Well, anyone can see that this site is pretty dead these days and the OU ain't here.

Aside from the occasional remark there is little to be gained.  Everyone is submerged in their own world of self-satisfying-BS.

You can define the requirements for OU on every thread of this site and no one will understand it.   They don't want to.  They would rather drown in the drama than swim to the OU shore - which takes effort.

What sick ridiculous puppets we are / and what gross little stage we dance on / What fun we have dancing and fucking / Not a care in the world / Not knowing that we are nothing / We are not what was intended.
What pathetic puppets we are.

Wanting people to listen, you can't just tap them on the shoulder anymore. You have to hit them with a sledgehammer, and then you'll notice you've got their strict attention.

Gobaga

Tao Te Ching is one of my favorites, thanks for posting that. I've also been a long time student of the I Ching. Much wisdom there too.

"those with the mentality of pigs and fishes are difficult to influence" 

I would probably add cats to that line.

Whatever hit the towers, it was not what we were told. Watch the september clues series and find for yourself.

Exactly what hit the towers in your opinion? 

EVery single image that was taken that day was forged, and the live shots are laughable. They pulled it off just because we were too stunned to see further the first layer that we were being fed that day.

So all the live television shots, amateur photographs, and eyewitness accounts of 767's hitting the towers were faked?  Did anything actually hit the towers then?  If so, did these missiles/holograms/whatever at least look like 767's?  If not, it's pretty amazing that "they" were able to pull off such a hoax in the middle of one of the most densely populated areas in the world with no one noticing.

Exactly what hit the towers in your opinion? 

Your guess is as good as mine. IMHO it was a missile disguised as a scale model plane, hence the witnesess seing a small plane. And there were a lot of planes flying around, so people did see planes that day.

So all the live television shots, amateur photographs, and eyewitness accounts of 767's hitting the towers were faked?  Did anything actually hit the towers then?  If so, did these missiles/holograms/whatever at least look like 767's?  If not, it's pretty amazing that "they" were able to pull off such a hoax in the middle of one of the most densely populated areas in the world with no one noticing.

Yes, exactly. They all come from people that were in one way or other involved in the filmimg industry, some of them even were then and remain now expert digital imagers. The shots that were cast by many channel news are traceable to a single individual who touts himself af being capable of create "digital image illusions that can outrage people".

The famous Naudet brothers footage of the first strike only shows a blurry thing striking the towers, and of course if you are told it is a plane, and don't see it for yourself, you are going to believe them, because they are telling it on the TV, aren't they, right? But look at the clip and tell me if you see a plane, honestly. And the square by square painting of a line of damage beyond the initial explosion, that is only seen on that clip, and does not match any other footage (hint: If you are going to make fakes, at least try to make all of them match each other).

The second hit as filmed by the Naudet brothers is also so full of glitches, as the miracolous reflexion on a car window that simply is optically impossible, and the road runner physics of a plane "dissapearing" into the tower as if the tower was thin air.

Many of the sounds of both the so called  "amateur" footage and the news footage are studio quality samples, even of musical instruments, mixed together, and a woman's scream appears in at two of them, in different moments of course, but curiously, when isolated and played together, match exactly, bit by bit.

Now, about the "live shots", please don't get me started on that, the most infamous blooper of all ages is the embarassing "nosing out" the other side of the tower, exposing the blatant digitally imposed shadow of a plane, that was poorly attempted to be covered with tha manual fade to black.

See it for yourself man, there is plenty of glitches in the videos, as the position changing buildings, the walking background bridge, etc. etc. Of course nothing was detected the very day because we were all sinking in the death of 3000+ souls so we were all with the guard down. But the forensic analysis of the images is conclusive: All fake.

Well, actually they gave theselves 17 seconds of advantage. They kept this time delay between the real events and the "live shots" broadcast. Enough to make the digital fakery while transmiting "live" but not enough to correct a mistake.

Watch the september clues series parts A to H. I burned them on highest quality on a DVD and watched them on a good tv. It speaks for itself.

But don't take my word for it, wacth it yourself and then check with the footage at www.archive.org. There is all the proof needed, once you accept that a thing may look like something, and still be a complete different thing.

I think the whole 9-11 thing was horse-shit.

Something definitely smell fishy about the fact that both towers were reduced to rubble. It might have been more believable, if there was only partial collapse of either one of the buildings.

Hi Grumpy,

I totally agree with you. In my fourteen years on the internet and countless forums I have belonged to this one has some the most rude members ever.  The "requirement" to be polite goes back to the very best tradition in science, where it used to be assumed that honest, intelligent, well-meaning experimenters could hold unique, and divergent opinions and interpretations regarding the same, observed phenomena. No one was assumed to be "wrong" or "bad" because they held a differing opinion. It created an environment for lively debate and in-depth investigation. The only requirements for this environment to flourish were intelligence and civility.

This is a PUBLIC FORUM. Anyone in the world can view it. It would be SOCIALLY IRRESPONSIBLE to leave posts that disparage a person's character in such a forum. NO ONE has the right to turn this forum into a billboard for their rude and uncivil behavior.

All anyone wants is hard facts or proof with out a doubt, not rummors. All I want is the hard facts and to this date there are none just rummors and I was attacked for it just as you have been over the years. It's sad when a web site gets hijacked as this one has and the site moderator is no where to be seen.

Best Regards,
Fuzzy

After his initial outbursts, it's nice to see that feline is developing manners.

 He complains on this thread of everyone's rudeness to him, but go back and check his initial posts ( for his real rudeness display on this thread) to see how far he has now come.

honest, intelligent, well-meaning experimenters could hold unique, and divergent opinions and interpretations regarding the same, observed phenomena. No one was assumed to be "wrong" or "bad" because they held a differing opinion.

I'm sorry, Mr. cat but you didn't have that beneficent attitude in your initial posts, especially the picture you posted (reply #8), citing anyone with an opinion other than yours as having their head up their ass.

Not so fast maiteee!!!

There are some slight problems with your idea:

First, according to many aeronautical experts, including the famous son of the founder of Lear Jet, the alleged speed at which the craft would have hit the towers, is impossible at that altitude, because simply the fans of the motors are not designed to intake that much dense air, so they would choke and the plane fall and being uncontrollable. So, there goes the idea of using real planes.

Second, whatever caused the explosion at the collisions, was not only the possible colliding object, but there were also pre planted charges to cause the plane profile hole, which could not have cause by a real plane, as planes are basically a big alluminum can, and would not have been able to cut the hole they pretended us to believe, so, again, using real planes to cause the damage that was observed was not possible, and the cartoon like hole we saw was just another special FX to increase the drama.

In the Naudet shot of the first collision, a frame by frame analysis shows clearly how the "wing profile" is neatly caused by charges that explode after the initial hit of the "plane", which is IMHO even more embarassing to their poor fakery.

There are also some slight problems with your idea.  Mainly, that you are a complete moron.  But also the following.

Let me see if I get this straight.  So the buildings were rigged to explode, right?  Why not just explode the damn buildings, and just reduce the complexity of this wild ass plot by about 99%?  The terrorists in fact tried to blow up the buildings just a few years prior, so what a believable fake!  But no, they have to involve everyone and their mom in on this super secret and needlessly complex plot.