9/11 NO planes vs. thousands of eyewitnesses & millions watching TV:* praticability *

[MattMarriott]

9/11 NO planes and Media Hoax vs. thousands of eyewitnesses & millions watching TV: praticability, explained worldwide first by Matt Marriott

People don't get the script for 9/11 because they don't understand two basic end times features:

1. ALL mass media is TOTALLY controlled by the illuminati.

2. The masses have been reduced to a state near complete brainwash. They became blind. Black is the end times color.

That's is why the illuminati knew the reaction to the truth would be:
"This didnt just happen on CNN! Umm..it happened in the middle of a large population center in broad daylight."

"If you're going to tell me that every single eyewitness who saw the planes hit is "in on it", then don't bother"

The hoaxers knew the script would work, since there were no doubts about the only two relevant issues, i.e. would it be possible:

- to keep away from the masses the few eyewitnesses (testimonies and their films, photos) that understood there were no planes? These people are.: 1. WTC survivors including firemen (most of them died) that saw the scene close to the "impact" and saw no debris of the planes; 2. people on the ground that hear no noise or had their eyes and cameras focused at the point of the second "impact".
Answer is obviouly yes, since the illuminati totally control mass media.

- to watch it really happen in Manhattan (the rest of the eyewitnesses, thousands) and as a "second impact" hoax in TV (dozens of millions in that morning around the world), and yet for all these people not be able to see what really happened?
Answer is obviouly yes. since the illuminati had previously tested to what utter limits the masses could be fooled "live", and to what length the trick could be covered-up afterwards.
The ultimate example: state lottery drawings are broadcasted on TV at prime time and yet the jackpot "winner" is always the same.

BTW, check when was it exposed the first time
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...ackpot+exposed

-----------------
This answers the obvious questions raised in:
*9/11 for dummies - The Five Basic Facts, by Matt Marriott
http://forums.armageddononline.org/s...ead.php?t=6559

[Freakshow]

OK, lets say that the "illuminati" (I niether support nor deny their exsistance) have the capabilities that you spoke of. Your saying that with all their power they couldn't just fly REAL planes into the towers? It seems like that would be a helluv alot simplier. This story has too many holes for my taste.

[bbbv3.5]

What about the engine two blocks away from WTC 1 that was found? With tons of eyewitnesses saying that it came from the WTC...

[Fut004]

OK, lets say that the "illuminati" (I niether support nor deny their exsistance) have the capabilities that you spoke of. Your saying that with all their power they couldn't just fly REAL planes into the towers? It seems like that would be a helluv alot simplier. This story has too many holes for my taste.

Couldn't have said that better myself. I realise that the Illuminati is supposed to control all this shit, and have power over the media etc, but it makes no sense to make all these holograms of planes and edit live footage when they coulda bought a plane and flew it into the building.


This MattMarriott guy has alot of interesting theories, but all of his links just lead to other Forums where he's posting more confusing shite or to Google Searches that don't tell you anything. How about some actual "Evidence" for a change? A video that really shows something, a report from an actual newspaper/New Station... Anything at all really...

[lazserus]

OK, lets say that the "illuminati" (I niether support nor deny their exsistance) have the capabilities that you spoke of. Your saying that with all their power they couldn't just fly REAL planes into the towers? It seems like that would be a helluv alot simplier. This story has too many holes for my taste.

This is a trait of conspiracy theorists. They get so far bent into the conspiracy they toss logic right out the window. There are more craters in this concept than there are on the moon.

For starters, Matt's logic is that there was no second plane, thus the building had to be demolished by explosives and the Illuminati covered that fact up by using reverse logic. "We expected eye witnesses so we anticipated that." That's the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. Let's take several things into account. For starters, let's talk about the dead passengers of the second plane. Did they just miraculously disappear? The memorials setup in NYC with pictures of each passenger...those were fakes? The family members actors? Hell, the airlines must have been on it as well, because they would have to falsify a large number of tickets (which are recorded in a database) and even LOSE a friggin plane. But if they were all in on it, maybe they were just paid off by the all mighty Illuminati.

Now the second part. Have we forgotten about the giant flaming hole in the side of the building? Demolitions wouldn't cause that. On top of that, blowing a hole in a building more than half way up wouldn't cause the building to fall. Anyone who knows even the slightest thing about construction demolitions could tell you that you start at the foundation. The videos clearly show there were no explosions at the base of the building. Now, a building constructed like the WTC, you would need to place demolitions through out the entire building to bring it down safely. If you just blow the foundation it could fall to one side. If people were planting demolitions I think someone would have noticed long before the attacks and reported it. But they must all be in on it too! With all the money spent to keep quiet these 10,000 people or so, the government could have just hijacked a plane for free and it'd cost a hell of a lot less.

This MattMarriott guy has alot of interesting theories, but all of his links just lead to other Forums where he's posting more confusing shite or to Google Searches that don't tell you anything. How about some actual "Evidence" for a change?

Amen. Using public forums to support a theory such as this is the 2nd worst route to take when trying to prove a point. How about some scientific evidence as opposed to a bunch of laymen having cock-eyed theories?

I suppose it's plausible to say that the government may have had advanced warning of the attacks and didn't lift a finger to do anything, but these theories here are just absurd.

[Wastelandwarrior]

This is a trait of conspiracy theorists. They get so far bent into the conspiracy they toss logic right out the window. There are more craters in this concept than there are on the moon.

For starters, Matt's logic is that there was no second plane, thus the building had to be demolished by explosives and the Illuminati covered that fact up by using reverse logic. "We expected eye witnesses so we anticipated that." That's the most idiotic thing I've ever heard. Let's take several things into account. For starters, let's talk about the dead passengers of the second plane. Did they just miraculously disappear? The memorials setup in NYC with pictures of each passenger...those were fakes? The family members actors? Hell, the airlines must have been on it as well, because they would have to falsify a large number of tickets (which are recorded in a database) and even LOSE a friggin plane. But if they were all in on it, maybe they were just paid off by the all mighty Illuminati.

Now the second part. Have we forgotten about the giant flaming hole in the side of the building? Demolitions wouldn't cause that. On top of that, blowing a hole in a building more than half way up wouldn't cause the building to fall. Anyone who knows even the slightest thing about construction demolitions could tell you that you start at the foundation. The videos clearly show there were no explosions at the base of the building. Now, a building constructed like the WTC, you would need to place demolitions through out the entire building to bring it down safely. If you just blow the foundation it could fall to one side. If people were planting demolitions I think someone would have noticed long before the attacks and reported it. But they must all be in on it too! With all the money spent to keep quiet these 10,000 people or so, the government could have just hijacked a plane for free and it'd cost a hell of a lot less.


Amen. Using public forums to support a theory such as this is the 2nd worst route to take when trying to prove a point. How about some scientific evidence as opposed to a bunch of laymen having cock-eyed theories?

I suppose it's plausible to say that the government may have had advanced warning of the attacks and didn't lift a finger to do anything, but these theories here are just absurd.

lol
ya.....

[bbbv3.5]

Laz, he isnt going to respond to your post because he knows he just got smacked in the face.

[Demonskates]

i wasnt in manhatten but i watched it live on cnn after the first tower was hit.
saw the second plane hit,I dont understand how it could be faked?this theory is absurd.
a more likely scenario would be that our government was responsible for 911 to make an excuse to go to war with our enemies.
even then id have a hard time believeing that.

[MattMarriott]

[B]People don't get the script for 9/11 because they don't understand two basic end times features:

1. ALL mass media is TOTALLY controlled by the illuminati.
...

Now guess what happened to the witnesses that did not get it and did contact the media/government...

[Smoke]

9/11 NO planes and Media Hoax vs. thousands of eyewitnesses & millions watching TV: praticability, explained worldwide first by Matt Marriott

People don't get the script for 9/11 because they don't understand two basic end times features:

1. ALL mass media is TOTALLY controlled by the illuminati.

2. The masses have been reduced to a state near complete brainwash. They became blind. Black is the end times color.

That's is why the illuminati knew the reaction to the truth would be:
"This didnt just happen on CNN! Umm..it happened in the middle of a large population center in broad daylight."

"If you're going to tell me that every single eyewitness who saw the planes hit is "in on it", then don't bother"

The hoaxers knew the script would work, since there were no doubts about the only two relevant issues, i.e. would it be possible:

- to keep away from the masses the few eyewitnesses (testimonies and their films, photos) that understood there were no planes? These people are.: 1. WTC survivors including firemen (most of them died) that saw the scene close to the "impact" and saw no debris of the planes; 2. people on the ground that hear no noise or had their eyes and cameras focused at the point of the second "impact".
Answer is obviouly yes, since the illuminati totally control mass media.

- to watch it really happen in Manhattan (the rest of the eyewitnesses, thousands) and as a "second impact" hoax in TV (dozens of millions in that morning around the world), and yet for all these people not be able to see what really happened?
Answer is obviouly yes. since the illuminati had previously tested to what utter limits the masses could be fooled "live", and to what length the trick could be covered-up afterwards.
The ultimate example: state lottery drawings are broadcasted on TV at prime time and yet the jackpot "winner" is always the same.

BTW, check when was it exposed the first time
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...ackpot+exposed

-----------------
This answers the obvious questions raised in:
*9/11 for dummies - The Five Basic Facts, by Matt Marriott
http://forums.armageddononline.org/s...ead.php?t=6559

let me sai i am with the conspiracy theorists and... jus lemme tell you something.. planes did hit the world trade center... this is just ... fucking wack. HOW could you even say they didn't. Sure mass media is controlled by the government and the story doesn't
add up.. but planes did hit those towers. impossible on all levels to fake that.

i mean thousands upon thousands of people saw it. and Why the fuck would they even bother faking it lol.

[Justice]

What about the engine two blocks away from WTC 1 that was found? With tons of eyewitnesses saying that it came from the WTC...

for once we agree on something

this guy is nuts or on your side me thinks

[MattMarriott]

Five years after 9/11, the sheep didn't get the basic script for 9/11 - why

Five years after 9/11, the sheep didn't get the basic script for 9/11 because they they became blind. Black is the end times color.
Total brainwash includes not having the ability to recognise these two basic illuminati end times features:

1. ALL mass media is TOTALLY controlled by the illuminati.

2. The illuminati have now successfully completed their agendas of totally terrorizing and brainwashing the sheep (celebrated officially with the satanic ritual murder of Terri Schindler, whom the illuminati named Schiavo, slave). Just think about the fact that now the large majority knows that 9/11 was an inside job, and yet about everyone will deny it in public. No wonder: the consequences of total brainwash and total terror include total lack of reaction, even at the sight of the doors of the slaughterhouse.

9/11 Eyewitnesses in Lower Manhattan - not a problem for the illuminati script

Of course the 9/11 plan had a few "witnesses" being immediately interviewed to let us know they had seen the planes. But what about those watching on TV and above all, the real eyewitnesses, those who saw what they should have not seen?
The same end times features mentioned above explain also why the eyewitnesses were not a problem in the illuminati script for Lower Manhattan:
- total control of mass media;
- the illuminati knew that the "total terror" (officiallly launched at Waco, Texas, 1992) and "total brainwash" agendas were already advanced enough.

Eyewitnesses: the answer to the THREE questions that mattered was yes

The hoaxers knew the script would work, since there were no doubts about the answer to the three most important questions.

1. The key question: would it be possible to completely censor the few eyewitnesses (testimonies and their films, photos) that understood there were no planes? These people are:
a) WTC survivors including firemen (most of them died) that saw the scene close to the "impact" and saw no debris of the planes.
b) People on the ground that hear no noise or had their eyes and cameras focused at the point of the second "impact".
BTW, check out what happened to the VIDEO of one of these eyewitnesses, who had the camera zoomed at the area where the explosion simulating the second crash took place...
http://www.goldismoney.info/forums/t...etonating.html

2. Would it be possible to completely censor those who witnessed the unprecedented demolition of both WTC towers or taped it on video?

3. Finally the question that matters about the thousands of people that would refer to the only detail that could immediately expose the core cover-up, i.e. who heard the explosion of the two mini-Hydrogen bombs just BEFORE the two WTC towers came down.
It was impossible to completely censor such testimonies as the events took place. The question is: would it be possible to make sure they would never be heard again?
BTW, here is a VIDEO with a collection of such statements from 9/11, short after the bombs were detonated.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-uOFXsfskM
Answer to all three questions is obviously yes, since the illuminati totally control mass media.

BTW, the question about those who got the classic demolition of WTC 7 on video is a non-question, since the goal of that part of the script was to terrorize the eyewitnesses, by letting them know that it was an inside job.

TV Witnesses: the answer to the questions that mattered was yes

Would it be possible to fool the TV audience? Answer is obviously yes, since the illuminati had previously tested to what utter limits the masses could be fooled "live", and to what length these kind of hoaxes can be covered-up afterwards.
As far as the duration, the ultimate example is the moon landing hoax. But it was staged only a few times. As far as the frequency, the ultimate example is state lottery drawings, broadcasted on TV weekly at prime time and yet the jackpot "winner" is always the same. Because despite being able to watch the trick, blind people will not be able to see it.
BTW, check when was it exposed the first time
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...ackpot+exposed

Even better than in the cases of the moon landing hoax or the state lottery drawings, in this case the illuminati could play the extra "thousands of eyewitnesses" card. So the illuminati had absolutely nothing to fear from the TV witnesses. Later, as the truth would be spoken, the illuminati knew the reaction would be:

- "This didn't just happen on CNN! Umm..it happened in the middle of a large population center in broad daylight."
- "If you're going to tell me that every single eyewitness who saw the planes hit is "in on it", then don't bother"

[Anarch]

This newly released video... it's a fake.

It has many edits and cut aways. Many of those edits and cut aways have a continues UNCUT sound track!

The shadows of the smoke and buildings do not line up and in the end a helicopter can land with out disturbing the puddle of water beneath it.

+ YouTube Video

[Cartesiantheater]

No you di' n't! You didn't just bump an almost FIVE YEAR OLD THREAD did you? Noooo... he couldn't have. No. No way. Five? FIVE? No. I don't believe it. I refuse to accept it.

[CandyGirl]

pmsl oh my why didnt you just do a new post lol *slap*

[digitalautumn]

i wasnt in manhatten but i watched it live on cnn after the first tower was hit.
saw the second plane hit,I dont understand how it could be faked?this theory is absurd.
a more likely scenario would be that our government was responsible for 911 to make an excuse to go to war with our enemies.
even then id have a hard time believeing that.

That is one thing I will never understand... why people have sooo much faith in our so called Government? they say "our gov would never do that" or "the gov will never fail" ect... Really? you really think the gov had our best intrest at heart? I dont think so. I do believe 9/11 happened but I DO NOT believe that the gov had so earthly idea what was going down that horrible deadly day...

[Anarch]

I have yet to see any debunker prove that aluminum can slice through steel.

I've seen them do many things, I've seen you tube vids of folks burning I-beams for hours...

But nobody can show me a video of one other instance in all of our history of video recording where aluminum can slice through steel.

[Cartesiantheater]

I have yet to see any debunker prove that aluminum can slice through steel.

I've seen them do many things, I've seen you tube vids of folks burning I-beams for hours...

But nobody can show me a video of one other instance in all of our history of video recording where aluminum can slice through steel.

How does a water jet cutter cut through metal then? Or wood? (prior to abrasives being added to them- water at sufficient velocity cut through wood).

It's not possible. Thus water jet cutters are a government conspiracy.



More to the point:

Moh hardness of lead: 1.5

Moh hardness of steel: ~4.5


Can a lead bullet penetrate steel? Oh yes, yes they can.


Wait, no, not they can't! It must be a government conspiracy.


Moh hardness of aluminum: 2-3, i.e. GREATER THAN A BULLET.


i.e., it is entirely reasonable that the aluminum of the planes moving at high velocity caused some loss of structural integrity.

F = ma has nothing to do with it. And don't worry about foolish things like kinetic energy per meter or momentum. All that matters is hardness... /sarcasm









What your 9/11 site did not tell you about a projectile penetrating some other object:

For a projectile to have penetration, the shear stress exerted by the projectile onto the target must be greater than the shear strength of the target.

Shear stress exerted by the projectile, according to here, is defined like this (call it S):

S = (force of projectile)/(cross sectional area of projectile)

In other words, penetration is NOT DEPENDENT UPON THE STRENGTH OF THE PROJECTILE. If it was, that relation would have some variable representing Moh hardness or density of the projectile or something similar, WHICH IT DOES NOT (the resistive material does depend on those things, but the projectile does not). All that matters here with respect to the projectile is change in momentum (force) and cross sectional area.



Funny bit from jref.org:

Non-Truther: "Here, see this bullet? I'm going to throw it at you." *throw*
Alumcan'tpenetratesteel-Truther: "Hey, whataya doin? You could have slightly bruised me!"
N-T: "See, that bullet can't penetrate your clothes, let alone your skin."
ACPS-T: "Oh I see... so that means..."
N-T: "Yes, let me load it into this gun. You should be safe. Let's try this out." *cocksgun*
ACPS-T: "There's no way that will hurt me!"

FYI more clever Truthers call the aluminum argument a strawman invented by "Official Story" supporters to discredit the Truth movement.

[Anarch]

The above is exactly what I'm talking about.

I ask about aluminum slicing through steel and I get some half baked debunker crap about water jets and a bunch more redirection that does not address the subject put fourth by me.


Show me a video of an aluminum bullet slicing through steel! Not cloths not wood STEEL!

just one!

[Cartesiantheater]

The above is exactly what I'm talking about.

I ask about aluminum slicing through steel and I get some half baked debunker crap about water jets and a bunch more redirection that does not address the subject put fourth by me.


Show me a video of an aluminum bullet slicing through steel! Not cloths not wood STEEL!

just one!

I figured you would reject solid physics. I knew exactly what you'd say too. Dude, lead is SOFTER than aluminum! (lead Moh hardness: 1.5, Aluminum Moh hardness: 2.5-3) So you're arguing that even though a softer material can penetrate steel, the harder material cannot? Not only that, aluminum has a higher tensile strength than lead.

Aluminum bullets aren't made often because the metal instantly oxidizes in air (planes are made of an aluminum alloy). Additionally, aluminum bullets shot leave massive fouling in the barrel. There just aren't many ever made, so finding a video is a pretty ridiculous challenge. Lead is used in bullets not because it's some super hard, strong metal. It's weak in both areas. It's used because of it's WEIGHT (again, FORCE is what matters in projectile penetrations, i.e. mass x velocity), and its softness which makes it easier to shape to fit the barrel of the gun.



However, I did give you NUMEROUS instances of a softer material penetrating a harder one, which undermines the logical basis of your argument. Your reaction was to IGNORE this. WATER can cut through steel at high enough pressure FFS!




I mean, do you see how this might make you look to someone? "Herp derp, well water and other soft materials can penetrate steel at high enough velocities, but aluminum alloys cannot cause structural damage to a steel beam!" (even though not only would mechanical energy be a factor, but also the instantaneous change from aluminum to burning hot aluminum oxide on impact)

What do you think some missile warheads and bodies are made of? Aluminum alloys. Do you think these missile, when shot into tanks, just stop on impact and explode? No they don't. They partially penetrate the tank.





But let me just get a solid quote from you since you will ignore the physical law that states that the hardness of a projectile does not matter in penetration:


You are saying that even though softer materials than aluminum alloys can penetrate steel at high enough velocities (like water, lead), aluminum alloys cannot?

That is what you're saying, right?

[Tsunami]

Wouldn't an animinium plane have a lot more force behind it than a bullet?

[Cherisa]

really people? aren't we on to something ELSE by now??

[James Random]

90% of conspiracy theories are put out there by the illuminati to cloud the truth.
There were indeed planes, but there were no Al Quaeda aboard. You can't fly a Boeing having only used a PC flight simulator: anyone who thinks otherwise is a moron. The flight simulator, for a start, is never a full flight simulator. There are functions they're not allowed to include. There's also the physical aspect of flying a craft. IT takes enormous strength to fly an airplane and a PC simulator simply wouldn't prepare you for flying one.

Whoever was aboard those craft were trained pilots.

[Rabid1]

I have yet to see any debunker prove that aluminum can slice through steel.

I've seen them do many things, I've seen you tube vids of folks burning I-beams for hours...

But nobody can show me a video of one other instance in all of our history of video recording where aluminum can slice through steel.

So you have never seen the after effects of a tornado? Like straw through steel signs or trees or rake handles through steel silos?

[Anarch]

Yeah yeah yeah... lots of talk of moh hardness and what debunkers PRESUME are proper and right physics.

But the alleged planes were not pieces of straw and the towers were not pieces of wood.

You have not show me any pictures of aluminum slices through steel because


....ONE MUST WONDER WHY!?!?!

I am not simply declaring myself right here and my detractors wrong. I strive not to argue as they do.