September 11, 2001 (long read)

I am still waiting for my response to the entire thing but I am particularly interested in your response to your complete fabrication of this item:

You wrote:
b.)  Operation Northwoods discussed the "hijacking" of commercial airliners and flying them into buildings in the Miami area of Florida.  These hijackings would however be of unmanned aircraft, and flown by drone planes into the targets. Civilian casualties would be at a minimum. The U.S. would essentially blame Cuba for the terrorist attacks, resulting in a creating of public support for invasion of Cuba.

Yet there is nothing even resembling that in the Operation Northwoods plan.

Wasn't it you that said little lie = big lie?

I'll re-read the O.N. report, but I didn't get that from my imagination.  I thought it was on wikipedia, actually.  I'll double check

and spiff

You're entire post was referencing the O.N. report, not my freefall claims, or the fabricated cell phone calls.  You've still not even come close to convincing me that those 2 claims are true

I'm sorry, I've just been incredibly busy with work the last few days.  I'll start reading everything over again soon and respond accordingly.

Hi Smidio, I do not have time to read all 16 pages of this thread.  If I repeat anyone elses info, I apologize. 

My deepest sympathies to you and your family.  Its tragic you had to lose your father this way.

I've researched this day to no end.  I know what happened that day and you could say, I've completed my research. 

First, you think they give a f$ck about 200 passengers or so on flight 93?  Until you fully accept what happened that day, you will never get over it.  They killed those passengers and did not think twice.  Remember the people you are dealing with here.

Second, the Official 9/11 Commission Report only deals with the events leading up to the planes crashing into the towers.  In no way does the report actually deal with the fall itself.  And that is a HUGE problem, since that is where all the evidence is!!  Also, not to mention members of the Commission have said they were stonewalled when trying to get information regarding some of the events, and that the report is not a complete acurate story of the events.  Nor does the report even mention building 7, WTF??

Of course they used thermite.  That is plainly obvious based on the physics of thermite.  Also, jet fuel does not burn at 3,000 degrees, yet there is three spots, one at the epicenter of each tower, that recorded heat readings of over 3K degrees, weeks later!!  That right there should be all the evidence anybody ever needs.

Next, the charges were turned backwards.  This is what caused the outward explosion or "shock and awe".  It created a mushroom cloud effect.  This isn't rocket science people, its simple physics.  They needed this incredible shock and awe, to strike fear into people.  It was an incredible production.  If you look at controlled demolitions, they do not send 500 lb beams two blocks down the street, just doesn't happen. 

If anyone cares to debate, I ask you to check out this link, https://firefightersfor911truth.org/.  Firefightersfor911truth.org was started by the very people we were calling heroes that day.  You will hear radio transmission from firefighters who lost their lives that day, telling HQ that the fires were going out.  They were clearing each floor at a time, and had really thought the worst was behind them.... then all of a sudden the floors gave way, WHY??

 

flight 93 was shot down, plain and simple.  no landing in cleveland and no "heroes" theying to take it over.

*trying

The plane was shot down 8 miles away over a mountain ridge in an area called "New Baltimore"

this is a topic I cant debate with people over in real life. If they bypass the damning evidence and physics that back it up I just want to punch there faces in. I know I cant hep it I hate blatant stupidity

ok so earlier in this thread we were told that the plane landed in Cleveland and a hole was shot in the ground and there was no debris recovered, but now someone  else is claiming it was shot down, if this were the case would there not be debris scattered all over? it seems the conspiracy theorists make up whatever comes into their 

heads You must admit if it was shot down theyre would be evidence of this or if it landed in Cleveland one of the passengers would've come forward by now.

The only feasible explanation is they flew it to Arizona and it is in the same hanger as the ufo and the alien bodies that were recovered in the fifties and the us government has been able to keep that a secret too

People, this man smdio is clearly only on here to try and make people believe his crazy ideas.  I have posted a website which pretty much refutes everything this man and everyone else on this post that think the government was involved say. 

It kills his freefall theory(which by the way isn't his theory, he picked it up from a movie called loose change and then found some website that explained it further.)  Most these conspiracy theorist go off videos of the towers collapsing and start counting after the towers have already started falling and stop counting before it ends.  In most videos where the towers collapse and you can see the collapse in its entirety, then you will realize that the collapse takes about 12-13 seconds.

As for the cell phone crap he tries to use as another smoking gun.  First he lies saying all 13 calls were made from cell phones because some were made from Air Phones, which are designed to work in flight (They are the phones on the back of chairs that you have to use your credit card to use.)  As for the actual cell phone calls themselves here are what some industry experts say about them:

Alexa Graf, AT&T spokesperson, said systems are not designed for calls from high altitudes, suggesting it was almost a fluke that the calls reached their destinations.

“On land, we have antenna sectors that point in three directions — say north, southwest, and southeast,” she explained. “Those signals are radiating across the land, and those signals do go up, too, due to leakage.”

From high altitudes, the call quality is not very good, and most callers will experience drops. Although calls are not reliable, callers can pick up and hold calls for a little while below a certain altitude, she added.

Brenda Raney, Verizon Wireless spokesperson, said that RF signals actually can broadcast fairly high. On Sept. 11, the planes were flying low when people started using their phones. And, each call lasted 60 seconds or less.

“They also were digital phones, and there's a little bit more leeway on those digital phones, so it worked,” she said.

It helped that the planes were flying in areas with plenty of cell sites, too. Even United Airlines flight 93, which crashed in rural Pennsylvania, was supported by several nearby cell sites, Raney added.

so explain the Thermite that was scientifically proven to be present

 

And the CEO of the world trade towers overhearing and admitting to a reporter that they in charge said to go ahead and "pull it " when referring to the building before it came down. Hmmm isnt there a time when a term like pull it is used... Thats right. the command that demolition crews use when confirming to ignite a demoliton

Imagine this:

Your father dies.  At first, you are highly upset.  At second glance, you realize people have been lying to you about a number of things pertaining to your fathers death.

You dig deeper.  You find a small lie about something that was told to you..

You decide to dig deeper.  You then uncover a few more lies..

Now you're starting to get angry.  You dig deeper still..

More lies.

Now you decide to start spending some money. A significant amount of money.

More lies....

You realize things are not as they appear.  You talk to some firefighters, some scientists, some survivors, all of whom were connected to 9/11 at some point

More refuting evidence from what the government was telling your family..

You spend more money

The government now realizes what your doing and decides to stonewall you.  Any information your trying to get, they throw up road blocks and divert you off course

This is my life.  Call me crazy, lunatic, conspiracist, I don't care.  I've got them all.  But until you see what I've seen, and talk to the people I've talked to, you have no right to judge me like you just did, based on an internet forum.  I've done my due diligence, whereas you have not.  I bet one of the first times you've ever really gotten this deep into 9/11 was this thread.  Yet this is just another internet forum for me.  I've been doing this for almost 10 years.  You think because you found a 9/11 debunking website, that refutes my claims?  I'll throw you a dozen websites that refute yours, and you can do the same to mine, how long do you think we'll be here doing that?

reillym32:  Go do actually research such as I have, then come back here and call me a clown.

 

You've never (nor has anyone else) showed me a video of the towers collapsing in 12-13 seconds.  If you have such a video, it is pseudoscience.  Richter scales, the same devices used to measure earthquakes, have the towers coming down between 9 and 10 seconds.  These scales also confirmed that the towers collapse registered as a 2.3 earthquake.  You simply cannot dispute this fact.  These scales were used by Columbia University (spiff will probably laugh at this, or deny it!) and were roughly 3 miles away from the incident.  There is a .0001 chance of inaccuracy since the scales were so close to the site.

This is the biggest bunch of crap you've said so far, and I'm dying to address it.  This statement of yours, and where ever you got those quotes from, completely explain your lack of research and eagerness to prove me wrong, no matter how many facts you actually skipped along the way.

There were 28 total phone calls.  15 of them came from "air phones".  I'm not denying that those calls took place.  I want to talk about the 13 cell phone calls that were released.  Since you never researched this fact, I'll say it once again:  Thirteen cell phone calls were made from Flight 93. 

The planes were flying low, huh?  Negative. Every single one of the "cell phone calls" (NOTE:  I'm NOT talking about the air-phone calls) were made above 20,000 feet altitude.  A handful of calls, I think 3 or 4, were placed about 30,000 feet.  7 of the 13 calls lasted for over 60 seconds.  I have no idea where the fuck you got those numbers but your simply WRONG, plain and simple.  3 of the 13 calls lasted over THREE MINUTES !!!!  There is a .001 chance for any cell phone call to connect at an altitude above 20,000 feet.  There is a .00001 chance for that call, once connect, to last for anything more than 3 seconds, based on the altitude and the constant speed at which the aircraft is moving.

Yet the calls were placed, connected, and lasted for 3 minutes?  Yeah fucking right.

This attempt at debunking yet again shows how little you actually researched this subject.  Your eagerness to prove me wrong is making you skip most of the steps that are needed to debunk a claim, or prove me wrong.  You're actually making yourself look quite dumb and incredible.

No one wants to talk about the thermite.  It only proves that explosives were used.  Why would they want to talk about that?!

I have a question for you Smdio.

I'd like your opinion on who flew the planes into the towers? and how this group convinced them to do it?.

That's a question that I've been trying to determine for 9 years and I still don't know the answer.

What do I know? 

The plane that supposedly hit the Pentagon, United Flight 77, was piloted by a man named Charles Burlingame.  About 10 years prior to 9/11, the pentagon did experiments to simulate a commercial jet-liner crashing into the pentagon, as a precaution to future terrorist attacks.  The experiments led to certain areas of the pentagon being "full proofed", which basically means they used several layers of steel-reinforced concrete so that whatever were to hit the pentagon never got further than the second or third layer, which kept most damage at a minimum to the actually operating structure of the building.

There are a few things that never made sense to me here. 

First, there was only 1 area of the Pentagon that was 100% completed in terms of the "full proofing".  Other areas were in the process of being "full proofed", but were not complete.  The same exact area of the Pentagon that was completed to help prevent terrorist attacks via missle or jet-airliner?  It was the same exact area that Flight 77 supposedly crashed into.  That is far too much of a coincidence for me. But it gets worse.

The group that first decided to improve the Pentagon's stability in terms of preventative terrorist measures was lead by a team of architects and scientists.  Guess who was the "CEO" of that team?  Charles Burlingame.

Although I've yet to draw a "connection" between these coincidences, I'm sure something is there.  9/11 is far too much of a conspiracy for something like this to go unnoticed, and I'm sure it's somehow connected to the rest of the events.  I just can't prove it yet

I also asked a question earlier about who received the cell phone calls-which you never responded to. If you have the info that 13 calls were made then you must know who was talking to who -- why dont you get a hold of the people that supposedly  received, I mean didn't receive  these call and prove it 1 way or the other instead of relying on web sites and speculation that they were staged (for whatever reason)

You mention that you talked to lots of people involved with 9/11

I would think they would be willing to talk to another relative of a victim of this horrible day. 

I hate answering a question with a question, but here goes:

Have you ever heard of Lee Harvey Oswald?  He was the man the government said acted alone in the assination of John F. Kennedy. 

This is getting into another conspiracy theory all together, but I would like to point of the "official story" of this assination.

The CIA had met with Oswald over a dozen times in the months preceding Kennedy's death.  This information wasn't released until 30 years after the assination occured.  The government, to this day, still says that Oswald acted alone.

You are asking me how could this "group", meaning either the U.S. government or the Bilderberg group, convince someone to fly a plane into a building.  But how do you answer the CIA meeting with Lee Harvey Oswald months before he supposedly assinated the President of the United States? Do you think they possibly had something to do with influencing Oswald?

If you don't, then I have no answer to your question.  But if you think the government/Bilderberg's might have influenced Oswald in some way, then I'm sure the same type of influence may have happened with whoever piloted the flights into the WTC

smdio, if the government did plan the events that occured on 9/11 do you really think that all of the people involved would have and would continue to keep it a secret? I for one don't. Not a chance in hell. Someone would have spilled their guts by now.

I love that you're thinking.

I've already done this.  I've attempted to speak with 3 different families about multiple events that happened on 9/11, including the actual conversations that took place between the family members on that day.

2 different families told me that they were sworn to secracy by a document that the government made them sign, prohibiting them to converse about -anything- other than the few lines of text that was "officially released" by the government and the 9/11 commission.  When I pushed them further, they got very hesitant and visably shaken, and told me I would have to leave.

The third family member that I spoke to (a mother of one of the Flight 93 members) instantly broke down in tears and hugged me. It wasn't the type of "hug" that you would receive from a complete stranger.  If I could try to compare it to something you might understand over the internet, it was the type of hug that an American Soldier might receive from their family after coming home from a long tour in Iraq. Long, emotional, and strong.

She invited me into her home and we spoke.  We spoke about events leading up to 9/11, and also events that occured on that day.  Each time I mentioned the cell phone call between her and her son, she filled up with tears and could no longer speak.  It was the type of cry that really struck a nerve with me.  You could see the intensity in her face, like she wanted to tell me something but couldnt.  She never showed a bit of anger towards me, or towards the questions I was asking.  It was as if she was encouraging me to go further, but she could not answer the questions that I most vitally needed answered, and yet again referred to the document that the U.S. government made her sign, just as the other family members told me about.

To this day, I still have a very close relationship with this lady.  She has become a family friend as well as a role model for myself.  I do not press her limits, but I still try to gather any information possible, for hopes of some day gaining the truth

Do you know what happens to a person that signs a "confidentiality agreement" with the U.S. government pertaining to National Security?

I've looked it up and found the answer.  If you were to violate one of these agreements and speak about events that you previously agreed not to speak about (in writing), you get tried for treason.  Treason is a capital offense and is punishable by the death penalty.  It is also the higest ranked crime in the United States.

If you signed an agreement to stay quiet, would you change your mind knowing the legal punishment is death?  I know I wouldnt..

I wonder if this should be moved to politics forum...

not only because of the topic, but it is just a buzzkill...