07:21 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. much is possible
I wonder why "physical evidence" advocates would ever bother with anything other than the demolition (assuming they believe that). That's 10 times the crime of the hijackings and proving it would kill the entire 9/11 lie forever.

Why bother with peripheral shit that can be made to look ridiculous?

demodewd does not realize it, but I already presented a complete alternative scenario in Post 8, above.

I do not have to come up with details beyond the obvious. Whatever I come up with beyond that is likely to be wrong (as is the case with Meyer). Masturbation, and it invites ridicule (which I have provided as illustration).

Now for all we know, AA 77 really did go down in Ohio and was hastily replaced by a cruise missile.

The problem is that what the pictures prove and what people think the pictures prove is far apart. Following 10,000 threads on this matter has showed for me that an airliner could have caused the damage at the Pentagon, that in fact an airliner-shaped object is the superior hypothesis.

For all we know, plane-swapping really happened. It might make sense (For example, because drone planes are decided to be easier for remote control than taking over the real passenger flights.) In that case, it would make no sense whatsoever to swap planes with missiles, at least not in the advance plan, since they look so different. (You can't plan not to have your attack seen in New York!)

The only plane-swapping that would ever make sense would be of identical planes that one would not need to disguise with holograms or "debris canisters." (!!!)

And why would anyone need to enhance the basic plan of planes into buildings to make it any more spectacular? (And why take additional risks doing so?)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 09:03 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. gatekeepers and holograms
You have to take each individual possibility and weigh its merit. Bringing up holograms in conjunction with something else is your way of discrediting . Its the hologram rider riding on top of the cannister theory. Its the hologram rider attached to the pod theory. The hologram theory attached to someone's dick.

You explain to me what exited the northeast corner. Simple math will tell you it was not the fuselage.The fuselage is 17 feet high . The WTC floors about 14 feet high.And the exit hole so neat and rectangular...boy the wings must have sheared off right at the wing fairing on both sides at the very same place. You do the math.You explain the exit hole. And the engines are too small and circular for the exit hole. So what else...Jack?

And why are "missiles" such a bad idea? Oh I forgot to mention holograms...holograms...there I said it. Holograms...something I never even for the remotest nano second have ever considered but it must be associated with me because some gatekeeping Jack ass has determined to associate me with it. Missiles...boy that's a well talked about prevalent subject in many social circles. I'm sure it will be soon that Jay Leno will be talking about it in his next joke routine...because everybody saw them especially when the plane was going 500 miles an hour.

A plane did cause the damage to the Pentagon. One probably near the size or the size of a 757. But there was an explosion at the very fore of the building suggesting shaped charges or a bomb and then there is this nice round hole that went into the A-E drive and it wasn't the fuselage and it wasn't an engine and it wasn't a fucking hologram.

The whole idea was to make 175 a spectacle. Well duh...is that so hard for you to fathom???? And it had to be guaranteed. You control the set-up from a to z. Do you really think that a plane loaded with jet fuel would have caused that spectacle? I have very serious doubts. It certainly didn't in WTC 1. And the colorations of the explosions are different. Explain to me why..Jack..try being scientific now...for a change.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 02:23 AM
Response to Reply #15
19. If a plane crashes into a building
I have very little interested in wondering why chunks that fly out the other side look the way they do. That you expect them to look different doesn't cut it as a red flag.

Do what you like, but I believe there are more interesting avenues for my energies to pursue.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 07:42 AM
Response to Reply #19
20. So...
So go pursue them.

It's chunk not "chunks" and it's quite large as you can see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 12:19 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. I've seen it.
Edited on Fri Jul-08-05 12:29 PM by JackRiddler
I'm not impressed, demodewd.

There hasn't been a 9/11 claim come down the pike that I didn't take seriously at first, affording a fair examination to all purported evidence presented (unlike what the MSM or OCT people have done with 9/11 skepticism generally).

But then I come to a verdict, like you too.

That the ejected stuff looks funny to you is insufficient to construct the conclusion of a "debris canister." Who knows what a 767 crashing into a Twin Tower is supposed to look like?!

It would help if there was any logic to the idea. Why replace a 767 with something you then have to disguise as a 767?

Why go to the trouble of manufacturing passenger identities or killing real passengers when you can just sacrifice them by crashing the real 767 into the real building? (Just like they did sacrifice a far larger number inside the buildings.)

How do you know the "debris canister" will land the right way and distribute the debris?

Let's say you do need to replace the 767, because it's safer to remote-control a drone plane. Why not use an identical plane? (Thus obviating the need for a "debris canister.")

It's all asking for things to go wrong in a very complex operation. Why should these masterminds be so stupid? Why should they want to involve more people, more potential whistleblowers or fuck-ups than necessary?

I suppose one possibility that could salvage pod" or "military plane" theory is that the operation was planned as a legit wargame. It then went "wrong," with the bulk of the military among the patsies (which it was in any scenario). The "real" hijacked planes were actually military drones that were suddenly re-routed by the rogue/neocon elements who pulled off the operation. The official story was hastily constructed afterwards by those who weren't actually involved in the crime, to cover up how badly they screwed the pooch and the fact that the country had experienced a coup d'etat.

But why should I bother theorizing a back-end construct to justify the too-complex and unnecessary idea of a pod on the front end (an invisible pod to boot)?

This is all a) extremely likely to be wrong (99 percent or more); b) unnecessary to proving 9/11 is a myth; c) a way of debating minutiae and d) a way of opening ourselves to easy attacks.

That's true of several constructs, all of which I lump together for being equally unsubstantiated and ultimately ludicrous in my mind. (Again, after fair examination - do LARED or Mr. "I piss on..." GeekTragedy give you such a fair shake?) The pod, the missile and "flash," the mini-nukes (what's wrong with conventional explosives?!), the Webfairy hologram/whatzit, the "foreplay explosions" ... all of these rate as sufficiently trashed for me, and tough if you don't like it.

But I am a sucker for this. I always fall for challenging these ultra-stupid Rube Goldberg constructs. (Don't be insulted: they're invariably made by smart people, intelligence is a genuine requirement in the art of making complicated, stupid constructs.)

I am engaged in this irrelevant disussion because it gives me an easy target, an easy argument to win.

Please respond if you will, but I hope I will have the strength not to fall for any further discussion with you. So you may not get any more responses from me. You're less capable of changing your mind in some ways than the OCTs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 01:25 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. please try to better understand me
That the ejected stuff looks funny to you is insufficient to construct the conclusion of a "debris canister." Who knows what a 767 crashing into a Twin Tower is supposed to look like?!

We don't exactly know what a 767 is going to look like when it crashes into the South Tower but I have doubts that it would like that exiting the building considering that it would necessarily have to plow through the lenghth of at least one story's cement flooring reinforced by steel trusses.

Let's say you do need to replace the 767, because it's safer to remote-control a drone plane. Why not use an identical plane? (Thus obviating the need for a "debris canister.")

An identical plane probably was used.Possibly a 767 military tanker.The cannister idea would insure planted evidence of a supposed Commercial 767.

It's all asking for things to go wrong in a very complex operation. Why should these masterminds be so stupid? Why should they want to involve more people, more potential whistleblowers or fuck-ups than necessary?

Things could go terribly wrong trying to guide a 767 into the WTC2 if it is not a totally controlled operation with state of the art remote guidance replete with a homing devise located at the designated spot on the building for the intended crash with the intended Hollywoodesque pyrotechnic display to indelibly etch the event firmly in the public's subconscious.

The "real" hijacked planes were actually military drones that were suddenly re-routed by the rogue/neocon elements who pulled off the operation. The official story was hastily constructed afterwards by those who weren't actually involved in the crime, to cover up how badly they screwed the pooch and the fact that the country had experienced a coup d'etat.

Did things go terribly wrong? I would say things went terribly well with the glaring exeception of Flight 93 or whatever that plane was in Newark that sat on the tarmac for 41 long minutes.

I am engaged in this irrelevant disussion because it gives me an easy target, an easy argument to win.

Only in your own mind.I offered Meyer's scenario not as a mouthpiece of hardened ideas of my own but to get feedback.

Please respond if you will, but I hope I will have the strength not to fall for any further discussion with you. So you may not get any more responses from me. You're less capable of changing your mind in some ways than the OCTs.

You miscunstrue my true intentions. I'm not endorsing all of Meyer's ideas just throwing them out to the public for discourse. I've changed my mind about the events of that day innumerable times.










<[br />





Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pointless Donating Member (81 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-09-05 07:49 AM
Response to Reply #15
26. unpredictable
Crashes are unpredictable. You can crash a car the same way 100 times and you will get slightly different damage each time depending on the flaws in the metal or the structure it is crashed into. Truth remains, none of us really knows what exactly happened inside the buildings during the crash. We all know a big ass plane hit the building.

You are just spouting off every theory out there. Do you have any ideas of your own on this topic or are you content to just regurgitate everything you hear on some conspiracy theory websites?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-09-05 10:39 AM
Response to Reply #26
28. scientific deduction
We know that there were 4 inch slabs of concrete for every floor and that each floor was reinforced by steel trusses. The nose-fuselage would have necessarily engaged at least one floor due to the length of the fuselage(17 feet) and the length of each story of the building(something like 14 feet). So we know at least this which is more than only knowing "that some big ass plane hit the building".

You generalize to where you restrict accountability for physical fact. Plane..17 feet in length...each floor..about 14 feet in length. So we do know this and we know that that FACT would alter and most probably profoudly change the shape of the fuselage.Crushing it or tearing it apart ..but something..so I start there.And that is a reasonable scientific deduction.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodewd Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-09-05 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #12
29. how do you account for?
How do you account for the large circular hole leading into the A-E drive?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pointless Donating Member (81 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 07:23 PM
Response to Original message
14. hahahahahahahahaha
OMG! I'm sorry but that is ridiculous. I even visited his site and went to the physics911 site it references. Do these people make up their own science? It seems to me that they enjoy making up their own laws of physics to match their claims instead of using the laws of physics to come up with valid claims.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jul-09-05 10:24 AM
Response to Reply #14
27. Do you really have a point. The people at 911physics have real credentials
in science and some pilots and some retired military.
Are your credentials on science, piloting, and the military better?
If you disagree with their science, be specific. Whats your point?

Meyer likely doesn't have much credentials, but he seems to have taken most parts of his scenarios from people who do.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
geek tragedy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 10:39 PM
Response to Original message
16. Meyer is a big-time anti-semite and nutjob. I piss on him, his ideas,
and his filthy website.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
philb Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jul-07-05 11:57 PM
Response to Original message
17. There is credible support for something similar to some of his scenarios>
1. There was no report by AA to the U.S. Bureau of Transportation(BTS) that Flight 11 or Flight 77 were scheduled that day, according to many web sites.

The FAA reported that Flight 93 landed in Cleveland; and the Media also.
What was Flight X in Cleveland and why the secrecy about it?
http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php...
http://inn.globalfreepress.com/modules/news/article.php...
http://256.com/gray/thoughts/2001/20010912/travel_story...

There were two flight 11s with official record support from Boston that day. And AA 11 and UA 175 met up in a strange manner and turned off transponders so which was which? And Fl 77 according to a flight path plot using FAA radar could not have hit the Pentagon. http://www.the-movement.com/air%20operation/Flight77.ht...
So were one of the Flight 11s or UA 175 the one that hit the Pentagon?
http://www.flcv.com/offcom11.html
And one of the versions of AA 11 was reported by FAA to be headed for D.C., so jets were scrambled from Langely AFB to intercept AA 11 heading to D.C. But for some reason they didnt? Why, irregardless of which of the various planes might have been the one that hit the Pentagon. Some say UA 175 most likely since it was in the area the FAAs Eastern ATCs were looking for Fl 77(which was out west). (see URL)

2. There is a lot of support from credible sources that whatever and whichever hit the buildings were flown by remote control. And there was a lot of confusion on 9/11 as to what hit what- if you check. All pilots on record were unanimous in agreeing that whatever hit the buildings was done by remote control. And credible web sites researching 9/11 have support for it also- like 911 research, etc.
See previous threads for URLs.

3. What caused the huge fireball on the north side of the South Tower?
http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/plate34.h...
http://home.debitel.net/user/andreas.bunkahle/plate35.h...

4. There is a huge amount of support for explosions and controlled demolition at
WTC. Lots of witnesses including firefighters in the buildings. Here is just one site:
Evidence of Controlled Demolition of WTC Buildings
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/index.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/inde...
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/towers.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/surviving.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/index.h...

5. There is also reasonable evidence supporting something like this.
(Evidence of Explosives in Pentagon Attack)
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/index.htm...
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/conclusio...
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/index.htm...
Cover-up http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/missing.h...
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/footage.h...
Pentagon Conclusions:
An aircraft similar to or being a Boeing 757 approached the Pentagon and exploded at or in front of it.
Several witnesses described a 737 as the plane hitting the Pentagon
If the aircraft was a 757, portions of it were destroyed before impact.
The attack involved an explosive detonation not explainable by jet fuel combustion.
(there are other sites more explicitly like the description here, but its covered by 911Research also in the theories thread)

6. Not any support Im aware of for this. But a lot of support that UA93 was shot down. http://www.flcv.com/offcom93.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/flight93/in...

7. There is evidence that some of the calls could not have been made(911physics, Dewdney) and inconsistencies noted in timing and messages dealt with on other threads- the the thread on calls).

8. The extent of the evidence suppression and cover-up is huge, as documented by Dr. D.R. Griffin in his books, and by lots of sites and documentation. This statement is a bit extreme but didnt need to be. The FBI is involved in suppressing lots of information at all sites.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pauldp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 12:10 PM
Response to Original message
21. We don't need more scenarios. We need people to ask questions n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. I disagree.
Edited on Fri Jul-08-05 02:37 PM by JackRiddler
We don't need more scenarios.

But we don't need any 9/11 skeptics "asking unanswered questions" any more, either. We've done it. It's plenty of material.

We do need people thinking up how to get millions of non-skeptics asking the same questions (the same old questions, to us).

And most of all...

We need 50 million people in the street determined to stay there and stop everything until the regime resigns and the real investigations of 9/11 begin.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pauldp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jul-08-05 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. I should have clarified. I agree with you.
When I said we need people to ask questions I meant the general public.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lithos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jul-10-05 01:34 AM
Response to Original message
30. Locking
Source cites hate sites and is inappropriate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Sep 02nd 2014, 05:17 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC