Congressman Walter Jones Exposes Massive 9/11 Conspiracy [who financed hijackers?]

[coastie]

which one is it? did somebody finance the hijackers? or were there no hijackers?

That's a good question, actually. There's certainly more evidence pointing toward there were NOT any hijackers on board those planes, as opposed to the evidence there was.

I personally think the financing angle is being tossed in to give more weight to the official story, but who knows?

 

[PRB]

That's a good question, actually. There's certainly more evidence pointing toward there were NOT any hijackers on board those planes, as opposed to the evidence there was.

I personally think the financing angle is being tossed in to give more weight to the official story, but who knows?

well then, we agree, they can't both be right. Truthers better get their story straight.

 

[donnay]

which one is it? did somebody finance the hijackers? or were there no hijackers?

Somebody obvious financed the alleged hijackers. Somebody obviously had an agenda. The question people need to ask is cui bono--look at all the anti-liberty legislation that has been enacted in 12 1/2 years. It's a critical thinking exercise.

 

[TheGrinch]

In order to keep the trolls (on this subject) from attacking your stance, you have to stick with only the facts and not your interpretation of the meaning of the facts.

Yep, the burden of proof isn't on us, even if the anti-truther trolls want to act like it is. All that is needed for a proper investigation is sufficient reason to doubt their claims, and we certainly have more than enough of that.

I'd say the fact that they covered up Saudi involvement (if true) along with things like this are plenty good enough to have serious doubts about the "official" fairy-tale conspiracy theory.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

which one is it? did somebody finance the hijackers? or were there no hijackers?

Yes, that's an interesting twist in and of itself, isn't it. And I have thought a lot about it. This is not the only subject that such seemingly inconsistent things are linked into a subject.

It could be both are true. But any "theory" would be just that. We know that photos/videos of some of the "hijackers" have been released, although none with date/location time stamps that put them at the terminals at the date/location that would be needed to part of "the" plot. The only thing that I can say is that there needs to be pasties for a cover up, and that anyone in their right mind that wanted to pull something this big off would have alternate plans (A,B,etc) in place.

I'm also waiting to see how this whole "Saudi" thing plays out. There's something that stinks with the whole thing...always has. You know that Sadam was once an "ally", right, when it served a "purpose".

 

[PRB]

Somebody obvious financed the alleged hijackers. Somebody obviously had an agenda. The question people need to ask is cui bono--look at all the anti-liberty legislation that has been enacted in 12 1/2 years. It's a critical thinking exercise.

Either they financed actual hijackers, or there were no hijackers, how do you finance virtual or alleged hijackers? You pay them or somebody to say there were hijackers?

 

[TheGrinch]

well then, we agree, they can't both be right. Truthers better get their story straight.

OUR story? We didn't write the official story, the burden of proof isn't on us, it's on those who conducted the investigation.

So where are the videos of the hijackers, if that's the claim?

Why does it negate that they could have been financed to come here and learn to fly under the facade of hijacking, as part of the plot?

If they did actually hijack the planes, how does this negate that agents within our government (who we know are in bed with the Saudis) were involved and mayb have used them as patsies?

There are many possibilities, but we only know as much as what info we have, which is FAR more than enough to see that the official story is full of bullshit.

So don't be one of those assholes who acts like it's our claims that are in question, when we're ripping holes apart out of the official story.

 

[TheGrinch]

Either they financed actual hijackers, or there were no hijackers, how do you finance virtual or alleged hijackers? You pay them or somebody to say there were hijackers?

Again ,we all know that real people did take part in flying classes (they were awful pilots incapable of even flying a sesna, let alone a 757 which would be impossible to pull those manuevers).

However, there is not currently any proof presented that they actually ended up hijacking planes. See my above post, there are many possibilities that could still allow for an inside job. So stop being a troll.

 

[PRB]

OUR story? We didn't write the official story, the burden of proof isn't on us, it's on those who conducted the investigation.

You claim to be a truther? Do you have a story you want to share? Do you have a series of events of which you'd be willing to put to a test?

So where are the videos of the hijackers, if that's the claim?

Why does it negate that they could have been financed to come here and learn to fly under the facade of hijacking, as part of the plot?

So they were paid to learn to fly, then sent on the plane and killed by somebody else? So somebody with an agenda financed hijackers and didn't actually use them in hijacking?

If they did actually hijack the planes, how does this negate that agents within our government (who we know are in bed with the Saudis) were involved and mayb have used them as patsies?

If they hijacked planes and flew them into buildings, that negates any claims the hijackers were still alive, didn't exist, or planes were never hijacked (and instead remote controlled).

There are many possibilities, but we only know as much as what info we have, which is FAR more than enough to see that the official story is full of bullshit.

So don't be one of those assholes who acts like it's our claims that are in question, when we're ripping holes apart out of the official story.

You make claims, then we question.

 

[PRB]

Again ,we all know that real people did take part in flying classes (they were awful pilots incapable of even flying a sesna, let alone a 757 which would be impossible to pull those manuevers).

However, there is not currently any proof presented that they actually ended up hijacking planes. See my above post, there are many possibilities that could still allow for an inside job. So stop being a troll.

No, we don't know that, all you have is somebody paid to say they did it.

There's no proof anybody was in the planes or the buildings, if there was, you'd see remains of bodies.

 

[erowe1]

To say that the video doesn't prove "anything" is also incorrect. IF, in fact, the analysis of the video frames is correct, then the result is that the frames in question were "touched". The question becomes, then, "Why?"

That is a big if. And the video does not prove that they were touched. It does suggest that they were, but I don't think that the narrator even claims to have proven that they were. Nor does the video even get into any discussion at all of internal evidence within each of the two photographs in question that one or both of them were touched.

We could get into discussion of the problems with what the video does say about those pictures. But before even beginning to do that, I think it's important just to settle the point that, regardless what the video does with those pictures, it doesn't prove that no plane hit the Pentagon.

My first problem with the way the video presented the evidence of those two frames is that, from the very first time it showed the one picture, it described a certain very nondescript triangular shape in it as the tail of a plane. But it didn't look like the tail of a plane to me. It would be better to say just that there's this shape here, and we don't know what it is. But the rest of the video's argument depends on the claim that the shape is supposed to be a tail of a plane, such that if it the claim that it's the tail of a plane turns out not to be corroborated by the evidence of the photos from the other camera, then it must have been doctored.

And then similarly, the other shape in that same picture is called the exhaust from the plane, and then when the picture from the other camera gets mentioned, there's this shape that gets called the nose of the plane. And then at the end when they argue that this exhaust and nose are really the same thing, it's supposed to be some kind of evidence of something, when the truth is, I can't tell what either of those shapes are in either picture in the first place, and I don't see how the narrator can either. The whole aspect of identifying all these things just stacks the deck for showing that they're not what the video first suggested they were. Well, so why suggest that's what they were from the beginning? Answer, so that you can get to that conclusion where you say that they're not those things, and then jump to the conclusion that the only other explanation is that the pictures were doctored.

 

[coastie]

When you say "video" do you mean the time-lapse photographs that the video you linked is about?

If so, I'm not as certain that there is no plane in those photographs as you are. But so what? I've also never claimed that there is a plane in them.

Are you fucking serious? The title of the video sequence is PENTAGON VIDEO ANALYSIS, they are VIDEOS(TWO of them) shot at 1 fps. This makes it a VIDEO shot at 1 fps, not "time lapse photography". I'm really beginning to wonder if you really did watch it, all of this is clearly addressed in the video.

So what? Lemme shoot it to you like this...If I was charged with robbing a bank...and the security video shows me NOWHERE in the video robbing said teller at said bank, are you suggesting this would not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I didn't rob the bank?

There you go again, saying "videos." The video you posted doesn't say anything about videos. It's about time lapse photographs, with a lapse of 1 second between each picture.

Actually, it does, it talks of TWO SEPARATE videos, what the fuck else would they be comparing it to???

Where do you get the idea that there should have been a plane in any of those pictures?

I dunno, maybe from the fact the gov TOLD us that's what was in the videos? That this video was presented as EVIDENCE and PROOF Flight 77 went into the Pentagon? Clearly, you did not watch the video.

If the video really were to present proof beyond reasonable doubt that no plane hit the Pentagon, and if it were to do that by showing that there were no plane in a picture that it should have been in, then it would first have to prove that the plane should have been in that picture. Since it does not present that proof that any of the photographs ought to have had planes in them, it is invalid to claim that it proves that no plane hit the Pentagon.

What? The whole premise of these videos being released in the first place was so the gov could "prove" Flight 77 hit the building. You're not even making sense at this point, just stop, really.

 

[donnay]

Either they financed actual hijackers, or there were no hijackers, how do you finance virtual or alleged hijackers? You pay them or somebody to say there were hijackers?

Read Operation Northwoods

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf

 

[erowe1]

I dunno, maybe from the fact the gov TOLD us that's what was in the videos?

I don't know either. Did the government tell us that? The video you linked doesn't mention that. But if so, then so what? Let's say the government said, "This here is a tail of Flight 77." And then let's say that the video you linked proved that what the government said was the tail really couldn't have been that. Then what? Even if the video you gave successfully proves that much, then all that proves is that the government was wrong about claiming that whatever that thing was was the tail of Flight 77. How do you get from that to saying that it proved beyond reasonable doubt that no plane hit the Pentagon?

 

[erowe1]

The whole premise of these videos being released in the first place was so the gov could "prove" Flight 77 hit the building.

Says who?

 

[TheGrinch]

You claim to be a truther? Do you have a story you want to share? Do you have a series of events of which you'd be willing to put to a test?



So they were paid to learn to fly, then sent on the plane and killed by somebody else? So somebody with an agenda financed hijackers and didn't actually use them in hijacking?



If they hijacked planes and flew them into buildings, that negates any claims the hijackers were still alive, didn't exist, or planes were never hijacked (and instead remote controlled).



You make claims, then we question.

Yes I am a truther, as in I don't think we've been told anywhere close to the truth of what really happened that day, there are an abundance of reasons why it couldn't have gone down how they said it did, but conspiracy theorist not so much. However, neither are the vast majority of truthers who just want answers. Afterall it is the official story making these outrageous claims. Just because some people like the Loose Changers want to act like they have it all figured out (which they can't, when there are still simply too many unkowns that we can't know, when all of this information remains private), does not mean you can just dismiss the questions, discrepencies and outright lies that msot truthers question.

Back on topic, I think this is just one more piece that shows that the 9/11 plot goes much deeper than the fairy-tale we've been told. I don't have to have all the answers to see that.

 

[coastie]

My first problem with the way the video presented the evidence of those two frames is that, from the very first time it showed the one picture, it described a certain very nondescript triangular shape in it as the tail of a plane. But it didn't look like the tail of a plane to me. It would be better to say just that there's this shape here, and we don't know what it is. But the rest of the video's argument depends on the claim that the shape is supposed to be a tail of a plane, such that if it the claim that it's the tail of a plane turns out not to be corroborated by the evidence of the photos from the other camera, then it must have been doctored.

The video isn't making the claim the tail is in the frame...it's calling into question the government's claim that was the tail of the plane. I don't know how you can't see this, without willfully ignoring it.

And then similarly, the other shape in that same picture is called the exhaust from the plane, and then when the picture from the other camera gets mentioned, there's this shape that gets called the nose of the plane. And then at the end when they argue that this exhaust and nose are really the same thing, it's supposed to be some kind of evidence of something, when the truth is, I can't tell what either of those shapes are in either picture in the first place, and I don't see how the narrator can either. The whole aspect of identifying all these things just stacks the deck for showing that they're not what the video first suggested they were. Well, so why suggest that's what they were from the beginning? Answer, so that you can get to that conclusion where you say that they're not those things, and then jump to the conclusion that the only other explanation is that the pictures were doctored.

Again...the video refers to these pieces of the plane because that's what the government claimed they were, not the narrator in the video.

 

[erowe1]

Lemme shoot it to you like this...If I was charged with robbing a bank...and the security video shows me NOWHERE in the video robbing said teller at said bank, are you suggesting this would not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I didn't rob the bank?

That's correct. A video like that could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that you did not rob the bank.

 

[erowe1]

The video isn't making the claim the tail is in the frame...it's calling into question the government's claim

That's not what you said that I took issue with.

What you said was that it proved that no plane hit the Pentagon.

What we're left with here are these two photographs that have things in them that we can't identify. We have been given no reason to believe that there ought to be a plane in either of these pictures, such that the absence of a plane from the pictures proves that no plane hit the Pentagon.

If all you really meant to say was that there exists this evidence that does not, by itself, prove that a plane hit the Pentagon, then, sure, that much is true. But there's a big difference between saying that and saying that this evidence is proof that no plane hit the Pentagon.

 

[PRB]

That's correct. A video like that could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that you did not rob the bank.

guilty until proven innocent, why should either side get benefit of doubt?