Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (15037)	1/3/2005 12:13:03 PM
From: redfish	Respond to of 20773

Do you really believe it is possible to convince a conspiracy theorist that no conspiracy exists?

To: zonder who wrote (15037)	1/3/2005 12:18:49 PM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20773

Re: I have actually studied this stuff in university, with courses in structure & strength, where, for some unhappy semesters, I was expected to calculate thicknesses of materials and structural members to be used to withstand certain weights etc. So please read the following with the idea that I might actually know what I am talking about here. However, you evidently flunked your Photoshop tutorial, didn't you? LOL.... C'mon, zonder, by now the whole blogosphere knows that NO planes ever hit anything on 911! Don't be the odd clueless man out --join the party: Humint Events Online Before 9/11/01, the US military ran multiple exercises simulating hijacked planes crashing into buildings. On 9/11/01, NORAD was running a live-fly hijacking exercise. The 9/11 attacks were not a surprise, and there are many reasons to think the Bush administration wanted the attacks to occur. This weblog will attempt to explore the incredible events of 9/11/01, and will deal with other issues involving US government accountability. Sunday, December 26, 2004 The "No-Planes" Theory of 9/11 A major proponent of this theory is Scott Loughrey [] (Gerard Holmgren and "Webfairy" are also supposed to promote this idea as well), and it holds that no hijacked planes hit the WTC towers or the Pentagon. Moreover, it holds that the famous TV footage showing "flight 175" hitting the south tower is a massive hoax perpetrated by a few network insiders who carefully spliced in fake footage of an airplane in the the South tower explosion. The same for the Naudet brothers and the Hlavel footage of the North tower hit-- but that needed much less manipulation as those came to light much later on and had poor quality images. The idea is that missiles were fired at the WTC towers to cause the explosions and the government waged a psy-ops campaign through the corrupt media (notably CNN) to make it seem like hijacked planes really were the cause of the damage. While this theory is risible on its face, there are some aspects that cannot be dismissed easily. Moreover, in some ways, this theory is an attractive explanation for the events of 9/11. I do have many problems with Scott Loughrey's site-- in that many of his essays or examples suffer from fatal flaws in logic. In fact, it is amazing that someone who can set up a web-site like this, with so many videos and pictures can be so (for lack of a better word) idiotic. Nonetheless, I can't help but think that Mr. Loughrey is onto something. Thus, here are the reasons that the "no plane" theory has some creedence and/or attractiveness: 1) If you go to the Memory Hole, they have police reports from the day of 9/11 (these are really very striking to read, if never have looked at them). But the point is that in the police reports, there were in fact eye-witness reports of missile being fired from the Woolworth building into the south tower. This is direct eye-witness testimony that is hard to refute. 2) No planes hitting the WTC towers or the Pentagon means you don't have to worry about how knife-armed hijackers took over four planes and navigated three of them perfectly to their targets. There is no need to posit planes being flown by remote control either. 3) If you look at videos of the WTC north and south tower hits-- particularly when the plane first enters-- they have a certain strange, almost fake quality, the way the planes sort of "melt" into the exterior walls. 4) The huge fireballs that erupted out of the sides of the WTC towers when they were hit-- was that simply due to exploding jet fuel or could it have been more likely caused by explosives? 5) The no-plane theory helps explain the strangeness of the Pentagon hit. In fact the Pentagon hit may have been an elaborate show done with shaped explosive charges. 6) Gerard Holmgren has found that there is reason to think that flight 11 and flight 77 never really existed-- in a normal sense anyway. 7) The news networks have in fact been inflitrated by the CIA, and are certainly capable of putting out disinformation. They have clearly put out some disinfo regarding 9/11 as well as the Wellstone assassination. Of course the technology exists to manufacture these images. 7) There is a kind of appealing counter-intuitiveness to the idea that no planes were involved in the 9/11 attacks, and a certain irresistible and hugely sinister "big lie" quality to this idea. The idea is so preposterous that people naturally won't believe it, which is why it can be an effective psy-ops. Overall, I don't completely buy this theory-- but on the other hand, I think it is not so easy to dismiss as one might think initially. And it does have some explanatory powers. If this is what happened on 9/11-- the images of planes hitting the WTC towers were faked-- we of course have to assume that there were fake hijackings carried out on some planes []. But I already assume this is what occurred anyway-- as discussed in several previous posts. In any case, let me know what you think. I appreciate any arguments either way. covertoperations.blogspot.com [] Message 20855805 [**] Actually the hijackings were real --here's my tentative theory: Message 20038339 911 as reprisal for 611: Message 20384674