Zero Evidence that 9/11 Was an Inside Job

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Dr. Righteous, Feb 26, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,310
    Likes Received:
    6,668
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    There is ZERO evidence that JFK was hit by gunshots from the front.

    Now, you can trot out some "ballistic expert" that says it is possible probably.

    But nonfactually based "expert" testimony is meaningless without actual evidence. It is simple speculation.

    And the Warren Commission investigated suggestions that Kennedy was shot from the front and came up completely empty handed.
     
  2. 9/11 was an inside job

    9/11 was an inside job Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,508
    Likes Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    63
    B,.S. all doctors in dallas said it was an entrance wound to the front of the head and again,you dont know anything about the laws of physics,the officer on the left side was hit by blood matter all over his clothing an impossibliity if shot from behind.I see you havent looked at those videos.no surprise.the lone nut theorists never do.:mrgreen:
     
  3. Dayton3

    Dayton3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Messages:
    25,310
    Likes Received:
    6,668
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Once again.

    Any idiot can put things on YouTube.

    Any idiot does apparently. Though I'm not sure who is the bigger idiot, those who put them on or the gullible clowns who watch them.

    Conspiracy theory followers are nothing but abominally lazy bums desperately seeking justifications for their inaction by pretending by "huge conspiracies" by some omnipotent "dark powers" control everything. Anything as an excuse not to think and not to actually do anything. Those are the conspiracy people.

    Please name a doctor in Dallas who has stated on the record what you claim and please make sure it is from a source with multiple means of verification.
     
  4. DDave

    DDave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Interesting video. Even more interesting that they make the disclaimer at the beginning that "PilotsFor911Truth.org does not offer theory or place blame regarding the events surrounding September 11, 2001" but yet sure is a lot of "here's what we think happened" or "here's what might have happened" in the video.

    At any rate, the discrepancies between the CSV file and the animation raise some questions. At 50 minutes or so in, the phone conversation between the PilotsFor911Truth.org guy and the NTSB guys attempting to get some info about the discrepancies is very interesting.
     
  5. Woogs

    Woogs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2011
    Messages:
    8,382
    Likes Received:
    2,556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I pretty much agree with you assessment of the video. They do theorize at the end, but it's probably the only realistic conclusion based on the the flight data, the event on the ground and the conflicting witness statements. Before watching that vid, I was fully convinced, based largely on the security video and the building damage, that the Pentagon was not hit by a 757.

    That opens up a whole other can of worms, though, and I'm not sure where that would lead. I've seen a vid about 'fake victims', but it's obvious that people really did die on 9/11. Now, that doesn't exclude that there could be some fake victims among that group.

    The thing is, when looking into this, there IS a lot of nutjob stuff out there and it can be hard to separate that from the rational stuff. I think the gov't is quite happy with that. Even if someone gets it exactly right, there's already enough crazy stuff out there that it gets lost in the mix.

    The Pilot's for 9/11 Truth may be on to something, though. I mean, the NTSB provided them with the data that shows the discrepancies between the data recorder and the 9/11 Commission's report. My guess is that was a big 'oops' on their part.

    Hey, thanks for watching the vid. Most wouldn't take the time to watch but will spend hours arguing about it here.
     
  6. DDave

    DDave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    LOL. I"m not familiar with the JFK conspiracy theories but I see there is a JFK equivalent to the 9/11 "guy who couldn't fly a kite yet executed a perfect 330° corkscrew maneuver and hit the budget analyst office without even scraping the ground"

    Yes it would be nice to see an explanation of the discrepancies. I would guess, and it's just a guess I'll admit, that it has something to do with calibration of the altimeter and/or location tracking of the FDR. I don't know how accurate they are but if the pilots have to enter calibration offsets for altitude I would speculate that there is some inherent error in the location tracking as well. Again, I'll be the first to admit that I'm just guessing. I don't have any background in aviation navigation equipment. I'm just speculating on what I have experienced with my own GPS.

    But it is interesting that the NTSB was not at all interested in trying to explain the discrepancies. Could be fear of legal repercussions or responsibility if they say the "wrong" thing. I'm doubtful of many of the details of the "official" story but at this point I think it has more to do with "covering someone's ass" versus a massive sinister coverup.

    Well I'll give PilotsFor911Truth a whirl once in awhile. They seem to be the least "agendaish" of the truther sources.. I would prefer they back off on the propaganda though if they want to claim they aren't offering theory or placing blame. It's hard to take killtown seriously though. :mrgreen:
     
  7. Woogs

    Woogs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2011
    Messages:
    8,382
    Likes Received:
    2,556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I've been looking around and found another area that is interesting and that is the cell phone calls made from the hijacked planes. Apparently, in 2001, cell phones were useless above 8,000 ft. and were unreliable even at lower altitudes. Yet, especially on Flight 93, many cell phone calls were successfully made from a 35,000 ft cruising altitude.

    It seems that it is the technical evidence contrary to the official story that has the best chance of sticking. If there was a conspiracy, this seems to have been a weak point in constructing it. The discrepancies in the flight data recorder and the 9/11 Commission report on Flight 77 are interesting to say the least and the use of cells phones at cruising altitude in 2001 is really hard to believe.

    Also, the calls from Barbara Olson to her husband, Ted, are suspect just from Ted's telling of how they happened. His story has been contradicted by American Airlines, the FBI and by the historians that wrote Pentagon 9/11, which was put out by the DOD.

    Here's some links for any that want to delve into this aspect.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8514

    http://physics911.net/cellphoneflight93

    http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO408B.html
     
  8. Woogs

    Woogs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2011
    Messages:
    8,382
    Likes Received:
    2,556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not a tech person and know even less about aircraft. The 2 animations in the video were made by the NTSB and the 9/11 Commission though, and certainly do not agree at a critical point...really at THE critical point.
     
  9. The Doctor

    The Doctor Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2010
    Messages:
    5,461
    Likes Received:
    38
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Debunked long (*)(*)(*)(*)ing ago, people are sad and not even a challenge anymore:

    http://911myths.com/html/mobiles_at_altitude.html
     
  10. Woogs

    Woogs Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2011
    Messages:
    8,382
    Likes Received:
    2,556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    From your link....

    Whatever the truth of that, we know that all the 9/11 planes did have their own built-in Airfone system, which would have no problems working at altitude (that's what they're for). If mobiles wouldn't work, then doesn't it make sense that passengers would use the phone by their seat instead? Yes, it does:

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Is that really true?

    A 9/11 researcher, knowing that AA Flight 77 was a Boeing 757, noticed that AA’s website indicated that its 757s do not have passenger-seat phones. After he wrote to ask if that had been the case on September 11, 2001, an AA customer service representative replied: “That is correct; we do not have phones on our Boeing 757. The passengers on flight 77 used their own personal cellular phones to make out calls during the terrorist attack.”8

    In response to this revelation, defenders of the official story might reply that Ted Olson was evidently right the first time: she had used her cell phone. However, besides the fact that this scenario is rendered unlikely by the cell phone technology employed in 2001, it has also been contradicted by the FBI.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    Seems like your debunking site is what is sad. It's full of a mish-mash of unrelated info, such as one piece talking about what is clearly a small plane traveling much slower than cruising speed of an airliner and also well below an airliner's cruising altitude. It's not only the altitude, but the speed that made cell phone calls difficult at best.

    Here's another from your site.

    What we found was disturbing. Passengers are using cellphones, on the average, at least once per flight, contrary to FCC and FAA regulations, and sometimes during the especially critical flight phases of takeoff and landing.

    No one in the links I provided suggested that a cell phone couldn't be used when an airplane was close to the ground and traveling slower. It's not even relevant to the discussion or what the author on your site was trying to 'prove'. It's more just muddying the water while trying to fluff up an argument that's really just a shotgun approach to a subject.

    But, hey, if it works for you.....
     
  11. DDave

    DDave Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2010
    Messages:
    2,002
    Likes Received:
    34
    Trophy Points:
    48
    There seems to be some discrepancies on that point as well.

    http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/05/debunking-david-ray-griffin.html

    It appears that AA planes DID have seat back phones in 2001.

    If I understand the video correctly, the animation was made by PilotsFor911Truth using data supplied by the NTSB. The NTSB did not make the actual animation.

    Which begs the question, how accurate is the FDR in relation to altitude and position at the end of a filght. Can they be off by a few hundred feet or are they considered to be accurate within inches. I don't have time at the moment but will try to research it later.
     
  12. Dr. Righteous

    Dr. Righteous Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2010
    Messages:
    10,545
    Likes Received:
    213
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Prove that the United States govt was directly involved in the Pearl Harbor Attacks
     
  13. Dr. Righteous

    Dr. Righteous Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2010
    Messages:
    10,545
    Likes Received:
    213
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    No it doesn't. LOL. The Zapruder film clearly shows an explosion on the front of his head, which is an exist wound. Exit wounds are ALWAYS bigger than entrance wounds. Your opinion has very little to do with this fact.

    You're rewriting history. His brains sprayed everywhere, not just the trunk. Which is what you'd expect after being shot in the head by such a big bullet.

    Because it's an exit wound, which are ALWAYS bigger than entrance wounds. Your opinion has very little to do with this fact.

    What are you babbling about? What "bloodclot"? Are you talking about the massive explosion that occured at the frontal lobe?

    He was not half a mile away. Do you just make this (*)(*)(*)(*) up as you go?

    Can you prove it was for silence purposes, or is that just more baseless speculation?
     
  14. Dr. Righteous

    Dr. Righteous Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2010
    Messages:
    10,545
    Likes Received:
    213
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Why don't you tell us? You're the one engaging in the baseless speculation that he was murdered to "silence" him.
     
  15. Dr. Righteous

    Dr. Righteous Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2010
    Messages:
    10,545
    Likes Received:
    213
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    No they didn't.

    Apparently you don't either if you think exit wounds are smaller than entance wounds.

    Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). I would expect brainmatter and blood to go everywhere after being shot by a bullet that big at that close of a range.

    Apparently you haven't seen the most important video of all - the Zapruder film. Otherwise you wouldn't be making ridiculous claims like that the exit wound was in the back of the head.
     
  16. 4Horsemen

    4Horsemen Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2010
    Messages:
    6,378
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Have you ever seen a bullet go thru a waatermelon? look here, notice which way the debri flies, that's the direction JFK's brains went. toward the TRUNK, not the driver or you would see a massive explosion of brains and blood going outward from JFK's face and splashing all over the passenger as well. the skull is less dense in the front so the bullet would open up his skull more than what you're claiming. you make no sense whatsoever. just give it up man. you lose . watch thisvideo

    [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dyPuZYQ8ANg"]50 Cal vs Watermelons Super Slow Motion - YouTube[/ame]



    No it was not. His head contained much of the blast so the bullet, first of all, wasn't a huge caliber or it would've exploded his entire head. and the exit wound, in the back, pushed most of his brains backwards onto the trunk. by your logic, his brains should've been scattered more forward and his body would lean over forward and not backward.



    You don't understand bullet trajectory at all do you?


    yes, that's called a bloodclot on his frontal lobe. that happens after an severve injury which exposes the blood to massive amounts of oxygen at one time. It's the body's reaction to go heal what happend.


    he sure was more than 40 yards away. the crowd was 40yards maybe. not the shooter. it was a long rang rifle that hit JFK. not a .25


    Dead men tell no tales. the proof is in the ground now.
     
  17. 9/11 was an inside job

    9/11 was an inside job Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,508
    Likes Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    63
    as in every post on this thread,he gets his head handed to him on a platter.He constantly loses.if shot from behind, his brain matter would have been all over connolly.as usual,he proves he slept through junior high school science classes.thats something EVERY kid learns at that age.seriously,the lone nut theorists wouldnt last ONE MINUTE against even a first grader if they debated the way they do here and ignored the laws of physics.:-D

    some people sure ignore reality and live in a fairy tale land. as always,he gets OWNED!!!!!!!!!! lol.
     
  18. 9/11 was an inside job

    9/11 was an inside job Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,508
    Likes Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    63

    Lies,yes they did.you always have to lie to avoid admitting defeat.

    1.I never said exit wounds are smaller than entrance,all dallas doctors said the wound in the back of the head was MUCH bigger than the wound in the front.

    2.thanks for proving you keep falling for propaganda.

    3.that again just shows you slept through junir high school science class as horseman proved to you with that video.the majority goes forward,very little would hit the motorcycle officer on jackies side.need to bone up on those scicne classes as again,horseman proved you have no knowledge of science.

    the only one making rediculos claims is you woth your pathetic ramblings the exit would was in the forehead.give it up,the dallas doctors overrule you and they DID say it was an exit wound that very day they were interviewed.The warren commission twisted their words,you constantly ignore the warren commissions crimes since iti shoots down your ramblings.

    Like Horseman said ,the exit wound,in the back,pushed most of his brains BACKWARDS onto the trunk.Also like Horseman said so very well was by YOUR logic,his brains should've been scattered more forward and his body would lean over forward and not backward.

    also like he said,The directions of the majority of JFK'S brains went towards the trunk,not the driver or connolly and you would see a massive explosion of brain and blood going outward and JFK'S face towards connolly.seriously,all your doing in your posts is proving you have NO KNOWLEDGE OF anything about science whatsoever,give it up before further bringing eggs all over your face like you have in every single post on this thread.your clearly grasping at straws and cant admit defeat.
     
  19. 9/11 was an inside job

    9/11 was an inside job Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,508
    Likes Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    63
    your losing your credibilty.the idiot is the one who keeps his head buried in the sand with that ostrich and refuses to watch those videos or listen to the credible experts on them. thanks for making my point for me.:mrgreen::-D

    oh and the people that deny reality, are what people consider to be a nut.lol. at least two people here on this thread are denying reality by refusing to look at those videos and listen to a dallas police officer who was there that day.lol

    you want a doctor that said the bullet woulnd in the back of the head was an exit wound? ask and you shall receive.Be prepared to have egg all over your face though and acknowledge you have been rambling B.S.lol.WE'll see if your mature enough to do so or evade it.something tells me it will be the latter in my experience with NET people.real life people always admit defeat to me.lol

    Malcomn Kilduff the press secretary for JFK spoke to two of the dallas doctors that day after kennedy was declared dead and here is his press conference ANY serious JKF researcher can verify that he said that day when talking to the press later on.

    He goes on to say-Kilduff-The president was shot once,in the head.Dr Burkley told me it is a simple matter of a bullet right through the head.
    Reporter-Can you say where the bullet entered his head?
    Kilduff-It is my understanding that it entered in the temple,the right temple.
    "Kilduff at that time points to his right temple." as i will prove in my next post through a pic i can find.

    Dr Marion Jenkins also went on record to say-"There was a great laceration of the right side of the head."

    which of course is consistant with a right scar wound,the exploded area.

    This just proves that just like 9/11, you have done no reasearch in this case.there is another video out there as well where it shows SEVERAL doctors putting their hand on the back of their head saying he had a huge exit wound in the back of his head. I would refer you to that video but since you have already proved in spades you have no interest in the truth and WONT look at videos that shoot down your ramblings,then why bother? again its time for you to face up and eat crow.:nana::-D
     
  20. 4Horsemen

    4Horsemen Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2010
    Messages:
    6,378
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    0

    That's when you know the Public School System has failed...lol
     
  21. 4Horsemen

    4Horsemen Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2010
    Messages:
    6,378
    Likes Received:
    81
    Trophy Points:
    0
    911, it's not hard to tell man. these guys know the truth in here they just want to argue with you man just to argue. I'm not like that, I like to DISCUSS. if I learn, I learn, period. not trying to force influence on nobody, just LEARN and TEACH when I can. period.

    very good thread man. I'll let you finish em off dude, you was drowning them with facts anyway, I just wanted to weigh in and help you suffocate em some more ..lol


    8)
     
  22. 9/11 was an inside job

    9/11 was an inside job Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,508
    Likes Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    63
    yeah I see you are right.I should have figured that out myself that they are CLEARLY here just to argue and that they know they are full of crap.

    Im with you,im not like that either.I like to LEARN as well and Teach when I can to people like i mentioned before,people I know in real life who are open minded and WILL look at the evidence as well but their just here to start arguments so if they want to keep showing off to everybody that they would not last one minute against a first grader,let them do so but Im not going to bother with them anymore after this post.you took the thread starter to school in your last post and he knows it.

    I am curious to see how that one poster replies though after I gave him what he asked for,one doctor saying it was an exit wound to the head.He'll come up with some kind of crap though to avoid defeat,thats a given.lol. I will watch to see how he replies to THAT.

    You meant to say though -"Good POSTS though right? cause I did not create this pathetic thread.lol.

    Here is what i was referring to before of kilduff saying at the press conference the wound was to the front of the head after talking to the doctors pointing to his forehead.

    http://www.politicalforum.com/jfk/223484-driver-killed-kennedy-right-rear-exit-evidence.html

    well I took them to school again just as you did,easy as pie to do.i wont waste anymore time with someone who cant admit when they are wrong and just babble on senselessy to try and save face in their posts.btw,since I Know YOU will watch videos,did you watch that video below as well? had you ever seen it before and dont you agree there is some amazing stuff there that SCREAMS coverup?

    these two lone nut theorists constantly ignored my points how the warren commission committed treason by altering witness testimonys which is a crime they know they should have gone to jail for so its so obvious they are just here trolling to get reactions out of people.I wont take their bait anymore.I will walk away and just let them talk to themselves.Not going to play their game anymore.
     
  23. 9/11 was an inside job

    9/11 was an inside job Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,508
    Likes Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    63
    yeah that shill jew Noam didnt admit to any of that.He clearly has been bought and paid for.great post.
     
  24. 9/11 was an inside job

    9/11 was an inside job Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,508
    Likes Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    63
    He covers his eyes to posts like this.He only sees what he WANTS to see.
     
  25. 9/11 was an inside job

    9/11 was an inside job Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,508
    Likes Received:
    109
    Trophy Points:
    63
    yep like i have said many times,he never reads links you refer him to.always avoids them and videos.wouldnt last one minute against a first grader debating like that.lol.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page