Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Cavalier22 on December 14, 2006, 05:16:04 AM
-
"The attack required impossible piloting." Some prominent 9/11 skeptics claim that the flight path of the jet that hit the Pentagon would have been humanly impossible in a 757, while others admit it might be possible for an expert pilot, but not for hijacker Hani Hanjour, the inexperienced pilot believed to have commandeered Flight 77.
In Painful Questions: An Analysis of the September 11th Attack, Eric Hufschmid says: "I would say it is absurd to believe an inexperienced pilot could fly such a plane a few millimeters above the ground. The flight path of this plane is enough to convince me that no human was in control of it. I think only a computer is capable of flying an airplane in such a tricky manner. If terrorists flew the plane, they would qualify as the World's Greatest Pilots since they did tricks with a commercial aircraft that I doubt the best Air Force pilots could do."
Ralph Omholt's "skydrifter" website claims: "No pilot will claim to be able to hit such a spot as the Pentagon base ? under any conditions ? in a 757 doing 300 knots. As to the clearly alleged amateur pilots: IMPOSSIBLE!"
"Impossible"? "No pilot will claim...?" Well, we did not have any difficulty finding pilots who disagreed. Ronald D. Bull, a retired United Airlines pilot, in Jupiter, Florida, told The New American, "It's not that difficult, and certainly not impossible," noting that it's much easier to crash intentionally into a target than to make a controlled landing. "If you're doing a suicide run, like these guys were doing, you'd just keep the nose down and push like the devil," says Capt. Bull, who flew 727s, 747s, 757s, and 767s for many years, internationally and domestically, including into the Washington, D.C., airports.
George Williams of Waxhaw, North Carolina, piloted 707s, 727s, DC-10s, and 747s for Northwest Airlines for 38 years. "I don't see any merit to those arguments whatsoever," Capt. Williams told us. "The Pentagon is a pretty big target and I'd say hitting it was a fairly easy thing to do."
According to 9/11 "investigator" Dick Eastman, whose wild theories are posted on the American Patriot Friends Network and many other Internet sites, Flight 77 was part of an elaborate deception in which a remote-controlled F-16 "killer jet" actually hit the Pentagon, while the 757 swooped over the Pentagon and landed at Reagan National Airport! "With its engines off," says Eastman, Flight 77 silently "coasted" in to the airport and blended in with other air traffic. "There would be few people to see Flight 77 come through, and those who did would doubtless assume that it was yet another routine flight over Reagan National," he claims.
"That's so far-fetched it's beyond ludicrous," says Capt. Williams. "I've flown into Reagan [National Airport] hundreds of times and you can't just sneak in and 'blend in' without air traffic controllers knowing about it and without other pilots and witnesses noticing."
Besides, as Capt. Ron Bull points out, the Eastman scenario would require piloting skills far beyond what it would take to hit the Pentagon. "I've flown into Reagan National many times and my first trip in a 757 was no picnic," he says. "I had to really work at it, and that was after 25 years of experience flying big jets. Any scenario that has the 757 [Flight 77] taking a flight path over the Pentagon and landing at National unobserved is proposing something that is far more difficult ? and far more difficult to believe ? than flying the plane into the Pentagon. It's just not credible."
General Partin, an Air Force Command Pilot, sums up the case for Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon: "The alternative explanations just get crazier and crazier. In addition to the physical evidence and the photographic evidence supporting the official story, there are literally hundreds of eyewitnesses ? including many people I know personally ? who saw the 757. Besides that, there are the light poles that were knocked down ? which I saw personally and which are in the photographic record ? that can't be accounted for by a missile or small jet wingspan. Then you have the Flight 77 victim remains and the black boxes. If you reject all of that, then you have to come up with an alternative explanation for what happened to Flight 77. I've seen the alternative explanations and they're absurd!"
But despite all the evidence to the contrary, let's suppose for a moment that Flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon. Why hijack the plane and then crash it into the Atlantic Ocean, or fly it into Reagan National Airport, or do whatever else was done with it to make it "disappear"? Why hijack the plane to make it appear that it was used against a target and then not use it against any target? Why plant the black boxes and human remains at the Pentagon site? Wouldn't it make more sense, and be much simpler, to actually use the plane against the Pentagon?
-
General Partin, an Air Force Command Pilot, sums up the case for Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon: "The alternative explanations just get crazier and crazier. In addition to the physical evidence and the photographic evidence supporting the official story, there are literally hundreds of eyewitnesses ? including many people I know personally ? who saw the 757. Besides that, there are the light poles that were knocked down ? which I saw personally and which are in the photographic record ? that can't be accounted for by a missile or small jet wingspan. Then you have the Flight 77 victim remains and the black boxes. If you reject all of that, then you have to come up with an alternative explanation for what happened to Flight 77. I've seen the alternative explanations and they're absurd!"
But despite all the evidence to the contrary, let's suppose for a moment that Flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon. Why hijack the plane and then crash it into the Atlantic Ocean, or fly it into Reagan National Airport, or do whatever else was done with it to make it "disappear"? Why hijack the plane to make it appear that it was used against a target and then not use it against any target? Why plant the black boxes and human remains at the Pentagon site? Wouldn't it make more sense, and be much simpler, to actually use the plane against the Pentagon?
Don't try and inject common sense into this thing. You'll only make the conspiracy nuts angry.
-
the photographic evidence shows a hole seeminly way to small for a 757
the debris is inconclusive and many of the eye witnesses were adamant about seeing something other than a 757 and smelling cordite
the part of the pentagon hit was empty except for construction workers, it was the only part reinforced for an attack (with thicker glass/walls etc)
but no, because your government says it was aRABS with box cutters it must have been ::)
-
::)
-
when investigating a crime you look for motive and means
compare 19 aRAB hijackers with your government
who had more motive and means ::)
-
when investigating a crime you look for motive and means
compare 19 aRAB hijackers with your government
who had more motive and means ::)
So by that mere logic then is was the government for sure? ;)
-
that would be a premature conclusion, much like saying 19 hijackers did it themselves :)
-
that would be a premature conclusion, much like saying 19 hijackers did it themselves :)
YEah, other than the fact that overwelming evidence shows 19 hijackers and others (terrorists) who have not been brought to justice that were part of it.
-
overwhelming evidence like the bbc saying 9 of the 19 hijackers are still alive and well...
keep in mind if the amreekan governmen was willing to kill 3000 of its citizens, lying to them about it probably wouldnt be an "issue" ;)
-
the photographic evidence shows a hole seeminly way to small for a 757
the debris is inconclusive and many of the eye witnesses were adamant about seeing something other than a 757 and smelling cordite
the part of the pentagon hit was empty except for construction workers, it was the only part reinforced for an attack (with thicker glass/walls etc)
but no, because your government says it was aRABS with box cutters it must have been ::)
You ignorant moron. It is one thing if you want to fantasize about your little conspiracy theories, but have some decency.
I went to a high school in Fairfax county which has a lot of kids who parents work in the military, and particularly in the Pentagon. Two twins in my government class lost their father (air force officer) in the attacks. Another kid who had since graduated but lived on my street and I used to play baseball with lost his father (marines officer) in the attack. This poor kid had gotten a DUI the friday beforee 9/11 and wasn't on good terms with his dad and then one morning he lost him forever.
I am not sure where you get this stuff from other than pulling out your ass, but get a fucking clue. I am sick of you guys.
-
overwhelming evidence like the bbc saying 9 of the 19 hijackers are still alive and well...
keep in mind if the amreekan governmen was willing to kill 3000 of its citizens, lying to them about it probably wouldnt be an "issue" ;)
Overwelming evidence is errant 1 newspaper article?
your reasoning is PRICELESS!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH AHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAH
I'm still laughing 5 minutes later!
-
its much easier to attack me than it is to attack my position ::)
unlike either of you i worked in broadcasting, i have experiece with the politics involved in getting even the most mundane new stories on air ... ask yourself why every major broadcaster refuses to play the clip of tower 7 falling ::)
ps that wasnt 5 minutes jerkoff ;)
-
You ignorant moron. It is one thing if you want to fantasize about your little conspiracy theories, but have some decency.
I went to a high school in Fairfax county which has a lot of kids who parents work in the military, and particularly in the Pentagon. Two twins in my government class lost their father (air force officer) in the attacks. Another kid who had since graduated but lived on my street and I used to play baseball with lost his father (marines officer) in the attack. This poor kid had gotten a DUI the friday beforee 9/11 and wasn't on good terms with his dad and then one morning he lost him forever.
I am not sure where you get this stuff from other than pulling out your ass, but get a fucking clue. I am sick of you guys.
your friend deserves the pain of a dead dad for driving drunk
do some research yourselves about who the majority of those killed in the pentagon were ;)
-
the part of the pentagon hit was empty except for construction workers, it was the only part reinforced for an attack (with thicker glass/walls etc)
do some research yourselves about who the majority of those killed in the pentagon were ;)
why would i do my own research when i already know for a fact you are full of shit, either lying or just regurgitating bullshit from CT sites.
first it was all construction workers-then it was the majority. okay man, keep em coming
-
ps that wasnt 5 minutes jerkoff ;)
I wrote that "still laughing" knowing full well i'd be laughing for over 5 minutes. I'm still smiling writing this.
Maybe the someone at teh BBC should write a story about ww2 never happening and then they could use that as overwelming evidence to rewrite all the history books in the world!
unlike either of you i worked in broadcasting, i have experiece with the politics involved in getting even the most mundane new stories on air ... ask yourself why every major broadcaster refuses to play the clip of tower 7 falling ::)
Yes, an your broadcasting experience makes you a competent investigator in the fields of Air defense, Structual engineering etc...
You've made a wonderful strong and air tight point here. that combined with the overwelming evidence of the BBC article you should call a press conference right now and set the record straight on 9/11!
-
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/victims/pentagon.victims.html
the majority of people killed were "civilian employees", i was told most of these were contractors however cnn doesnt get more specific
the point is they were (for the most part) not top brass ... and had it been any other section of the pentagon struck, you would have had several thousand killed as opposed to 125
pull your head out of your ass, your friends dads were off'd by their fellow service men hahahahahaha :)
-
I wrote that "still laughing" knowing full well i'd be laughing for over 5 minutes. I'm still smiling writing this.
Maybe the someone at teh BBC should write a story about ww2 never happening and then they could use that as overwelming evidence to rewrite all the history books in the world!
bbc = credible source not conspiracy theory website, thats the point dipshit ;)
Yes, an your broadcasting experience makes you a competent investigator in the fields of Air defense, Structual engineering etc...
You've made a wonderful strong and air tight point here. that combined with the overwelming evidence of the BBC article you should call a press conference right now and set the record straight on 9/11!
i specifically referenced my broadcasting background to newsroom politics, not structural failures or air traffic blunders
you are not very adept at debating an issue :)
-
pull your head out of your ass, your friends dads were off'd by their fellow service men hahahahahaha :)
Are you trying to make a joke here about friendly fire?
the "overwelming evidence" one was much funnier...... I'm starting to laugh about it again!
the majority of people killed were "civilian employees", i was told most of these were contractors however cnn doesnt get more specific
the point is they were (for the most part) not top brass ... and had it been any other section of the pentagon struck, you would have had several thousand killed as opposed to 125
Oh yeah, so by that same reasoning........Pearl Harbor must have been attacked with american planes from the 4 carriers that were out sea when the attack happened.
Why? you ask?
Becuase the "top brass weren't killed in the attack" instead a bunch of regular sailors were.
Good point Sandy.
Real good example of logicla deduction with the pentagon attack not resulting in the death of 1000's of generals.
BTW: My aunt worked in the pentagon then (and still does) and she tells it's was aliens who attacked it. :o
-
Are you trying to make a joke here about friendly fire?
the "overwelming evidence" one was much funnier...... I'm starting to laugh about it again!
actually i was making fun of the fact his friend is now fatherless to be a prick ::)
Oh yeah, so by that same reasoning........Pearl Harbor must have been attacked with american planes from the 4 carriers that were out sea when the attack happened.
Why? you ask?
Becuase the "top brass weren't killed in the attack" instead a bunch of regular sailors were.
Good point Sandy.
Real good example of logicla deduction with the pentagon attack not resulting in the death of 1000's of generals.
BTW: My aunt worked in the pentagon then (and still does) and she tells it's was aliens who attacked it. :o
funny you should mention pearl harbor, they moved all the new battle ships away before the attack came ;)
i never said anything was a smoking gun; its all just little pieces of a bigger puzzle
i never said a plane didnt hit the pentagon
i never said i know what happened, im just asking questions and have a blast watching not so intelligent people like yourself get all bent out of shape over them :)
-
-
bbc = credible source not conspiracy theory website, thats the point dipshit ;)
Do credible news agancies post stories that aren't true becuase they had mis information? YES. It happens all the time. Just like it did here. If those guys were sitll alive they be paraded around the world by Iran to make BUSH and the USA look like fools.
i specifically referenced my broadcasting background to newsroom politics, not structural failures or air traffic blunders
you are not very adept at debating an issue :)
Yeah and i specifically sited AT blunders and Structual engineers to show that broad casters know that they are not experts and showing the WTC7 on air is not news worthy ATM.
-
You ignorant moron. It is one thing if you want to fantasize about your little conspiracy theories, but have some decency.
I went to a high school in Fairfax county which has a lot of kids who parents work in the military, and particularly in the Pentagon. Two twins in my government class lost their father (air force officer) in the attacks. Another kid who had since graduated but lived on my street and I used to play baseball with lost his father (marines officer) in the attack. This poor kid had gotten a DUI the friday beforee 9/11 and wasn't on good terms with his dad and then one morning he lost him forever.
I am not sure where you get this stuff from other than pulling out your ass, but get a fucking clue. I am sick of you guys.
This is one of the primary reasons why this conspiracy crap is sick. It's really disrespectful to the victims' families.
-
Do credible news agancies post stories that aren't true becuase they had mis information? YES. It happens all the time. Just like it did here. If those guys were sitll alive they be paraded around the world by Iran to make BUSH and the USA look like fools.
once again, jumping to conclusions
the FBI identified 19 hijackers; the terrorists could have stolen their identies(many of the men named had reported having their papers stolen at some point) thus the BBC would not in fact be wrong
seeing as 14 of the men were saudis i doubt iran would be parading them around, but good on your for tying to think outside the box!
Yeah and i specifically sited AT blunders and Structual engineers to show that broad casters know that they are not experts and showing the WTC7 on air is not news worthy ATM.
lol, for the first time in history a steel framed building collapses due to fire alone and that isnt newsworthy ::)
heres a hint for you precious, structural engineers dont dictate what makes it on the news, a station manager/VP etc does ;)
-
once again, jumping to conclusions
the FBI identified 19 hijackers; the terrorists could have stolen their identies(many of the men named had reported having their papers stolen at some point) thus the BBC would not in fact be wrong
seeing as 14 of the men were saudis i doubt iran would be parading them around, but good on your for tying to think outside the box!
did i say the saudi's? NO. How many USA haters around the world would parade those guys around if they were alive? Mainly Iran ATM.
If there was some truth to that BBC story there would have been amny more stories about that very issue. BUT THERE WASN"T becuase it was unture.
You also said:
the terrorists could have stolen their identies
Yeah, thinking like this is the bases fo the CT'ers brainwashed belief system. Simply becuase something could have happened doesn't make all the other assertions true.
-
Yeah and i specifically sited AT blunders and Structual engineers to show that broad casters know that they are not experts and showing the WTC7 on air is not news worthy ATM.
WTF????
M O N S T E R copout answer from you guys who STILL cant adequately explain WTC7.
-
WTF????
M O N S T E R copout answer from you guys who STILL cant adequately explain WTC7.
Exactly!
Niether can you. I'm not and engineer and i don;t have ALL the facts or ALL the photos from every angle.
DO YOU?
However you and "the colalition of wanna be experts" have determeine based on your vast knowledge and expertise in the area of structural engineering and demolition that WTC7 HAD to be brought down by bombs as part of a massive plot by the BUSH admin!
Hey, no shit here. i'm not being sarcastic, honestly! I believe in aliens. seriously i do. I believe we've been visited. :)
-
-
BLAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH
You mean there are YOUTUBE vidoes with out all the:
BULL SHIT GRAPHICS AND DRAMA?
Ones that get right to the facts with people invovled?
OMG stop the presses!
Sandy, 240, John, WHERE ARE YOU GUYS? lost in another 9/11 CT fantasy web site?
-
i have no problems with that. imo it was almost certainly a plane that hit the pentagon. contrary to what u guys seem to believe, im not a total CT nutter, i only ask rational questions. heres what i think, that goes along with the mainstream:
-it was (almost certainly) a plane that hit the pentagon (cant say for sure however unless you were standing there when it happened)
-there were no 'missles' on the planes that hit the wtc
in fact, the only thing i have real questions about, that which should be getting alot more attention, is what happened with wtc7. and if that alone was shady, then it gives reason to suspect the whole event may be pretty shady.
heres what i think.
osama and his terrorist buddies did plan and execute this attack. i also believe that the dubya administration knew that it was coming, and not only let it happen, but took steps to make sure it was 'spectacular' and 'shocking'. by this i mean the wtc 1,2, and 7 were rigged with demolition explosives which led to their textbook collapse(osama and his buddies admitted the attack was successful beyond what they expected, they didnt expect the buildings to collapse completely. the reason for letting this happen and making sure it was so shocking was to foster a surge in nationalism and support of the people, who in their anger would not only allow incursions into the middle east but actually encourage them. all dubya had to do was point out that it was 'the muslims' who did it, then when everyone was frothing at the mouth for revenge, tell them that they was still a 'huge threat' from the 'terrorists over there' ect ect...therefore allowing us a free hand to invade and occupy the oil rich lands of the middle east so conveniently. this sort of thing is nothing new, governments have always used self-inflicted secret operations in order to create extreme nationalism and support and to create an 'enemy' who usually has something we want.
-
BLAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAH
You mean there are YOUTUBE vidoes with out all the:
BULL SHIT GRAPHICS AND DRAMA?
Ones that get right to the facts with people invovled?
OMG stop the presses!
Sandy, 240, John, WHERE ARE YOU GUYS? lost in another 9/11 CT fantasy web site?
lol. An eyewitness who saw the plane hit the Pentagon. He must be lying. Or controlled by the CIA. ::)
-
oh, an eyewitness saw it?
Shit, we don't need to see the 85 video clips they confiscated. This guy saw something.
Case closed!!!!!!!!!!!!
lol. Jedi mind tricks caused the reporters to lie. lol.
-
It was a cruise missel. lol. Okay. I gotta get some work done. I'm laughing too much. ;D
-
Go re-evaluate your portfolio. remember this - when the fed acts, you will suffer. if the rates drop, your home will lose a nice piece of its value. if the rate is risen, the devalued dollar will add 5 years to your working time. Enjoy your work this evening!
What's in my portfolio? How much is my home worth? lol. Stop it man. You're killing me. ;D
-
we're tlaking %s here. It will lose a percentage of assigned value as you and your planner estimate. please see the '240' thread up top for my thoughts if youre interested.
Translation: I'm pulling information out of my rear end AGAIN. Get the facts first, then draw a conclusion. Too bad you cannot take my class. I could help you man.
-
that last exchange was funny!
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
-
But 240, you have to respect the fact that the video didn't have gay ass graphics with lame music. lol
It was pretty straight forward
And he isn;t the only witness ;)
-
All lies.
-
Jimmy, when we want a Canadian's opinion on 9/11, we'll let you know. ::)
-
osama and his terrorist buddies did plan and execute this attack. i also believe that the dubya administration knew that it was coming, and not only let it happen, but took steps to make sure it was 'spectacular' and 'shocking'. by this i mean the wtc 1,2, and 7 were rigged with demolition explosives which led to their textbook collapse(osama and his buddies admitted the attack was successful beyond what they expected, they didnt expect the buildings to collapse completely. the reason for letting this happen and making sure it was so shocking was to foster a surge in nationalism and support of the people, who in their anger would not only allow incursions into the middle east but actually encourage them. all dubya had to do was point out that it was 'the muslims' who did it, then when everyone was frothing at the mouth for revenge, tell them that they was still a 'huge threat' from the 'terrorists over there' ect ect...therefore allowing us a free hand to invade and occupy the oil rich lands of the middle east so conveniently. this sort of thing is nothing new, governments have always used self-inflicted secret operations in order to create extreme nationalism and support and to create an 'enemy' who usually has something we want.
you forgot a piece of the puzzle, the pakastani ISI was heavily involved in 911, the pakastani ISI takes direction from the CIA ;)
-
"most were civilian contractors"
Of course. Many in the pentagon are from one of the vasrious corporations taht builds the jets, missiles, weapon mechanisms, satellites, technology etc that the military uses and needs.
you truely are a total idiot sandy. you know nothing of which you speak.
-
The funniest thing about this thread is people asking people to put all this on the word of a reporter... Oh brother... That doesn't start out full of holes... :D His statement need weighed with the facts, there is absolutely nothing that says this guy didn't see it wrong or didn't see everything that happened. There's absolutely no shortage of "witnesses" that made themselves more important that what they actually witnessed. How may trials have dealt with clowns like that... To many!!!! And this guy is a reporter, shit, can you imagine him going to the boss and saying, I was right there but I didn't see it actually hit... ahaha, not a chance poppy. His statements aren't Gospel, they get weighed with everything else and if you all can't do that, that's the real problem here.
-
Can you straighten him out on the WTC7 collapse? He smacked joker all over the place with some pretty good facts. Please show him "he knows nothing" and tell him why WTC7 fell. thanks!
Didn't you retire? Or was that annoucement part of a conspracy theory?
-
i have retired from arguing with stupid people who argue inconsistently.
Can you give an example of an inconsistant arguement?
-
when people shit all over my sources, so i only use the 911 commission report to prove my argument that NORAD stood down for 60 minutes then lied about it on the stand. Then, they say I cannot use the 911 report because I called it incomplete.
Essentially, it's a waste of time to talk to some people. So I'm just going to speak to those who are rational and consistent.
Fair enough. But, you gotta remember that you also have critisized or devalued at one time or another vitually any report that could have been from the government directly or indirectly.
Couple that with the fact you haven't fully read all the reports to begin with and instead get most of your info and arguement ammo from 9/11 CT sties makes your sources and conclusions questionable and open to attack and debate.
If you watned to really convince people you'd do the appropiate homework and not draw conclusions as you so often do based on incomplete information.
-
The co-chairs of the 911 commission call it an incomplete document which needs to be followed up with a second investigation.
When people here say "the first commission answered all the questions", they are directly contradicting the chairs of that very commission.
OK, (assuming this is pure fact which i know you can provide a link that says exactly what you said ,remembering not to change keys words like you did with "the pentagon's top brass or the ring leader") what are some possible things this could mean?
-
I'll let you find keane & hamilton's quotes on your own - if you're open minded enough to consider it, you'll devote 60 seconds to researching it.
What does it mean? It could mean exactly what they said. Pearl Harbor had 4 total investigations. This one will likely go beyond the initial narrative. To deny this would be to deny history, deny the evidence, deny the wishes of the growing number of voters in America who doubt the 911 story.
you're not doubting the 911 skeptics are growing. Are you?
At the core of the main stream 9/11 CT's, from what i've seen, is this:
- The pentagon was hit by a missile
- The WTC's were brought down by bombs
- Flight 93 was brought shot down by a US fighter jet or was another missile, not a plane to begin with
- WTC was acontrolled demolitioin
I doubt this movement is growing, and if it is, it's only growing based on curiosity that will eventually lead to dismissal based on it being completely ridiculous.
I do however believe that due to the overall growing distrust and confidnece in our government there will be and is a growing call for a new 9/11 investagaion based mostly on the cover up on incompetence.
The only plausible CT i can see in all of this would be BUSH's forhand knowledge of the attacks. Something that, even if it could be proved by democrats or who ever, would never be allowed to surface becuase of the long term damage to the country.
BTW,
cute trapping statement: "you're not doubting the 911 skeptics are growing. Are you?"
-
It is growing - several notable names come out each week (I used to post them, but every time they were labeled as wackjobs, no matter if they were politician or artist or scientist, repub or dem.
I'm sure some notable names will join and some will retract....but where you get your info you won;t hear about anyone retracting.
Polls show it's growing too. Oct 8 CNN showed that only 16% of people completely believed the White House on all aspects of that day. Um, what the hell do they have to lie about, if they didn't know, didn't fail, and weren't involved? And if they did know, fail, or be involved, then it is criminal.
That has nothing to do with this:
At the core of the main stream 9/11 CT's, from what i've seen, is this:
- The pentagon was hit by a missile
- The WTC's were brought down by bombs
- Flight 93 was brought shot down by a US fighter jet or was another missile, not a plane to begin with
- WTC was acontrolled demolitioin
Again another example of you indirectly spinning information to make a point.
-
Before I address the other point, I would like tok point out something.
"you doubt it's growing" - based upon what? I announce it's growing, and I show polls which show this trend. Why would you just "doubt" what I'm saying, when I have evidence, and you have a gut feeling.
Then, "it's only growing because..." Wait, you just told me you doubt it's growing. Now you have a complete understanding of the motivation behind the thoughts of those people whose beliefs you just incorrectly generalized?
See why I get frustrated?
For you to say something like that to me is ridiculous. I among a few others have walked this path with you since you have brought it up.
These points:
- The pentagon was hit by a missile
- The WTC's were brought down by bombs
- Flight 93 was brought shot down by a US fighter jet or was another missile, not a plane to begin with
- WTC was acontrolled demolitioin
Even you are relenting on some of them.
-
If ANYONE in our country knew the attacks were going to happen and didn't act to stop them, they are guilty of treason and mass murder of 3000 people.
If anyone in POWER in our country - who had taken a vow to protect the American people - knew and didn't act, their actions are even worse.
I whole heartedly agree.
I don't want to speculate about who might have known what and when. There are plenty of websites and documents out there making these claims.
Documents you find on the web mean nothing 240. They are far too easily fabricated.
Most unsettling here, Oz, is the fact that it sounds like - even if someone in our govt knew and didn't act - you woulnd't want to find out who. This person is a mole, a co-conspirator in mass murder. Why wouldn't you want this person revealed and put on trial?
You should research how cover ups work. In this particular case BUSh probably knew about it dirfectly from his Saudi friends (this is of course IF it was the case) No one will ever prove it.
Secondly, why wouldn't i want this person revealed or put on trial? Are you insinuating i don't what that person to be put on trial?
-
How can these people even LOOK at bomb evidence, when they are still under that trained mindset?
How can you look at the 9/11 CT sites with out throughly reading the official reports to determine which bits of information presented in both areas are genuine or spun?
How can you objectly be interested in finding out the truth if you aren't willing to consult independant sources?
You are just as bad as the people you are complaining about.
And i've answered those other questions for you at least a dozen times now!
-
You mock the idea of a second investigation.
There are easily ten very strong pieces of evidence which were not allowed in the first investigation (budget reasons, we're told) which would open up a pandora's box of problems and prove the official story untrue.
for example:
1) seismic data, witness/firefighter statements, and video evidence showing bomb blast characteristics (noises, huge smoke plumes, etc). These were rejected from the 911 commission - never allowed in. If they HAD been admitted, they would have caused any reasonable person to simply test one piece of the metal from the towers, for explosive residue. One piece. Would have taken maybe 2 hours. And it would have pretty clearly either proven or disproven the possibility of their claims.
Things like that. The 911 widows BEGGED the commissioners to address the evidence, or just test ONE piece. They refused.
ozmo, do you believe they should have just tested one piece to see if explosives were present?
TExt troubles.... you don't get it dude, I already told you i am for a second investigation.
-
If you look at the CT sites, you'll see they go out of their way to continually cite mainstream media sources when composing their thoughts. And their thoughts/intent is clear and not that intrusive - just do one complete investigation.
seriously, i dont know why we're arguing. the 911 chairs say the investigation is incomplete. 3000 dead people. it should be automatic to do a complete investigation. it's beyond me why anyone would protest it.
When you say things like: If i could show you a document proving it........ tells me you information is highly suspect becuase fo plain common sense reasons such the easy way anyone can fake docs on the web. And you know this! Which says volumes of what you are willing to concede to convince people.
That combined with the seemingly deliberate changing of small details altering the facts such as "The top pentagon brass, the ring leader etc..." tells me either you are flawed or the CT sites ar flawed. I give you the benefit of the doubt.
Also, there will be another investagation, you can count on it. but not for those ridiculous reasons i outlined earlier.
-
I gotta stick my nose in here and say that alot of people want a second investigation 240, but maybe not for the reasons of who in our gov to blame, but only for closure, maybe just to end it all with conclusive evidence. Not trying to be a dick but the way you tell it, you would like to charge the top brass with all kinds of crimes against America. that's just how it comes across, anyways like I said I'd support a full and impartial second investigation.
-
Well, it's hard to get complete information, or we'd certainly share it.
Then why make assumptions that you call facts with incomplete information?
That's irresponsible.
Newsweek telling us something worded like "the top Pentagon brass received warnings not to fly the next morning", then NO MEDIA OUTLET touching the story after that. And the pentagon denying it. And Newsweek tight lipped on it.
You did it again. "All" the top brass vs a "group" of top brass is 2 very differnt things that lead the reader to 2 different conclusions.
For you to be this irresponsbile is criminal and takes away your credibility.
that's why people give you so much shit about your "facts"
Condi admitted that Air Force One received coded threats from an inside mole that day, on Meet the Press. The next day, Ari Fleischer saying he knows nothing about it, then refusing to address it again.
Based on your past track record, i don't completely believe you. Condi may have said: "Air Force One received suspected or possible coded threats" which changes the meaning of her statement dramatically concerning the issue.
that's why i try and usually ask you to give me a link. Hopefully not some gay ass music laced amature final cut pro movie. hopefully you can just post the actual straight forward video of it. Kind of like that reporter at the pentagon. pretty straight forward.
But no, you usually don;t becuase you are getting all the info from tainted sources. (9/11 CT sites)
Things like that cast monster doubt on the credibility of the very admin we're supposed to believe? No way.
And, the fact they didn't let the investigation be independent. that they gave it 13 mil (after putting $60M on bush's inauguration lol). the fact they ordered the scope be limited oNLy to al-Q... any evidence pointing elsewhere was not to come into play. WTF is that? lol...
All of which DOES NOT points to:
- The pentagon was hit by a missile
- The WTC's were brought down by bombs
- Flight 93 was brought shot down by a US fighter jet or was another missile, not a plane to begin with
- WTC was acontrolled demolitioin
But instead point to cover upi of incompetence. Becuase America wants to why the billions we spend on security failed that day.
-
Condi said they got a credible threat using codewords that only that morning's secret service would have, very indicative of a mole.
now i know you love to talk about those 4 point, let's do it:
- The pentagon was hit by a missile
The hole and lack of debris say missile, Rummy says plane. Believe what you wish.
- The WTC's were brought down by bombs
Witnesses, seismics, and video shows bombs. Bush says fire. Believe what you wish.
- Flight 93 was brought shot down by a US fighter jet or was another missile, not a plane to begin with
Rumsfeld, debris field, and crash site say fighter jet. Bush said crash. You choose what you want.
- WTC was acontrolled demolitioin
Visual characteristics VERY strongly point to controlled demo. Govt won't address it. You believe what you want.
In the end, believe what you want. I know it hurts like f**k to know you've been lied to, and the people you elect to protect can actually kill 1/100,000 of the US population to keep the other 1/99,999 under control and with cheaper gas. So you don't have to think about it.
More cheesy loaded statements. Getting old.
Condi said they got a credible threat using codewords that only that morning's secret service would have, very indicative of a mole.
Again, information you post here in things like this is suspect. Post a link of the actual interview.
Wait a second........ have you actually even seen the interview yourself? lol
-
At the core of the main stream 9/11 CT's, from what i've seen, is this:
- The pentagon was hit by a missile
- The WTC's were brought down by bombs
- Flight 93 was brought shot down by a US fighter jet or was another missile, not a plane to begin with
- WTC was acontrolled demolitioin
I doubt this movement is growing, and if it is, it's only growing based on curiosity that will eventually lead to dismissal based on it being completely ridiculous.
I do however believe that due to the overall growing distrust and confidnece in our government there will be and is a growing call for a new 9/11 investagaion based mostly on the cover up on incompetence.
The only plausible CT i can see in all of this would be BUSH's forhand knowledge of the attacks. Something that, even if it could be proved by democrats or who ever, would never be allowed to surface becuase of the long term damage to the country.
BTW,
cute trapping statement: "you're not doubting the 911 skeptics are growing. Are you?"
The most mainstream conspiracy theory is 19 aRABS with boxcutters pulled this off.
The less popular ct's claim otherwise
-
The most mainstream conspiracy theory is 19 aRABS with boxcutters pulled this off.
The less popular ct's claim otherwise
No, your statement isn't accurate.
A better one would be: 19 arabs have been identified as the ones who hijacked the 4 planes. Based on pone calls from air phones on one of the flights, some of them may have used a combination of Box cutters and the threat of bomb on board to keep control of the passengers.
I'm not suprised how you slanted the facts and ommitted other facts. And then wrapped it up in a lame persuasive sentence. 240 does it all the time.
At least he isn't so stupid to think the BBC article was overwHelming evidence. :P
-
240, i just think you are overestimating teh amount of people who are into these theories. You mentioned it is all over college campuses, yet I heard absolutely no one talk about it let alone endorse them in all the classes, discussion, conversations, editorials in the school paper, etc when i was there (grad last May). In fact, other than his board I have never met anyone who believes this stuff.
Should tehre be another investigation. Probably. It likely would be full of the same problems as the last one; people trying to avoid blame or fault, cover up their own negligence, etc.
Call me close minded or just in touch with reality, or a lil bit of both, but until someone who has inside knowledge of the plot (and there would be thousands with a plot this complex) steps forward I will not consider this fantastic theory of the CT sites to even be in the realm of possibility. There would probably even be 10s of thousands. For a secret like that to be kept is impossible.
Every study by experts on the various parts of what happened on 9/11 has backed the main premise of the official story. Unless they are all part of the cover up, then that is good enough for me at this point. When an English professor starts talking about the complex physics of a tower collapsing I don't feel too inclined to put much stock in what he says compared to someone who's expertise is in that field.
In any event, there is no point arguing about it. You believe what you want to believe, I believe what I watn to believe.
We will see how it plays out.
You all be safe this saturday night.
-
240, i just think you are overestimating teh amount of people who are into these theories. You mentioned it is all over college campuses, yet I heard absolutely no one talk about it let alone endorse them in all the classes, discussion, conversations, editorials in the school paper, etc when i was there (grad last May). In fact, other than his board I have never met anyone who believes this stuff.
I agree. I've met two people who believe this stuff, neither one of them students, and I have about 20 or students a semester in my class. The people who believe this stuff appear to read the same websites and spout the same nonsense. Probably the most remarkable thing about this stuff is how some of them get angry and insult you when you don't believe them. I saw the "nutty professor" do this on Fox. And of course 240 does it all the time.
-
No, your statement isn't accurate.
A better one would be: 19 arabs have been identified as the ones who hijacked the 4 planes. Based on pone calls from air phones on one of the flights, some of them may have used a combination of Box cutters and the threat of bomb on board to keep control of the passengers.
I'm not suprised how you slanted the facts and ommitted other facts. And then wrapped it up in a lame persuasive sentence. 240 does it all the time.
At least he isn't so stupid to think the BBC article was overwHelming evidence. :P
you fucking idiot; by virtue of having 4 simultaneous suicide attacks, 911 had to have been a conspiracy because it took more than one person to execute
therefore, any theory explaining it is by definition a conspiracy theory
anything else
-
you fucking idiot
I'm a fucking idiot and you are the one who thought a BBC article was overwHelming evidence? That's rich!
by virtue of having 4 simultaneous suicide attacks, 911 had to have been a conspiracy because it took more than one person to execute
Is this your big comeback point?
He did you know the sky is blue to the human eye?
Did you that 100 + 100+ 40 = 240? ;)
-
sad as it is, someone had to explain what the term conspiracy theory means because you clearly did not know
-
princess Dian was killed by a drunk driver that was driving too fast. thats the official explanation after it was investigated. many people believe it was an inside job.. thats the conspiracy
911 was officially investigated and got an official explanation. making any other explanation a conspericy to the official one,, get it?
-
sad as it is, someone had to explain what the term conspiracy theory means because you clearly did not know
Plain desperation.
-
Plain desperation.
by virtue of having 4 simultaneous suicide attacks, 911 had to have been a conspiracy because it took more than one person to execute
Maybe the phrase: "no shit sherlock" might mean something to an ignorant jack ass as youself.
The most mainstream conspiracy theory is 19 aRABS with boxcutters pulled this off.
This right here isn't a an accurate statement becuase it wasn't just box cutters.
Why do i have to spell everything out for you?
probably becuase you are a moron.