TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Do you believe there is a U.S. government cover-up surrounding 9/11?
Pages (162): « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 »
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tiesto14 So what? On any given day there are countless helicopters over NYC...that is not uncommen at all. I see no explosion after the helicopters are flying around. Are you suggesting helicopters were dropiing bombs or something? I was in lower Manhattan that day, not too far from WTC and i heard no explosions before the towers fell...only ones i heard was the planes hitting and then when they collapsed. The video then goes to the dust cloud coming from the bottom of the WTC...that was probally smoke coming down the elevator shafts and billowing out of the building...which has been seen in many other documentraries of 9.11...or it could of been debry that fell from the top of the towers that was on fire in the courtyard between the 2 towers...again the movie proves nothing. Then he goe sback to the helicopters...not sure why...there was countless helicopters in the air that day...be it news copters or emergency service helicopters...nothing weird about that. Are you really sugesting that the helicopters, in broad daylight over NYC with billions of people glued to the television watching this unfold live and knowing it would be recorded by hundreds of people made the towers collapse...surely u can be serious...that it so sad if you beleive that. The guy at 18minutes says black smoke in indicative of a fire going out...that is not true...black smoke means the fire is bad....white smoke means a fire is dying out. Then they go on about military helicopters...which i dont recall seeing with my own eyes that day nor have i ever seen of any reports of any in the area. There was many news and police copters though. As far as the bright flashes they could of been the sun reflecting off the metal sides of the copters...nothing really strange about that...not too mention whos to say that video hasnt been edited and those were put in? But i would bet it was the sun and water reflections of the metal sides. at 27:20 he talks about 6 explosions...i dont see them or hear them in this video at all...not sure what he is meaning. This is when i stopped watching...at 46minutes into he has proven nothing to me...he talks of explosions heard on the street...well i was down there and can say there wasnt any...so i dismiss the video as nonsense muddraking. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ali92 (Gravity not being able to take WTC7 down in as little as 4.5 seconds and shows why.) |
The evidence is in the steel right? Where is it? Where did it go? If one were to agree with experts they all say the same thing; that fire melted the columns that pancaked into the street below. But without the steel to be examined there is no proof just the "experts agree" angle with the pancake or truss failure theories.
You're entertaining conspiracy theories.
What is the temperature and DURATION for the WTC steel to bend or buckle? Without THAT particular steel to examine you and others have NO PROOF otherwise. Without knowing the particular chemical content of that steel to examine no one can say fire did this or that to the steel in those buildings.
But you're just going to cite some other person saying something because he is an expert when you have no actual hard evidence. Just posing for the cameras does not make one an expert. All you're going to do is cut and paste and mock me. You still would have no scientific evidence or proof that the buildings came down because of fire from a jetliner.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tiesto14 1. Why would 9.11 be an inside job? |
| quote: |
| 2. What would they gain from doing 9.11? |
| quote: |
| The media didnt tell me that...i knew that since the 1990s...but George Bush and John Kerry reminded me of it. And look at you slapping me in the face with the new internet debaters jargon "u beleive everything the medis tells me" crap...come on such a lame attack. You do realize you are using the internet right? and EVERYTHING and EVERYWHERE you get your information from, be it pro or con your cause, is all MEDIA you twit. Every website with information on a topic is MEDIA. Another typical attack my conspiracy theorists...a lame one at that. |
ive spent hours researching this and i came to the conclusion that the americian government was behind the attacks, the hole in the pentagon is a direct result of a missle attack due to the size of the hole and the lack of an airplane in pieces at the scene, the twin towers was a planned demolition if you look at the news coverage in slow motion you can see loads of explosions going off as the towers collapse not to mention it is impossibe for the structure of them buildings to collapse under such low temperaturs as steel has a melting point of over 2000 degrees and seeing as most of the fuel was burned in a giant fireball on impact it would of been impossible for the steel to melt especially as it only burnt for under an hour,
if you look at the footage of when george bush was told of the attack he nods his head and then gives a speech to school children not pahsed at all
and if you examine the fottage from people who caught the experience on video you can see the plane shoot missiles a split seccont before impact and the underside of the planes had been modified to carry the equipment
| quote: |
| Originally posted by seval ive spent hours researching this and i came to the conclusion that the americian government was behind the attacks, the hole in the pentagon is a direct result of a missle attack due to the size of the hole and the lack of an airplane in pieces at the scene |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by stevieboy32808 Almost. There were plane parts and I will address, at least this part, later. As for the rest of tiesto14's original questions I may answer those. |
If the US gov't was behind this, no one here would know about it 
.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lepanto If the US gov't was behind this, no one here would know about it . |
the only thing in your reply that makes sense is iraq. afganistan was a retaliation to 9/11 and Iran won't be attacked by ONLY the US
ok this is where you fall, your talking to someone who believes the americian government was behind the attacks so how could the invasion of afganistan be a retaliation if they wernt behind the attack
seccond of you look this up in an atlas you will find afganistan is directly beside iran this is a very good stratagic point to have over an oponent
third iran has many enemys just as every country does it just so happens isreal wants to blow them off the map at the same time america is trying to take over the world its more coincidence than planed
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lepanto the only thing in your reply that makes sense is iraq. afganistan was a retaliation to 9/11 and Iran won't be attacked by ONLY the US |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lepanto and Iran won't be attacked by ONLY the US |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Lepanto If the US gov't was behind this, no one here would know about it . |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by hardcore trancer oh yes I forgot about the massive coalition behind them. |
| quote: |
| Sunday, 23 September, 2001, 12:30 GMT 13:30 UK Hijack 'suspects' alive and well Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well. The identities of four of the 19 suspects accused of having carried out the attacks are now in doubt. Saudi Arabian pilot Waleed Al Shehri was one of five men that the FBI said had deliberately crashed American Airlines flight 11 into the World Trade Centre on 11 September. His photograph was released, and has since appeared in newspapers and on television around the world. Hijacking suspects Flight 175: Marwan Al-Shehhi, Fayez Ahmed, Mohald Alshehri, Hamza Alghamdi and Ahmed Alghamdi Flight 11: Waleed M Alshehri, Wail Alshehri, Mohamed Atta, Abdulaziz Alomari and Satam Al Suqami Flight 77: Khalid Al-Midhar, Majed Moqed, Nawaq Alhamzi, Salem Alhamzi and Hani Hanjour Flight 93: Ahmed Alhaznawi, Ahmed Alnami, Ziad Jarrahi and Saeed Alghamdi Now he is protesting his innocence from Casablanca, Morocco. He told journalists there that he had nothing to do with the attacks on New York and Washington, and had been in Morocco when they happened. He has contacted both the Saudi and American authorities, according to Saudi press reports. He acknowledges that he attended flight training school at Daytona Beach in the United States, and is indeed the same Waleed Al Shehri to whom the FBI has been referring. But, he says, he left the United States in September last year, became a pilot with Saudi Arabian airlines and is currently on a further training course in Morocco. Mistaken identity Abdulaziz Al Omari, another of the Flight 11 hijack suspects, has also been quoted in Arab news reports. He says he is an engineer with Saudi Telecoms, and that he lost his passport while studying in Denver. Another man with exactly the same name surfaced on the pages of the English-language Arab News. The second Abdulaziz Al Omari is a pilot for Saudi Arabian Airlines, the report says. Meanwhile, Asharq Al Awsat newspaper, a London-based Arabic daily, says it has interviewed Saeed Alghamdi. He was listed by the FBI as a hijacker in the United flight that crashed in Pennsylvania. And there are suggestions that another suspect, Khalid Al Midhar, may also be alive. FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledged on Thursday that the identity of several of the suicide hijackers is in doubt. Hijack 'suspects' alive and well |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by seval ok this is where you fall, your talking to someone who believes the americian government was behind the attacks so how could the invasion of afganistan be a retaliation if they wernt behind the attack |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by seval the only pieces of debre were that of a missle, part of the engine and part of the shell casing, both were too small to be part of a jumbo jet |
| quote: |
20 reasons to question the official story of 9/11 (1) The 9-11 Commission refused to examine the vast majority of evidence about 9/11, and even the former director of the FBI says there was a cover up by the 9/11 Commission (2) The tape of interviews of air traffic controllers on-duty on 9/11 was intentionally destroyed by crushing the cassette by hand, cutting the tape into little pieces, and then dropping the pieces in different trash cans around the building (3) Investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House (4) A retired Air Force Colonel who flew over 100 combat missions and was the director of the Star Wars defense program under both Republican and Democratic administrations (and a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth) recently said: "If our government had merely done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the twin towers would still be standing, and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive. That is treason!" (5) Recently declassified documents show that in the 1960's, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also committing terrorist murders against U.S. citizens on American soil, and then blaming it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba (6) The Secret Service, which is highly trained to whisk the president away from danger and to a secure location in the event of a threat, breached all standard procedures and allowed President Bush to remain at a highly-publicized location for 25 minutes after it was known that the nation was under attack (7) The U.S. defense agency responsible for protecting the U.S. had run drills for several years of planes being used as weapons against the World Trade Center and other U.S. high-profile buildings, and "numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft". In other words, drills using REAL AIRCRAFT simulating terrorist attacks crashing jets into buildings, including the twin towers, were run (8) The military had also conducted drills of planes crashing into the Pentagon (9) On the morning of 9/11, 5 war games and terror drills were being conducted by several U.S. defense agencies, including one "live fly" exercise using REAL planes. And the drills apparently included the injection of false "radar blips" onto the screens of air traffic controllers (10) The government was running a simulation of a plane crashing into a building on the morning of 9/11 (11) While the government has consistently stated that it did not know where the aircraft were before they struck, the Secretary of Transportation testified before the 9/11 Commission that Vice President Cheney monitored flight 77 for many miles as it approached the Pentagon (12) A third world trade center building, called building 7, collapsed on the afternoon of 9/11, but was never hit by plane, fell at the same speed as if there were no floors or walls to cause resistance, contained only small fires before the collapse, and became the first steel-frame building in history to collapse due to fire alone (13) USA Today stated that the FBI believed that bombs in the buildings brought the buildings down (14) MSNBC stated that police officials believe "that one of the explosions at the world trade center . . . may have been caused by a van that was parked in the building that may have had some kind of explosive device in it, so their fear is that there may have been explosive devices planted either in the building or in the adjacent area" (15) The NY Fire Department Chief of Safety stated there were "bombs" and "secondary devices", which caused the explosions in the buildings (16) NYC firefighters who witnessed attacks stated that it looked like there were bombs in the buildings. A NYC firefighter stated "On the last trip up a bomb went off. We think there was bombs set in the building" (17) The head of a national demolition association stated that the collapse of the towers looked like a "classic controlled demolition" (18) Eyewitnesses have testified that substantial explosions occurred well BELOW the area impacted by the planes, and -- according to some witnesses -- they occurred BEFORE the plane had even hit (19) A police officer testified that there were numerous, HUGE explosions at the top of one of the twin towers 15 minutes apart, before the tower collapsed (20) Numerous, credible ex-government officials are warning that the U.S. government might very well attack its own people to justify a further clampdown on civil rights and to justify additional wars |
| quote: |
| The Jet-Jocks Who Couldn't Fly A Cessna There are some who maintain that the mythical 9/11 hijackers, although proven to be too incompetent to fly a little Cessna 172, had acquired the impressive skills that enabled them to fly airliners by training in flight simulators. What follows is an attempt to bury this myth once and for all, because I've heard this ludicrous explanation bandied about, ad nauseam, on the Internet and the TV networks -- invariably by people who know nothing substantive about flight simulators, flying, or even airplanes. A common misconception non-pilots have about simulators is how "easy" it is to operate them. They are indeed relatively easy to operate if the objective is to make a few lazy turns and frolic about in the "open sky". But if the intent is to execute any kind of a maneuver with even the least bit of precision, the task immediately becomes quite daunting. And if the aim is to navigate to a specific geographic location hundreds of miles away while flying at over 500 MPH, 30,000 feet above the ground the challenges become virtually impossible for an untrained pilot. And this, precisely, is what the four hijacker pilots who could not fly a Cessna around an airport are alleged to have accomplished in multi-ton, high-speed commercial jets on 9/11. For a person not conversant with the practical complexities of pilotage, a modern flight simulator could present a terribly confusing and disorienting experience. These complex training devices are not even remotely similar to the video games one sees in amusement arcades, or even the software versions available for home computers. In order to operate a modern flight simulator with any level of skill, one has to not only be a decent pilot to begin with, but also a skilled instrument-rated one to boot -- and be thoroughly familiar with the actual aircraft type the simulator represents, since the cockpit layouts vary between aircraft. The only flight domains where an arcade/PC-type game would even begin to approach the degree of visual realism of a modern professional flight simulator would be during the take-off and landing phases. During these phases, of course, one clearly sees the bright runway lights stretched out ahead, and even peripherally sees images of buildings, etc. moving past. Take-offs -- even landings, to a certain degree -- are relatively "easy", because the pilot has visual reference cues that exist "outside" the cockpit. But once you've rotated, climbed out, and reached cruising altitude in a simulator (or real airplane), and find yourself en route to some distant destination (using sophisticated electronic navigation techniques), the situation changes drastically: the pilot loses virtually all external visual reference cues. S/he is left entirely at the mercy of an array of complex flight and navigation instruments to provide situational cues (altitude, heading, speed, attitude, etc.) In the case of a Boeing 757 or 767, the pilot would be faced with an EFIS (Electronic Flight Instrumentation System) panel comprised of six large multi-mode LCDs interspersed with clusters of assorted "hard" instruments. These displays process the raw aircraft system and flight data into an integrated picture of the aircraft situation, position and progress, not only in horizontal and vertical dimensions, but also with regard to time and speed as well. When flying "blind", I.e., with no ground reference cues, it takes a highly skilled pilot to interpret, and then apply, this data intelligently. If one cannot translate this information quickly, precisely and accurately (and it takes an instrument-rated pilot to do so), one would have ZERO SITUATIONAL AWARENESS. I.e., the pilot wouldn't have a clue where s/he was in relation to the earth. Flight under such conditions is referred to as "IFR", or Instrument Flight Rules. And IFR Rule #1: Never take your eyes off your instruments, because that's all you have! The corollary to Rule #1: If you can't read the instruments in a quick, smooth, disciplined, scan, you're as good as dead. Accident records from around the world are replete with reports of any number of good pilots -- I.e., professional instrument-rated pilots -- who �bought the farm' because they screwed up while flying in IFR conditions. Let me place this in the context of the 9/11 hijacker-pilots. These men were repeatedly deemed incompetent to solo a simple Cessna-172 -- an elementary exercise that involves flying this little trainer once around the patch on a sunny day. A student's first solo flight involves a simple circuit: take-off, followed by four gentle left turns ending with a landing back on the runway. This is as basic as flying can possibly get. Not one of the hijackers was deemed fit to perform this most elementary exercise by himself.In fact, here's what their flight instructors had to say about the aptitude of these budding aviators: Mohammed Atta: "His attention span was zero." Khalid Al-Mihdhar: "We didn't kick him out, but he didn't live up to our standards." Marwan Al-Shehhi: "He was dropped because of his limited English and incompetence at the controls." Salem Al-Hazmi: "We advised him to quit after two lessons." Hani Hanjour: "His English was horrible, and his mechanical skills were even worse. It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon. He could not fly at all." Now let's take a look at American Airlines Flight 77. Passenger/hijacker Hani Hanjour rises from his seat midway through the flight, viciously fights his way into the cockpit with his cohorts, overpowers Captain Charles F. Burlingame and First Officer David Charlebois, and somehow manages to toss them out of the cockpit (for starters, very difficult to achieve in a cramped environment without inadvertently impacting the yoke and thereby disengaging the autopilot). One would correctly presume that this would present considerable difficulties to a little guy with a box cutter -- Burlingame was a tough, burly, ex-Vietnam F4 fighter jock who had flown over 100 combat missions. Every pilot who knows him says that rather than politely hand over the controls, Burlingame would have instantly rolled the plane on its back so that Hanjour would have broken his neck when he hit the floor. But let's ignore this almost natural reaction expected of a fighter pilot and proceed with this charade. Nonetheless, imagine that Hanjour overpowers the flight deck crew, removes them from the cockpit and takes his position in the captain's seat. Although weather reports state this was not the case, let's say Hanjour was lucky enough to experience a perfect CAVU day (Ceiling And Visibility Unlimited). If Hanjour looked straight ahead through the windshield, or off to his left at the ground, at best he would see, 35,000 feet -- 7 miles -- below him, a murky brownish-grey-green landscape, virtually devoid of surface detail, while the aircraft he was now piloting was moving along, almost imperceptibly and in eerie silence, at around 500 MPH (about 750 feet every second). In a real-world scenario (and given the reported weather conditions that day), he would likely have seen clouds below him completely obscuring the ground he was traversing. With this kind of "situational non-awareness", Hanjour might as well have been flying over Argentina, Russia, or Japan -- he wouldn't have had a clue as to where, precisely, he was. After a few seconds (at 750 ft/sec), Hanjour would figure out there's little point in looking outside -- there's nothing there to give him any real visual cues. For a man who had previously wrestled with little Cessnas, following freeways and railroad tracks (and always in the comforting presence of an instructor), this would have been a strange, eerily unsettling environment indeed. Seeing nothing outside, Mr. Hanjour would be forced to divert his attention to his instrument panel, where he'd be faced with a bewildering array of instruments. He would then have to very quickly interpret his heading, ground track, altitude, and airspeed information on the displays before he could even figure out where in the world he was, much less where the Pentagon was located in relation to his position! After all, before he can crash into a target, he has to first find the target. It is very difficult to explain this scenario, of an utter lack of ground reference, to non-pilots; but let it suffice to say that for these incompetent hijacker non-pilots to even consider grappling with such a daunting task would have been utterly overwhelming. They wouldn't have known where to begin. But, for the sake of discussion let's stretch things beyond all plausibility and say that Hanjour -- whose flight instructor claimed "couldn't fly at all" -- somehow managed to figure out their exact position on the American landscape in relation to their intended target as they traversed the earth at a speed five times faster than they had ever flown by themselves before. Once he had determined exactly where he was, he would need to figure out where the Pentagon was located in relation to his rapidly-changing position. He would then need to plot a course to his target (one he cannot see with his eyes -- remember, our ace is flying solely on instruments). In order to perform this bit of electronic navigation, he would have to be very familiar with IFR procedures. None of these chaps even knew what a navigational chart looked like, much less how to how to plug information into flight management computers (FMC) and engage LNAV (lateral navigation automated mode). If one is to believe the official story, all of this was supposedly accomplished by raw student pilots while flying blind at 500 MPH over unfamiliar (and practically invisible) terrain, using complex methodologies and employing sophisticated instruments. To get around this little problem, the official storyline suggests these men manually flew their aircraft to their respective targets (NB: This still wouldn't relieve them of the burden of navigation). But let's assume Hanjour disengaged the autopilot and auto-throttle and hand-flew the aircraft to its intended -- and invisible -- target on instruments alone until such time as he could get a visual fix. This would have necessitated him to fly back across West Virginia and Virginia to Washington DC. (This portion of Flight 77's flight path cannot be corroborated by any radar evidence that exists, because the aircraft is said to have suddenly disappeared from radar screens over Ohio, but let's not mull over that little point.) According to FAA radar controllers, "Flight 77" then suddenly pops up over Washington DC and executes an incredibly precise diving turn at a rate of 360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500 ft/min, at the end of which "Hanjour" allegedly levels out at ground level. Oh, I almost forgot: He also had the presence of mind to turn off the transponder in the middle of this incredibly difficult maneuver (one of his instructors later commented the hapless fellow couldn't have spelt the word if his life depended on it). The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the air traffic controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their screen was a commercial airliner. Danielle O'Brian, one of the air traffic controllers at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said, "The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane." And then, all of a sudden we have magic. Voila! Hanjour finds the Pentagon sitting squarely in his sights right before him. But even that wasn't good enough for this fanatic Muslim kamikaze pilot. You see, he found that his "missile" was heading towards one of the most densely populated wings of the Pentagon -- and one occupied by top military brass, including the Secretary of Defense, Rumsfeld. Presumably in order to save these men's lives, he then executes a sweeping 270-degree turn and approaches the building from the opposite direction and aligns himself with the only wing of the Pentagon that was virtually uninhabited due to extensive renovations that were underway (there were some 120 civilians construction workers in that wing who were killed; their work included blast-proofing the outside wall of that wing). I shan't get into the aerodynamic impossibility of flying a large commercial jetliner 20 feet above the ground at over 400 MPH. A discussion on ground effect energy, tip vortex compression, downwash sheet reaction, wake turbulence, and jetblast effects are beyond the scope of this article (the 100,000-lb jetblast alone would have blown whole semi-trucks off the roads.) Let it suffice to say that it is physically impossible to fly a 200,000-lb airliner 20 feet above the ground at 400 MPH,. The author, a pilot and aeronautical engineer, challenges any pilot in the world to do so in any large high-speed aircraft that has a relatively low wing-loading (such as a commercial jet). I.e., to fly the craft at 400 MPH, 20 feet above ground in a flat trajectory over a distance of one mile. Why the stipulation of 20 feet and a mile? There were several street light poles located up to a mile away from the Pentagon that were snapped-off by the incoming aircraft; this suggests a low, flat trajectory during the final pre-impact approach phase. Further, it is known that the craft impacted the Pentagon's ground floor. For purposes of reference: If a 757 were placed on the ground on its engine nacelles (I.e., gear retracted as in flight profile), its nose would be almost 20 above the ground! Ergo, for the aircraft to impact the ground floor of the Pentagon, Hanjour would have needed to have flown in with the engines buried 10-feet deep in the Pentagon lawn. Some pilot. Why is such ultra-low-level flight aerodynamically impossible? Because the reactive force of the hugely powerful downwash sheet, coupled with the compressibility effects of the tip vortices, simply will not allow the aircraft to get any lower to the ground than approximately one half the distance of its wingspan -- until speed is drastically reduced, which, of course, is what happens during normal landings. In other words, if this were a Boeing 757 as reported, the plane could not have been flown below about 60 feet above ground at 400 MPH. (Such a maneuver is entirely within the performance envelope of aircraft with high wing-loadings, such as ground-attack fighters, the B1-B bomber, and Cruise missiles -- and the Global Hawk.) The very same navigational challenges mentioned above would have faced the pilots who flew the two 767s into the Twin Towers, in that they, too, would have had to have first found their targets. Again, these chaps, too, miraculously found themselves spot on course. And again, their "final approach" maneuvers at over 500 MPH are simply far too incredible to have been executed by pilots who could not solo basic training aircraft. Conclusion The writers of the official storyline expect us to believe, that once the flight deck crews had been overpowered, and the hijackers "took control" of the various aircraft, their intended targets suddenly popped up in their windshields as they would have in some arcade game, and all that these fellows would have had to do was simply aim their airplanes at the buildings and fly into them. Most people who have been exposed only to the official storyline have never been on the flight deck of an airliner at altitude and looked at the outside world; if they had, they'd realize the absurdity of this kind of reasoning. In reality, a clueless non-pilot would encounter almost insurmountable difficulties in attempting to navigate and fly a 200,000-lb airliner into a building located on the ground, 7 miles below and hundreds of miles away and out of sight, and in an unknown direction, while flying at over 500 MPH - and all this under extremely stressful circumstances. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by seval and if you examine the fottage from people who caught the experience on video you can see the plane shoot missiles a split seccont before impact and the underside of the planes had been modified to carry the equipment |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ogvh5150 What is the temperature and DURATION for the WTC steel to bend or buckle? Without THAT particular steel to examine you and others have NO PROOF otherwise. Without knowing the particular chemical content of that steel to examine no one can say fire did this or that to the steel in those buildings. But you're just going to cite some other person saying something because he is an expert when you have no actual hard evidence. Just posing for the cameras does not make one an expert. All you're going to do is cut and paste and mock me. You still would have no scientific evidence or proof that the buildings came down because of fire from a jetliner. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ogvh5150 The ends justify the means. If they can kill thousands of people to prove a point, they will. Wait until they kill millions. The Iraq war is an example. No one was killed with Saddams WMD's because it is official that he had none. The only deaths that have occured are from our WMD's in Iraq. This is the ends justifying the means. This is their worldview. They're up there playing king of the hill and they love people like you. Uneducated and misinformed. If I had money and power I wouldn't give a damn about you, this board or the entire Eastern seaboard. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by ogvh5150 Sit down and read something, from credible sources, I and others have shown you. Stop with the name calling and childish remarks. You're not helping anyone for your cause. |
I believe there is some kind of cover-up but that it's hardly as vast or malicious as many others think. Probably some unreleased documents will show that we could have prevented it, or that we shot down the PA Airliner or any number of informationalchanges, but I'm guessing that Bush and the current White House didn't plan it or excaberate it in any way.
Look here. 9/11 could not have been an inside job because:
- THEY�RE MUCH TOO INCOMPETENT! Give me a break. They are also too cowardly.
- THEY WOULD NEVER HAVE CLOSED DOWN WALL STREET. It makes no sense that the bad guys would deliberately bring off a plan that brought down Wall Street. They would have sent the planes somewhere else, I�m sure of it. Note how the Administration was anxious to get Wall Street going again. They told New Yorkers the air was safe, even though the air was hazardous. To me, this proves they didn�t engineer it.
- THEY WOULD NEVER HIT THE NERVE CENTER OF THEIR OWN MILITARY. In the same vein, I doubt the �sadistic control freaks� who are bringing off this plan would allow a blow to the Pentagon. The conspiracist paradigm alleges a lot of egotism & arrogance on the part of the perpetrators. But egotistic, arrogant control freaks would not want to look so incredibly lame.
- THE PRESIDENT WENT INTO BRAINLOCK. He famously sat there for something like 7 minutes��while the country was under attack! Exscuse me, if he�d planned the attack, he would have known what to do! The people who engineered the attacks would have arranged to make the President look good, you understand? It was their caper; they would not let their guy just sit there looking dumb. So it was not an inside job, you see?
- THE ADMINISTRATION FLEW MEMBERS OF THE BIN LADEN FAMILY OUT OF THE U.S. RIGHT AFTER 9/11. Alex Jones & other conspiracy guys cite this as evidence of a conspiracy. But it does just the opposite. Consider: if the government had been behind 9/11, they would have gotten the Bin Ladens out of America BEFORE 9/11. So once again: it was almost certainly not a conspiracy.
- THERE ARE TOO MANY HOLES IN THE �COVER STORY.� Once again, you�ll notice my mind goes in the opposite direction from the conspiracy guys�. They�re the ones poking the holes, after all. But here�s how I figure it. If you�re planning a hoax, you work very hard on that cover story. Your cover story is the whole point of your subterfuge, right? You want that story to be as seamless as can be. (Some conspiracists gamely say the perps were trying to be clumsy or inept, or trying to leave clues, but these people just need to get away from the computer & get some fresh air; have a hot meal, my friends; let it go) So every time the conspiracy people find a �hole,� it suggests it was not a conspiracy.
You should know that no two conspiracy guys have exactly the same theory. Every one of them has his own bag of beliefs. Some theorists, for example, believe 9/11 was brought off by aliens. There�s a website somewhere with a photo of a UFO, conveniently materializing right at the moment when the plane struck the tower.
Other conspiracists sound very New Age. One minute they babble about crystals & orgones...the next minute they babble about chemtrails. You�ve gotta love these guys.
Crazy as it is, this thing is not negligible. The conspiracy guys (with a few gals) are a very alienated group of people. They see no hope in any human institutions. About all they can rely on are their guns. This cannot possibly be good for society, nor reflect well upon it.
They hate everything about America . They think both parties have gone down the tubes, the schools are brainwashing us, the corporations are evil, all human institutions are to be distrusted, etc., etc. For them, everything is a sham, so they sneer at everything.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Psygnosis (5) Recently declassified documents show that in the 1960's, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan to blow up AMERICAN airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also committing terrorist murders against U.S. citizens on American soil, and then blaming it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba |
tiesto14, whilst being quite insulting has made some really good points. just try and be less abusive buddy
still, no ones ever answered my question regarding the placement of the explosives. did they tell the pilots EXACTLY which floors to crash into coz the govt had already planted the explosives? haha. or did they plant the explosives straight after the planes hit?
ogv5150, i was interested in that link you gave me, but not in searching thru a nutcase forum repost that video link and ill have a look at it.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN tiesto14, whilst being quite insulting has made some really good points. just try and be less abusive buddy |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN still, no ones ever answered my question regarding the placement of the explosives. did they tell the pilots EXACTLY which floors to crash into coz the govt had already planted the explosives? haha. or did they plant the explosives straight after the planes hit? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tiesto14 makes no difference...there was no explosives. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.