It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Does it make sense to you?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 04:29 PM
link   
So far "the government" (this means the US and now Britain) is supposedly able to:

  • Steal 4 commercial airliners without anyone at the air ports noticing
  • Murder 3 passenger lists and crew rosters after landing said aircraft
  • Remote control fly 3 planes into 3 different buildings
  • Forget to remote control the 4th plane into the 4th building
  • Shoot down 4th plane when either the pasengers attempt to regain control of it from apparent hijackers (as reported by multiple phonecalls to 911 and relatives of passengers), or allow said aircraft to crash during the attempt to retake control (again - forgetting to remote control fly the plane)
  • Sneak over 60 bodies into a burning building (Pentagon) without anyone noticing
  • Sneak thousands of pounds of wreckage into a burning building without any of the 200+ civilian fire and rescure personnel noticing
  • Sneak thousands of remote detonation charges into 2 buildings occupied and used by over 15,000 people daily - without being noticed
  • Set up demolition charges in 2 of the world's largest buildings without any of the 200+ onsite security, building engineers, maintenance, or policemen noticing
  • Cut or partially cut thousands of support columns in two of the worlds largest buildings without anyone noticing
  • Remote detonate charges in buildings while fires rage on multiple floors
  • Clean all trace of explosives from the site so no NYPD or NYFD people find any in the rubble
  • Clean all trace of explosives from over 180 huge pieces of steel sent to multiple labs for testing
  • Clean all trace of explosives from over 200 pieces of WTC wreckage, including 2 pieces of the 757, which travel the world as part of an exhibit on 9/11
  • Clean all trace of explosives from ALL the steel before sending it to an unfriendly nation for disposal -- disposal by a nation that would gain enormous international prestiege by discovering anything out of the ordinary (traces of explosives) on/with the steel
  • Detonate three bombs on trains in London underground
  • Detonate one bomb in a bus in front of multiple witnesses who report a middle eastern suicide bomber, including two witnesses who say they saw the man explode


But the same governement that can carry out all that is somehow unable to sneak WMDs into Iraq to prove to the world that one of their primary stated reasons for invading Iraq was justified.

How can a group of government people be so incredibly competent to supposedly carry out the greatest fraud in our lifetime yet be so utterly incompetent that they can't even sneak in a couple jugs of chemical weapons (Tabun, Sarin, Soman, GF gas, VX gas, etc) into a country like Iraq? Or, for that matter, sneak a couple cups of anthrax, ricin, saxitoxin, RVF, trichothecene mycotoxins, tularemia, small pox, plague or any other biological weapon component into the country?

Mindboggling.




posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 04:38 PM
link   
Our government had nothing to do with 9/11, The war in Iraq was not about WMD, is was about protecting Israel..



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Looks like somebody had some insecurities to have to post this.
You could've easily just put it in the WTC Challenge thread, or has that thread been too well-defended by us crazy conspiracy theorists for it to be a fertile ground for posting attacks on our reasoning?

Didn't you admit yourself already that you can't deny Building 7 was brought down by demolition? I think you have.

It's not as though no one would noticed these things (ie, at the airports, etc.). It's that they could control the problem when people did notice. A lot of info has came out from witnesses, people from the inside, etc., and what do people such as yourself say? "It's not credible!" And the problem is controlled through info and disinfo and etc.

Then you look at the physics of the events of 9/11, and they do not add up. This is what's being discussed in the WTC Challenge thread, that you've left to attack us here. Again, I question your reasoning for this.

The US didn't bother smuggling WMDs into Iraq because (a) the UN would surely notice, and (b) they didn't have to. We're still at war, right? No huge rallies from there being no WMDs? Well then I don't think it's too big of a problem then, is it?

The idea of Iraq having WMDs was a joke. The UN knew Iraq didn't have any. That's why they didn't buy Bush's case, and Bush had to go without UN support. They knew Saddam was clean. He didn't have any plants, or means of producing WMDs, and he was on record as denying the materials he would need to start a nuclear program stating that he was waiting for sanctions to be lifted. Everyone at the UN knew this.

If the US suddenly found weapons in Iraq, it wouldn't be an easily drowned-out domestic issue where everything is in our control. It would have been an international issue as the Iran-Contra Affair, and the UN would likely have investigated, resulting in the exposure of a scandal that would've been worse for US image than the fact that our war justifications were unfound.

And why would we risk that happening? Like I said, no one really cares that we found no WMDs in Iraq. We've been conditioned too well to actually care.



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 05:04 PM
link   
I don't understand the point at all of assembling hypotheses from the lunatic fringe and some unproven assumptions as if they all co-exist, and making an irrelevant comparison with the failure to locate WMDs in the locations that Bush administration officials knowingly lied about.

What remains is that the incumbent US government was complicit and negligent in the attacks on the US on 9/11/2001, and that it used false and fabricated intelligence to secure the support of Congress and a small number of allies to invade Iraq.



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 05:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
Looks like somebody had some insecurities to have to post this.
You could've easily just put it in the WTC Challenge thread, or has that thread been too well-defended by us crazy conspiracy theorists for it to be a fertile ground for posting attacks on our reasoning?

Didn't you admit yourself already that you can't deny Building 7 was brought down by demolition? I think you have.


No, don't put your words in my mouth thanks.

I have no insecuries about anything, but your response here says an enormous volume about your own. "Attacks on our reasoning" ??! What is that all about? You feel that what you post, or anyone that posts similar thoughts like your own are "discussion" but anyone that posts anything contrary is an "attack" on you? Excuse me? All I see in the thread you're talking about is an organized attack (most of them on a personal level) against HR. Anyone else that tries to comment on any of the posts (especially if they post anything factual) gets jumped on and hollered at by the same 5 individuals...



...
Then you look at the physics of the events of 9/11, and they do not add up. This is what's being discussed in the WTC Challenge thread, that you've left to attack us here. Again, I question your reasoning for this.


Again, attack you? Get a grip.



If the US suddenly found weapons in Iraq, it wouldn't be an easily drowned-out domestic issue where everything is in our control. It would have been an international issue as the Iran-Contra Affair, and the UN would likely have investigated, resulting in the exposure of a scandal that would've been worse for US image than the fact that our war justifications were unfound.


So let me get this straight...

According to you, if the US found WMD in Iraq this would result in such a scandal and a public outcry that it would be detrimental to the US administration? Yet, this administration, according to you, perpetrates an attack on their own nation and this is safe from scandal or public outcry? That makes absolutely no sense at all.

You cannot justify that the "shadow government" can supposedly perpetrate the largest attack on US soil but still be unable to sneak WMD evidence into Iraq as evidence.

Your only response to this is to claim it's some sort of attack on you; I don't know how to respond to that assertion frankly.



[edit on 17-7-2005 by CatHerder]



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 05:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
I don't understand the point at all of assembling hypotheses from the lunatic fringe and some unproven assumptions as if they all co-exist, and making an irrelevant comparison with the failure to locate WMDs in the locations that Bush administration officials knowingly lied about.

What remains is that the incumbent US government was complicit and negligent in the attacks on the US on 9/11/2001, and that it used false and fabricated intelligence to secure the support of Congress and a small number of allies to invade Iraq.


How is the comparison irrelevant though? If they could pull off any of the 9/11 attacks, then it's obviously a given that they could surely plant evidence of WMDs in Iraq to vindicate accusations of falsifying information to justify the Iraq invasion.

Yet no WMDs were ever found, now all that remains is the fact that the administration invaded Iraq under false pretenses. The attackers on 9/11 were not in Iraq, not funded by Iraq, and not trained by Iraq - they were funded by Saudis, were located in Afghanistan, and trained in Afghanistan and Pakistan (and the USA and Canada for flight/simulator training).

That's the real crime here, not the attacks on the WTC or Pentagon; the invasion of a sovereign nation without justification or provocation has gone unanswered. And when will it stop? Iran next? Then Syria, Lebanon, Jordan? Who then; perhaps Mexico and Canada?

[edit on 17-7-2005 by CatHerder]



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 06:03 PM
link   
No, your postulation is not a "given".

In the pre-invasion briefings Bush officials, including a person previously regarded as having a volume of integrity well above the rest of this criminal gang (Colin Powell), as well as the buffoon Rumsfeld, gave very precise details of WMD locations. The UN had scoured many other locations over two years of inspections immediately prior to Saddam Hussein and the US starting to play silly buggers again.

I would say this only from my point of view: the post-hoc rationalization of why WMDs were not planted does not make sense to me.

If anything, the statement would seem to serve to point out some level of honesty in the Bush administration that is not present at all. To simplify for the LCD, "well if Bush is so bad then why didn't he arrange to plant WMDs where they said they would be?" So your intent was unclear to me.

But the creators of spin for the criminal gang in the Whitehouse can have the "mistakes" and "intelligence that proved to be less than reliable" sugar coated so that the misnamed "war on terror" can continue unabated.

Department Of ATS Security Bush Mendacity Alert Meter Level: Elevated off the scale .



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Ah, my mistake. Really you only said the following (post 1532038 on page 25 of the WTC Challenge thread):


But I can see that the videos do not show any evidence of a controlled demolition of WTC1 or WTC2 and I don't know why people keep trying to show that they do -- (I can't say the same thing with any confidence about WTC7 at this point though).


But I don't suppose it matters because I don't think you'll ever give a fair evaluation to any of those three buildings.


I have no insecuries about anything, but your response here says an enormous volume about your own. "Attacks on our reasoning" ??! What is that all about? You feel that what you post, or anyone that posts similar thoughts like your own are "discussion" but anyone that posts anything contrary is an "attack" on you? Excuse me? All I see in the thread you're talking about is an organized attack (most of them on a personal level) against HR. Anyone else that tries to comment on any of the posts (especially if they post anything factual) gets jumped on and hollered at by the same 5 individuals...


The very title of this thread is "Does this make sense to you?" What you're implying by this very thread is that what we have said makes no sense, and you just leave it at that. I don't see how this thread isn't a thread simply created as an attack.

The situation with HR is totally different. In my first posts here, I was extremely curteous and offered some information for HR to consider. HR's reply to this first post was mocking, and on top of that he did not even attempt to counter the information. He just made a mockery of my post and left it at that, with no further word. Since then I've assumed it was fair game to mock HR if he can mock me, even when I was quite polite to him. Further, his posts are just getting annoying as he uses disinfo tactics out the kazoo and posts misleading material to the point where you can't even really trust anything he says. But that's another subject. The point is, mocking HR seems fair game since he was the one to initiate it.


In the case of this thread, the whole purpose is to mock certain ideas that are held here and elsewhere rather commonly. Why should you want to post this? I don't understand. At any rate, you should understand my reply. It's rather disrespectful to offhandedly dismiss an idea as bs when a lot of people respect the idea. It should be no surprise to you that your thread has already illicited such responses. Are you surprised?


So let me get this straight...

According to you, if the US found WMD in Iraq there would result in such a scandal and a public outcry that it would detrimental to the US administration? Yet, this administration, according to you, perpetrates an attack on their own nation and this is safe from scandal or public outcry? That makes absolutely no sense at all.


You missed the point that a scandal in Iraq is an international, UN affair. A scandal in NYC is a US affair only.

You also missed the point that Iraq having WMDs in the first place was a joke at the UN. Were they surprised we didn't find any? On the contrary, the would've been surprised if we did, not to mention suspicious. As I said, they knew Saddam had no WMDs. Thus they did not support our war. It was built on lies.


You cannot justify that the "shadow government" can supposedly perpetrate the largest attack on US soil but still be unable to sneak WMD evidence into Iraq as evidence.

Your only response to this is to claim it's some sort of attack on you; I don't know how to respond to that assertion frankly.


Maybe you should boost up your reading comprehension skills, because quite frankly I believe I stated my view on the subject rather clearly in my first post, and there is no need for me to rehash it for you in this one.

The UN knew Saddam had no WMDs. If we found some, they would've surely investigated. It was, after all, the UN sanctions that stated Saddam was not to have them; not a US sanction. It was their business.

9/11? Not UN business. All the investigating (or lack thereof) was in our hands, as well as the media coverage and control of information.



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Cat.......I have to agree with you post. It is quite interesting that these gov'ts could pull off such things yet cannot pull off others. Bottom line, alot of people have way too much time on their hands thus if you look at something long enough you are bound to see what you want.

What you need to be careful with on this site though is that this subject has been discussed to death and in several threads thus opening new ones tends to frustrate the staff. Try and use the search feature when you can although I do know from experience it is not always surefire at finding stuff. But anything doing with "the gov't did it" can normally be quickly found by just hitting "new posts" under ATS. Have fun.



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Catherder, i had planned on sitting down this morning with my cup of coffee and throwing my opinion in your face on every one of your idea's.

But after the 3rd and 4th i gave up,

theres no point in relpying to your thread because ur searching for an excuse to have a go at the people whom are accusing Americans of this crime.

I dont believe it was AMERICANS behind the controls..
BUT THAT DOESNT MEAN THEY DIDNT DO IT.

If they knew it was coming, and did nothing.
Then they are JUST AS responsible as if they did do it.

Plus doing what u say isnt difficult for the USA government.

Im yet to see a greiving realitive of someone from the plane on TV
Im yet to see the footage from survelience camera's over looking the pentagon..
Im yet to see Osama in Shackles..

Im yet to hear the president of the USA Explain why he knew ti was coming but did nothing.

Being none of these points have been proved to the public
I find it very hard to look at anyone else for responsibility than the USA.



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 06:48 PM
link   
Regarding your list in your first post, just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it didn't happen. That's a clumsy way of saying it really and I can illustrate it better by using your exact examples.


Remote control fly 3 planes into 3 different buildings

Maybe there was no remote controls, the hijackers really did kill the pilots and the people aboard the planes really did die.


Forget to remote control the 4th plane into the 4th building

Maybe the passengers tried to fight and the flub actually happened.


Shoot down 4th plane when either the pasengers attempt to regain control of it from apparent hijackers

Maybe the passengers tried to save themselves and wrecked the plane in the struggle. After all, none of them have actually identified the 'hijackers' as being on the list of 19. It could have been anyone who spoke Arabic.


Sneak over 60 bodies into a burning building (Pentagon) without anyone noticing

Why would you think bodies were being snuck around? They were killed!


Sneak thousands of remote detonation charges into 2 buildings occupied and used by over 15,000 people daily - without being noticed

Do you think they don't have 'workers' walking around that building every single day of the year? There was no sneaking.


Cut or partially cut thousands of support columns in two of the worlds largest buildings without anyone noticing

Planes hit the buildings. I don't think there's any doubt about that.

My point is that your 'assumptions' about the conspiracy are far-fetched. Of course we don't believe most of these assertions. They're ridiculous. But there are many other explanations than the crazy ones you've listed here.

For example, perhaps the gov't knew about the planned terrorist attack (9/11) and prepared for it and let it happen to use as a pawn in their plan to have a war in the Middle-East.

That would require no stealing of anything. No sneaking of bodies, no remote flying. They let the terrorists do the dirty work, they just helped. You talk about cleaning all trace of explosives, do you know how big those buildings were? When you detonate a building, it doesn't leave traces of explosive on every single piece. 180 pieces? Bah! That's nothing!

As far as the pieces going to China, all they had to do would be to make a deal with someone over there. There are an corrupt people in every country.

Why didn't they plant WMDs? Asking me to figure out Bush is like one of those horrible brain-teasers gone wrong. I don't have that answer...



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 07:12 PM
link   



Forget to remote control the 4th plane into the 4th building


Maybe the passengers tried to fight and the flub actually happened.




Shoot down 4th plane when either the pasengers attempt to regain control of it from apparent hijackers


Maybe the passengers tried to save themselves and wrecked the plane in the struggle. After all, none of them have actually identified the 'hijackers' as being on the list of 19. It could have been anyone who spoke Arabic.


Or think of it this way: how could you make people believe that the White House or Congress was in danger of being destroyed, killing important officials, without actually having to do anything in those regards? The media made a big point out of the fact that that flight was heading towards Washington. But where? The White House? Congress? Ooooh... I'm going to wet my pants.


Also keep in mind that all those cell phone calls allegedly coming from Flight 93 were during a time when the Flight was at an altitude of about 30,000 feet. Cell phones rarely work at 10,000 feet. There were no reports of calls alleged from Flight 93 breaking up or not going through. Lots of calls went through, all clear as a bell. Strange?

[edit on 17-7-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by GlobalDisorder

Im yet to see a greiving realitive of someone from the plane on TV
Im yet to see the footage from survelience camera's over looking the pentagon..
Im yet to see Osama in Shackles..



A simple google search brought us:

Interview with Lisa Beamer

Lisa Beamer was interviewed several times - on TV, on the radio, and in print - during the immediate aftermath, as were the relatives of quite a few other victims.

Alice Hoglan (mother of Mark Bingham)

Mitchell Zykofski (stepson of John Talignani)

Ellen Mariani (widow of Louis Mariani)

Just three others who were more than a little vocal in their grieving, during both the initial aftermath and the period since then.

The videotape? - yes, I'd like to see that, too. But the lack of availability doesn't exactly prove (or disprove, for that matter) culpability.

And it's never been claimed that Osama Bin Hidin' is in shackles...there's a good chance he's dead (it's hard to change caves every night when you're hooked to a dialysis machine - that said though, it's plausible that he could have actually had a kidney transplant which would render the "dialysis" argument moot).



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 08:45 PM
link   
tinkleflower, thankyou for the link.

Personally I dont know wether to believe families accounts from 911 or not.

It wouldnt be difficult for the USA to find some phantom family members, get them to tell there sob story then take there million dollar cheque change there namesa nd move to LA..

That being said, i do believe there are mourning reallies..
I do believe that common commercial airliners crashed into the WTC and pensylvania fields.

However I do not beleive one hit the pentagon.


ITs just stupid to look at the photo evidence and say a boeing hit.
I mean there's no FREAKIN plane in site..

it couldnt just dissolve... and it definately wasnt under the rubble..
it didnt hit the lawn..
and gawd dammit, that definaetly ISNT a boeing in the security film.

Want MY THEORY?

Too bad ya gunna get it ne ways.

The first plane that hit the WTC pretty much was swallowed by the building..
and ther resulting fireball came out.

When the second plane hit a much larger explosion/fireball came out.
Being the second plane is the one slated to have a 'pod' or 'cylinder' attached the underbelly answers why such a large fireball occured.

Then there is the Pentagon..
Its clear it wasnt a plane that hit the building.
Maybe the flight that crashed in pensylvania was MEANT to hit the pentagon.
Explosives had ALREADY been setup in the pentagon to acompany the flight.
When the Gvt heard the flight crashed into the fields they sent a small commuter plane with a missle attached, to hit the pentagon, to hide the fact so many kg's of explosives that are expected to go off, dont just explode marking MANY quetsions around what happened.

Its very funny that a plane crashed in NYC only a week or so later...killing many on board....
Perfect way to make a plane dissapear from Sept11 is have ANOTHER plane disaster happen inthe SAME area, but blame this one on common aircrash similarities.
thats my theory,
so please all you diehard supported who are convinced the government is telling the complete truth, burn me as u please.



[edit on 17-7-2005 by GlobalDisorder]



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 08:50 PM
link   


But the same governement that can carry out all that is somehow unable to sneak WMDs into Iraq to prove to the world that one of their primary stated reasons for invading Iraq was justified.

How can a group of government people be so incredibly competent to supposedly carry out the greatest fraud in our lifetime yet be so utterly incompetent that they can't even sneak in a couple jugs of chemical weapons (Tabun, Sarin, Soman, GF gas, VX gas, etc) into a country like Iraq? Or, for that matter, sneak a couple cups of anthrax, ricin, saxitoxin, RVF, trichothecene mycotoxins, tularemia, small pox, plague or any other biological weapon component into the country?
Mindboggling.


your absolutley correct.

If this war was about WMD's the USA WOULD of smuggled WMD's in.
I mean with all the hardware, soilders, equipment and so forth roaming the streets of baghdad..
whast one truck full of liquid and powder.

This PROVES this war was NEVER about wmd's.
If it was the gvt woudl of placed them thruoghout IRAQ just to pencil themselves in the history boooks as being CORRECT.
Being they didnt, it means there's something ELSE about IRAQ that they are in there for..

we just dont know it yet.

And this plan all started back on sept 10



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by GlobalDisorder
Maybe the flight that crashed in pensylvania was MEANT to hit the pentagon.
Explosives had ALREADY been setup in the pentagon to acompany the flight.
When the Gvt heard the flight crashed into the fields they sent a small commuter plane with a missle attached, to hit the pentagon, to hide the fact so many kg's of explosives that are expected to go off, dont just explode marking MANY quetsions around what happened.


Ooooohhh! That's a good one!


Yeah, there were like 10 cameras that should have recorded the Pentagon plane. But the FBI came and snapped them all up. Why has the film not been released?

I mean, I understand that there were 'eyewitness' accounts, but unfortunately some say it was a plane and some say it was a missle. You know how a big plane sounds landing or taking off when you're right on the runway? That's LOUD. So many of the accounts said it hissed like a missle...



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by GlobalDisorder
Personally I dont know wether to believe families accounts from 911 or not.

It wouldnt be difficult for the USA to find some phantom family members, get them to tell there sob story then take there million dollar cheque change there namesa nd move to LA..


Seriously? Then exactly who's account would you believe? Are we to believe that those relatives who grieved were government plants? Doesn't that sound just a little unlikely? (if not outright outlandish)

With all due respect - the idea just baffles me. I can't see the logic in it, at all.



ITs just stupid to look at the photo evidence and say a boeing hit.
I mean there's no FREAKIN plane in site..



You missed the threads about the 757 then?




When the second plane hit a much larger explosion/fireball came out.
Being the second plane is the one slated to have a 'pod' or 'cylinder' attached the underbelly answers why such a large fireball occured.



Afaik, the 'pod' theory has been debunked several times. There was no pod.



so please all you diehard supported who are convinced the government is telling the complete truth, burn me as u please.



Let's pretend you didn't mean to invite a flamefest, and that you're just eliciting debate
And...for what it's worth, not all of us have a die-hard point of view one way or the other. We're still trying to figure out exactly what happened - just as you are.

Now a question backatcha. On what are you basing your assumption that the government sent out a small commuter plane with missile attachments for the reasons you mention?

TIA



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 09:29 PM
link   
Ok, so its stupid to listen to accounts from grieving relatives.

Yet, all those eyewittnesses from the pentagon who said they NEVER saw a Boeing and all heard a woooooshing like a missle are the stupid ones?

The Government lied and decieved the WORLD to invade iraq,
whast a few people on the streets crying and moaning over lost realitives.

Im sure that the people whom died in the WTC and pensylvania PLANES are grieving and cying as they should,losing a loved one hurts.

But for the people whom CLAIM they lost reallies in the pentagon PLANE.. in my opinion are rich liars....

A plane never hit the pentagon..

Its theoretically, physically, scientically and common sense that a plane could never casuse the SPECIFIC damage at the pentagon.

That DEFINATELY isnt a boeing in the security footage.
And I cant see this untrained ARAB flying a jet 450MPH 2 feet above the ground...

Its just impossible.

Dam right im trying to inflame a debate.

Thats what this site is, correct? a debatable forum?

Ican see the logic in it..

If I stand in front of a camera, crying and spluttering over losing my brother in the pentagon plane.. Im sure it'll convince people I really did..

I can see the logic in it, why cant you?


POD theory debunked....
just like JFK IRAQ SEPT11 have all been debunked.
It will never EVER be debunked because we still live in a society that the government has ' top secret ' and blackops.

In my mind there is a ODD device on the underbelly of the plane that isn ot on ANY other plane ever seen......

Beign this is the plane that hit the WTC, and caused a LARGE fireball it definaetly says more to me than just a coincidence.

Ive always said that the US was NOT behind the controls that day,
but they DEFINAETLY knew it was coming and planned for it...

IF THEY DIDNT know of it, and DIDNT think it was in there best interests..

Explain this to me..
When a plane turns off its transponder and deviates from course an alarm IMMEDIATELY sounds in NORAD.
There are 2x Supersonic jets just up the road from the pentagon.
ok, these are SUPERSONIC jets.

When WTC1 plane hit, the Pentagon plane SUPPOSIDLY turned off its transponder and did a U Turn heading straight to Pensylvania.

2 jets, F14 or 16's i duno were scrambled to INTERCEPT the aircraft.
They flew at HALF there capable speed
' around the same speed as a wwiI prop plane '
too intercept...

Why didnt the GVT use these two SUPERSONIC jets which are primed with missles 24/7 and on the runway 24/7 in the case of an attack on the capital used?



...... I understand that in this world of Technological advancement accidents happen.
Its always good to have a human in control somewhere along the chain.
Things stuff up, people miss clues, and abnomalities that would normally stiffle a intellegence man go unnoticed.

But from Sept5th to Sept11th, FAR too many itnellegence blunders, abnormalities and technological STUFFUPS happened for me to think its just a conincidence.



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 09:39 PM
link   
I for one appreciate the constructive sarcasm of the original post. It is so ridiculous that some people ignore the obvious, incontrovertible facts in favour of dreaming up "alternative" explanations, drawing upon ever more far-fetched suppositions, rumours, wishful thinking and just plain denial in order to support their political biases.



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 09:47 PM
link   
AlexofSkye

Whom exactly are calling the constructive people and there farfecthed wishful thinking people.

I agree everything in the original post is pretty stupid to think as true.

But who here is?

No one is stating plaens were stollen from airports, no one is stating explosives were shipped in the WTC, no one is stating bodies were loaded into the crash sites..

I find it stupid that the original post even tries to CLAIM people believing this.

But in that sense..
I believe its stupid WISHFUL thinking to believe a plane hit the pentagon.

There's 2 people in my idea.

The Gullable people whom follow the government in every lie.
Or the people who look at the evidence and state the obvious..
There's NO WAY A boeing passenger airbus hit the pentagon.
NOT With the facts at hand.
Not in a million years.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join