Fandom Forums - View Single Post - The 9/11 Conspiracy
View Single Post
Old 10-14-2009, 10:49 PM   #107
The Truthseeker
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Toronto, ON
Posts: 25
Thanks: 2
Thanked 6 Times in 6 Posts
SimonCP is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: The 9/11 Conspiracy

Found a great page that debunks Maddox's 9/11 page:

Evidence. Post evidence. The burden of proof is on you, since you're the one claiming that the government did it. That's how shit works. And don't expect people to just take your word on outlandish claims like "there was no planes durr hurr" either. Show that it was just fake videos, and that people on that were supposedly on the plane didn't die, etc.

Pentagon: Evidence Of No Airplane

-There was no sign of any credible identifiable airplane wreckage in the wide shots of the lawn in front of the building or of the shots inside the building. Witnesses both inside and outside made remarks about how little was left. While we can expect some wreckage to disintegrate, a plane crash does leave a plane.

-The tail section of a Boeing 757 jetliner is 44ft high, yet there is no sign of any impact damage on the floors above the hole and no sign of tail section outside of the building. It is impossible for a 44ft tall, knife-like piece of metal to slam into the Pentagon wall at 530 mph on it's sharp end and not leave a mark.

-The entry hole is square-shaped, yet a Boeing 757's cockpit is circular. This hole is entirely inconsistent with the shape of the airplane's fuselage.

-To create the hole we see in the building, the Boeing would have had to be flying very low. However, the engines hang below the fuselage and would have scratched the lawn. Even if, somehow, they didn't, the lawn would have been visibly disturbed by the turbulence/speed of the speeding aircraft. Also, the lawn would have been completely toasted by the explosion. However, the lawn is bizarrely unscathed.

-The exit hole was a perfectly circular hole in the C ring. It is impossible for the very fragile nosecone of an airplane (Birds can pierce it) to fly that far through the building. In fact, the end of it's journey would likely have been just after impacting the first ring, which was renovated and reinforced. It is simply not possible for it to have gone as far as the C ring. A Boeing could not have caused the exit hole and, thus, not the damage.

-The majority of the witnesses interviewed by the news in the immediate aftermath heard an explosion, but no plane. Some reported that the explosion was bomb-like, and others said that they heard others screaming "Bomb!". One witness (Don Perkal) said that he was sure a bomb had gone off because he could smell the cordite. Another witness (Gilah Goldsmith) confirmed that she smelled "cordite or gun smoke". Omar Campo, Steven Gerard, Steve Patterson, Deborah Khavkin, Don Wright, and Michael Kelly reported that a smaller aircraft had hit the building. Lon Rains (SpaceNews) said she was "convinced it was a missile". Two witnesses heard by David Edwards shouted "A missile hit the Pentagon! We saw it!". Another witness, Steve Riskus, told Chris Bollyn that the airplane flew over him, yet he didn't hear much noise -- this was confirmed by others. The reports of "not much noise" indicate that any aircraft involved in the attack would have had to have been a quieter drone, like a Predator or Global Hawk -- this is significant with the reports of a smaller aircraft.

-A Boeing 757 is 155 ft long -- that's twice the height of the Pentagon. Why can't we see it in the "plane" frame of the five frames 'leaked' by the DOD.

Pennsylvania: Evidence Of No Airplane

-Despite the fact that we're dealing with an airplane crashing into a field, there is no airplane to see. All we have is what looks to be an empty hole. This is inconceivable and impossible, had a 757 jet crashed here.

-Flight 93 officially had 5,500 gallons of fuel when it crashed, yet there is only a small amount of smoke and heat damage in the crater. In fact, grass around the rim of the crater is unburnt. A photographer at the scene said that he didn't smell any jet fuel in the area. So, if the jet fuel didn't burn up and wasn't in the area, then where was it? Underground? Nope -- the EPA tested the groundwater for contamination -- none.

-Susan McElwain reports that the aircraft she saw did not have wings and was a missile or a UAV.

-The county coroner couldn't find any bodies in the crater, and said: "It’s as if the plane had stopped and let the passengers off before it crashed." -- Please.

-The crater in the ground was not deep or large enough to account for the jumbo jet that allegedly flew into it.

For more information on Shanksville, check out the Killtown blog:

WTC: Evidence Of No Planes

-The holes in the Towers are cookie-cutter shaped airplane holes, yet there is no wreckage in the holes or on the ground below the holes. This indicates that the entire airplane would have had to go through the building without any parts breaking off. Since this is impossible, we can conclude that there was no airplane. Buildings do not swallow planes.

-All of the available videos showing the airplane image entering the building show it flying through as if it's a ghost going through a wall. No deceleration/slowing, no breaking, no crumpling -- nothing. It just goes entirely in. Experts such as former aerospace engineer Joseph Keith tell us that this is impossible. Keith says "The video is phony because airplanes don't meld into buildings, they crash against them!". This was confirmed by MIT Engineer Jeff King, who also says that this penetration was impossible.

-We are told that the airplanes hitting the Towers were traveling at speeds over 500 mph. Experts and the Boeing company have confirmed that there is absolutely impossible.

-The majority of witnesses on the ground did not hear/see airplanes.


Here's a documentary that you might want to watch:

In the two parts (Second half is on the website -- check top of screen), we see the 9/11 News Footage completely and totally deconstructed and exposed. Quite simply, the man behind the video makes quite a solid case that the videos we all saw over and over again were fake.

It's Gon Rain!

Truth about 9/11
The attacks were an 'inside job':
The TV footage is fake:
The Military used hi-tech weapons to destroy the Towers:
SimonCP is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to SimonCP For This Useful Post:
Azumi (10-19-2009)