GDPR and DSGVO law

Storing Cookies (See : http://ec.europa.eu/ipg/basics/legal/cookies/index_en.htm ) help us to bring you our services at overunity.com . If you use this website and our services you declare yourself okay with using cookies .More Infos here:
https://overunity.com/5553/privacy-policy/
If you do not agree with storing cookies, please LEAVE this website now. From the 25th of May 2018, every existing user has to accept the GDPR agreement at first login. If a user is unwilling to accept the GDPR, he should email us and request to erase his account. Many thanks for your understanding.
Amazon Warehouse Deals ! Now even more Deep Discounts ! Check out these great prices on slightly used or just opened once only items.I always buy my gadgets via these great Warehouse deals ! Highly recommended ! Many thanks for supporting OverUnity.com this way.

User Menu

DC2DC converter

Micro JouleThief

FireMatch

FireMatch

CCKnife

CCKnife

CCTool

CCTool

Magpi Magazine

Magpi Magazine Free Rasberry Pi Magazine

Battery Recondition

Battery Recondition

Arduino

Ultracaps

YT Subscribe

Gravity Machines

Tesla-Ebook

Magnet Secrets

Lindemann Video

Navigation

Products

Products

WaterMotor kit

Statistics

  • *Total Members: 82446
  • *Latest: teslawiz

  • *Total Posts: 496617
  • *Total Topics: 14699
  • *Online Today: 44
  • *Most Online: 103
(December 19, 2006, 11:27:19 PM)
  • *Users: 6
  • *Guests: 22
  • *Total: 28

Author Topic: Confessions of khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Oklahoma City, PanAm 800 and American 587  (Read 33585 times)

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
@MarkE,

Whether Bill Clinton made that remark or not;
Stop right there.  If you are going to chastise someone for something that they said or did, then get yourself on solid ground, or discredit yourself by making unsubstantiable claims.
Quote
The bottom line on the 9/11 attacks is that the ground level hole punched through the Pentagon wall that day, the one the government falsely maintains was made by a commercial aircraft, was physically unachievable. I can assure everyone, as a highly trained military pilot, that it's completely impossible to fly any kind airplane that close to the ground at cruise speed due to "Ground Effect" cushioning. The aircraft would need to be traveling at landing speed to get that close to the ground. That explosion was either caused by a missile or a bomb planted inside the building. The Government supplied us with a "Surveillance Video", with the airplane missing!
Your opinion is opposed by other "highly trained military pilots".  I've watched the videos I could find and it sure looks like an aircraft zipped by in a few frames.
Quote

Former President Clinton was barred from practicing law before the Supreme Court because he was found guilty of committing an act of perjury while under oath.
He lost his law license in Arkansas, which banned him from practicing any law.  He was eligible to reapply in 2006.  I never checked to see if he did.  I would just prefer that the Clintons quietly leave the stage as I find them both infuriating examples of lawyers at their worst.
Quote
He maintains that terrorists piloted an aircraft into the Pentagon on 9/11, 2001. This story line, that Bill Clinton is trying to help hoodwink the public with, is an outrageous falsehood and just one in a long line of cover up stories designed to foist a costly policy of "Global Domination", "Domestic Surveillance", and "Militarization" of the Municipal Police on the American people with.
The evidence that I have reviewed makes the physical description of an airliner crashing into the Pentagon plausible.  Clinton has told a lot of whoppers, but that story has yet to be disproven.  If you want to be really, really angry at Clinton for something he indisputably did:  He signed repeal of Glass Steagall into law.  To the best of my knowledge he hasn't lifted a finger to try and undo that wretched act.  He's spent too much time taking soft bribes in the form of highly inflated speaking fees.  Like I said he and his wife represent the worst behavior of lawyers.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy


Offline synchro1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3234
Stop right there.  If you are going to chastise someone for something that they said or did, then get yourself on solid ground, or discredit yourself by making unsubstantiable claims.Your opinion is opposed by other "highly trained military pilots".  I've watched the videos I could find and it sure looks like an aircraft zipped by in a few frames.He lost his law license in Arkansas, which banned him from practicing any law.  He was eligible to reapply in 2006.  I never checked to see if he did.  I would just prefer that the Clintons quietly leave the stage as I find them both infuriating examples of lawyers at their worst.The evidence that I have reviewed makes the physical description of an airliner crashing into the Pentagon plausible.  Clinton has told a lot of whoppers, but that story has yet to be disproven.  If you want to be really, really angry at Clinton for something he indisputably did:  He signed repeal of Glass Steagall into law.  To the best of my knowledge he hasn't lifted a finger to try and undo that wretched act.  He's spent too much time taking soft bribes in the form of highly inflated speaking fees.  Like I said he and his wife represent the worst behavior of lawyers.

@MarkE,

So, Sir Issac Newton gets a failing grade because the entire aircraft was completely swallowed up by a structure many times the planes strength, and no plane wreckage hurled backwards onto the lawn nor found inside the Pentagon? No "Landing Gear" no "Tourister Luggage"? At 60 frames per second at least half the Aircraft should appear in the Surveillance Video at the reported air speed. The aircraft was too large for a slick "Zip By" Bub!

I can't find a recording of Clinton making that remark, but I remember it, so I'm unwilling to come forward with any kind of retraction.

Offline synchro1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3234
Here's an excellent video on the 9/11 attack on the Pentagon entitled "Behind the Smoke Curtain" by Barbara Honegger:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fvJ8nFa5Qk

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
@MarkE,

So, Sir Issac Newton gets a failing grade because the entire aircraft was completely swallowed up by a structure many times the planes strength, and no plane wreckage hurled backwards onto the lawn nor found inside the Pentagon? No "Landing Gear" no "Tourister Luggage"? At 60 frames per second at least half the Aircraft should appear in the Surveillance Video at the reported air speed. The aircraft was too large for a slick "Zip By" Bub!
Sir Isaac would disagree with you.  He knew that if you could throw a big enough spitball fast enough you could topple any structure.  Recoil occurs in elastic collisions.  Something that goes fast enough to overcome the plastic limits of what it impacts doesn't recoil.  The surviellance camera caught the plane going by.  For every 100mph something goes, it travels 135 feet per second.  Surveillance cameras run frame rates anywhere from 1fps to 30fps.  That is done to save storage requirements.  Basically, you rely on a bunch of unproven or worse disproven assumptions to arrive at a conclusion that is at odds with the available evidence.
Quote

I can't find a recording of Clinton making that remark, but I remember it, so I'm unwilling to come forward with any kind of retraction.
It is to your disadvantage to do so.  Personal credibility suffers when one cannot back up a claim, especially an extraordinary claim with evidence. 

Offline synchro1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3234
@MarkE,

Please watch the video "Behind the Smoke Curtain" I posted a link to above by Barbara Honegger. I bet you didn't know there were two explosion events at the Pentagon on 9/11, five minutes apart. The first behind the Helicopter Pad caused by what witnesses described as a small commuter jet painted to look like an airliner. I would very much like you to comment on the facts outlined in Barbara's video. Barbara did an excellent job. Please view it, and I'll look forward to your comments. 

By the way, the "Clinton Foundation" just got hit with a massive racketeering (RICO) complaint out of Florida.           

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline synchro1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3234
@MarkE,

Here's another "Surveillance Video" of the Pentagon attack, released as the result of a lawsuit, showing no airplane:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5SeMtoUsXY

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
@MarkE,

Here's another "Surveillance Video" of the Pentagon attack, released as the result of a lawsuit, showing no airplane:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5SeMtoUsXY
It doesn't show much of anything.  Typical of many surveillance cameras, the frame rate and resolution are both very low.  Given that other footage caught what looks like a plane I don't see how this footage gives rise to controversy.

Free Energy | searching for free energy and discussing free energy

Sponsored links:




Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
@MarkE,

Please watch the video "Behind the Smoke Curtain" I posted a link to above by Barbara Honegger. I bet you didn't know there were two explosion events at the Pentagon on 9/11, five minutes apart. The first behind the Helicopter Pad caused by what witnesses described as a small commuter jet painted to look like an airliner. I would very much like you to comment on the facts outlined in Barbara's video. Barbara did an excellent job. Please view it, and I'll look forward to your comments. 

By the way, the "Clinton Foundation" just got hit with a massive racketeering (RICO) complaint out of Florida.           
Clinton is complicit in many things but I have not seen evidence of complicity in 9/11. Under Clinton one of his major campaign contributors:  Loral Space Systems sold all kinds of advanced ICBM guidance technology to China "for civilian use".  The whole den of thieves should have been tried and imprisoned for their treason.  That said:  The run up to 9/11 and the aftermath of 9/11 was brought to us by the Neocons.  Clinton's passing contribution was keeping US bases in Saudi Arabia against Bush 41's promise to withdraw once Sadam was quelled.

A RICO complaint in FL makes no sense.  NY, or DC make sense.  FL just sounds like political opportunism much like the whole shameful Starr investigation. 

Offline synchro1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3234
Here's yet another example of Bill Clinton's cover up strategy:

"Bill Clinton's own FBI director, Louis Freeh, wrote about how Clinton let down the American people and the families of American victims of the Khobar Towers terrorist attack in Saudi Arabia during the Clinton administration. After promising to capture the Islamic terrorists responsible for the bombing at Khobar Towers -- a bombing that killed 19 and injured hundreds -- Freeh said that Clinton refused to telephone Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah to urge him to allow the FBI to question bombing suspects the kingdom had in their custody".

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
@MarkE,

Here's another "Surveillance Video" of the Pentagon attack, released as the result of a lawsuit, showing no airplane:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5SeMtoUsXY
I slogged through it.  She engages in a LOT of circular argument.  She relies on the discredited Steven Jones nanothermite BS.  She fails basic math.  She alleges some thngs that are completely wrong such as that the wings of a 757 align to the bottom of the fuselage.  She relies very heavily on her personal speculations of things like evidence for thermite.  Her best evidence is the time disparity between 9:32 and 9:37, and the debris that fell into a woman's car.  She pounds away at her conclusions that explosions were bombs over and over again.  I was not impressed.

Offline synchro1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3234
I slogged through two hours of it.  She engages in a LOT of circular argument.  She relies on the discredited Steven Jones nanothermite BS.  She fails basic math.  She alleges some thngs that are completely wrong such as that the wings of a 757 align to the bottom of the fuselage.  She relies very heavily on her personal speculations of things like evidence for thermite.  Her best evidence is the time disparity between 9:32 and 9:37, and the debris that fell into a woman's car.  She pounds away at her conclusions that explosions were bombs over and over again.  I was not impressed.

@MarkE,

The top picture shows the size of a 757 next to the Pentagon. The bottom one the hole it allegedly left. The pillar posts on ether side of the hole in the bottom picture are the same distance apart as the ones in the top picture. Here's leaked footage of a missile hitting the Pentagon 10 years after and more size comparisons:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRPWLqc5T20

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
The picture on the bottom looks like one she presented of an opening that was in the C ring facing towards the center of the Pentagon.

Here's the deal:  If someone is going to make a claim, such as explosions were the result of planted bombs, then I want to see their evidence that: a) The explosions were from bombs, and b) evidence that those bombs were planted.  In three hours the best she did was replay a testimonial by witness who said they did not smell aircraft fuel.  I call that way insufficient.  Ditto things like her claims that outward blast forces meant that there were planted bombs.  Outward explosive force happens when a lot of material oxidizes in a hurry.  When it consumes oxygen in the process, there is a subsequent pressure drop that sucks back inward.  She simply declared that the signs of outward explosive force meant that there were bombs in the buildings.  She victimized herself with her own circular reasoning.

Offline synchro1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3234
The picture on the bottom looks like one she presented of an opening that was in the C ring facing towards the center of the Pentagon.

Here's the deal:  If someone is going to make a claim, such as explosions were the result of planted bombs, then I want to see their evidence that: a) The explosions were from bombs, and b) evidence that those bombs were planted.  In three hours the best she did was replay a testimonial by witness who said they did not smell aircraft fuel.  I call that way insufficient.  Ditto things like her claims that outward blast forces meant that there were planted bombs.  Outward explosive force happens when a lot of material oxidizes in a hurry.  When it consumes oxygen in the process, there is a subsequent pressure drop that sucks back inward.  She simply declared that the signs of outward explosive force meant that there were bombs in the buildings.  She victimized herself with her own circular reasoning.

@MarkE,

She makes a pretty solid case from video footage, that there were two nearly simultaneous explosive events. The first one was in the accounting offices behind the fire station and involved a commuter jet shot down by a helicopter followed by a bomb explosion. There was a black female eyewitness who survived that blast and described what she believed to be a bomb blast coming from inside the building. This is the area where Barbara believes the nano-thermite was used and the protruding wreckage observed. That was a different event from the one that caused the hole and the roof collapse further to the south.

The wreckage that fell through the "Sun Roof" of the car matched missile fabricated hull material. She never reported that, she just drive home with it and photographed it. The small amount of wreckage debris collected at the Pentagon, including the one jet engine came from the shot down commuter jet not a 757.

Offline MarkE

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6830
@MarkE,

She makes a pretty solid case from video footage, that there were two nearly simultaneous explosive events. The first one was in the accounting offices behind the fire station and involved a commuter jet shot down by a helicopter followed by a bomb explosion. There was a black female eyewitness who survived that blast and described what she believed to be a bomb blast coming from inside the building. This is the area where Barbara believes the nano-thermite was used and the protruding wreckage observed. That was a different event from the one that caused the hole and the roof collapse further to the south.

The wreckage that fell through the "Sun Roof" of the car matched missile fabricated hull material. She never reported that, she just drive home with it and photographed it. The small amount of wreckage debris collected at the Pentagon, including the one jet engine came from the shot down commuter jet not a 757.
What she did was make a number of allegations.  That's fine, she has some ideas.  Then it is a matter of evaluating available evidence to see if the ideas hold water.  Mostly what she did was employ circular logic, emphasizing her conclusions and then framing what evidence she had in terms of her conclusions.  It is a tried and true debating technique.  It is not how to do science.  She is not a scientist, so I give her some allowance.  I did sit through all three hours.  I was not impressed.

I am not going to recount all three hours.  She alleges that a drone aircraft was badly dressed up to look like an airliner, was detonated by the helipad along with bombs in the building, and that FL 77 never impacted the building.  By the end of the presentation she went full on into an Israeli / neocon global oil domination conspiracy.  The neocon meglamania and the PNAC thousand year Reich idea called the NAC are real enough.  That the neocons siezed on 9/11 to advance their arm chair dominate the world ambitions is a matter of documented fact.   But when it came down to cases, 95% of what she presented was innuendo without much substance.  Some of the stuff at the end amounted to:  "The Jews did it!" which is a rather offensive thing to say without solid evidence.

I find it remarkable that people allege elaborate black ops on 9/11, a plan of great sophistication, but simulataneously make allegations that the perpetrators were bunglers who left these big clues for the conspiracy theorists to find out in the open.

There were evil people in our government and they did evil things.  There is good evidence that they intentionally left the proverbial door open.  But I have yet to see anyone come up with a smoking gun that shows that the Bush government executed 9/11.

Offline Red_Sunset

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 548
.......................................
...................
...........  But I have yet to see anyone come up with a smoking gun that shows that the Bush government executed 9/11.

Sure, it is all speculation !
What is of interest to observe how the Bush government was well prepared to make the most out of the event.
And what reflects back to the probability of being a controlling participant was the apparent  'blindness' to the event about to take place by the CIA & FBI.  Not many people believe that Osama could have pulled this off unaided. It was a project of mutual interest and with only one to take the blame
Sure, its all speculation
We can only speculate on what events that occurred were within the plan and on what occurred outside the plan
But of one thing I am fairly sure, there was a plan.

When it comes to a flying plane into the WTC,  it played over and over again. 
What would be the resistance not to show the Pentagon surveillance video's, I heard several view angles exist but were confiscated.   At the same time it is no problem to show video footage of the military operation to capture Osama. 
They could have confiscated /forbidden all footage of the plane attack on the WTC,  What judgement would have been used to show or not to show the pentagon attack ?
Red

 

OneLink