Oh Goodie! ... More on 911 (inside job) :)

[fdd2blk]

You think it is more likely that they used three planes and one missile... because... ahhh fuck becauses... It is more likely to you that they used three planes and one missile and that is what they are hiding? Why use an ICBM on a sunny day in front of hundreds of witnesses? The pentagon is a busy place. I295 loops around the front side, 1 block from an international airport... it is a stupid idea.


Or is it more likely that they are hiding their associations with a terrorist network out doing our dirty work against the 2nd and 3rd most powerful nations on earth, and got double crossed? What are the chances that the perfect cover of a common enemy does more good for us? What if...

What if we DO negotiate with terrorists?

What if we provide them intel, and equipment, and western thinking? I firmly believe a guy in a cave came up with smashing airplanes into buildings. It is pretty fucking basic. Do I think that a guy came up with the idea of guerrilla franchise? That is western thinking. Run your own cell. Recruit angry disenfranchised youth. Give them purpose... call the shots... free agency... That is America baby. What if we used all that psyop shit to try and manipulate these franchise cells into doing our bidding, while making them believe they were doing it for their own ideology? We feed you detailed info on who to hit, when and how... we provide you cover, cross chatter, and materials and training... and you don't hit us. We buy, you fly.

Of course we couldn't really let them spread like wildfire... we would have to contain them. Maybe they caught us... containing. Maybe that is why we were drilling these scenarios... because we knew SOMETHING was coming. We were drilling all kinds of shit that month... chem, bio, hijacking...


Enough conjecture. My point is... this seem much more believable to me. That is how our government works in the dark places... we do nasty, through others, far away from cameras. We use small groups who know as little as possible, and aren't likely to piece it together. We don't do "the big show". We work in shadows, in small numbers, in foreign places.

[youtube]xzORu1dqEE0[/youtube]






for NoDrama - see it's a movie called "stop making sense". i feel what..huh?'s post makes sense so i am sarcastically telling him to stop it. i included the video about wartime because we are at war. clever, eh?

 

[what... huh?]

FDD... Do you use molasses? What strain(s) are you growing? You still give nitro/phos during flower... or do you switch to bloom booster or some such nonsense? If I put red and blue food coloring in my nute bath will it make my weed all purply?

 

[fdd2blk]

FDD... Do you use molasses? What strain(s) are you growing? You still give nitro/phos during flower... or do you switch to bloom booster or some such nonsense? If I put red and blue food coloring in my nute bath will it make my weed all purply?

911 was an inside job. obama sucks. waaaaah

 

[what... huh?]

I found the idea of hijacking the 9/11 thread darkly ironic.


It was just meant to say I get it.

 

[snowmanexpress]

Y'know Cracker put up a good view on the USS Cole, compared to why we didnt shoot down the planes. "Don't fire unless fired upon" rules of engagement and all that is what I gather from that respect. Who knows where this number 4 plane wouldve hit, but thankfully, no other loss of life due to that crash, although wrong to say Im sorry, I dont mean to disrespect, but if number 4 wouldve hit somewhere, would not be too nice eh.



Damnit Im always late to the party,
I use 15-30-15 miracle grow in bloom.

 

[fdd2blk]

I found the idea of hijacking the 9/11 thread darkly ironic.


It was just meant to say I get it.

i'm have been laughing a lot lately.

 

[what... huh?]

You are entirely too polite to be in this thread. When grow rebel comes off his meds and wakes up, he is gonna come in here and spit in your mouth... and he has hepatitis.


We weren't close enough to shoot down the first 3. People like to think that we have fighter jets covering every square inch of the country that can pop at a moments notice... but the truth is that there were only 14 jets covering the whole of the US. Our "ready" jet at Andrews was not ready... the pilots were on a training exercise instead, and upon return were sent directly out, with about ten mins of fuel left, which meant the closest jets had to come in from Otis AFB in Mass (pre 9/11 jets were not allowed to go supersonic for intercept over land). ATC knew there was a possible hijacking because a stewardess called in from an airphone at 8:21 and within 16 minutes had NORAD on the phone (8:37). Within 9 minutes two f15s are airborne (8:46). Within 40 seconds, 11 hit the tower. 9:03 flight 175 hits wtc 2, and simultaneously NORAD is alerted that 175 has been hijacked. 9:13 f15s head to Manhattan. 9:37 a plane hits the pentagon.


We could very well have shot down number 4... but you are correct. It is a good thing it didn't make its destination.

 

[PadawanBater]

Though... it is a little suspicious, the circumstances of the training excercises...

 

[GrowRebel]

And now I'm a coward? First i've heard of it. Ok, go back to ranting incoherently and posting youtube crap. Your starting to bore me with the personal attacks.

Oh yes of course ... all you deniers can come up with is "I'm ranting incoherently" ... yet you seem to be at a lost to show where I'm ranting ... it's pretty obvious you can't so you just say it's "crap" with nothing to back why it's "crap" ... we are to take it as a valid argument ... you bore me with your lack of evidence to refute what I posted. Run along now. You obviously can't handle this conversation.

911 was an inside job. obama sucks. waaaaah

You are implying all we do it bitch and cry ... you are wrong completely and totally wrong. You can ridicule me as must as you like, but NEVER imply that I just whine. I don't. None of you deniers can ridicule me into not speaking out or do all I can to address an injustice. The death of tens of thousands, and the criminals behind it still walking free doesn't bother you ... that's fine, but don't try to stand in my way to do what I can to see that they are held accountable. Nuff said.

You are entirely too polite to be in this thread. When grow rebel comes off his meds and wakes up, he is gonna come in here and spit in your mouth... and he has hepatitis.

You deniers just can't help shit when you can't refute the facts. You need to be on meds with your wakco bullshit you've put out. Like this shit here ...

We weren't close enough to shoot down the first 3.
People like to think that we have fighter jets covering every square inch of the country that can pop at a moments notice... but the truth is that there were only 14 jets covering the whole of the US. Our "ready" jet at Andrews was not ready... the pilots were on a training exercise instead, and upon return were sent directly out, with about ten mins of fuel left, which meant the closest jets had to come in from Otis AFB in Mass (pre 9/11 jets were not allowed to go supersonic for intercept over land). ATC knew there was a possible hijacking because a stewardess called in from an airphone at 8:21 and within 16 minutes had NORAD on the phone (8:37). Within 9 minutes two f15s are airborne (8:46). Within 40 seconds, 11 hit the tower. 9:03 flight 175 hits wtc 2, and simultaneously NORAD is alerted that 175 has been hijacked. 9:13 f15s head to Manhattan. 9:37 a plane hits the pentagon.

Wrong again ... nothing new there ... this video I posted back on page 108 post #1072 proves you wrong.
911 shocking document pt 7
[youtube]D2Wl-NHB5o0&feature=related[/youtube]
It gives evidence that those jets had plenty of time to intercept all planes ... unless they were ordered to stand down ...
Folks you remember the first video TOL posted back on page 92 post #911 Those planes were ordered to stand down. Caught blowing it out your ass again! All too easy.

We could very well have shot down number 4... but you are correct. It is a good thing it didn't make its destination.

It was probably suppose to hit WTC 7, to cover the demo, but they did it anyway ... why waste a good demo?

 

[fdd2blk]

why you gotta call me names? you don't even know where i stand.


stand in your way? if that were the case i'd close this thread.



hahahahaha

 

[GrowRebel]

why you gotta call me names?

I didn't ... I was addressing all deniers ... but if you fall into that category then I was.

you don't even know where i stand.

I can't argue with that ... where do you stand?

stand in your way? if that were the case i'd close this thread.hahahahaha

I'm referring to the ridicule and those that have told me writing letters is bullshit. I'm not saying you personally. I'm speaking generally.

 

[Antidisestablishmentarian]

Wow, lots of pots calling kettles black, lots of insults.

Yup, sounds like RIU politics.

 

[fdd2blk]

I didn't ... I was addressing all deniers ... but if you fall into that category then I was.


I can't argue with that ... where do you stand?


I'm referring to the ridicule and those that have told me writing letters is bullshit. I'm not saying you personally. I'm speaking generally.

i think the government was in on it. i don't think they pulled it all off. they maybe helped support the "enemy", even turned a blind eye to what was going on. maybe they even know it was happening. but they didn't load the building with explosives. i've worked internally in huge skyscrapers in SF and it would be a MAJOR feat to pull something like that off without joe office boy seeing something.

i think if the government had NO IDEA of any of it then we are screwed just as well.

i think the truth is gone forever.

i have a hard time grasping the hate and anger. once, for a little while i was an angry person. i got tired fast. throughout the history of human life we have been killing each other. it's not some silly argument on an internet forum. it's war and death. i think a lot of what goes on here is disrespectful and belittling to those who have died. not just this forum, but this whole world. the news is glamorized with death and greed. will it ever end?

if not, then i'm right on track. i will kill them all when the shit goes down. i don't own a gun but i will slice someones neck to get one.

my Dr is gonna be pissed i'm sharing.

 

[GrowRebel]

i think the government was in on it. i don't think they pulled it all off. they maybe helped support the "enemy", even turned a blind eye to what was going on. maybe they even know it was happening. but they didn't load the building with explosives. i've worked internally in huge skyscrapers in SF and it would be a MAJOR feat to pull something like that off without joe office boy seeing something.

Being from SF I'm sure you've seen some kind of construction going on in the downtown area I've worked construction for 20 years now ... worked on a skyscraper... in Cleveland some kind of construction goes on all the time downtown ... they could easily have put in those charges under the guise of "construction work" "remodeling" joe office boy would think nothing off it especially with all the "security" around. Besides they found traces of nano thermite in the dust ... some one had to put it there. It couldn't have gotten there naturally.

i think if the government had NO IDEA of any of it then we are screwed just as well.

Whether they did or not ... we're screwed.

i think the truth is gone forever.

Fortunately there are plenty of folks like me that will never let the truth die. Haven't you notice all the reports I've been finding? I mean if you go back and look through the thread you will see there where periods of time when I had nothing to report, but lately there have been so many video and articles that I have something almost every day. This is an indication to me that there are enough of us to keep the Light of Truth alive.

i have a hard time grasping the hate and anger.

I don't hate or am angery at any of the deniers ... I just think they are dummies when faced with facts of undeniable scientific evidence. Most don't even want a real investigation. They settle for the fake commission bullshit where no one testified under oath and important evidence was ignored. Now that's stupid.

once, for a little while i was an angry person. i got tired fast.

Gave me high blood pressure ... my heart got tired of it ... anger is a waste for me ... I take action and voice my opinion and post information to back my statements. Beats the hell out of being angry.

throughout the history of human life we have been killing each other.

I know over stupid shit too.

it's not some silly argument on an internet forum. it's war and death. i think a lot of what goes on here is disrespectful and belittling to those who have died. not just this forum, but this whole world. the news is glamorized with death and greed. will it ever end?

I don't know if it will ever end ... but I feel I must do my part to address the crimes committed and the lives lost. For me it's like a commandment from GOD ... if I can do something to help ... do it ... if I can't ... well then ... don't worry about it, because God has probably assign others to handle it.

if not, then i'm right on track. i will kill them all when the shit goes down. i don't own a gun but i will slice someones neck to get one.

I do have a gun ... and I pray I will never have to point it at another human being. But if I am force to fight ... I rather sit down, smoke one and talk it over ... but if I have to ... I will.

my Dr is gonna be pissed i'm sharing.

But, Im so glad you did ... besides ... you don't have to tell your Dr.

 

[what... huh?]

Ok GR... I will engage you if you like. Because you are hyper manic, I have to set a couple of really simple reasonable ground rules.

1. This will be a dialogue, not a monologue. One of us will present something, the other will refute it and NOT MOVE ON until it is agreed that either one side is correct, or there is not enough evidence either way to come to an agreement.

That means when I make a point about flight 77 you do not jump to fireproofing on wtc 5. It also means ONE VIDEO at a time, unless they are very brief. There is generally so much information in a single video which requires explanation... it eats a lot of my time to demonstrate and explain the false premises... as you will see in a minute below.

2. If you want to quote multiple sources, put up the link. Reading through 300 miles of quotes in the odd way you present partial information is not only annoying to read, but often out of context. I know how to read, I don't need you to translate it for me. This really goes back to 1. One thing at a time.

Your video "proving" they had enough time to reach the planes makes a number of errors. I will address each by time frame.

0:24 "...that something hit the pentagon. To this day nobody knows what it was."
http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm

There are about 140 eyewitness accounts there from 9/11, with sources, of people who saw the fucking plane hit. Traffic on 395 was at a standstill. Pentagon city is right across 395, as is crystal city. I lived there for 15 years... including 9/11/01.

0:38 "There is nobody, anywhere, at any time, at any point in this entire investigation, that has said that is positively American 77"
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/AAL77_fdr.pdf

1:58 "If indeed 77 went off of radar for 36 minutes, it was not flying... or it was so low... that it was not able to be picked up" cut "so if it landed... in a remote field somewhere, that would explain why it disappeared, other than that... there is very little explanation."

The dude answers his own question. It was below 800 ft. It also didn't disappear for 36 minutes. Indianapolis lost it, it appeared 9 minutes later on Dulles screen... where they had to discern its primary from some 4000 others since it didn't have a transponder.

I challenge you to land a 757 in a remote field somewhere, and take off another one. Btw... where does that plane go? Disassembled and put onto trucks?

3:34 "Any time a plane goes off course... or loses radio communication... or loses it's transponder... any time ANY of those three things happen, it is supposed to be intercepted.

Blatantly false... maybe he means that HE thinks they should be... but that is not accurate.
http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/ATpubs/AIM/Chap6/aim0604.html

Regardless... SOP on NORDO/NOTAP became irrelevant when the stewardess called in with a possible hijacking. They called into supervisors and surrounding ATC, and then called NORAD... on the telephone... because unlike the Italian military command console (the second most advanced in the world next to Belgium) that they showed you, most of our ATC tower equipment was built in the 50s and 60s. The reason Belgium has the most advanced system in the world, is because IBM developed it for us... and the new FAA administrator pulled the plug on the program (late 90's) because the airlines were tanking and he didn't want to spend the money. This happens about every 6 years... FAA starts an update program... then the new administration comes in a kills it. There is a lot of money involved. The status of our ATC equipment is a fucking horror show. Again... I spent a lot of time in towers... I don't think most people really understand what we are working with.



4:52 "Military jets travel much faster than commercial airlines" 5:03 "This airplane does mach 2.05"
Before 9/11 military jets were prohibited from breaking the sound barrier over land EVEN ON INTERCEPT. That is 761 mph. The 757 will do over 600 mph.
http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/757.html

6:36 and beyond "A lot of people say that they have to wait for the president to give an order to shoot down a plane"
Strawman


Your video is full of inaccuracies, strawmen, and conjecture.

 

[GrowRebel]

0:24 "...that something hit the pentagon. To this day nobody knows what it was."

Okay then ... how do you explain this video I posted way back on page 80 post 793
9/11 Video Clips Corporate News Would Rather Not Show You
[youtube]ckGn8p5k6q8&feature=related[/youtube]
Why didn't they see the "fucking plane"? Explain that.
And I also posted this video check out the run down. and what the pilot told her commander ... how to you explain that? Why didn't she see anything she had an excellent view.
There were 86 cameras there to proof it was a "fucking plane" why did the pentagon confiscate them?
Why do experience pilots say it is impossible to get a 757 to maneuver the way it did to hit the pentagon ... how can a 35m. aircraft make a 5m hole? So much for your people saw the "fucking plane". Far too many unanswered questions that can only be answered with a real investigation.

0:38 "There is nobody, anywhere, at any time, at any point in this entire investigation, that has said that is positively American 77"
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/AAL77_fdr.pdf

Yep the government states that, but they are merely ... like the guy said making assumptions ... they haven't really provided any real proof. Instead they cover up shit, which caused more questions to go unanswered. Since the government never did a real investigation and has been caught covering up evidence ... I would say it is safe to assume they are blowing it out their ass.

1:58 "If indeed 77 went off of radar for 36 minutes, it was not flying... or it was so low... that it was not able to be picked up" cut "so if it landed... in a remote field somewhere, that would explain why it disappeared, other than that... there is very little explanation."
The dude answers his own question. It was below 800 ft.

You are missing his point ... he was commenting on how unlikely it was for the plane to fly that low ... or land ... we know it didn't land ... and according to him and other experience pilots you can't fly a 757 that low. In the same video I posted.

It also didn't disappear for 36 minutes. Indianapolis lost it, it appeared 9 minutes later on Dulles screen... where they had to discern its primary from some 4000 others since it didn't have a transponder.

Source? Link? and since we know the 911 commission went way out of the way to cover up the truth ... info from them can be highly questionable.

I challenge you to land a 757 in a remote field somewhere, and take off another one. Btw... where does that plane go? Disassembled and put onto trucks?

We can find the answer to that with a real investigation now can't we ...

3:34 "Any time a plane goes off course... or loses radio communication... or loses it's transponder... any time ANY of those three things happen, it is supposed to be intercepted.

Blatantly false... maybe he means that HE thinks they should be... but that is not accurate.
http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/ATpubs/AIM/Chap6/aim0604.html

He said three things ... your link only covers two way radio communication failure. Not to mention this man is an experience ATC with 11 years and a pilot. How many years have you had as a ATC and pilot? I highly doubt you would know more than him.

Regardless... SOP on NORDO/NOTAP became irrelevant when the stewardess called in with a possible hijacking. They called into supervisors and surrounding ATC, and then called NORAD... on the telephone...

Source? Link?

4:52 "Military jets travel much faster than commercial airlines" 5:03 "This airplane does mach 2.05"
Before 9/11 military jets were prohibited from breaking the sound barrier over land EVEN ON INTERCEPT. That is 761 mph. The 757 will do over 600 mph.
http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/757.html

Um ... why are you posting spec on the 757? What does that have to do with your claim about intercepts? Show us where you got the information about military jets being prohibited from breaking the sound barrier even on intercept. Plus it doesn't prove that those military jets didn't have time to reach those planes.

6:36 and beyond "A lot of people say that they have to wait for the president to give an order to shoot down a plane"
Strawman

Strawman? What the hell does that mean? And why didn't you finish the man sentence that it wasn't true? Calling it "strawman" doesn't prove it's inaccurate.

Your video is full of inaccuracies, strawmen, and conjecture.

No it's not ... you haven't posted anything to prove the video is inaccurate. Your witness post is questionable because of the video where no plane was seen, plus the statement of the pilot that didn't see the plane. You tried to twist the Capt. statement when he was describing how unlikely the plane did as claimed. Your FAA link didn't cover the three things Hordon talked about. So wrong again. You posted boeing spec which have nothing to do with military intercepts. So since you were unable to give a valid argument you once again claim it to be inaccurate when it is you who is.

 

[CrackerJax]

15 questions 9/11 ‘truthers’ now need to answer

One of the standard claims of 9/11 “truthers” is that they are merely sceptical individuals with a healthy and understandable desire not to swallow US government propaganda at face value. The mantra “just asking questions” allows them to pose as wary and intelligent souls too accustomed to the concept of duplicity in high places to accept the “official story” of Al Qaeda’s role in planning and perpetrating the largest mass casualty terrorist attack in modern history. It also allows them to adopt an indignant tone when dealing with their critics, and to conflate attempts by debunkers to undermine their claims with both unquestioning acceptance of an “official cover-up” (irrespective of whether the debunker happens to be a supporter of the current US administration or not) and a systematic effort to deprive them of freedom of speech. It goes without saying that in the process the “truthers” set up two straw-men for them to knock down, but then they’re not very good at dealing with tougher critics.
The “just asking questions” approach has three further advantages to those of a paranoid mindset and a less than scrupulous approach to evidence and facts (if George Orwell were alive today, he’d appreciate the irony of serial disinformation merchants like Dylan Avery and David Ray Griffin posing as members of a “truth movement”, given their fast and loose approach to the historical record and scientific fact). Firstly, conspiracy theorists know that mud sticks: if you can make an accusation against an individual or group through innuendo and sly hints the latter has the hard task of proving the calumnies against them to be false. Film buffs will no doubt recall George C. Scott’s performance as the malevolent prosecutor in Anatomy of a Murder, and his repeated question to the defendant Ben Gazzara: “Exactly when did you stop beating your wife?” This approach sums up “truther debating tactics nicely.
Secondly, the claim that one is “just asking questions” is liberating, as it frees the truther of the obligation of actually constructing a coherent alternative theory - based on the evidence at hand - which is more convincing than the “official theory”. Why worry if the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolitions or not? Why worry if the hijackers were patsies or ghosts? Why worry if the Pentagon was hit by a missile or a jumbo jet piloted by remote control? Why worry if the passengers of the four planes are alive or not? With one or two exceptions (notably Michael Ruppert), 9/11 conspiracy theorists and their supporters do not actually outline a scenario which explains how and why the US government (in cahoots with the Israelis, or the military-industrial complex, or whoever else) slaughtered nearly 3,000 people - most of whom were American citizens - in a co-ordinated series of attacks which were then blamed on Arab Islamist terrorists. Most truthers lack sufficient moral courage to produce a real theory about 9/11 being an ‘inside job’ which combines motive with method and which can be tested against the evidence. Deep down, they know that once they venture into specific claims their case will be torn to shreds, and they will be exposed as ignorant frauds.
Thirdly, it makes the task of a truther an easy one: all he or she (there seem to be few female truthers around, which hopefully means that they won’t reproduce) has to do is google to get the appropriate “story” from Prison Planet, 9/11 Blogger, What Really Happened or a similar website. Hey presto, they get what they want: “The FBI said there were no phone calls from AA77!”; “4,000 Jews didn’t turn up to work at the WTC on 9/11!”; “Silverstein ordered the demolition of WTC7!” And so on and so forth.
Any genuine sceptic dealing with truthers - whether online or in the flesh - then has to (1) work out what the hell his or her interlocutor is talking about, and (2) ask themselves how exactly they made this claim, and if it has any substance. Anyone lacking either patience or detailed knowledge of the events of 11th September 2001 may be tempted to give them the benefit of the doubt. Debunkers are left with the time-consuming task of researching the historical background, and trying to assemble the relevant technical and scientific information, before they can actually verify the facts for themselves. In short, the truther can throw out a red herring or an outright distortion in a matter of minutes, leaving it up to other net users to take the time and trouble to verify their origin and accuracy.
Fortunately, yeoman work has been done by scores of individuals to actually put the record straight. Pat and James from Screw Loose Change, Mark Roberts, 9/11 Myths, Debunking 9/11 and 9/11 Guide in particular provide a valuable resource. The James Randi forum is particularly useful in that it provides commentators with specialist knowledge - military veterans, pilots, flight engineers, physicists, architects, forensic experts etc - with a platform to expose the anti-scientific claptrap and historical illiteracy of the truthers. This is the main reason why the JREF and its commentators arouse such hatred from the 9/11 conspiracy ghouls.
It’s time to turn the tables on the truthers. Rather than accept a situation in which the nutjobs and kooks who subscribe to 9/11 conspiracies can make their accusations willy-nilly, it is high time that their critics decided that they can “just ask questions” too. This particular debunker has decided that maybe, just for once, the onus for actually demonstrating the validity of their theories on the basis of systematic and critical analysis of the evidence belongs to the truthers, not to those who wish to expose their fallacies. As someone whose academic bias is based on history, I would like to pose the following challenge to the conspiracy-mongers:
Let’s take your thesis (that 9/11 was an inside job perpetrated by the Bush administration, and covered up by a coalition of US government agencies, allied powers, big business and the media) as read. The following questions point to logical and factual gaps within that thesis. It is now up to you to answer these questions and explain why your theories are still valid. For your answers to be credible, they need to be detailed and based on verifiable evidence. No suppositions, no speculation, no unsupported assertions, just the facts. Stop “asking questions”, and provide answers. These fifteen initial questions will do for starters.

(1) On 9th September 2001 Ahmed Shah Massoud, the most effective military commander of the anti-Taliban coalition (the Northern Alliance, or NA) was killed by two Arab suicide bombers posing as journalists. The assassination of Massoud had taken months to plan, and the latter had received the bogus request for an ‘interview’ in May 2001 (See Steve Coll, Ghost Wars, pp.574-576; Jason Burke, Al Qaeda, p.197; Daniel Byman, Deadly Connections, p.210. Two days before 9/11, Al Qaeda killed the Taliban’s main enemy, who had also played a pivotal role in keeping the NA factions together, and who would have been the obvious figure to liase with if the Americans had decided to effect regime change in Afghanistan. If Al Qaeda were not responsible for 9/11, then why was Ahmed Shah Massoud’s assassination so well co-ordinated with the attacks on New York and Washington?
(2) Conversely, prior to 9/11, the US government had minimal contacts with Massoud and other Northern Alliance figures, much to the latter’s frustration (See Coll, passim). If 9/11 was a “false flag” operation intended to justify a pre-determined plan to invade Afghanistan, then why didn’t the CIA and other US government agencies do more to facilitate ties with the NA?
(3) Just before 9/11, Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and other key Al Qaeda personnel left their quarters in Kandahar to hide in Tora Bora (Lawrence Wright, The Looming Tower, pp.356-35. Why did bin Laden and al-Zawahiri suddenly leave their known locations and go to ground, if they were not anticipating imminent military action by the USA?
(4) In the days following 9/11, the Bush administration asked the Joint Chiefs of Staff for a plan to invade Afghanistan. The JCS had to admit that they had no contingency plan for such an invasion, and in the weeks preceding Operation Enduring Freedom the CIA and the Department of Defense were obliged to improvise a plan of attack against the Taliban and its Al Qaeda allies (Benjamin Lambeth, Air Power Against Terror; Bob Woodward, Bush At War). If 9/11 had been an inside job, and if there was a long-standing intention by Bush and his advisors to invade Afghanistan and overthrow the Taliban, then why did they have to scrabble around for a workable plan? Why was one not prepared beforehand?
(5) We are being asked by the truthers to believe that the 19 hijackers were “patsies”, or non-existent. If that was the case, and if the intention of the real plotters in the US government was to justify military interventions to overthrow hostile regimes in the Middle East, why were 15 out of the 19 ‘bogus’ Al Qaeda terrorists given Saudi nationality? The other four hijackers consisted of an Egyptian, a Lebanese and two citizens of the UAE. We are being asked to believe that the conspirators behind 9/11 decided that they would make the hijackers citizens of allies of the USA, not enemies. Why were they not given Iraqi, Iranian or Syrian identity? Why were they not given forged links with terrorist groups (such as the Abu Nidal Organisation, the PLFP-GC or Hizbollah) with closer links to Tehran, Damascus and above all Baghdad? If we are supposed to believe that the Israelis had a hand in 9/11, then why were none of the patsies Palestinians linked to Fatah or Hamas? What kind of conspirator sets up a plot to frame an innocent party without forging the evidence to implicate the latter?
(6) Following on from this point, if the identities and the nationalities of the hijackers were faked, then why did the Saudi, Egyptian, Lebanese and UAE governments accept that citizens from their own countries were involved? What incentive did Saudi Arabia have for accepting that 15 of its own people had committed mass murder on US soil? Why would the Saudis co-operate in a plot which would blacken their country’s name, benefit Israeli interests in the Middle East, provide the pretext for the overthrow of one fundamentalist Sunni regime in Afghanistan, and contribute to the destruction of a Sunni Arab dictatorship in Iraq long seen by the Saudi royal family as a bulwark against Iran?
(7) Afghanistan is a landlocked country (truthers may need to be reminded of this fact), and any invasion is logistically impossible without the support of its neighbours. Prior to 9/11, Pakistan was a staunch ally of Taliban-ruled Afghanistan (see Ahmed Rashid, Taliban, passim). The former Soviet Central Asian states of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan backed the NA, but were also wary of antagonising their former imperial master, Russia. Pre-September 2001 these states would not have contemplated admitting any US or Western military presence on their soil. Although Russian President Vladimir Putin backed the USA’s invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, it took the Americans considerable effort to persuade him to permit the US and NATO forces to use bases on Uzbek and Tajik territory as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. It also took time and considerable pressure to force General Pervez Musharraf to abandon the Taliban - despite resistance from the military and ISI. Given the geo-political realities of Central Asia in mid-2001, there were no guarantees of any host nation support for any attack on Afghanistan. Assuming againt that 9/11 was an inside job, how could the US government realistically presume that the Russians and Pakistanis would actually permit the USA to effect regime change against the Taliban?
( Assuming that claims of Mossad complicity in 9/11 (”dancing Israelis”, etc.) are correct, can the truthers suggest a feasible motive for the Israeli government conniving in an act of mass murder on US soil? Since 1967, the mainstay of Israel’s security and survival has been its alignment with the USA, and the military assistance it has received as a result. This relationship is based on a bipartisan political consensus (both the Republican and Democratic parties are predominantly pro-Israeli) and considerable public support in the USA. Why engage in a “false flag” attack against the civilian population of an ally, when you have so little to gain and so much to lose if your responsibility is ever disclosed?
(9) Following on from this, assuming that the “five dancing Israelis” story isn’t a complete fabrication, what kind of secret service recruits undercover agents who compromise themselves by acting so ostentatiously in public? And if the five arrested Israelis were part of a conspiracy organised with the US government, then why did the FBI hold them in custody for over two months, instead of releasing them on the quiet a matter of hours and days after their apprehension?
(10) If the WTC towers in New York City were destroyed by controlled demolitions rigged by US government agencies, then why were the fake terrorist attacks used to cover up these controlled demolitions so insanely convoluted? Why concoct a scenario involving the hijacking of planes which are then crashed into tower blocks (involving complicated planning involving remote controlled flights timed with explosives detonated in the towers, which allow plenty of opportunities for gliches and technical errors)? Why not use a more simple means, such as a truck bomb?
(11) Assuming that Niaz Naik’s account of his alleged meeting with retired US officials in July 2001 is true, then where were the 17,000 Russian troops who were supposedly ready to invade Afghanistan when it came to the commencement of military operations in October 2001? And if the main motive behind the invasion was to build a natural gas pipe-line which would be under US control, then why was no attempt ever made to build one once the Taliban were overthrown?
(12) We are being asked by the conspiracy theorists to assume that NORAD was stood down on the morning of 11th September 2001 so as to enable the success of the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon. NORAD is a combined command, not a purely American one - it has a binational staff drawn from the US military and the Canadian Forces (CF). We are either supposed to believe that the CF personnel assigned to NORAD were too stupid to notice anything amiss in their headquarters - and query it - or that the Canadian government and the CF were complicit in 9/11. Which of these scenarios is true?
(13) If Al Qaeda were set-up for the 11th September attacks, then why have its leaders and spokesmen repeatedly affirmed their responsibility for - and pride in - these attacks (see here, here, here and here for examples)? Why are we supposed to believe that repeated video pronouncements by bin Laden and Zawahiri are fake, while just one written statement allegedly from bin Laden denying responsibility - which was handed by courier to al-Jazeera without any confirmation of its origins - was genuine?
(14) If the hijacking and crashing of four passenger planes was engineered by the US government, then why did UA93 crash into an empty field in Pennsylvania? Why not crash it into a target which would add to the death toll on 9/11, and further inflame US public attitudes and popular demands for revenge against the supposed perpetrators?
(15) Finally, if the US government is institutionally ruthless enough to organise the massacre of thousands of its own citizens in a series of “false flag” attacks, then why is it too squeamish to arrange for the deaths of the supposed “truth-seekers” (David Griffin, Kevin Barrett, Steven Jones, Richard Gage, the Loose Change team, Alex Jones, etc.) who have exposed their complicity in one of the most heinous crimes a government can commit against its own people? Why are these people still alive and well, and in a position to publicise their “theories” on radio, television, in print and online?

 

[what... huh?]

Okay then ... how do you explain this video I posted way back on page 80 post 793
9/11 Video Clips Corporate News Would Rather Not Show You
[youtube]ckGn8p5k6q8&feature=related[/youtube]
Why didn't they see the "fucking plane"? Explain that.

LMFAO... "There was no second plane... it was bomb... we saw whole thing... who told you it was second plane? It was bomb."

We all watched the second plane hit. That is how your "exposed" video starts. LMFAO. Had to pause and laugh. You aren't seriously suggesting that the plane everyone saw live didn't hit?

Second guy... "no large pieces of plane... no fuselage... no tail section... just small pieces that you can pick up in your hand..."

Pieces of plane.


I don't need to explain why someone who wasn't there didn't see something that literally hundreds of people did. It defies logic. You defy logic.

And I also posted this video check out the run down. and what the pilot told her commander ... how to you explain that? Why didn't she see anything she had an excellent view.
There were 86 cameras there to proof it was a "fucking plane" why did the pentagon confiscate them?

I explained that a couple of posts ago. What did I tell you about one video at a time?

Why do experience pilots say it is impossible to get a 757 to maneuver the way it did to hit the pentagon ... how can a 35m. aircraft make a 5m hole? So much for your people saw the "fucking plane". Far too many unanswered questions that can only be answered with a real investigation.

I haven't seen any commercial pilots who said any such thing. My ex-wife is a commercial pilot. Maybe I can have her give you a ring and explain some things to you.

Yep the government states that, but they are merely ... like the guy said making assumptions ... they haven't really provided any real proof.

You have to actually read the evidence I provide you. They have the flight recorder, which has unique identifiers, and 23 hours of recorded data which corresponds to the planes flight/tracking records. They also have engine parts, which are all serial etched. They have positive identification of the airplane and its parts. The claim is simply false. Get that? FALSE CLAIM. The claim was not that they made it up... or forged it... the claim was that "There is nobody, anywhere, at any time, at any point in this entire investigation, that has said that is positively American 77". FALSE CLAIM. NTSB POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED 77.

Did you read the report? The parts

Instead they cover up shit, which caused more questions to go unanswered. Since the government never did a real investigation and has been caught covering up evidence ... I would say it is safe to assume they are blowing it out their ass.


You are missing his point ... he was commenting on how unlikely it was for the plane to fly that low ... or land ... we know it didn't land ... and according to him and other experience pilots you can't fly a 757 that low. In the same video I posted.

How do you think planes land? That is a serious question. Planes can fly at any altitude with enough thrust. Air density is the same at 30 feet as 1500.

Source? Link? and since we know the 911 commission went way out of the way to cover up the truth ... info from them can be highly questionable.

YOU "know" they covered things up. That is not "factual". It is your belief. It cannot be a premise applied to MY beliefs. As to a source... I posted it already. The NTSB flight recorder.

We can find the answer to that with a real investigation now can't we ...


He said three things ... your link only covers two way radio communication failure. Not to mention this man is an experience ATC with 11 years and a pilot. How many years have you had as a ATC and pilot? I highly doubt you would know more than him.

He said ANY of those three things require an intercept. I have demonstrated that this is incorrect. I don't need to prove all three to prove that he doesn't have a fucking clue what he is talking about. It takes a lot of my time to acquire this shit... you understand? I don't just google "9/11 conspiracy". I already know this information from experience, but have to go dig this shit up for you... I have disproven this "11 year ATC" witness as bullshit. I have been in a plane with a dead transponder. I have been in a NORDO plane. I have been over restricted airspace in DC. I have never been intercepted. I know what the fuck I am talking about... and I have PROVEN this guy is full of shit. I am not going to waste 3 more hours disproving ALL of what he says, because I don't have to. FTR I have 20 years in the right seat. Nothing I post on aviation has or will be discredited. I know what I am talking about... and if I don't? I call someone who does. How many commercial/military pilots in your contact list?

Source? Link?

Here is the actual tape of one of the phone calls.
[youtube]J36k8rXKp8s[/youtube]

Um ... why are you posting spec on the 757? What does that have to do with your claim about intercepts? Show us where you got the information about military jets being prohibited from breaking the sound barrier even on intercept. Plus it doesn't prove that those military jets didn't have time to reach those planes.

I posted the specs to show the top speed of a 757. Mach 1 is a known value. I put a lot of time into this post, and while it is widely known in the military that the only place you can break the sound barrier is in "special use" air space... under any condition. I had difficulty finding a source I would call credible... so rather than post links like yours... I just moved on. I have no idea where to find it... but I will. I just called my uncle (navy fighter jock) for confirmation before posting, even though it is known to me. If you insist... I will dig it up for you. But because it is proving to be a pain in the ass... when I find it, you will have to apologize to me and say you were wrong. Not a big ask for an honest man.

Strawman? What the hell does that mean? And why didn't you finish the man sentence that it wasn't true? Calling it "strawman" doesn't prove it's inaccurate.

You don't know what a straw man is? THAT is priceless.

It means someone is waging a defeatable argument that nobody else is making. Nobody is suggesting the planes needed more authorization to shoot down commercial airliners. The argument is that they couldn't find them in time. It is a diversionary tactic to make someone APPEAR more credible.

No it's not ... you haven't posted anything to prove the video is inaccurate. Your witness post is questionable because of the video where no plane was seen, plus the statement of the pilot that didn't see the plane. You tried to twist the Capt. statement when he was describing how unlikely the plane did as claimed. Your FAA link didn't cover the three things Hordon talked about. So wrong again. You posted boeing spec which have nothing to do with military intercepts. So since you were unable to give a valid argument you once again claim it to be inaccurate when it is you who is.

You do not simply get to dismiss my arguments as invalid because you don't like them. If I am wrong about something... I will concede it. As I have done several times. You should try it. It sucks a little at first... but it feels much better in the long run.

 

[what... huh?]

Secondly, the claim that one is “just asking questions” is liberating, as it frees the truther of the obligation of actually constructing a coherent alternative theory - based on the evidence at hand - which is more convincing than the “official theory”.

Thirdly, it makes the task of a truther an easy one: all he or she (there seem to be few female truthers around, which hopefully means that they won’t reproduce) has to do is google to get the appropriate “story” from Prison Planet, 9/11 Blogger, What Really Happened or a similar website. Hey presto, they get what they want:

Debunkers are left with the time-consuming task of researching the historical background, and trying to assemble the relevant technical and scientific information, before they can actually verify the facts for themselves.

(5) We are being asked by the truthers to believe that the 19 hijackers were “patsies”, or non-existent. If that was the case, and if the intention of the real plotters in the US government was to justify military interventions to overthrow hostile regimes in the Middle East, why were 15 out of the 19 ‘bogus’ Al Qaeda terrorists given Saudi nationality? The other four hijackers consisted of an Egyptian, a Lebanese and two citizens of the UAE. We are being asked to believe that the conspirators behind 9/11 decided that they would make the hijackers citizens of allies of the USA, not enemies. Why were they not given Iraqi, Iranian or Syrian identity? Why were they not given forged links with terrorist groups (such as the Abu Nidal Organisation, the PLFP-GC or Hizbollah) with closer links to Tehran, Damascus and above all Baghdad? If we are supposed to believe that the Israelis had a hand in 9/11, then why were none of the patsies Palestinians linked to Fatah or Hamas? What kind of conspirator sets up a plot to frame an innocent party without forging the evidence to implicate the latter?

(6) Following on from this point, if the identities and the nationalities of the hijackers were faked, then why did the Saudi, Egyptian, Lebanese and UAE governments accept that citizens from their own countries were involved? What incentive did Saudi Arabia have for accepting that 15 of its own people had committed mass murder on US soil? Why would the Saudis co-operate in a plot which would blacken their country’s name, benefit Israeli interests in the Middle East, provide the pretext for the overthrow of one fundamentalist Sunni regime in Afghanistan, and contribute to the destruction of a Sunni Arab dictatorship in Iraq long seen by the Saudi royal family as a bulwark against Iran?

(7) Afghanistan is a landlocked country (truthers may need to be reminded of this fact), and any invasion is logistically impossible without the support of its neighbours. Prior to 9/11, Pakistan was a staunch ally of Taliban-ruled Afghanistan (see Ahmed Rashid, Taliban, passim). The former Soviet Central Asian states of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan backed the NA, but were also wary of antagonising their former imperial master, Russia. Pre-September 2001 these states would not have contemplated admitting any US or Western military presence on their soil. Although Russian President Vladimir Putin backed the USA’s invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, it took the Americans considerable effort to persuade him to permit the US and NATO forces to use bases on Uzbek and Tajik territory as part of Operation Enduring Freedom. It also took time and considerable pressure to force General Pervez Musharraf to abandon the Taliban - despite resistance from the military and ISI. Given the geo-political realities of Central Asia in mid-2001, there were no guarantees of any host nation support for any attack on Afghanistan. Assuming againt that 9/11 was an inside job, how could the US government realistically presume that the Russians and Pakistanis would actually permit the USA to effect regime change against the Taliban?
( Assuming that claims of Mossad complicity in 9/11 (”dancing Israelis”, etc.) are correct, can the truthers suggest a feasible motive for the Israeli government conniving in an act of mass murder on US soil?

 

[GrowRebel]

LMFAO... "There was no second plane... it was bomb... we saw whole thing... who told you it was second plane? It was bomb."

We all watched the second plane hit. That is how your "exposed" video starts. LMFAO. Had to pause and laugh. You aren't seriously suggesting that the plane everyone saw live didn't hit?
Second guy... "no large pieces of plane... no fuselage... no tail section... just small pieces that you can pick up in your hand..."
Pieces of plane.
I don't need to explain why someone who wasn't there didn't see something that literally hundreds of people did. It defies logic. You defy logic.

What the fuck are you talking about? This is at the PENTAGON not the WTC. Did you even bother to look at the video enough to comprehend? If you had watch longer than 30 sec. you would have know that.

I explained that a couple of posts ago. What did I tell you about one video at a time?

the video give further evidence to the same issue ... you don't like it too bad.

I haven't seen any commercial pilots who said any such thing. My ex-wife is a commercial pilot. Maybe I can have her give you a ring and explain some things to you.

There were plenty of experience pilots in the videos that explained things just fine. I also made sure I gave their rank and names. I don't need your wife.

You have to actually read the evidence I provide you.

Yeah and you can actually watch the videos I provide you.

They have the flight recorder, which has unique identifiers, and 23 hours of recorded data which corresponds to the planes flight/tracking records.

Do they now? Link source? I like to see it.

They also have engine parts, which are all serial etched. They have positive identification of the airplane and its parts.

Why were there no plane parts at the pentagon lawn until later on? You still haven't answered the question about what the pilot said. What about that?

The claim is simply false. Get that? FALSE CLAIM. The claim was not that they made it up... or forged it... the claim was that "There is nobody, anywhere, at any time, at any point in this entire investigation, that has said that is positively American 77". FALSE CLAIM. NTSB POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED 77.

Yeah by the same folks that are lying to us about this whole thing ... and we are expected to believe them?

How do you think planes land? That is a serious question. Planes can fly at any altitude with enough thrust. Air density is the same at 30 feet as 1500.

Has nothing to do with the Pentagon ... nothing landed there.

YOU "know" they covered things up. That is not "factual". It is your belief.

My belief? Is it my "belief" that witness didn't have to testify under oath? No ... it's a fact ... Is it my belief that the commission disregarded evidence ... no ... it's a fact ... it my belief that the pentagon confiscated 86 cameras around the site ... no it's a fact. It's it my belief that a 757 can't do the maneuvers it did on 911 at the pentagon ... no ... it's a fact stated by several experience pilots. You just like to claim there are my belief so your bogus argument might appear valid. They don't

It cannot be a premise applied to MY beliefs. As to a source... I posted it already. The NTSB flight recorder.

You mean that part you didn't provide a link to? Mind if I take a look? Don't think you will mind posting a link since it will prove your point.

He said ANY of those three things require an intercept. I have demonstrated that this is incorrect.

No not really ... from what I see this is only for radio failure ... not terrorist attacks. So you haven't. And it doesn't really say what year it was put out either ... I would like to know that too.

I don't need to prove all three to prove that he doesn't have a fucking clue what he is talking about.

Sorry don't buy that ... he wasn't the only one ... and I'm not going to take someone with no experience over several people with experience.

It takes a lot of my time to acquire this shit... you understand?

No I don't ... my activity level is 5% while yours is 25% ... and I do a lot of research. You need to organize your time better.

I don't just google "9/11 conspiracy". I already know this information from experience, but have to go dig this shit up for you...

I dig shit up for you.

I have disproven this "11 year ATC" witness as bullshit.

Nope ... sorry ... but you haven't.

I have been in a plane with a dead transponder. I have been in a NORDO plane. I have been over restricted airspace in DC. I have never been intercepted. I know what the fuck I am talking about... and I have PROVEN this guy is full of shit.

Only in your mind ... you really haven't provided anything that tell us protocol during a hijacking or terrorist attack. These experience ex military pilots and ATC would know protocol ... not you.

I am not going to waste 3 more hours disproving ALL of what he says, because I don't have to.

Well since you haven't done very well so far ...

FTR I have 20 years in the right seat.

You are not an experience pilot.

Nothing I post on aviation has or will be discredited.

I already did ... you could not show anything that tells us protocol during an attack.

I know what I am talking about... and if I don't? I call someone who does. How many commercial/military pilots in your contact list?

their in the videos I provide ... giving their account ... where is yours?

Here is the actual tape of one of the phone calls.
[youtube]J36k8rXKp8s[/youtube]
There is no date or time ... it doesn't help your statement.

I posted the specs to show the top speed of a 757. Mach 1 is a known value. I put a lot of time into this post, and while it is widely known in the military that the only place you can break the sound barrier is in "special use" air space... under any condition. I had difficulty finding a source I would call credible... so rather than post links like yours... I just moved on. I have no idea where to find it... but I will. I just called my uncle (navy fighter jock) for confirmation before posting, even though it is known to me. If you insist... I will dig it up for you. But because it is proving to be a pain in the ass... when I find it, you will have to apologize to me and say you were wrong. Not a big ask for an honest man.

Okay I'll wait on that one.

You don't know what a straw man is? THAT is priceless.
It means someone is waging a defeatable argument that nobody else is making.

Oh really ... well this entire thread proves that statement wrong.

Nobody is suggesting the planes needed more authorization to shoot down commercial airliners.

It has been suggested and is in the documentary I posted. More authorization was needed on 911.

The argument is that they couldn't find them in time. It is a diversionary tactic to make someone APPEAR more credible.

The documentary shows they could have stop them in time ... they were given the order to stand down which I have proven. Not to mention that the pentagon has it's own defense, and didn't use them ... why?

You do not simply get to dismiss my arguments as invalid because you don't like them.

I don't ... I disregard them because they don't refute the evidence. And I always state why.

If I am wrong about something... I will concede it.

Me too.

As I have done several times.

I will when I am proven wrong ... not because you say so, because the facts show it.

You should try it. It sucks a little at first... but it feels much better in the long run.

I will if it ever comes to that.