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: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by GlobalDisorder.

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?


And what about the witnesses who say they saw the plane?



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


Very possibly. But if you believe one set of witnesses (those who didn't see the plane), why wouldn't you believe another set (those who were mourning for the victims)? What made one more viable than the other? Is it simply because the latter didn't fit into a conspiracy theory?




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



Again, could you explain how you're so sure that these witnesses are rich liars? This assumption is based upon....what?




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.



No, it's not impossible. This has been hashed, rehashed and rehashed over and over - can you offer ANY new evidence at all?




Dam right im trying to inflame a debate.


My bad. I assumed a debate could occur without a flamefest.



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?



So no evidence, just more rhetoric? If I stood in front of a camera yelling about seeing a missile, I'm sure it'll convince people I really did....

See my point there?





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.


Ok. Another misconception. Prior to (and including) 9/11, there was no automatic alert to NORAD in the event of a transponder being switched off, nor was there an automatic alert if the plane deviated from it's course. You'll find that it was not unusual or unheard of for a plane to do either, without there being cause for worry. Very simply - there was no automatic alert system in place. None. To alert NORAD, the airline itself (or ATC) had to physically pick up the phone and dial NORAD.

As I said earlier, I'm still not fully convinced either way, but if we're to make a sound judgement, we've got to base it on what we do know, and not misconceptions (such as the whole "NORAD would have been alerted immediately" - we know that's inaccurate).




posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 10:01 PM
link   
It didn't take long for this thread to degenerate into a "he said, she said" debate.

GlobalDisorder, I called the original post a "constructive sarcasm". I didn't apply the constructive label to any group. Nobody claims that anyone has said all of the items in the post are true. I'm glad to see you think they are ridiculous as well. However, they would have to be true, if the "alternative" theories on 911 were true. Hence, I believe that the post helps demonstrate why the "alternative" theories are nonsense. That's why I called it constructive.

I do hope you can follow all this.



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 10:26 PM
link   

And what about the witnesses who say they saw the plane?


I have nothing against the idea that a plane hit the Pentagon, but really the witness accounts regarding the Pentagon might as well all be thrown out.

Here's why:

"The aircraft, looking to be either a 757 or Airbus..." - Albert Hemphill

"Soon after the crash...I witnessed a military cargo plane (Possibly a C130) fly over the crash site and circle the mushroom cloud. My brother inlaw also witnessed the same plane following the jet while he was on the HOV lanes in Springfield." - Allen Cleveland

"Within a minute another plane started veering up and to the side. At that point it wasn't clear if that plane was trying to manouver out of the air space or if that plane was coming round for another hit." - Joel Sucherman

"It was a Boeing 757, American Airlines, no question." - Tim Timmerman

"As we watched the black plume gather strength...we saw an odd sight that no one else has yet commented on...[A] four-engine propeller plane, which Ray later said resembled a C-130, started a steep decent towards the Pentagon." - Scott P. Cook

"Foam 61 to Fort Myer. We have had a commercial carrier crash into the west side of the Pentagon at the heliport, Washington Boulevard side. The crew is OK. The airplane was a 757 Boeing or a 320 Airbus." - Alan Wallace

"A C-130 cargo plane had departed Andrews Air Force Base en route to Minnesota that morning and reported seeing an airliner heading into Washington 'at an unusual angle,' said Lt. Col. Kenneth McClellan, a Pentagon spokesman. Air-traffic control officials instructed the propeller-powered cargo plane 'to let us know where it's going,' McClellan said. The C-130 pilot 'followed the aircraft and reported it was heading into the Pentagon,' he said." - Kenneth McClellan

"I duck, I look up, it looks like a silver American Airlines, twin-engine plane..." - Ian Wyatt

Kelly Knowles from an Arlington apartment two miles away saw a two planes moving toward the Pentagon, one veering away as the other crashed.

"Then the plane -- it looked like a C-130 cargo plane -- started turning away from the Pentagon, it did a complete turnaround." - John O'Keefe

"This was not ... a Learjet, Gulfstream something like that. It was a bigger plane than that." - Joel Sucherman

"...I saw a big silver plane and those double A's." - Mike Walter

"Just as we got even with the Pentagon, I looked out to the front and saw, coming straight down the road at us, a huge jet plane clearly with American Airlines written on it, and it looked like it was coming in to hit us." - Mitch Mitchell

Keith Wheelhouse and his sister, Pam Young were preparing to leave a funeral at Arlington National Cemetary when they watched "the jet" approach and hit the Pentagon. Both saw another plane flying near the jet that crashed. When asked if the other plane could have been an airliner performing a normal landing at Reagan National Airport, Wheelhouse stated that he was not confused by normal airport traffic.

"I heard a sonic boom and then the impact, the explosion. ... There were light poles down." - Joel Sucherman


So, as you can see, the witness reports were quite interesting, and also inconsistent. I personally gather from them that there was something fishy going on at the Pentagon on 9/11. These aren't "conspiracy theorists," but some average citizens reflecting on their sights.


Very simply - there was no automatic alert system in place. None. To alert NORAD, the airline itself (or ATC) had to physically pick up the phone and dial NORAD.


You might want to check out exactly how much time these aircraft had to reach their destinations. Flight 77 was barreling towards Washington for 28 minutes in the total opposite direction of where it was supposed to have been going, and 42 minutes after the transponder had been shut off. There are groups of interceptors on 24/7 duty in Washington in case of such incidents. Instead, the FAA didn't even alert NORAD of a possible hijacking until 24 minutes after the plane turned towards Washington (9:34) with its transponder off, 21 minutes after the second impact in NYC.

Quite a sloppy job I must say. They had almost a full half hour to catch that plane, not after transponders were off, but after it turned around completely and started heading for Washington. Either total slop, or an order from Cheney to stand down. He was guiding the four war games going on at the time, after all, including scenarios of hijacked planes crashing into buildings. The games had also served to occupy planes that would otherwise be on duty to guard against such things, but all this is getting off into another aspect suspicious of 9/11.



The dotted lines show a projected course after the transponders were shut off.



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 10:45 PM
link   
I put a quetsion mark over all those people that saw a plan HIT the pentagon.

Because one didnt.
And no i dont have video footage of SOMETHING hitting the pentagon..
And no i dont have a gvt memo saying a plane DIDNT hit the pentagon.

Im looking at the photos and making up my own mind.
Because to me its just plain common sense.

The damage cased to the pentagon isnt conclusive that a boeing hit it.
Its impossible.

So yes, I presume ANYONE whom says they SAW the plane hit has been PAID off or threatend...

Not to say anyone whom saw a boeing in the ROUGH AREA around the ROUGH TIME is lying.. thats no what im saying.
There could of been a boeing in the immediate vacinity to make it LOOK like a boein hit it...

But anyone who says they saw the boeing physically smash into the pentagon is not telling the truth.
Because in reality there's no boeing near around or IN the pentagon.

As strong as the pentagon is, and as weak as a boeing it , it wouldnt 100% dissolve into thin air.

Again i havent seen or read anything from a mourning victim from the pentagon CRASH...

WTC planes had various people mourning, bceause i believe they were passenger airliners...

MY assumption about the RICH LIARS is simply based upon my idea of the common sense theory.

If a plane crashed into a building, as has happened in MANY previous cases, then evidence of a PLANE would be in the immediate area.
Being there is NO PLANE in the immediate area, says to me ANYONE Saying they saw a plane hit the pentagon is LYING.
AGAIN someone could of seen a plane Flying in the area AROUND the pentagon at the time, this doesnt mean there lying.
If they state they saw a plane buzzing around the airspace id beleive them.
But if they say they saw it physically PUMMEL into the pentagon, they are down right liars.

RICH? because obviously someone got to them with money, or threats to make them say that they saw it hit..

No I cant offer any new evidence..
there deosnt need to be any more imput of evidence.

Again i agree, it is phsycially, scientifically and THEORETICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for a novice arab terrorist to fly a boein passenger airliner 450mph 2ft above the ground dead horizontal into the pentagon.

AS IS CLAIMED by the USA Government, and the rich liars of wittnesses.

Correct, there was no AUTOMATIC alert system ,
FAA setup a direct communications link between them and NORAD after the first plane hit.

In still doesnt explain why 2 supersonic jets, setp PRIMARILY to defend washinton against airborne attacks, were left on the runway, while 2 MUCH slower jets were scrambled, and why did they fly at HALF There capable speed.


Again, being there are all these quetsions, misscommunications and technological stufups in 1 day, says to me this is more than just arab hijackers.



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 11:01 PM
link   
I should have known this was the sort of response I'd get.


I did not set out to start a flame war or anything of the sort, I just wanted to ask all these various conspiracy theorists on here why the evil government can perpetrate all the aforementioned things (according to the conspiracy theorists) yet that same group of bumbling fools can't even sneak a pint of chemical or biological warfare evidence into Iraq... the responses have been quite different from what I expected. First we got the "you're attacking me/us!" paranoid response, and then we got a reasonable response & opinion from MaskedAvatar - which I agree with to some degree, even though I'm still not sure if he was directing his Bush Mendacity Alert Meter at me or at Bush et. al. (be careful with that thing you might poke somebodys eye out).

And then there is your typical exchange between somebody who absolutely must have a conspiracy (brown text), and somebody who is trying to be logical and reasonable (left in black text).

Im yet to see a greiving realitive of someone from the plane on TV
Oh, well here's a link to grieving relatives.
thankyou for the link
Personally I dont know wether to believe families accounts from 911 or not.
Seriously? Then exactly who's account would you believe?
Ok, so its stupid to listen to accounts from grieving relatives.

-=-
Classic... need I say more...
-=-

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

Sigh...

The only reason it will "never" be debunked in YOUR eyes, GlobalDisorder, is because you either can't handle not having some form of conspiracy or because it's just too intellectually challenging for you to view two or three videos and see for yourself that there is no evidence what-so-ever of any pod under that aircraft. Surely you have watched the video In Plane Site (Quicktime MOV) where the author makes a large number of outright lies to show his version of conspiracy (a lot of which you regurgitate on these forums; i.e. the pod theory)? And then of course you went right out afterwards to watch In Plane Site Debunked (DivX3.11) to see if the first view was real or not? This video shows multiple angles of the plane hitting and what do you know... no pod on ANY of the videos, especially not on the very clear view from the side that would show ANYTHING attached to the bottom of the aircraft. It also shows that the "pod" people point to in photos (from this video) is actually the shadow of the starboard engine on the belly of the aircraft -- the illusion of a "pod" is NOT visible in the same video only a few frames earlier, because the Sun and the engine did not yet line up to cast a shadow on the belly of the aircraft. Or, if you prefer, simply watch this camera angle of the 2nd plane hitting, or this other video (DivX3.11) and tell us where this mysteriously invisible pod is on the aircraft. But don't take my word for it, watch both videos (In Plane Site and In Plane Site Debunked) and then you decide. Or perhaps that's a bad suggestion, you've already shown us that evidence and reality have no basis in forming your opinion.

None of this is very relevant to the original post though. What is your opinion regarding it? If the government could do all of these amazing conspiracy things, and never get caught, why wouldn't/couldn't they have snuck some WMDs into Iraq for the world to see/discover? Surely they could have done it in such a way that a group of non-US/non-UK soldiers were the ones to "discover" the WMDs -- I mean the Italians, Spanish, Japanese, Polish, and other nations soldiers were there too!.

I think I know why, but what is your opinion?

(can't figure out what's wrong with the color statements in my text, I've edited it 5 times now and it still keep showing the [color] statements which don't show up when I preview)

[edit on 17-7-2005 by CatHerder]



posted on Jul, 17 2005 @ 11:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11
So, as you can see, the witness reports were quite interesting, and also inconsistent. I personally gather from them that there was something fishy going on at the Pentagon on 9/11. These aren't "conspiracy theorists," but some average citizens reflecting on their sights.


??

Are you reading the same quotes you've posted that the rest of us are reading? They all say they saw a commercial airliner, most even specify it was an American Airliner, quite a few say it was a large silver airliner, a few mention the chasing C-130, a few mention the C-130 after the airliner hit the building as still being in the air circling the Pentagon, and even the pilot of the C-130 aircraft (Lt Col Steve O'Brien - who's own statements are available online) is quoted as flying the C-130 mentioned in your quotes. Alan Wallace, one of the Pentagon people on the ground states that the crew (either his own fire crew or the heliport's ground crew) are ok and that it was a 757 or Airbus... (both being large commercial airliners).

Where are the inconsistencies again?



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 12:03 AM
link   
For starters, stop MIXING sentances, and posts in order to get your message across.....

I havent seen thos divx and quicktime movies u speak off.

I like to look at something myself and make my OWN MIND UP.

1. A PLANE DIDNT hit the PENTAGON.

As I said before a plane MIGHT of been in the immediate area airspace prior and AFTER the pentagon explosion..
But I lable ANYONE who physically SAW the plane hti the pentagon a liar.
Because it is BLOODY obvious one never did.

How do you explain the lack of plane?
The lack of DAMAGE?

I like the way you refer to yousefl as logical and reasonable.. yet anyone who doubts what yoursaying is a conspiracy nut.

For starters, that interview with the fmialyo f a victim is from Pensylvania flight 93, NOT THE PENTAGON flight.

Im asking for a grieving realitive from the PENTAGON flight.
you wont find one tho...

your obviously VERY trusting..
You believe a plane hit the pentagon dont you?
And that the USA went into IRAQ for WMD's?

Just because I hold a grain of salt to all the ' wittnesses ' and ' relatives ' of sept 11 doesnt mean im out to prove my conspiracy theories correct.
I believe that it is in the governments BEST interests to decieve the public, more so than it is to tell them the truth.


Being you believe the PENTAGON Staff statements about the airplane hitting the pentagaon just says to me your ready to believe ANYTHING thats thrown at u, aslong as its got the stamp of quality from the USA Government.

Where are the INCONSISTANCIES?

HAHAHAHAHHA
Thats a laugh.

Im trying to show you some, but u pass me off as a conspiracy nut trying to debunk everything.

I have ONE question.

WHAT do you think hapepned to the pentagon?



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 12:43 AM
link   

First we got the "you're attacking me/us!" paranoid response, and then we got a reasonable response & opinion from MaskedAvatar - which I agree with to some degree, even though I'm still not sure if he was directing his Bush Mendacity Alert Meter at me or at Bush et. al. (be careful with that thing you might poke somebodys eye out).


The response I gave you was reasonable. It just didn't support your preconvictions, so you ignored it.


The explanation I gave was clear and was posted twice on the first page, since you either ignored it the first time or have horrible reading comprehension.

And I think you dwelled more on the "paranoia" thing more than I did, and then you blew it out of proportion. I was simply questioning your intentions for posting this.



Are you reading the same quotes you've posted that the rest of us are reading? They all say they saw a commercial airliner, most even specify it was an American Airliner, quite a few say it was a large silver airliner, a few mention the chasing C-130, a few mention the C-130 after the airliner hit the building as still being in the air circling the Pentagon, and even the pilot of the C-130 aircraft (Lt Col Steve O'Brien - who's own statements are available online) is quoted as flying the C-130 mentioned in your quotes. Alan Wallace, one of the Pentagon people on the ground states that the crew (either his own fire crew or the heliport's ground crew) are ok and that it was a 757 or Airbus... (both being large commercial airliners).


I wasn't aware there was an official admission on the presence of the C-130. So what was it doing? Just checking the scene out? Following around a plane that had been heading for Washington for 28 minutes in the wake of both WTC Towers being hit by hijacked planes? Without sending up any of those 24-hour duty interceptors? I'm curious about this.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 12:48 AM
link   
Some really good points CatHerder. You certainly help demolish some of the lunatic conspiracy arguments that I think we could all do without. No they don't make sense to me, and quite frankly never have.

What I can't get my head round is the strange stock market activity shortly BEFORE the attacks. The government says that it might have been the assets of terrorist organisations in the know. What NOBODY seems to doubt is that it was certainly the actions of SOMEBODY in the know?

Tell me would a anti U.S terrorist organisation bank so many hundreds of millions with the U.S?
Since there is so much money involved would it make sense for this same organisation to JEOPADISE its plans by advising so many of its supporters on their US investments?
Does it make sense to you that they would withdraw them near the last minute and thereby make their money easy to trace and in addition perhaps their plans?
Does it make sense to you that no terrorist assets have been recovered due to the pre 9/11 stock market activity itself?

Personally I think this semtext in the towers and ideas like it are noise that gets in the way of the truth. Because the truth is that there was strange (largely unexplained) stock market activity before the attacks.
For the points mentioned i don't think this was the anti US terrorists-supporters withdrawing their US investments. So i can only assume that it was the result of inside knowledge on our own side.

Does it make sense to you that our spies have to cause terrorist attacks to happen, when surely all they really need do is LET them happen?
Was Iraq an "intelligence failure"? And was 9/11 an "intelligence failure"? Those are the real questions with perhaps some awkward answers.
Don't ask me what they would gain. You've heard the conspiracies: war preparation, the masses instinctively uniting round their leaders, and of course the stock market. Plus the investment rewards from Bush’s big increase in defence expenditure which followed a few months after the attacks.
The fanatics are real and so is the goverments alleged manslaughter.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 03:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by bsbray11

First we got the "you're attacking me/us!" paranoid response, and then we got a reasonable response & opinion from MaskedAvatar - which I agree with to some degree, even though I'm still not sure if he was directing his Bush Mendacity Alert Meter at me or at Bush et. al. (be careful with that thing you might poke somebodys eye out).


The response I gave you was reasonable. It just didn't support your preconvictions, so you ignored it.


Nonsense. The moment you started with the paranoid delusional ranting about being attacked I knew you were not posting anything of substance. You only wanted to get into a flame war, even though you appear to arrive at them unarmed and uneducated about the subject matter.



The explanation I gave was clear and was posted twice on the first page, since you either ignored it the first time or have horrible reading comprehension.

And I think you dwelled more on the "paranoia" thing more than I did, and then you blew it out of proportion. I was simply questioning your intentions for posting this.


All the grins in the world don't hide the fact that all you were doing was trying to bait a flame war. You're doing a good enough job with your insults of other people in other threads; I'm not interested in them here. You post to insult people, you call people frauds and claim their evidence isn't accurate -- however, you do not even have the common courtesy to read the posts or the contents in the links provided before you post your insulting tirade of uneducated nonsense. You've done it many times, in many threads and even admit to it WHILE posting your opinions on something you know very little about.





I wasn't aware there was an official admission on the presence of the C-130. So what was it doing? Just checking the scene out? Following around a plane that had been heading for Washington for 28 minutes in the wake of both WTC Towers being hit by hijacked planes? Without sending up any of those 24-hour duty interceptors? I'm curious about this.


Sure you were aware of it!! I mean you replied more than once in the 9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon thread. I mean even on page 85 you say that the information in the thread isn't up to your high standards: "I too believe the investigation done on this thread has not been all-encompassing, but rather selective" and then you go on to contradict yourself with "I haven't looked at all of it honestly, as this is a huge thread" in the SAME paragraph. But you must have read the thread before replying to it with your opinion right? Right?

It's mentioned in there more than one time, it's even explained (using multiple sources) why the C-130 was in the area, where the already airborne C-130 was headed, who redirected the plane to try to get a visual on the 757, who was the flight crew of the C-130, and included quotes from the interview of the pilot of the C-130. In addition, sources were provided for ALL information regarding the C-130 - none of it was opinion it was all fact. Ah but wait, you're just another poster on here who does not read much of anything but goes around offering your comments and insults and thinks they're being "attacked" when they're actually being called out for being full of crap.

Even when you claimed the floors on the WTC tower I'd outlined were inaccurate, and said so in your usual condescending manor "Send them private messages if you really feel the need to congratulate them on posting manipulative and conceptually flawed graphics." and then you were proven to be wrong when I revised the same image with vanishing points to show you they were accurate, you didn't have the balls to step up and say "oh gosh sorry I was wrong". No, instead you choose to toss out some smiley faces and then hide behind your uneducated and meaningless opinions.

Frankly, you're a large waste of time to reply to. This is definitely my last to the likes of you sport. Go troll somewhere else.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 03:58 AM
link   
Catherder,

so......... what u hear on the news, and media regarding the abnormalities of the day are true fact.

but when we recite things we heard, and things we believe happened, we are a waste of your time?

Thats a bit selfish hey?



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 05:56 AM
link   
Yes I know it's been posted before, hell it's CNN, who are those guys getting off the bus and what is in there bags. Medics would have drove up closer to the building.

file of a clip from CNN coverage on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. CNN reporter Jamie McIntyre says he inspected the Pentagon site and it is obvious no plane crashed there. Clip archived by TheWebFairy.com; Transcript by Total911.info "JAMIE MCINTYRE: From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. The only site, is the actual side of the building that's crashed in. And as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse. Even though if you look at the pictures of the Pentagon you see that the floors have all collapsed, that didn't happen immediately. It wasn't until almost about 45 minutes later that the structure was weakened enough that all of the floors collapsed."




www.legitgov.org...



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 06:35 AM
link   
What credentials does Jamie McIntyre have to conclude whether or not a plane crashed? I'm not saying it was a plane, but a news reporter? He's no expert on plane crashes. At least get Miles O'Brian in there.


If the plane was going fast enough and the pilot did a fairly good job of getting it down parallel to the ground and it just bulldozed into the building, it could have flown apart into thousands of small pieces. I can see the possibility of nothing recognizable being obvious to a news reporter arriving on the scene.

I'm with Tinkleflower on this. We may not know what happened, but to me, after what I've seen and read, the theory as the gov't explained it is as far out as some of the assertions in the first post here.


[edit on 18-7-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 07:39 AM
link   


Steal 4 commercial airliners without anyone at the air ports noticing


Who says they were commercial jets?




Murder 3 passenger lists and crew rosters after landing said aircraft


Why the hell aren't there names on the flight lists?




Remote control fly 3 planes into 3 different buildings


Is that really a hard thing to do?
A government which has literally billions of dollars if not trillions can't remote control 3 planes?





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


Who says they forgot? I personally reckon it was meant to be shot down.




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


It is funny you say that because I have never seen ANY bodies at the pentagon, the dog they sent there to find human bodies didn't seem to find anything either!




Sneak thousands of pounds of wreckage into a burning building without any of the 200+ civilian fire and rescure personnel noticing


Thousands of pounds? I don't know about that, no one said what hit the Pentagon was a missile, I think it was a military drone that was shattered by a missile on the way to the Pentagon.




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


I guess thats why they removed the bomb sniffing dogs, and also powered down the WTC days before the attack happened.





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


That has to be a joke, your saying how could they do it with explosives? Yet the official story says fire did it!




Clean all trace of explosives from the site so no NYPD or NYFD people find any in the rubble


Who says they did? Who did the investigation? FEMA? Did i personally see the debris and do an investigation? No they shipped it away to China!




Detonate three bombs on trains in London underground



Pretty easy, are you saying Arabs did it?



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 11:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by GlobalDisorder
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.



i've yet to see anyone prove there was foreknowledge to the degree that anything could have been done to stop the attacks of 9-11, or even to take measures to try to prevent them.

i agree with catherder, and i too am sick of hearing so much unfounded and hypothesized crap. if you have proof, by all means, let us have it, if not, STFU.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by GlobalDisorder
I put a quetsion mark over all those people that saw a plan HIT the pentagon.

Because one didnt.
And no i dont have video footage of SOMETHING hitting the pentagon..
And no i dont have a gvt memo saying a plane DIDNT hit the pentagon.

Im looking at the photos and making up my own mind.
Because to me its just plain common sense.

The damage cased to the pentagon isnt conclusive that a boeing hit it.
Its impossible.

So yes, I presume ANYONE whom says they SAW the plane hit has been PAID off or threatend...

Not to say anyone whom saw a boeing in the ROUGH AREA around the ROUGH TIME is lying.. thats no what im saying.
There could of been a boeing in the immediate vacinity to make it LOOK like a boein hit it...

But anyone who says they saw the boeing physically smash into the pentagon is not telling the truth.
Because in reality there's no boeing near around or IN the pentagon.

As strong as the pentagon is, and as weak as a boeing it , it wouldnt 100% dissolve into thin air.

Again i havent seen or read anything from a mourning victim from the pentagon CRASH...

WTC planes had various people mourning, bceause i believe they were passenger airliners...

MY assumption about the RICH LIARS is simply based upon my idea of the common sense theory.

If a plane crashed into a building, as has happened in MANY previous cases, then evidence of a PLANE would be in the immediate area.
Being there is NO PLANE in the immediate area, says to me ANYONE Saying they saw a plane hit the pentagon is LYING.
AGAIN someone could of seen a plane Flying in the area AROUND the pentagon at the time, this doesnt mean there lying.
If they state they saw a plane buzzing around the airspace id beleive them.
But if they say they saw it physically PUMMEL into the pentagon, they are down right liars.

RICH? because obviously someone got to them with money, or threats to make them say that they saw it hit..

No I cant offer any new evidence..
there deosnt need to be any more imput of evidence.

Again i agree, it is phsycially, scientifically and THEORETICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for a novice arab terrorist to fly a boein passenger airliner 450mph 2ft above the ground dead horizontal into the pentagon.

AS IS CLAIMED by the USA Government, and the rich liars of wittnesses.

Correct, there was no AUTOMATIC alert system ,
FAA setup a direct communications link between them and NORAD after the first plane hit.

In still doesnt explain why 2 supersonic jets, setp PRIMARILY to defend washinton against airborne attacks, were left on the runway, while 2 MUCH slower jets were scrambled, and why did they fly at HALF There capable speed.


Again, being there are all these quetsions, misscommunications and technological stufups in 1 day, says to me this is more than just arab hijackers.



did you miss the whole "plane hit the pentagon" thread? it's right there in front of you, like 100 pages of it, very plainly visible, photos out the yin yang, testimony from people who saw it, firemen that cleaned it up, people who watched it hit.



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 11:24 AM
link   
I can't prove or even agree that all the things that were said in the first post took place. However, with a controlled media like we have (like it or not) and with people like Catherder that just won't open their eyes, I absolutely believe the Government COULD pull off those things. You guys need to realize that "internet conspiracy theorists" are FAR from the only one calling the Government liars.

www.reopen911.org...
Click the bottom left picture of this page "911 commisions omissions & Lies"

There you'll get Senator Mark Dayton accusing NORAD of lying of just about everything.

There's many many calling the Government's bull #, including Governor Jesse Ventura, and many that were given gag orders by this administration to keep them from coming forward. That's the biggest excuse I get from the average person "why aren't there all these people stepping forward if it's a conspiracy" The fact is THERE ARE. But the Government is forcing them to KEEP THEIR MOUTH SHUT. I've seen a CIA agent cry and say that his superiors told him to keep quiet. The FBI also comfiscated all video footage from every hotel and gas station around. There are eye witnesses that said bombs went off, so what does it take for YOU catherder to wake up?

I challenged all dissenters to debunk the whistle blowers of 911
www.abovetopsecret.com...

And you guys were no where to be seen. You say conspiracy theorists hide behind things that fit with their conspiracy yet ignore the rest. It seems like you're just as guilty of that, hiding behind things that are questionable at best, and ignoring the smoking gun. It's like a saying I like goes "You can't wake up someone pretending to be asleep"

What I wonder is though, people like you catherder. If you're so convinced there is no conspiracy. Why come to this site? Why do you need to prove people here wrong? It has to be that you're either

A. curious, but in denial
B. have nothing better to do than to argue with what you think are crazy people all day
C. a misinfo agent hired by the Government

I seriously doubt C, but A or B would be more than likely.



[edit on 18-7-2005 by NoJustice]



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 12:12 PM
link   

Nonsense. The moment you started with the paranoid delusional ranting about being attacked I knew you were not posting anything of substance. You only wanted to get into a flame war, even though you appear to arrive at them unarmed and uneducated about the subject matter.


Here you are, blowing this bit out of proportion again. This isn't a "flame war." You haven't once addressed what I'm saying here in terms of why the US didn't plant WMD. This will be the third time I've said it.

A suspicious event taking place in US soil under US jurisdiction will have all investigations and media coverage under US control or influence.

A suspicious event taking place in Iraqi soil under international jurisdiction, involving a sanction placed by the UN, would prompt a UN investigation. Unfortunately the US government would not have a monopoly over those investigations.


It's that simple really. I'm sure they considered it, and they discouraged UN help in searching for the WMDs. If people actually threw a big fit over it, they might've considered it more seriously and maybe even have tried it. But they didn't need to, and it would've been pretty damned risky.

That's my response that does not meet your preconvictions. Are you going to keep crying and blowing the so-called "paranoia" bit out of proportion, or actually acknowledge reading the above? I also don't understand how you come to the conclusion that I have no idea what I'm talking about simply because you don't agree with me. You're just as stubborn as I am, if not moreso. I rather like sticking to actual intelligent discussion, believe it or not. Creating a post entitled "Does this make sense?" and then ridiculing ideas with a much underrated credibility does not create very fertile grounds for this, but now you're doing more whining than I am.

I'll post the important part again.

A suspicious event taking place in US soil under US jurisdiction will have all investigations and media coverage under US control or influence.

A suspicious event taking place in Iraqi soil under international jurisdiction, involving a sanction placed by the UN, would prompt a UN investigation. Unfortunately the US government would not have a monopoly over those investigations.



"I too believe the investigation done on this thread has not been all-encompassing, but rather selective" and then you go on to contradict yourself with "I haven't looked at all of it honestly, as this is a huge thread" in the SAME paragraph. But you must have read the thread before replying to it with your opinion right? Right?


If you quoted all of it, you'd notice I said that from what I had read of the thread, it was not all-encompassing. From what I had read, it did not fully explain or back up the official story. I then gave the thread the benefit of a doubt, and stated that I honestly had not read it all. I wasn't being unfair with the thread. I was being honest about not having read all of it, as the 85-page thread is a monster.

Stop trying to make me out as a bad guy. I don't care if you don't like me, but you can at least not start a smear campaign. I'm having to reply infinitely more to your personal attacks than I am to your response to my explanation. Why is that? Oh yeah, cause you didn't reply to my explanation.


Even when you claimed the floors on the WTC tower I'd outlined were inaccurate, and said so in your usual condescending manor "Send them private messages if you really feel the need to congratulate them on posting manipulative and conceptually flawed graphics." and then you were proven to be wrong when I revised the same image with vanishing points to show you they were accurate, you didn't have the balls to step up and say "oh gosh sorry I was wrong". No, instead you choose to toss out some smiley faces and then hide behind your uneducated and meaningless opinions.


Again, taken out of context. You forget that I was talking about both your and Howard's graphics at the same time. Howard's were pure bs, make no mistake, as there was absolutely no evidence to support what either of them suggested.

In you case, the only comment I made regarding your graphic in particular and not addressing the both of you at the same time, was a comment that your graphics were "questionable" in their accuracy. I was not stating that they were inaccurate. I was stating that their accuracy was in dispute.

Again, you take things out of context as to make me the bad guy. I word my posts very carefully so as not to send the wrong impressions. That's the whole reason why I only said yours were questionable, and not that they were wrong. On top of that, the graphics only illustrated which fire a firefighter was talking about. Talk about crying over spilt milk.



Frankly, you're a large waste of time to reply to. This is definitely my last to the likes of you sport. Go troll somewhere else.


Again, I attempt to sidestep the personal bickering and state, for a fifth time, my offered explanation.

A suspicious event taking place in US soil under US jurisdiction will have all investigations and media coverage under US control or influence.

A suspicious event taking place in Iraqi soil under international jurisdiction, involving a sanction placed by the UN, would prompt a UN investigation. Unfortunately the US government would not have a monopoly over those investigations.


[edit on 18-7-2005 by bsbray11]



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 05:55 PM
link   

So, as you can see, the witness reports were quite interesting, and also inconsistent. I personally gather from them that there was something fishy going on at the Pentagon on 9/11. These aren't "conspiracy theorists," but some average citizens reflecting on their sights.


Eh? You've lost me. Those quotes seem pretty consistent to me



posted on Jul, 18 2005 @ 09:59 PM
link   

Eh? You've lost me. Those quotes seem pretty consistent to me


Nevermind it; I was talking out of my ass.
All of that's out in the open apparently.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join