Hi. I'm new to the boards so I don't know if this is something that might have been discussed before. After reviewing the evidence a thought has struck me. The flashes striking the towers before the planes hit and the same flashes from the circling helicopters just before the towers collapsed. I think it's highly probable that the whole job was bungled. I think the towers were meant to come down at the precise moment the planes impacted, probably rigged with impact sensitive charges or something that detected the flases. That would have made a lot more sense and would have both made a greater impact and would have been a harder story to refute. I believe Bush also asked if they'd fell, possibly demonstrating a fore-knowledge of potential problems. This would help to point to an even more callous disregard for life.
Sorry if this has been discussed before.

First off, welcome to the board:)

For me personally, I have not thought, nor care about the flashes.



No, it would not have made the story harder to refute. There is no argument. What happened is physically impossible. You cannot defy the laws of physics without outside manipulation. There is nothing to refute.

These buildings were brought down by demolitions. That is all that I need to know. As far as the flashes seen, there is no concrete evidence. Unless there is evidence backed by Physics, it does not matter.

Even if what you are saying happened to be true, the buildings still would not have fallen at near free fall speed into their own footprints. At most, perhaps the floors above the impact site would have toppled, (though very unlikely due to the material in the structure)

Focus solely on the physics of the situation. Forget anything you see before the impact. To do otherwise is a disservice to the hard facts.

no... The point I'm trying to make is that I think the job was bungled. Of course it was a controlled demolition but I'm saying it was meant to happen at the moment the planes hit. That would have created a story harder to refute as fire makes absolutely no sense as a cover-story. The flashes are hard fact. They're right there preceeding the planes impact and preceeding the collapse which makes me tend to feel that they were either a missile launched to begin the demolition or some kind of targeting beam.
I knew this was an inside job from day 1 and I'm not trying to refute that. I'm trying to say that i don't think it happened the way it was meant to.
I'm not quite sure what you're arguing about. The FACT of an inside job now being accepted by the majority has been achieved through weighing up all of the evidence and keeping an open mind and yet you don't care about a large chunk of it. Aren't you just accepting a new story rather than the old one? Isn't it best to weigh up the evidence and make up your own mind?
Actually the flashes are supported by mulitple camera angles and are a confirmed and unexplained phenomenon. They don't appear to have a sound to them, at least from the circling helicopters by they are there, immideately preceeding the fall. I'm stating my belief that the explosives were rigged to detonate in contact with the plane as the collision occured. Evidence appears to support my theory and I'm only postulating a theory, not suggesting fact. In essence my theory does very little to forward any given argument but consider this; if I'm right and it had happened in accordance with the plans then there would be almost no independant video footage from which to draw any evidence. Can you honestly see these people planning such an event and intending a massive delay to allow people to take extensive photographs and to allow eye-witnesses to escape? Of course not. An immideate collapse would have been preferable. It also would have furnished them with a much better cover story. Fire could not have brough down the buildings but a plane crashing into them would have been an easier story to sell. The fact is that the buildings withstood the impact exactly as they were designed to and that is a tough cover for them to sell to the public. The official cover story now is spurious, unconvincing and insulting. The pyroclastic cloud, the collapse and seizmic profile would all have been very easy to explain if the collapse had coincided with the impact and resulting fireball. I accept that the cover would have been a lie but an easier lie to believe (and one, I'm sure that countless "experts" would have found supporting evidence for and sold it as fact with only the best of intentions.)
If I'm correct then I accept that it proves nothing. However you should think yourself lucky that most of the "evidence" you have comes from the "Eyewitness" video that would never have happened if the attack had gone as I believe had been intended.
As for your argument? I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Controlled demolition is an accepted fact and I'm not refuting it. Why don't you care about a section of evidence? You need to see this as a whole. This is not just the story of a few buildings collapsing and to understand it you need to be aware of all of the connected material.

Yes, I do understand what you are saying, and please don't think that I am taking what you are saying out of hand because you are bringing up valid arguments. I have seen the flashes, and realize that they are an anomaly, but that being said, I can only look at the hard facts.

You are correct, the video's have shown us the truth of the demolition.
Your theory is possible, I am not arguing that, but that is just it. I do not care about theory's. I care about the facts, and I am focused on the facts.
(Yes, I realize that the flashes themselves are fact, but anything other than that is inconclusive)

I have read and seen videos on many theory's out there. Some valid, some not. As to what they planned, or what they wanted, no matter what, this is just speculation.

Any theory dilutes the truth of what happened because theory's are just that. Until they are proven to me through science, physics, or confession they do not matter to me.

We both agree that the buildings were demolished. Unfortunately the only way we can prove your theory is through a confession. We will only get a confession through focusing on the facts and on the truth.

One thing I wholly believe: NO steel framed high rise has EVER colapsed from fire.

Now, whatever caused the towers to fall, it wasn't an airplane, or the fire caused by a few thousand gallons of kerosene. I don't know what it was, but it wasn't an airplane.

Whether or not the gov't was involved in the actual attack, they are certainly involved in covering up the truth about the events of 9-11.

BTW, have you checked out the second edition of Loose Change? There is a link to a web site that is streaming it. It my personal favorite for presenting the lion's share of evidence that something odd was happening on that Sept day.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... ose+change

And whatever brought those towers down, it wasn't a half dead Saudi in a cave in Afghanistan. Everything about the attack has the marks of high level planning and execution, with connections, either covert or operational in NYC, Washington and NORAD, at the very least. Bin Ladan simply did not EVER have those kinds of connections, even when he was a CIA asset, or the operational sophistication and personal to create them through subtrafuge.

As with anything else, hard facts are the foundation of knowledge, not the end. You're never going to get a confession because these people don't believe they've done anything wrong (by wrong I mean unjustified). I'm interested in discussing my theory. I've not seen it postulated anywhere else. The important point here is the flashes. I could be wrong but the significant flashes don't appear to have a corresponding noise so are probably not explosions (I refer now to the ones from the circling helicopters.) If they were used as a trigger then what were they? A bright, wide-angled flash suggests that it wasn't a laser. I suspect that they were the triggers for the detonation but what military or other technology has a corresponding effect? Nothing I'm familiar with. If we could work out what they were (based on the assumption that they were triggers) then you'd have an additional piece of hard evidence and the first piece that not only suggests a cover-up but proves that the aircraft were outrigged specially. See my point?

I would have to look at these flashes. Using light as a trigger is a very bad idea, since the sun, reflected, would give you an immense amount of light to the trigger, and could happen accidentally SO easily. There is just too much to go wrong with a light sensitive trigger, and we have all kinds of triggers available (esp if you believe the gov't was directly involved).

It would seem the collapse was triggered. The tower wasn't moving, and had stabilized, the fire was minimal and the towers have withstood much worse. Many people, including newcasters at the scene, heard explosions, and at least one witness heard an explosion in the basement.

I doubt the planners ever considered it possible that the plane would take down the tower. It had been engineered to withstand such an accident, and other buildings had already withstood airplane strikes.

I have played with the possibility that it was pulled by NYC. If the tower had fallen over, the devastation would have been 1000 times worse! The problem with this is that it requires that the charges had been pre-set for some time, possible even part of the design. Eh, I don't think it is likely, but I suppose it's possible.

I agree, light as a trigger is a flawed concept. The bottom of the planes were outrigged with a box that looked like a launcher. Now it doesn't seem likely it was a launcher but it was a device of some sort and it did make a flash on the building. The helicopters circling the tower also made a similar flash and then the towers came down. I accept that some of them were Heuys but at least one was a black Jet-Ranger, you could see it clearly enough to discern that. Again, that is inconclusive as it's one of the most common helicopters around but it is proof that not all the air traffic was the police. The flash may have only been the visible portion of a trigger far into another spectrum or possibly a flare of some sort. What troubles me is that any such trigger would have required a reciever. My guess is that each detonator was chain linked to a computer to run through a pre-determined program. The level of sophistication certainly allows for a reciever network but why not a simple remote control device?
If we can find a similar application and discover what the flash was then I believe we'll have another piece of the puzzle. If it was a trigger and the planes were fitted with a triggering device then it points a finger entirely at the government.

YAWN... quit feeding snakes.

Just ignore the SFB. It is his job to try and disseminate the propaganda of the whitewash. He is a mouthpiece puppet of the establishment.

Check out this site. it has Time delays of the 2nd plane going into the building, whisch say a lot about what happened. This is some parts of the site. Check out the complete site if you can stand the treachery of your government.

http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin ... ic.php?t=3

It's funny how even something like 911, which happened before all to see, what happens when you slow all of those Videos down and look at them frame by frame.

There is something that happens in the last fractions of a second on both Tower strikes, that is revealing; More revealing than any of us would like, yet nonetheless the videos and pictures show something else was happening on 911, that none of us could see with the naked eye or perceive. All of the photo's & video are courtesy of ABC NEWS Channel 7, CNN News, the New York Times and the L.A. Times, Camareplanet, MSNBC, The Fox News Channel and CBS Broadcasting.

This picture below from ABC News shows clearly the extra undercarriage equipment this 'special 767' had attached to it; One thing is for certain; Is that this plane is not the same plane that took off from Logan International Airport that morning, as this 'extra' equipment would have given it away in a heartbeat to the ground crews. Another thing is certain as well, yet equally disturbing. The passengers from Flight 175, the ill fated United flight that took off at Bostons Logan International, could not have been on this 767 plowing into the 2nd World Trade Center.

The fate of flight 175 and it's passengers lies elsewhere, but those peoples lives did not end here at the World Trade Center, as this is not the same 767 that took off from Bostons Logan, and it is doubtful this 767 is even of the same 200 series as was flight 175. There is evidence that shows this 767 to be a 767-300 series model, a plane a tad longer and heavier than the 200 series. Either way you slice it, this extra piece of equipment shows even the simple minded that this 767 wasn't ever at Boston's Logan Internaional airport that morning.

http://www.911wasalie.com/images/fuss.gif

Here @ this link, you can view about 100 frames of the CNN/ABC video which shows the undercarriage pod in every frame! The pod can be seen around frame 60 and after. Please download these today as I am going to be removing this link later for Bandwidth purposes --- http://www.thewebfairy.com/911/letsroll ... mptransfer

Here is frame 115; Click to see picture.

Frame 115 Click here

NEWS FLASH!
[img]
http://www.911wasalie.com/images/aaronbrown.jpg[/img]

Missile Pod Collage
Make sure you save and distribute! Click below!

http://www.911wasalie.com/images/duhmissilepod1.jpg

http://www.911wasalie.com/images/CNNABC ... mpact1.jpg

Comments on above Image Sequence
In the above sequence of 9 frames, intermittently chosen between 39 and frame 55, the extra equipment on the planes undercarriage is in all of the stills of the video sequence. And in frame 54, CNN/ABC captures the same event as Cameraplanet, just from a different angle. Cameraplanets still of the same missile impact event is captioned in frame 55. (The greenish photo) The only way Aaron Brown could have missed this is because he had his back turned to it while reporting the event. Aaron, in the future, watch the event as you report it.

Notice how in frame 55, the orange fireball is gone, as is consistent with the footage from camerplanet. Also notice something in frame 55 that further supports these observations. Look at the place on the 767 where the right wing meets the aircrafts body in frame 55. In the rear of this area, off the top of the wings is a sheet of smoke making it's way off the planes upper wing area. This is harder to see in the video stills, but when one watches the video a few times, it's absolutely impossible to miss when looking for it. This sheet of smoke would be from the missiles exhaust.

Not only a Smoking Gun but a picture of the Missile! 3 frames!

[URL=
http://www.911wasalie.com/images/secondplane.wmv]Picture of theBullet - Double Penetration[/URL]

http://www.911wasalie.com/images//missi ... ctory1.jpg


As far as I am concerned there is only one smoking gun among hundreds of strong evidences, to show 911 wasn't done by Arab terrorist's, and was an inside job. This proof is in the video's. This isn't tough stuff either. Although rockets are invloved, it's not rocket science, nor does it require a degree in rocket science to be able to watch a video of a plane shooting a missile out of it's undercarriage to be able to tell it's a missile. How can anyone refute proof drawn from publicly available video's from these same news sources? CNN captured the missile pod, as well as the missile ignition and launch and penetration. So did ABC. As well as MSNBC. And if thats not good enough for the most ardent of skeptics, it was captured by Fox and cameraplanet. And if all of that isn't enough to convince someone, this was all captured by millions of Americans with their home VCR's. As I have said elsewhere, this is part of the verifiable and permanent record of September 11th, 2001.
1. Pictures & Video that show an extra piece of equipment on the undercarriage of the 767. It is in every video regardless of the News Network affiliate taping. It is in stills. And it shouldn't be there.

A. It is not landing gear
B. It is not bay doors
C. It is not Landing lights
D. It is not a Flare
E. It is a missile pod.


2. A missile/missiles shooting out from the first plane in the firemans video and striking the North Tower just ahead of striking the building itself.

3. A single Missile shooting out of the 2nd plane into the World Trade Center fractions of a second before the plane strikes the building.

A. This is caught on every video made where the entire plane can be seen, regardless of the News Affiliate.

4. A Controlled Demolition of the World Trade Center using what could have only been pre-positioned shaped charges.

5. Strong evidence that WTC 1,2, & 7 were blown off their support columns by high energy explosives.

A. Shaped charges every 8 -10 floors
B. High Energy Explosives to destroy WTC's 47 support columns in sub basements
C. 3 large pools of molten steel found in the sub-basements of WTC 1,2 & 7

Use of High Energy Explosives 1

Use of High Energy Explosives 2


If I were King George II, I would no doubt have named this 'Last Crusade' this;





"Operation Longshanks III"

http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin ... c.php?t=91

Now in the photograph below, courtesy of ABC there is an extra piece of equipment on the undercarriage of the 767 that shouldn't be there, and couldn't have been there when the plane took off from Logan International Airport. You will see as you watch the video's that it is not a shadowing problem or landing gear. It is viewable in all of the video's from begginning to end. It's a missile pod.

This picture above shows the ABC coverage showing the same strange anomoly on the 767's right side belly; An add on piece of equipment, apparently just smaller than the engines; It also shows in every frame of all the videos, regardless of source.

<META http-equiv="refresh"content="1; URL=http://www.letsroll911.org">

That should keep you busy for a while.

ok... presuming that we all agree that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition and the aircraft clearly had additional pods which fired something can we discuss the idea that the attack went wrong? I believe it was orchestrated by the US government (well actually by a small minority of people in power), after all, who else could have arranged this?
My belief is that the explosives were rigged to detonate with the aircrafts impact. Planes being built lightly might not have generated sufficient impact so whatever was launched assisted the process. I think it still wasn't enough and they had to be manually triggered later on.
I appreciate that this doesn't move things forward significantly but I'm trying to make sense of a very illogical chain of events here.

Perhaps of you could get into the mind of Cheney on that day- Being Dick Cheney- You could have a view from inside of the plan. Perhaps the rocket was Napalm or something for dramatic effect, or was used to ensure the plane got inside the building. The demolition part was probably preset weeks before to bring it down. It was a well planned well staged military manoeuver that came off rather well, if you count the results as proof of its success- both then as well as after. They successfully got into Afghanistan and Iraq and are setting their sights on Iran next.

This effectively eliminates the eastern powers from access to oil and wealth and eliminates competiton for power as well as the collapse of the American dollar and Americas quest for empire.

The planes were just another effective "Pearl Harbour"- and Americans fell for it like a bunch of falling buildings. Perhaps the real issue of "What went wrong" is why so many Americans don't see the obvious drama of a staged event. Are Americans that stupid or do they truly love war that much? Are they too busy shopping at Wal-Mart to see the obvious? Whats wrong with Americans?

how about some terrorist hijacked some hugh jetliners full of fuel and rammed them into some poorly constructed towers that were also stripped of all it's fire proof insulation (asbestos) and the buildings came down. quit feeding snakes.

Uh in case you fail to realize, those buildings were built to withstand a 747. Thats exactly what the architects said when they built it. Quit trying to defend them on blind knowledge. You're making yourself look worse.

Preaching to bucky is not going to do any good.

Just tell him to fuck the fuck off.