Can I get some Help? What is this from Let'sRoll911.com?

[seventhson]

Is this for real?

http://www.letsroll911.org/

If it is for real then I am scared shitless/

But does anyone have input on this?

Are these photos on the level.

I ALWAYS thought the explosion from plane #2 and tower two was WAY bigger than the crash in tower one, but never saw these pictures before.

This is scary.

Tell me it is bullshit.

Please.

Or tell me the truth.

anything


please


http://www.letsroll911.org/

[malachibk]

1. I freaked out too

But someone here told me (1) it's not true and (2) it's possibly a ruse by the repugs to make LIHOP/MIHOP people look crazy.

I've chosen to believe it's bullshit because it's too, too terrifying to be true.

[seventhson]

7. It seems that the OTHER site which was linked here

had an antiKerry message in it.

THIS site does not, so it seems more credible.

If the pictures are real is there any explanation for it?

anything on hoaxbusters or urban legend sites?

anyone know?

I am not too familiar with myth debunking sites as some of you can imagine.

[Ediacara]

14. It does too have an anti-Kerry message

Scroll down to the lower left. It's got the same skull and bones nonsense you're so fond of.

[bahrbearian]

27. Do you mean this.

2004 Presidential Election

Need other options besides
AWOL and FLIP-FLOP?



Alternative Candidates
(Not Skull and Bones)

Aaron Russo

Lyndon LaRouche

It's anti-chimp too..

[Ediacara]

37. Well, it's anti-Kerry and pro-LaRouche...

And buys into the Skull and BOnes bullshit that 7th is so fond of talking about, as if it were the key to all of the world's problems.

[Warpy]

23. Nah, don't believe it

That looks like a reflection off the main landing gear door. I can well believe the wrong button was hit by the nutbag at the controls, a less able pilot than Atta (who hit the first tower dead on, instead of in the corner and at an angle).

Deconstruct it like this: there was no reason to use a missile. The plane was the missile. The plane would have flown very strangely with a missile stuck to the bottom, and would have had trouble taking off with the missile there instead of deployed landing gear (think about it). The air traffic control tower and the crew on the ground who were loading baggage, refueling the plane, and guiding it off the terminal pad before takeoff didn't see any missiles anywhere, and you bet your bippy they would have and that they'd have talked by now. In order to fire the missile that close to the building, they'd have needed quite a computer system and a proximity sensor. Human beings would have been unable to do it, not with a plane traveling at 500 MPH.

I put this junk exactly with the "WTC was wired with explosives" rubbish, right into the lunatic comspriacy theory can.

[thebigidea]

2. it makes less sense than I do.

And that's saying something! I think.

[Ediacara]

3. I doubt it

The photos are very small very grainy television image captures. The (also very small and grainy) video that have shows nothing unusual in timing or objects, and definately doesn't show any sort of missile launch 1/3 of a second before the plane hit the building....

[seventhson]

5. Looks like a missile launch to me

or something like it.

[thebigidea]

6. so I guess the pilot hit the select and start button at the same time...

mere seconds before impact, for what - bonus points?

Its a goofy scenario out of a dumb video game.

[seventhson]

13. No - I personally believe

that the planes were flown remotely (not by the Saudis who took the cockpits and killed the pilots who were not skilled enough to execute this attack)and have thought from day one that it almost looked like a controlled demolition when the two buildings came down WITHIN MINUTES OF EACH OTHER, despite being subject to two totally different attacks.

Being sure that the building came down would be the motive if the plane and fuel alone was not enough to guarantee it.

Simple video technology is correct - especially if done remotely and timed to the instant of impact.

[Ediacara]

11. The flash that appears before the wings hit

Is the front end of the plane hitting the building.

Sorry 7th, but this is just absurd.

Occam's Razor, parsonomy, skepticism, and common sense insist that that's what you're seeing. You know how planes are shaped, you know that a plane hitting a building is going to go cockpit->wings->tail.

The video is under 1 inch tall, extremely grainy, and out of focus, and if have some magic way to get something more detailed out of it, then post it. But like I said, you know how an airplane is shaped, the flash before the impact of the wings is the cockpit.

[nostamj]

4. oh please!

missles and planes and controlled demolition at the WTC buildings

no plane at the Pentagon

blah blah blah

all of this (inc. Griffin's horrible "book") are designed to discredit legitimate 9/11 inquiry

which means, they're TERRIFIED by legitimate inquiry.

[malatesta1137]

12. WHAT legitimate inquiry?

Hitler fabricated the attack by Polish forces to justify the invasion. It's all documented.

Why are you guys so sure this was what it looked like on CNN?

[Ediacara]

15. Why are you guys so sure this was what it looked like on CNN?

Because I was watching it asshole!

[malatesta1137]

19. you also believed CNN when they reported

Bush won the election. How old are you, fool, 12?

[Ediacara]

22. Oh that's right

Millions of eye witnesses, and hundreds of television cameras were all tricked? There's really this one lone grainy video that's only available on the internet as a <1 inch tall feed without any real detail....

You should check these links out before you continue discussion:

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html
http://www.tk421.net/essays/simple.html
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/skepticism/

[malatesta1137]

24. Apparently not all cameras were tricked

as we can see on this site. Keep believing CNN and keep drinking their KoolAid.

They might very well be crazy, but I feel sorry for people who think "it can't be, I was watchinh CNN". Please.

[Ediacara]

25. TELL ME

WHAT in that video shows a missile? Where is it? Can you point it out, because I can't see ANYTHING odd about the video.

What in that less than one inch tall grainy jerky short video shows a missile? The flash is the cockpit hitting the building, not a missile. The odd shape under the wing is the bottom of the plane, it's squared under the wings and not cylindrical like the rest of the fusilage.

ON EDIT: See! Look right here: It's squared under the wings but round elsewhere:


And look at this, 747s have this too. Maybe it's a common design theme of Boeing jets... They must ALL have those "missile pods" LOL:


Where is the missle?

And again, WHY would you need to shoot a missile when you're loaded full of fuel and/or could just put a bomb on the plane?

[malatesta1137]

33. if you can't see

a streak of light leaving the plane before it hits the tower on that video, you are visually impaired. I am not saying it's a missile, but it's there.

Those towers were designed to withstand the impact of commercial planes. And most of the fuel burnt immediately in the explosion so the intensity of fire wouldn't cause the collapse either. OF BOTH BUILDINGS nonetheless.

Not to mention the fact that the FBI and the CIA were unable to track down the 19 hijackers for months before 9/11 but pictures of each one of them were available in less than 24 hours on national TV.

And why did Ashcroft stop flying commercial jets in July of 2001?

Let's not believe everything we see on CNN, people.

[Ediacara]

36. Well then I guess I'm visually impared

There is a flash of light that appears as the cockpit hits the building, but there is definately not a streak of light leaving the bottom og the plane and going into the building.

You know what that flash of light is? It's the front end of an airplane hitting a building at 500 mph.

Those towers are designed to withstand the impact of a 707 with an average amount of fuel, which is NOT the kind of planes that hit them is it?

How do you know most of the fuel burnt immediately in the explosion? Have you ever lit hundreds of gallons of kerosene on fire? How long do you think the blaze would last? I'm guessing hours to days. Plus, once the kerosene was on fire, there was other stuff in the building, including furniture, carpets, walls, etc that were on fire covered in super heated kerosene...

I'm not saying that there are not fishy things surrounding 9-11, there definately are. What I am saying however is that THERE WAS NO MISSILE LAUNCHED FROM ANY PLANE INTO THE BUILDING!

The "missile pod" is in fact the normal shape of an airplane fuselage, and the "launching missile" is in fact the cockpit impacting the building.

[malatesta1137]

40. you are certainly NOT

watching the video closely enough.

First you say there's no streak, then you say the streak "is the front end of an airplane hitting a building at 500 mph"

hmmm???

and 707 are larger planes than the ones on 9/11, for your info.

The official explanation given for the collapse of BOTH buildings as the fire caused by the planes crashing is just as phony as Fox reporting that Bush had won the election night 2000.

[Ediacara]

41. Whatever...

I said there was a flash, not a streak. Streak implies movement, flash implies none. If you think you can see a missile fly from the plane in the SINGLE FRAME of the GRAINY and very SMALL video image, then I've got a bridge to sell you.

In any case, I said flash because there was no movement, hence no streak.

In any case, read this NYT article which states that the building's architects DID NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FACT THAT THERE WOULD BE FUEL ON THE AIRPLANES.

And a 707 and 757 are roughly the same size (757 is longer, 707 is wider). The 707 is more massive because it has four engines not two. But like I said in the paragraph above, the architects didn't take into account the fact that their would be fuel in the planes.

You didn't give any comment on the missile pod though.... That's such a silly idea, I wouldn't talk about it if I were you either.

[Beam Me Up]

39. Tell me, DinoBoy, does the sun come up every morning?

It sure looks like it does, doesn't it?

Do pencils bend when you put them in a glass of water?

Now lets get serious. See my motto: Whoever controls your perception of reality, controls you. It is a very simple proposition: Whatever you believe to be true, you will act on as if it is true.

Do you believe that the events of 9/11 were precisely as the Bush administration and the corporate owned media has portrayed them to us? I suspect you do not. Probably, like most people, you are willing to entertain the possibility--at this point the certainty--that this administration has lied repeatedly about what they knew and when they knew it. The question is, are you willing to go further down the rabbit hole--are you willing to see how far down it truly goes?

The truth of the matter is that we do not know the truth of the matter. FOR THIS REASON it is important that we do not simply discount possibilities simply because they seem absurd. Most things you and I take for granted as a matter of course would have been "absurd" or "impossible" to people living in the mid 1800s. I have no idea whether a missile was fired by the jet that hit the second tower a fraction of a second before impact. There are reasons why this would be done: to very quickly burn off the insulation surrounding the steel infrastructure of the building, making it more vulnerable to heat stress (expansion/contraction) and ultimately catastrophic failure.

The question is, was this done? The owner of the web site in question is indicating that there is evidence that this did occur. All we need to do is look at the hi-res video originally taken of these events. So, that is where we are with this. Until we have access to that video and can slow it down and examine it more closely, we are left with only our suspicions. The point is, given the ENORMOUS political, economic and sociological implications of the events of 9/11, it is foolish to discount all the many "oddities" and "unanswered questions" that surround them out of hand. We need answers. Real answers. And one of the most DISTURBING questions of all is WHY we are not allowed to have them.

[seventhson]

42. very well put

thanks

[Ediacara]

46. Thank you for your thoughtful reply

I agree, there are definately some fishy things surrounding 9-11. I really don't know what to believe surrounding it, although the official story is not something I trust, I am not sure how much I trust the 9-11 conspiracy theorists either.

What I am trying to point out here is that this video, which is very small on my screen and extremely low resolution fails to show that a missile was launched out of the airplane prior to collision. There are several reasons to discount that idea:

1) Would people fail to notice a 757 with a missile strapped to it sitting on the tarmac and taking off from a commercial airport? Do you think an airplane so modified with literally thousands of eyes on it could be unnoticed?

2) The feature pointed out in the stills on that website as a "missile pod" is a structural feature common to all Boeing commercial jets. The squarish feature is where the landing gear go while the jet is in flight. You could possibly say, "well the missile was hiding in there" but then you'd be stuck with the question of, "where the hell did the wheels go?"

3) There is no streak of light in the movie (there is an unexplained "line" of light in the stills which is COMPLETELY ABSENT from the movie), although there is a flash (ie, non-moving) of light that happens at exactly the same time the cockpit starts disappearing. There is no other explanation for the flash other than airplane hitting building at 500 mph.

If the owner of that site actually has a high-res version of that movie, then why is not available? If that high-res version shows what he insists is there, then damnit, SHOW IT.

The movie he does have on the site DOES NOT show what says it shows concerning a streak of light, and misidentifies a feature that is on every single Boeing commercial jet. This video and the ideas surrounding it are BS as far as I'm concerned.

[Beam Me Up]

50. "conspiracy theorist" is a broad blanket

I agree, there are definately some fishy things surrounding 9-11. I really don't know what to believe surrounding it, although the official story is not something I trust, I am not sure how much I trust the 9-11 conspiracy theorists either.

It would be helpful if we could all learn to use language more precisely. (This is being said by someone who can't spell and essentially flunked out of English in highschool--but who nevertheless persisted to educate himself as an adult.)

The phrase "conspiracy theorist" is a broad blanket that has been thrown over groups and individuals (not to mention their interests) who range from the serious and sincere (albeit perhaps unprofessional) investigator, through the fantastic, gullible and delusional, to professional counter-intelligence agents engaged in sophisticated disinformation.

Obviously there is a need to develop an ability to discern between them. Add to this:
          • Even the most truthful reporter is never completely objective
          • A reporter can be honestly mistaken
          • Vital information is often classified or not readily available
          • It is conceivable that the investigator's sources for information may be distorted by someone intentionally trying to decive
. . . and so on.

Obviously trust is not something that can be given lightly.

I am as certain as I can be that just about everything we witnessed on 9/11 was the result of a very sophisticated covert operation. I do not know what did happen but I am convinced that just about everything we've been led to believe happened--or, more precisely, the reasons behind it happening--didn't.

This is my personal certainty, the "belief" that informs my perception of what is real. It stands in strong contrast to what most people believe is real and, therefore, from their point of view, my position on this matter is extreme, absurd and potentially delusional. I know that. I accept it. (When I was a little boy I once lamented to my mother that some people thought I was crazy, to which she replied reassuringly: "Oh, you're not crazy--you just see things that aren't there." :crazy: )

When pressed to defend this admittedly extreme position, I have to admit that I do not have any "smoking gun" proof. I will admit that I may be wrong, but my commitment to this "sense of certainty" is based on a kind of intuitive discernment that has been honed over 56 years of living. I went through the "Paranoid Shift" ( http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/011004Hasty/011004hasty.html ) many many years ago. Being gay--and seeing how that reality is not understood and is distorted by the society around me is part of the equation. Having used psychedelics and again seeing that the reality visible from within altered states is not at all understood and quite inaccurately represented by society is also part of the picture.

Perhaps I am suspicious by nature but I have been struck throughout my life how differently my perceptions of things are compared to how other people report seeing them. I chose "beam_me_up" as my handle not so much because I am a Traficant fan, but because of the profound sense of alienation I feel in relation to our society. I understand that social reality is a construct. That doesn't mean it isn't 'real'; only that it is real only to the extent we make it so. The line that divides the US from Canada has no actual existence except as an agreed upon boundary--in other words as a thought that is shared socially. Once you really understand that as a principal, you see things quite differently. For example, there is NO "President of the United States." What there is is an "office" or, more precisely, A SOCIAL ROLE that is played by one particular person. We speak as if the man "is" a "President"; but the man is only a man. The Presidency is merely an Office or a role he performs. The "meaning" this Office has for us is a part of the fabric of the social reality that we have constructed inside our own awareness of what "is".

We perceive ourselves and the world the way we do not because we have an objective epistemology but because we don't. Moreover, almost nothing in our education has led us to even begin to question precisely what an objective epistemology might be--or how we could possibly know if there were. Some take 'science' as a bulwark but even that is problematic because science studies matter and energy which, if they ARE properties of consciousness, are so on a level far more subtle than science has yet to measure. Others have come to the conclusion that no such objectivity is possible; but I question how they can possibly know THAT, given that this conclusion is based on an analysis of semantic and linguistic structures--i.e., conditioned thought which is the very fabric of the admittedly subjective social reality construct.

So far as your analysis of the video, I am as skeptical as you are. However, I will point out that you are assuming that the 757 that hit the building took off from a commercial airport. True, that's what we've been told and no doubt most everyone telling us this is not lying but reporting what they themselves believe to be true. But is it? "Whoever controls your perception of reality..."

One would think that if millions of people believe something IS true, then it must be true. As I intimated in a previous post, for thousands of years people saw the sun rise. Despite our best efforts, most of us still do. Of course to our pre-Capernican ancestors the sun that rose was a golden chariot driven by a Celestial God in a very nearby heaven under which Earth was seated quite centrally like the football field beneath the Astrodome. The Gods all had good seats. Understand, although one can assume that objectively our ancestors inhabited the same universe you and I do, experientially their social reality was quite different. Their sense of time, of identity, of place, of history, of 'what makes the world go round'--all this was very different. If you tried to inform them that their perception was wrong, that the Sun was not a God but an unimaginably enormous body of gasses residing millions of miles away radiating tons of energy every second while our earth is a tiny sphere orbiting around it--assuming you could find words in their language to do so at all--most would find your explanation quite incomprehensible. Some might argue--even acknowledging all you say is true about it being a body of irradiating gasses and so on--that there is no difference and you would have to explain how you KNOW the Sun is not ALSO a 'God'. Beyond semantics, to even begin to understand one another, you'd have to call into question what it is possible for you to know; and whether one can safely assume something isn't so simply because it isn't possible for you to know..

Witnesses saw and cameras recorded planes hitting the buildings. But where these plans came from, for that we rely upon--trust--the corporate media and various government agencies to tell us. We've been told that their transponders were off for quite some time and that their paths mapped by radar were not direct.

I wager that if you as a citizen inquire further regarding the physical evidence of this matter you will begin to discover something rather interesting: a) there is far less of it than one would hope clearly establishing the identity of the crafts and b) what there is of it is not easily accessible by a merely, however sincerely, curious citizen. Moreover, I'll wager that you'll notice that this is an overall pattern in regards to the whole 9/11 scenario. Witnesses there are, but physical evidence that substantiates the reported explanation of the events is scarce.

Besides, we all already know what happened; just like we know the sun will rise in the morning.

Edit: clarity

[Jackpine Radical]

30. You really don't need a missile

to get to MIHOP. Wouldn't somebody have noticed a large passenger aircraft taking off and flying around with some kinda missile launcher/missile strapped to it?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

38. ?

>Hitler fabricated the attack by Polish forces to justify the invasion.

Umm... Then wouldn't Bush have made it look like Iraq or Iran did it, rather than the Saudis?

[Mr_Lefty]

8. I would believe static discharge first

I know airplanes and helicopter do build up a charge by moving through air. In the Navy they used to have a hook on a cable that was used to discharge static electricity when a helo would lower a person to the deck without landing- they would touch the cable before the person touched the deck of the ship. The plane may have discharge because it was so close to the building just before impact.

I know this is far fetched- but I'd believe that before some huge conspiracy.

[ramblin_dave]

9. Most likely a fake video

no one has been able to confirm this.

See this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=9779&mesg_id=9779

and this one:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x11753

[seventhson]

43. No one has been able to debunk it either

and given the circumstances and my own belief in mihop - this photo, unless someone can show it is a fake or an anomily of the photo, is very compelling.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

48. I think you need to try to think logically about this theory...

...if true, why wasn't the so-called "missile pod" noticed by any of the ground crew or the pilot making his routine pre-flight physical check of the aircraft? Don't you think the pilot would have been more than a little concerned about finding such a "pod"??

Or, are you trying to say that the aircraft that hit the WTC was somehow substituted in mid-air for the REAL airliner? If so, what happened to the real airliner, crew, and passengers?

By the way, the burden of proof is on YOU to prove that what is presented in the pictures is actually true. Have fun.

Get real, or seek professional help.

[Ediacara]

49. the missile pod

Is on every Boeing commercial aircraft. It's the wheel compartment...

[teach1st]

10. The problem is...

..a missle launched from pods that size bring up too many more questions. A plane equipped so couldn't take off unnoticed from a major airport. They would have had to switch planes somewhere. What happened to the passengers? Did they switch planes too? What about the cell phone callas to loved ones. Missle believers have replies to these questions. But their scenerio involves so many people to make it happen that secrecy would be very difficult to maintain.

[Ediacara]

17. PLUS

1) Where is the exhaust from the missile?

2) Why not just have a bomb in the plane?

[JPJones]

16. There's a headlight on the front of airplanes

and the "pod" is probably a shadow from the right engine.

It makes zero sense to fire a missle 1/3 of a second before hitting a building at 500 mph when the plane is loaded with thousdands of pounds of kerosene (Jet A).

[uncle ray]

45. yup, i've mentioned the headlight thing myself...

much more logical.

just like this explanation of the "streak" of light: the plane was banking hard to the left just before it hit the building, with the sun off to the right of the plane and the buildings from the cameras perspective, the streak is the reflection of the sun off the planes fuselage, it appears to move to the front of the plane, because of the turn. you might have to remember some high school geometry to get scientific about it.

9/11 was a simple plan. that was the beauty of it. but we LET it happen.

[charlie]

18. Why launch it?

If you want the extra oomph from missiles, they'll blow on impact, no? It's a crock.

[Career Prole]

20. I clicked on the link and all I got was

403 Verbotten
You are Forbidden access to these documents.
:shrug:

[seventhson]

44. wow WTF?

me too

who did that - the link was working before?

[sleipnir]

21. So Bullshit, it's just silly...

Who do you know in our world who refers to "Denny" Hastert?? NO ONE! That's not a liberal nickname, just a bunch of freepers trying way too hard.

As silly as that point might sound, that website/group has lots of those little things that just don't add up. It's just a freeper site which is designed to malign the MIHOP/LIHOP movement.

[Minstrel Boy]

26. MIHOPer here, very suspicious of letsroll.

I think there's another agenda here.

We're getting close on 9/11, and some powerful figures are sweating more than they'd anticipated. What would you do, if you were them? I'd queue the discrediting red herrings to waste our energies, divide us, and make us appear foolish and gullible.

In recent days, 9/11 skeptics ought to be digging into the Sibel Edmonds story, or the recent admission of the destruction of the air traffic controllers' tapes made the afternoon of 9/11.

I've seen a new poster appear this week, whose only contribution is to post off-topic links to letsroll. Why?

I don't mean to sound paranoid, but such are the times. And it can be an indication that we're on the right track, when a great effort is made to get us onto another.

[charlie]

28. You oughta be

We just had the daylights spammed out of us with entreaties to visit the site from this character:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=143895

[Minstrel Boy]

29. that's the guy.

Glad to see the end of him. His spamming struck me as disingenuous.

IMHO, missile-and-pod is worse than bullshit. It's disinfo.

[Jackpine Radical]

31. Boy, am I with you on that one.

The only good thing about that site is that its very existence seems to indicate that somebody's getting scared and throwing out the Information Age equivalent of radar chaff.

[mike1963]

32. And we wonder why they call us liberals nuts........

jeesusfuckingchrist.
:grr:

[John_H]

34. Yesssssss!!!!! It's real!!! That plane was Skull and Bones at Yale!!!!!

[salin]

35. wow - the site pushes larouche (at least through an ad)

sometimes it helps me get a sense of a website by scrolling around to see the ads and links that are prominent...

[Media_Lies_Daily]

47. Sorry, but no, that is not even a loosely credible theory.