9/11 George Bush admits the use of explosives (video)

Some people would say they can't be sure that's a plane Didge. It does leave a plane-shaped hole, and that brings me to another theory. Some say that a plane couldn't slice through a building in that manner. They say the wings would not be able to go through steel and concrete without falling off.

What say you? I'm not an expert on such things, but I would have thought that the speed would have something to do with it.

Raggamuffin wrote:Some people would say they can't be sure that's a plane Didge. It does leave a plane-shaped hole, and that brings me to another theory. Some say that a plane couldn't slice through a building in that manner. They say the wings would not be able to go through steel and concrete without falling off.

What say you? I'm not an expert on such things, but I would have thought that the speed would have something to do with it.

I am not being funny Rags but what expertise do any on here have to say otherwise?
I am no expert but when you freeze frame by frame it is a plane and it can be nothing else by the Size alone.
That is something else they are not taking into consideration is the size of the impact.
So if they are no experts like Ben has said they are doing so off belief alone off others making poor unfounded claims.

I believe the wings claim have been tested of which they did not slice off in tests.

As I say, the claims are very weak ands more based on a indviduals deisbelief and how they are swayed.

The countless evidence showing these were terrorist attacks have not in anyway been shown to be wrong, which is more the pointg they countless times ignore

Well it's white and big. Can't say for absolutely certain, without any shadow of a doubt, that it was a passenger plane

eddie wrote:Well it's white and big. Can't say for absolutely certain, without any shadow of a doubt, that it was a passenger plane

So do you think it's not then eddie? If you think that, what happened to Flight 11 which departed from Boston that morning? Where are the passengers and all the crew?

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:Well it's white and big. Can't say for absolutely certain, without any shadow of a doubt, that it was a passenger plane

So do you think it's not then eddie? If you think that, what happened to Flight 11 which departed from Boston that morning? Where are the passengers and all the crew?

I've never though it wasn't a plane rags, I'm just not so closed-minded that I'll dig in my heels and say it definitely was.

Didge put up footage and said that it was definitely a plane and that if one couldn't see that, then we needed to go to spec savers .

I am saying: it is big and white and looks like a plane.
Can I say for sure its a passenger plane? Nope
Can I see it's definitely a commercial flight? Nope

So no, I don't know for sure if that's a plane, or if it is, whether there are any passengers on it.

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So do you think it's not then eddie? If you think that, what happened to Flight 11 which departed from Boston that morning? Where are the passengers and all the crew?

I've never though it wasn't a plane rags, I'm just not so closed-minded that I'll dig in my heels and say it definitely was.

Didge put up footage and said that it was definitely a plane and that if one couldn't see that, then we needed to go to spec savers .

I am saying: it is big and white and looks like a plane.
Can I say for sure its a passenger plane? Nope
Can I see it's definitely a commercial flight? Nope

So no, I don't know for sure if that's a plane, or if it is, whether there are any passengers on it.

What else would it be then Eddie if not a plane with that size and dimension that can fly?
You need to offer an alternative surely Eddie, which is going to fit the dimensions?

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

So do you think it's not then eddie? If you think that, what happened to Flight 11 which departed from Boston that morning? Where are the passengers and all the crew?

I've never though it wasn't a plane rags, I'm just not so closed-minded that I'll dig in my heels and say it definitely was.

Didge put up footage and said that it was definitely a plane and that if one couldn't see that, then we needed to go to spec savers .

I am saying: it is big and white and looks like a plane.
Can I say for sure its a passenger plane? Nope
Can I see it's definitely a commercial flight? Nope

So no, I don't know for sure if that's a plane, or if it is, whether there are any passengers on it.

But you said you can't be sure it's a passenger plane, which I why I asked what could have happened to Flight 11, the passengers, and the crew.

No idea rags? That's why I've never questioned it wasn't a plane until Tommy suggested otherwise.

I'm just looking at all alternatives.
I don't think we can be sure of anything?

eddie wrote:No idea rags? That's why I've never questioned it wasn't a plane until Tommy suggested otherwise.

I'm just looking at all alternatives.
I don't think we can be sure of anything?

Well surely you can come up with an alternative with such a size and dimensions, which a cruise missle is no where near the same size.???

eddie wrote:No idea rags? That's why I've never questioned it wasn't a plane until Tommy suggested otherwise.

I'm just looking at all alternatives.
I don't think we can be sure of anything?

Tommy is questioning whether or not it's a plane at all, not just if it's a commercial plane or not.

I think people have to apply some logic here. If it wasn't Flight 11, that would involve a huge number of people in a conspiracy - crew, air traffic control, check in staff, passengers, and many others.

Raggamuffin wrote:

eddie wrote:No idea rags? That's why I've never questioned it wasn't a plane until Tommy suggested otherwise.

I'm just looking at all alternatives.
I don't think we can be sure of anything?

Tommy is questioning whether or not it's a plane at all, not just if it's a commercial plane or not.

I think people have to apply some logic here. If it wasn't Flight 11, that would involve a huge number of people in a conspiracy - crew, air traffic control, check in staff, passengers, and many others.

Exactly, the amount of people needing to know and keep quite is countless people and none of them have come forward and even a whistle blower in Snowden says its Al Qaeda.??

Well I dint think the amount of people keeping quiet is impossible - look at the MPs and police and suchlike in the big paedophile rings across the country and the world!!
That one will,never wash with me - it's very possible to keep people quiet for a while - and that's why I say a while.

The truth always leaks out - snippets here and there.

Most people call those snippets "conspiracies"

eddie wrote:Well I dint think the amount of people keeping quiet is impossible - look at the MPs and police and suchlike in the big paedophile rings across the country and the world!!
That one will,never wash with me - it's very possible to keep people quiet for a while - and that's why I say a while.

The truth always leaks out - snippets here and there.

Most people call those snippets "conspiracies"

Sorry that is not even a comparrison to how many people would need to keep quite.
The amount in such a cover up of a sex crime would not be many people as seen.
We are talking thousands of people with 9/11 not no more than 50 for a cover up of a sex crime.

So again

Snowden stole thousands of secret NSA documents with one main aim to expose the US intelligence service and all the wrongs the US does.
Why has he also backed Al Qaeda committing this?
Surely a person who flees his home country and seeks sanctuary in another would not have a monents second thought also exposing if this was as you claim? You do realise he has access to many files which include 9/11?

In your own time

I mean, there are only a few possibilities:

Maybe Flight 11 didn't exist at all, and neither did the passengers or crew?

Maybe it did exist, and it landed safely in Los Angeles as planned?

Maybe it existed, and it was shot down somewhere in order to hide it?

Any more?

eddie wrote:Well I dint think the amount of people keeping quiet is impossible - look at the MPs and police and suchlike in the big paedophile rings across the country and the world!!
That one will,never wash with me - it's very possible to keep people quiet for a while - and that's why I say a while.

The truth always leaks out - snippets here and there.

Most people call those snippets "conspiracies"

What about the partners of the passengers and crew? What about their children, parents, and friends? Are to believe that all those people would disappear voluntarily and never contact their families again? Are we to believe that they disappeared and contacted their families later and swore them to secrecy?

BULLSHIT TO ALL OF THIS! SMH

Raggamuffin wrote:I mean, there are only a few possibilities:

Maybe Flight 11 didn't exist at all, and neither did the passengers or crew?

Maybe it did exist, and it landed safely in Los Angeles as planned?

Maybe it existed, and it was shot down somewhere in order to hide it?

Any more?

If something is possible then perhaps that's the answer?

Look I dint know what happened on 9/11 and neither do any of us.
I like to look at all possibilities.

I've always thought it was a plane but now im liking the fact that it may not have been and I'm going off to do some googling to see what I can find

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I mean, there are only a few possibilities:

Maybe Flight 11 didn't exist at all, and neither did the passengers or crew?

Maybe it did exist, and it landed safely in Los Angeles as planned?

Maybe it existed, and it was shot down somewhere in order to hide it?

Any more?

If something is possible then perhaps that's the answer?

Look I dint know what happened on 9/11 and neither do any of us.
I like to look at all possibilities.

I've always thought it was a plane but now im liking the fact that it may not have been and I'm going off to do some googling to see what I can find

Well do you think that any of those possibilities are likely?

Lurker wrote:BULLSHIT TO ALL OF THIS! SMH

Thanks for that Lurker.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Lurker wrote:BULLSHIT TO ALL OF THIS! SMH

Thanks for that Lurker.

Yeah. Well. It's better than walls of c&p
At least it's his opinion and not someone else's....

Off to google

eddie wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

Thanks for that Lurker.

Yeah. Well. It's better than walls of c&p
At least it's his opinion and not someone else's....

Off to google

He didn't say what was bullshit though, or why he thought so.

Everyone agree it was, indeed a plane.

Everyone agrees it didn't seem to be a passenger plane

Claim: Photographs and video footage shot just before United Airlines Flight 175 hit the South Tower of the World Trade Center (WTC) show an object underneath the fuselage at the base of the right wing. The film "911 In Plane Site" and the Web site LetsRoll911.org claim that no such object is found on a stock Boeing 767. They speculate that this "military pod" is a missile, a bomb or a piece of equipment on an air-refueling tanker. LetsRoll911.org points to this as evidence that the attacks were an "inside job" sanctioned by "President George Bush, who planned and engineered 9/11."
FACT: One of the clearest, most widely seen pictures of the doomed jet's undercarriage was taken by photographer Rob Howard and published in New York magazine and elsewhere (opening page). PM sent a digital scan of the original photo to Ronald Greeley, director of the Space Photography Laboratory at Arizona State University. Greeley is an expert at analyzing images to determine the shape and features of geological formations based on shadow and light effects. After studying the high-resolution image and comparing it to photos of a Boeing 767-200ER's undercarriage, Greeley dismissed the notion that the Howard photo reveals a "pod." In fact, the photo reveals only the Boeing's right fairing, a pronounced bulge that contains the landing gear. He concludes that sunlight glinting off the fairing gave it an exaggerated look. "Such a glint causes a blossoming (enlargement) on film," he writes in an e-mail to PM, "which tends to be amplified in digital versions of images—the pixels are saturated and tend to 'spill over' to adjacent pixels." When asked about pods attached to civilian aircraft, Fred E. Culick, professor of aeronautics at the California Institute of Technology, gave a blunter response: "That's bull. They're really stretching."

I will believe EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS over "officials"

eddie wrote:


I will believe EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS over "officials"

Eyewitness.

So people on the ground can see and zoom in now to a plane Eddie?

please explain that?

I've seen the photos and so have a military expert I used to know at Lakenheath,  he said immediately it wasn't a civilian plane but was definitely military.  You love to believe their shit don't you.

Not just on the ground though, are they?

You clearly didn't watch the video! Lol

eddie wrote:

Everyone agree it was, indeed a plane.

Everyone agrees it didn't seem to be a passenger plane

Are they talking about the first plane or the second plane? They're mixing it up in that video.

eddie wrote:Not just on the ground though, are they?

You clearly didn't watch the video! Lol

Again explain to em how at high speed people can tell so far away?
Please present when these witnesses say trhey saw?
Also are you saying that people cannot be mistaken because I have read many of the witness accounts and they all are vastly different.
Will catch up when I am home

As to sassy's point, that is hearsay

The second plane was leaning to the left as it approached, so those watching the videos can see the underneath but not much else. Isn't the underneath of United Airline planes grey?

sassy wrote:


I've seen the photos and so have a military expert I used to know at Lakenheath,  he said immediately it wasn't a civilian plane but was definitely military.  You love to believe their shit don't you.

On what grounds did he say that?

sassy wrote:


I've seen the photos and so have a military expert I used to know at Lakenheath,  he said immediately it wasn't a civilian plane but was definitely military.  You love to believe their shit don't you.

Photos of the second plane? So this believing their shit thing, the same questions apply. What happened to Flight 175 if that second plane was not a commercial one? What exactly are you asking people to believe about that?

sassy wrote:


I've seen the photos and so have a military expert I used to know at Lakenheath,  he said immediately it wasn't a civilian plane but was definitely military.  You love to believe their shit don't you.

Really? I'd be interested to hear what he said!

There have actually been some new revelations about the 9/11 attacks earlier today:

Ben_Reilly wrote:There have actually been some new revelations about the 9/11 attacks earlier today:

Love to hear from this so called expert explain the video above that Sassy knows, please bring him on the forum Sassy, would be interesting

Raggamuffin wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:It's a cruise missile that would have lookem like a plane to some who saw it... others said that what hit the first tower was too small to be a passenger plane.


Look at the footage in The link I posted of the first tower impact and tell me if you see a plane...?

I see something hit the north tower, but I can't make out what it is. However, it's clear that the second hit was a plane, so why not the first one too? Wouldn't it be a bit risky to send a cruise missile when anyone could look up and realise it wasn't a plane?

Let's just say that neither was a commercial plane. What happened to the real planes? Did they even exist? Wouldn't the staff at the airports and traffic control smell a rat if two planes were invented?

What about the people who were on those planes? Are they fictitious too? Wouldn't someone say - well actually nobody knew any of the crew? If they do exist, where are they now? Sitting at home watching everyone say they're dead or what?

Well if the first one wasn't a plane, the pentagon one is highly doubtful and the other one that supposedly ditched into a field left no plane debris or bodies etc... then all we have is A plane hit the second tower but there is plenty of speculation questioning whether that one was actually a passenger plane too!



Then there is all the other dubious media reporting at the time, so called live images with doctored sky lines and other suspect editing etc... the way the towers fell, building seven, statements from officials, other conflicting statements from other people who were there, involved, in The buildings etc.

I suggest people watch the video and will see for themselves how mistaken  they are on claims they are making about the planes.
Rags hope this one shows you far better footage.
Keep up the questions and you are right people are avoiding answering them.
Welcome to my world.

Tommy Monk wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

I see something hit the north tower, but I can't make out what it is. However, it's clear that the second hit was a plane, so why not the first one too? Wouldn't it be a bit risky to send a cruise missile when anyone could look up and realise it wasn't a plane?

Let's just say that neither was a commercial plane. What happened to the real planes? Did they even exist? Wouldn't the staff at the airports and traffic control smell a rat if two planes were invented?

What about the people who were on those planes? Are they fictitious too? Wouldn't someone say - well actually nobody knew any of the crew? If they do exist, where are they now? Sitting at home watching everyone say they're dead or what?

Well if the first one wasn't a plane, the pentagon one is highly doubtful and the other one that supposedly ditched into a field left no plane debris or bodies etc... then all we have is A plane hit the second tower but there is plenty of speculation questioning whether that one was actually a passenger plane too!



Then there is all the other dubious media reporting at the time, so called live images with doctored sky lines and other suspect editing etc... the way the towers fell, building seven, statements from officials, other conflicting statements from other people who were there, involved, in The buildings etc.

I'm quite interested in these doctored skylines - could you elaborate Tommy?

The point is that there isn't enough footage of the first plane - because nobody was expecting it to happen. It's amazing that there's any at all really. If the second one was a plane, it's logical that the first one was a plane too.

I'd be interested to know what you think happened to Flights 11 and 175 if they did not crash into the WTC.

http://mrconservative.com/2014/04/39717-breaking-cia-pilot-gives-damning-testimony-saying-no-planes-hit-wtc/

Also, look at the explosion of the first hit in video link I posted... was mostly at a centre point of impact wasn't it...!?


Now I thought that The fuel was stored in The wings...


http://www.quora.com/Where-is-fuel-in-a-passenger-aircraft-stored-and-what-is-the-typical-capacity

Cuchulain wrote:

The first comment I have is that people should know the difference between American Airlines and United Airlines. I looked them both up previously to see what they looked like. Why would the woman assume it was an American Airlines plane anyway?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:

The first comment I have is that people should know the difference between American Airlines and United Airlines. I looked them both up previously to see what they looked like. Why would the woman assume it was an American Airlines plane anyway?

Difficult Rags, people in such an event that happens the adreniline is in full gear and many people often confuse themselves over what they actually saw. People are in the heat of the moment upset, shocked, confused and many stories that come out is based on people who in many cases would see only for a few split seconds. Hence why such testimonies tend to be very unreliable.

eddie wrote:

sassy wrote:


I've seen the photos and so have a military expert I used to know at Lakenheath,  he said immediately it wasn't a civilian plane but was definitely military.  You love to believe their shit don't you.

Really? I'd be interested to hear what he said!

Was a while ago Eds and can't remember his exact words, but I remember he looked and said there was no way it was a commercial plane.  He then went into some technical stuff that I can't remember, but will have a look and see if there is anyone on line saying the same kind of thing that might ring a bell.   It must have been just before I retired, so 10 years ago now!

Well, this is a picture of Flight 175



This is it flipped round the other way to it's facing the tower:



And this is the aircraft that hit the tower, which was filmed and this is a still from the film:




And this is the kind of thing the fella at Lakenheath was saying:

Here is an actual file photo of N612UA - the aircraft alleged to have impacted the South Tower (Flight 175):

http://www.airliners.net/open.file/205074/L/
United Airlines
Boeing 767-222
New York - John F. Kennedy International (Idlewild) (JFK / KJFK)
USA - New York, April 28, 2001
N612UA

Please take a look at the following comparisons:





We will observe that the nose section of a 200 series, A, is shorter than the wing assembly, B. Whereas for the 300 series A is longer than B.
767-200 => A:B = 190:200 = 0.95:1, i.e. A is less than B
767-300 => A:B = 221:200 = 1.105:1, i.e. A is greater than B

The NIST frames of the aircraft that impacted the South Tower give us A:B = 20.76:19.91 = 1.04:1

In other words, A is greater than B. Therefore, this plane's fuselage is too long to be a Boeing 767-222.

A more in-depth analysis can be found here:
http://www.amics21.com/911/flight175/second.html

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=5180

The man who posted that is an american commercial airline pilot.

I urge people to read my posts a little while ago and seriously consider the implications.

Urge people, tad desperate.