TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- New 9/11 Documentary, The peoples voice.
Pages (4): « 1 2 3 [4]

Yeah for sure. None of it makes sense on any level whatsoever. THIS study found that people that believed in conspiracies were more likely to do so because they themselves would act in a similar way as perceived conspirators (if they ever got off the couch and moved out of home that is).

My fucking god, I can't believe this shit is still going.

There's only two valid points int he entire steaming pile of conspiarcies:

1, Certain people knew this was going to happen and either ignored it, or were happy to let it take place. There have been several documents and statements from those in the CIA and FBI that something was impending but the upper chain inexplicably did nothing about it. It could of course be grand ineptitude on a massive scale but the opposing possibility is just as credible.

2, At least one of the planes was shot down. I personally never had any doubt about the pentagon plane crashing but the last plane I am not so sure about.

I will never forget watching TV that morning when I was living on the east coast, seeing it all happen live (switched on 10 seconds before the 2nd plane hit). As I jumped to different channels later that day I happened on a small local news broadcast and saw a live interview with the farmer that owned the field where the last plane crashed 30 minutes before.

His words were "I saw it coming down, belly facing up, with smoke billowing from the underside"

I have never been able to find a recording or a transcript of that interview. Then within about 48 hours, the "Let's Roll" story started to emerge.

I believe that last plane was shot down. By that time, they knew it wasn't an accident, that two major targets had been hit and they could clearly see the flight path.

The story of it being taken by passengers was bearable, migs taking it down was not.

That is the sum total of government involvement.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN but the opposing possibility is just as credible.

no it isn't.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN 2, At least one of the planes was shot down. I personally never had any doubt about the pentagon plane crashing but the last plane I am not so sure about. I will never forget watching TV that morning when I was living on the east coast, seeing it all happen live (switched on 10 seconds before the 2nd plane hit). As I jumped to different channels later that day I happened on a small local news broadcast and saw a live interview with the farmer that owned the field where the last plane crashed 30 minutes before. His words were "I saw it coming down, belly facing up, with smoke billowing from the underside" I have never been able to find a recording or a transcript of that interview. Then within about 48 hours, the "Let's Roll" story started to emerge. I believe that last plane was shot down. By that time, they knew it wasn't an accident, that two major targets had been hit and they could clearly see the flight path. The story of it being taken by passengers was bearable, migs taking it down was not. That is the sum total of government involvement.

i too remember reading that quote, but all the evidence points to flight 93 crashing on its own. no airforce planes ever made contact with 93. that's proven fact.

[IMG][/IMG]

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN no it isn't.

Well, it is. In our haste to quell the quagmire of bullshit that is 9/11 conspiracy theories, let's not exclude or even forget a few decades of very well documented (and officially conceded) coverups ranging from covert action to document tampering, to witness suppression over the last century.

(Pentagon papers, Susan McDougal, the 45 minute claim etc).

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i too remember reading that quote, but all the evidence points to flight 93 crashing on its own. no airforce planes ever made contact with 93. that's proven fact.

Actually, it's not. That's just what the norad records state (and yes, I've read the entire thing).

This, if it did happen, is the first and only apparent instance in US history of a civilian aircraft being taken down for the greater protection. I doubt, that if it did happen, they are going to send a Mig with a nice big Star Spangled across the tail and record the data of the whole thing.

The problem is, many people said they saw at least one other plane in the sky near flight 93, when every single plane had already been ordered to land at the nearest airport (and there was no airport nearby). Also, if migs had been scrambled for the other planes but got there too late, why wouldn't they have done the same for the last plane which happened later and had more time to react to?

It simply doesn't make sense. Grand, mass scale ineptitude again?

This quite eloquently sums up the inconsistencies, not to mention states the clear fact that at least the decision HAD been made:

quote:

Well-founded uncertainty as to just what happened to Flight 93 is nothing new. Just three days after the worst terrorist attack in American history, on Sept. 14, 2001, The (Bergen County, N.J.) Record newspaper reported that five eyewitnesses reported seeing a second plane at the Flight 93 crash site. That same day, reported the Record, FBI Special Agent William Crowley said investigators could not rule out that a second plane was nearby during the crash. He later said he had misspoken, dismissing rumors that a U.S. military jet had intercepted the plane before it could strike a target in Washington, D.C. Although government officials insist there was never any pursuit of Flight 93, they were informed the flight was suspected of having been hijacked at 9:16 am, fully 50 minutes before the plane came down. On the Sept. 16, 2001, edition of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Vice President Dick Cheney, while not addressing Flight 93 specifically, spoke clearly to the administration’s clear policy regarding shooting down hijacked jets. Vice President Cheney: “Well, the – I suppose the toughest decision was this question of whether or not we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft.” NBC’s Tim Russert: “And you decided?” Cheney: “We decided to do it. We’d, in effect, put a flying combat air patrol up over the city; F-16s with an AWACS, which is an airborne radar system, and tanker support so they could stay up a long time … “It doesn’t do any good to put up a combat air patrol if you don’t give them instructions to act, if, in fact, they feel it’s appropriate.” Russert: “So if the United States government became aware that a hijacked commercial airline[r] was destined for the White House or the Capitol, we would take the plane down?” Cheney: “Yes. The president made the decision … that if the plane would not divert … as a last resort, our pilots were authorized to take them out. Now, people say, you know, that’s a horrendous decision to make. Well, it is. You’ve got an airplane full of American citizens, civilians, captured by … terrorists, headed and are you going to, in fact, shoot it down, obviously, and kill all those Americans on board? “… It’s a presidential-level decision, and the president made, I think, exactly the right call in this case, to say, I wished we’d had combat air patrol up over New York.’” Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2004/12/28200/#q5CjqyKUi5Kz2X2u.99

MiGs are Russian aircraft.

SherlockCrash

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J MiGs are Russian aircraft.

EXACTLY. EXACTLY.

My God.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Well, it is. In our haste to quell the quagmire of bullshit that is 9/11 conspiracy theories, let's not exclude or even forget a few decades of very well documented (and officially conceded) coverups ranging from covert action to document tampering, to witness suppression over the last century. (Pentagon papers, Susan McDougal, the 45 minute claim etc).

there is absolutely no evidence to support the let it happen on purpose (LIHOP) nonsense. none.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Actually, it's not. That's just what the norad records state (and yes, I've read the entire thing). This, if it did happen, is the first and only apparent instance in US history of a civilian aircraft being taken down for the greater protection. I doubt, that if it did happen, they are going to send a Mig with a nice big Star Spangled across the tail and record the data of the whole thing. The problem is, many people said they saw at least one other plane in the sky near flight 93, when every single plane had already been ordered to land at the nearest airport (and there was no airport nearby).

uh huh.

quote:

3) The cockpit voice recorder recorded the hijackers' attack and apparent murder of the pilots and a flight attendant. Air traffic controllers heard a radio transmission by a man with an Arabic accent, warning of a bomb on board. Passengers reported that one of the hijackers had what appeared to be a bomb strapped to him. 4) After learning about the other attacks, passengers and cabin crew attempted to retake the cockpit but were apparently unable to gain entry. The sound of their attempts was recorded on the CVR. The CVR also recorded the hijackers' decision to end the flight, followed by repeated shouts of "Allahu Akbar!" ("God is greatest.") until the plane crashed. Families of victims heard the CVR recording.

quote:

Also, if migs had been scrambled for the other planes but got there too late, why wouldn't they have done the same for the last plane which happened later and had more time to react to? It simply doesn't make sense. Grand, mass scale ineptitude again?

quote:

As one of its last acts before disbanding, in July 2004, the 9/11 commission made referrals to the inspector general's offices of both the Department of Transportation (which includes the F.A.A.) and the Defense Department to further investigate whether witnesses had lied. "Commission staff believes that there is significant evidence that the false statements made to the commission were deliberately false," Farmer wrote to me in an e-mail summarizing the commission's referral. "The false testimony served a purpose: to obscure mistakes on the part of the F.A.A. and the military, and to overstate the readiness of the military to intercept and, if necessary, shoot down UAL 93." Five years after the attack, the controversy around United 93 clearly eats at Arnold, Marr, Nasypany, and several other military people I spoke with, who resent both conspiracy theories that accuse them of shooting the flight down and the 9/11 commission's conclusion that they were chasing ghosts and never stood a chance of intercepting any of the real hijackings. "I don't know about time lines and stuff like that," Nasypany, who is now a lieutenant colonel, said in one of our last conversations. "I knew where 93 was. I don't care what [the commission says]. I mean, I care, but—I made that assessment to put my fighters over Washington. Ninety-three was on its way in. I knew there was another one out there. I knew there was somebody else coming in—whatever you want to call it. And I knew what I was going to have to end up doing." When you listen to the tapes, it couldn't feel more horrendously true. When I asked Nasypany about the conspiracy theories—the people who believe that he, or someone like him, secretly ordered the shootdown of United 93 and covered it up—the corners of his mouth began to quiver. Then, I think to the surprise of both of us, he suddenly put his head in his hands and cried. "Flight 93 was not shot down," he said when he finally looked up. "The individuals on that aircraft, the passengers, they actually took the aircraft down. Because of what those people did, I didn't have to do anything."

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/.../08/norad200608

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN This quite eloquently sums up the inconsistencies, not to mention states the clear fact that at least the decision HAD been made:

what inconsistencies exactly? all i see is a comment about another plane being in the vague vicinity of the crash? really? vanity fair's article and the 911 report are far more convincing than alleged, supposed, imagined, aircraft that may or may not have been in the area.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On EXACTLY. EXACTLY.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J My God.

We now return you to your regular scheduled reality, however it may manifest.

obama did it, duh

For the non-Americans who missed it.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN

Why would the US feel the need to hide the fact they took down Flight 93 in your opinion?

Don't worry I'll wait.

quote:

Originally posted by Desiderata Why would the US feel the need to hide the fact they took down Flight 93 in your opinion?

His logic extends to this:

quote:

The story of it being taken by passengers was bearable, migs taking it down was not.

Presumably meaning that for the families of the survivors, being told a lie about how the passengers had died heroically was more comforting than hearing an air force jet blew their loved ones up in mid-air. In the grand scheme of the 9/11 brain-wrong, this is downright plausible. It still, however, feels like a big stretch to cover up all the people involved on the air force side and the crash investigation side, with nobody ever coming forward, especially when the evidence is pretty sketchy.

quote:

Originally posted by SYSTEM-J His logic extends to this: Presumably meaning that for the families of the survivors, being told a lie about how the passengers had died heroically was more comforting than hearing an air force jet blew their loved ones up in mid-air. In the grand scheme of the 9/11 brain-wrong, this is downright plausible. It still, however, feels like a big stretch to cover up all the people involved on the air force side and the crash investigation side, with nobody ever coming forward, especially when the evidence is pretty sketchy.

I feel given the circumstances of that day that the families of the people in Flight 93 would have no choice but except government involvement given the circumstances of that day. Plus they would love to broadcast that they had to shoot down one plane, they would be dying to say that.

Didn't happen...

the fact that i was once a backstreet boy has been largely ignored so i do understand that feeling. You feel paranoid almost like perhaps it is all in your head but you know what AJAY' penis feels like in your hand so it can't be not true

LOL

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN there is absolutely no evidence to support the let it happen on purpose (LIHOP) nonsense. none.

Says fucking who? Stop being so naive. 19 terrorists, several of which were already on no-fly or watch lists, plan at least 18 months to carry out multiple hijackings, and on the day, only one of 19 get stopped from boarding? and they carry out all attacks unhindered?

Oh, I see more mass, co-incidental ineptitude. I don't care if you don't like it or there's not a released and readily available document proving it right now, but history is on my side; there have been countless events that government officials (from the president down) often colluding en masse, have later admitted to happening. Just watch The Most Dangerous Man in America about the pentagon papers. You'll see the lengths people will go to in an effort to protect a grand lie.

I'm not saying people helped them. I'm saying there at lease certain people out there who knew what was going to happen and turned a blind eye. It's the dumber argument to think there wasn't. I bet you think there's not other life in our universe than us, just because you haven't shaken ET by the hand.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN uh huh. 3) The cockpit voice recorder recorded the hijackers' attack and apparent murder of the pilots and a flight attendant. Air traffic controllers heard a radio transmission by a man with an Arabic accent, warning of a bomb on board. Passengers reported that one of the hijackers had what appeared to be a bomb strapped to him. 4) After learning about the other attacks, passengers and cabin crew attempted to retake the cockpit but were apparently unable to gain entry. The sound of their attempts was recorded on the CVR. The CVR also recorded the hijackers' decision to end the flight, followed by repeated shouts of "Allahu Akbar!" ("God is greatest.") until the plane crashed. Families of victims heard the CVR recording.

And you've heard the cockpit recording have you? You've verified it and authenticated it and made sure there's no edits etc?

So let's get this right: They already knew there were multiple attacks and knew this last plane had been hijacked. They'd scrambled jets to intercept the earlier planes but they got there too late. Then they knew the pilot was dead and the hijackers had a bomb. So if passengers knew about the other attacks by now, the government somehow hadn't caught on yet and were just sitting there waiting for something to happen? Where does this info like " the sound of their attempts were recorded on the CVR" come from? The families of the victims? the press release from the presidential office? the FAA? Because they haven't released the tapes. And what does that sound like? I'm sure when a plane is being hijacked you hear all sorts of shit and if you've ever heard a real CVR it's fucking difficult to hear anything clearly that is not spoken in to the cockpit mic. And I'm a pro engineer and still can't make head nor tail of what's meant ot be going on.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN As one of its last acts before disbanding, in July 2004, the 9/11 commission made referrals to the inspector general's offices of both the Department of Transportation (which includes the F.A.A.) and the Defense Department to further investigate whether witnesses had lied. "Commission staff believes that there is significant evidence that the false statements made to the commission were deliberately false," Farmer wrote to me in an e-mail summarizing the commission's referral. "The false testimony served a purpose: to obscure mistakes on the part of the F.A.A. and the military, and to overstate the readiness of the military to intercept and, if necessary, shoot down UAL 93."

What a fucking second. So them admitting that a decision had been made to shoot it down, and that they had capability and jets in the air, was all just a huge and well co-ordinated lie FROM DONALD RUMSFELD DOWN, just to cover up the fact they we're ready? Listen to yourself. You can't have that cake you just ate. They're either lying or they're not. I say they lied about not shooting it down, and you say no they said they shot it down, but actually they didn't and it was all a conspiracy of lies to cover up the fact they didn't?

This is getting like the last season of the x-files. One guy contracting an entire commission does not make me feel any more or less confident either way but right, because Vanity Fair, did an article many years after the fact it's the gospel.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN what inconsistencies exactly? all i see is a comment about another plane being in the vague vicinity of the crash? really? vanity fair's article and the 911 report are far more convincing than alleged, supposed, imagined, aircraft that may or may not have been in the area.

Read my earlier posts again and check the sources. They not edited by commercial entities as in VF.

At least 5 different but all consistent, time of incident witness reports about planes being in the sky. A direct quote from Rumsfeld saying it had been authorized (in fact he even had that famous slip of the tongue in a press conference "shooting down the plane" in the days that followed... I could go on but I think there's at least enough things to make you wonder if something else happened here.

quote:

Originally posted by SYS-J Presumably meaning that for the families of the survivors, being told a lie about how the passengers had died heroically was more comforting than hearing an air force jet blew their loved ones up in mid-air. In the grand scheme of the 9/11 brain-wrong, this is downright plausible. It still, however, feels like a big stretch to cover up all the people involved on the air force side and the crash investigation side, with nobody ever coming forward, especially when the evidence is pretty sketchy.

And that is what i'm saying; it's quite plausible and by no means proven. But to go further, it's not primarily for the families - I lived on the east coast at that time and the US had never had anything close like this happen. It was shaken to it's core. America couldn't then take the news it own government shot down a plane as well and a heroic cover story would make a tiny silver lining to hold on to.

Again, I have no proof and it may even be a stretch but it's certainly plausible.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Says fucking who?

i do. if you have information contrary to this, by all means name some names.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Stop being so naive. 19 terrorists, several of which were already on no-fly or watch lists, plan at least 18 months to carry out multiple hijackings, and on the day, only one of 19 get stopped from boarding? and they carry out all attacks unhindered?

incredulity noted.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Oh, I see more mass, co-incidental ineptitude. I don't care if you don't like it or there's not a released and readily available document proving it right now, but history is on my side; there have been countless events that government officials (from the president down) often colluding en masse, have later admitted to happening. Just watch The Most Dangerous Man in America about the pentagon papers. You'll see the lengths people will go to in an effort to protect a grand lie.

sure, well when history proves you right, feel free to bump this thread. as it stands however, i doubt you could find any previous coverup that is similar to the breadth and scope required for 911.

quote:

I bet you think there's not other life in our universe than us, just because you haven't shaken ET by the hand.

and i bet you think this life has handed on earth because that sounds just like what the government would cover up

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN And you've heard the cockpit recording have you? You've verified it and authenticated it and made sure there's no edits etc?

ugh. i didnt see any footage of the plane crashing into the pentagon either however i do know that many and varied investigators have examined said tapes, as well as 93's families. why must *I* then go and listen to them myself? why am i a better judge of authenticity of these recordings?

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN So let's get this right: They already knew there were multiple attacks and knew this last plane had been hijacked. They'd scrambled jets to intercept the earlier planes but they got there too late. Then they knew the pilot was dead and the hijackers had a bomb. So if passengers knew about the other attacks by now, the government somehow hadn't caught on yet and were just sitting there waiting for something to happen? Where does this info like " the sound of their attempts were recorded on the CVR" come from? The families of the victims? the press release from the presidential office? the FAA? Because they haven't released the tapes. And what does that sound like? I'm sure when a plane is being hijacked you hear all sorts of shit and if you've ever heard a real CVR it's fucking difficult to hear anything clearly that is not spoken in to the cockpit mic. And I'm a pro engineer and still can't make head nor tail of what's meant ot be going on.

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/flight93page1

have fun. no single piece of evidence is necessarily the holy grail, but taken together is fairly compelling. note the multiple eye-witnesses to a low-flying plane that crashed, and no reports of fighters shooting it down. take note of things like the FDR data showing the plane was intact before impact, there's a transcript of the CVR from the moussaoui trial, and the flight paths which corroborate eye witness testimony.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN What a fucking second. So them admitting that a decision had been made to shoot it down, and that they had capability and jets in the air, was all just a huge and well co-ordinated lie FROM DONALD RUMSFELD DOWN, just to cover up the fact they we're ready? Listen to yourself. You can't have that cake you just ate. They're either lying or they're not. I say they lied about not shooting it down, and you say no they said they shot it down, but actually they didn't and it was all a conspiracy of lies to cover up the fact they didn't?

no, what i provided was just a snippet of a rather lengthy discussion on the topic, which involved plenty of government lies to coverup the incompetence, yet also included quotes from individuals on the front lines advising 93 wasn't shot down. governments aren't monolithic entities and just because there's a bureaucracy the fudges things because they had their pants pulled down, does not automatically make everyone in the government a liar. it's up to YOU to determine whether that article is compelling or not. i thought it was, and combined with the other details of the crash i don't find YOUR opinion compelling at all. it's all inductive suspicions which aren't enough for me.

quote:

This is getting like the last season of the x-files. One guy contracting an entire commission does not make me feel any more or less confident either way but right, because Vanity Fair, did an article many years after the fact it's the gospel.

as above. i didn't say it was "gospel". it is however better than anything you've said. incredulity + your own suspicions.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN Read my earlier posts again and check the sources. They not edited by commercial entities as in VF.

i read your earlier posts. i didn't see what inconsistencies they were referring to. and that's not even pointing out that inconsistencies in these situations are to be expected.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN At least 5 different but all consistent, time of incident witness reports about planes being in the sky. A direct quote from Rumsfeld saying it had been authorized (in fact he even had that famous slip of the tongue in a press conference "shooting down the plane" in the days that followed... I could go on but I think there's at least enough things to make you wonder if something else happened here.

i just think it's funny how much importance you give rumsfeld above and beyond all the other pieces of evidence.

quote:

Originally posted by DJ RANN And that is what i'm saying; it's quite plausible and by no means proven. But to go further, it's not primarily for the families - I lived on the east coast at that time and the US had never had anything close like this happen. It was shaken to it's core. America couldn't then take the news it own government shot down a plane as well and a heroic cover story would make a tiny silver lining to hold on to. Again, I have no proof and it may even be a stretch but it's certainly plausible.

the convoluted coverup required in this kind of scenario just isn't commensurate with the motivation; the decision to shoot down a terrorist-controlled plane would have been more than defensible and understandable in the aftermath of new york.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.