Let's explore a different theory about 9/11 (My theory)

Originally posted by Smack
reply to post by irongunner

 

So, rather than checking into my claims, you'd rather attack my sources?
Do you have access to a search engine? Got Google?

I've learned that no amount of reasoning, logic or weight of facts, can ever convince some people. It's an emotional issue, that many people cannot reconcile within themselves -- that our government has been, and is now, run by criminals.

[edit on 1-4-2008 by Smack]

ahh yes, the source is important. often children tell tales of monsters in the closet and what do we say? ohh, there is no monster in the closet. yes, we may look to appease the child, but we never truly give the claim any merit.

For a long time now I have wanted to believe that everyday life is as normal as it can get. The standard everyday man and woman going about their lives, working to make money, to pay bills and eat, and have their governments that exist to keep things stable and running smoothly. Politicians that talk and talk and talk day in and out, rarely agreeing, rarely getting things done, and every 8 years(in the U.S. as one example)new blood promising the SAME PROMISES THAT WERE MADE 8 YEARS PRIOR to get elected so they can roll around in royalty for 4-8 years. They have a bullseye on their chest, but they roll around in royalty for 4-8 years. That's the standard ideal most people have in the states. We live normal, boring lives.


Insert reality that is pure fact. The first thing that comes to mind is the fact that we are forced to pay an illegal income tax that was never passed into law because it flunked the test. It didn't get enough votes. Our governmment did that to us, the people that pay their paychecks. The people that put them into office. All these years and it still exists. What did we get out of it? Tons of crap programs that only serves for politicians to use to get votes, and probably some weapons of sorts that if we tried to get within a mile of them just to see where our money is going, we could be shot dead and it's justified by, "well the person could have been a spy/national security is at stake" yeah, but not in the interest of the people, just your damn selves and your power we put you into.

Another thing that comes to mind is the sad fact that America seems to be constantly at war. Ever since we came to be, we've had few years of plain old peace. And why do wars occur? Over power, plain and simple. No matter the type of war, all are the same regarding the motives > POWER. And power is money. It can be for good reason, to survive. Or it can be pure greed.

Seriously, I could spend a week naming all the cold hard facts. I hope I don't have to because I'm pretty sure most people here understand what I mean. They know the facts. They know how messed up things have become. I refer to the income tax because to me it is the most insulting fact by far, not to mention if I don't pay that tax, I'm jailed for "tax evasion", something that isn't even a law to begin with. What has this country come to when the people we put into power sit there in their offices and keep their mouths shut about an income tax that was never passed into law and then tell us their employers more or less that if we don't pay that tax, we get to go sleep next to Bubba or Big momma in prison. Yeah, thanks. I for one realize that things aren't as normal as I thought and every other week we hear of a new story of power and corruption.

I don't know what happened during 9/11 beyond the fact that we lost the WTC, some of the pentagon, and perhaps some plants and stuff from the plane that never struck it's target, along with 3000 lives. I will say that I find alot of these 9/11 theories extremely far fetched. One theory I do not consider far fetched any longer is the possibility that it was in fact a conspiracy of some sort at work and the motive was pure money and greed. Knowing what I know as pure fact without a shred of speculation, I will not put it past people and their need for power and greed to accept a loss of life to fill their pockets so they can pay for 500 dollar meals while people starve around the world. Is America so sucky that we were too lazy to put ourselves into the position to stop 9/11 or did the powers that be stand down and let it happen? Perhaps time will tell and what I mean by that is, something of the nature of 9/11, if a conspiracy was at work, someone(s) will come forward at some point in their lifetime and reveal the truth because it's too much to bare to hold back. At that point it's up to people to accept the truth or treat it like JFK/Roswell/so on.

Make no mistake. There is no where else I would rather be. I'll be the first citizen to show up to fight if all hell breaks loose on my homeland. I'm not afraid to admit the evils that keep this country going, but I also don't forget about the goods that keep it going too. If not for the goods, America would not be here today, that much I am certain about.

reply to post by irongunner

A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes. -- Mark Twain

I could list sources all day and night, but if you won't even look at them, what is the point? Webster Tarpley's book reveals a lot. It is a sourced and scholarly book. This is why I say, look into it yourself. No source I give will be satisfactory. I've played this game before.

I'll recommend some websites for you to look at. If you don't care to look into 911 at all, and prefer to believe the fairytale, just let us know. I'll stop wasting my time. Check out Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth , Patriots Question 911 and Pilots for 911 Truth Also look at the 911 timeline at Cooperative Research - All sourced.
It is up to you.

[edit on 2-4-2008 by Smack]

Originally posted by stanglover2008
Mr Devino.. If 98% of "terrorist" are muslim than one can say that terrorist are "fundamelist muslim" This is logic.. Somthing that science is based on...

Where's the science behind "98% of "terrorist" are muslim"?

John, it seems funny that you have no opinion about WTC 7. You state that you have not had enough time to study but seriously I think 6 1/2 years is long enough to ponder why that building came down in a controlled manner. One other question about that building. Why didn't anyone goto it as they had just spent millions creating a safe area to run the city from in just such an incident. Not one person went to WTC 7. Thats like building a safe room in your house and then when a guy breaks in you goto the kitchen. And the last thing I will say is that I don't think some of the best pilots in the world could fly a large plane into the middle of a building. And I say this with 6000 hours in the KC-10. You have no idea how hard it would be to hit that building at full speed, none at all. John i'd go so far as to bet a large sum of money that no pilot trained in single engine aircraft in the world could take a 767 from cruise altitude into the side of any WTC building at full speed. John have you ever been to an air show and looked at the flight deck. It has no resemblance to a small plane. Most pilots that are trained in small planes wouldn't even know how to start the engines let alone fly the plane. One last thing john how did the nose pop out the other side of the building? A carbon, graphite cone defeated steel panels and beams? Oh it must have been with that guys passport.

It seems to me that there is more evidence to support a conspiracy than the 9/11 story. And really all they have to do to stop some of this is release the videos from the pentagon. But they won't, why? Why did bush and chaney give testimony but not under oath? John there are more why's than I care to go into. But to just say I saw it on TV and that is so seems kinda sheepish.

You remind me of that guy that said Willie Nelson was a crack pot, but didn't even know WTC 7 had collapsed.

Originally posted by stanglover2008
I believe what I believe people, because nobody on this planet has produced info that supports your outlandish claims….. This is easy as one, two , three… You give me info and I ensure you I will give you evidence otherwise.. Why do you assume something without hard evidence? AGAIN, WOULD YOU CONVICT ME OF MURDUR WITHOUT SOLID EVIDENCE???? THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON YOU!!! You assume and that is wrong. As far as the “rules” If ATS wishes to kick me off for me speaking my mind then so be it, it will only prove a double standard. : )

Just for your edification, people are convicted of murder and other crimes without solid evidence in THIS country all the time. I've even seen people convicted of crimes without solid evidence that a crime even took place!

The problem with what you're doing is that you assume you know what happened, and point to pieces of evidence to support it. What many others do, is try to figure out what happened based on the evidence. There's a difference.

Originally posted by Mikey84

Originally posted by Lightworth
Sorry, but I've never heard of a plane crash before or since 9/11 where there wasn't enough wreckage to plainly identify it as such. OK, I've had enough. I think my insomnia is wearing off. Going back to bed. Toodles.

You obviously don’t know much about Plane Crashes in the past then, do your research please. But in saying that, identifiable parts of the aircrafts have been found at the WTC site and at the Pentagon, again I’m guessing you need to do more research.

Who really are the sheep? The people who believe the facts? or the people who “follow” the inside job theories?

Mikey

You can't just tell someone to do research and then approach the rest of your argument as if that means you're stating fact. Give an example of what you're talking about when you tell them to do research. Otherwise it's a meaningless statement.
I would absolutely love for you to show that whatever identifiable plane parts they found at the Pentagon were positively matched to Flight 77 (because that's the only plane that could have crashed into the Pentagon according to the official story.)

Originally posted by Mikey84

Originally posted by mr-lizard

(with a show of almost above expert level of flying skill considering the no doubt chaotic conditions on that flight)

Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t the plane Crash? Crashing a plane is not considered “above expert level of flying skill”, I thought that would be obvious!

Having flown planes myself, I can tell you it’s easy to fly (easier than driving a car actually) and it would be a hell of a lot easier to crash it!

Remember, you don’t need to know how to drive a car or be a skilled driver to be able to crash it! Do you?

Mikey

The point was not the crash. The point was the movements the plane made while it was in the air. Let me give you a little perspective. I work in the movie business and when the movie requires someone to crash a car, who do they hire? Any old idiot, because that's all you need to be to crash a car? Or a professional?
Here's another question: If you had organized a terrorist attack where your minions were going to crash planes into specific targets without being caught/intercepted by the military, would you trust someone who doesn't know how to fly?
Let me also reiterate here that we're not just talking about crashing. We're talking about crashing into a very specific target at a very high speed. At the speed the planes were moving, just a slight difference in approach would have made them miss their targets (as you can see in the videos, the 2nd plane almost did.)
So, in conclusion, am I supposed to believe that actual carrying out of the mission which has many people involved, and has taken a lot of time to plan out, is gonna be left up to someone who might miss?

[edit on 2-4-2008 by newgeneric]

[edit on 2-4-2008 by newgeneric]

reply to post by newgeneric


newgeneric....I appreciate your perspective on this, and am intrigued because you work in the movie biz.

As you know, a 'stunt' is going to be well-thought out before hand. You know very well how a shot is set up, and the amount of time involved, and how the shot has to be rehearsed, before the film rolls.

BUT....we are talking, here, about something else. Real, not fake.

These guys had one chance, one 'take' if you wish....but they certainly 'rehearsed' as much as they could before their one 'take'....

With unlimited funds, one can buy time in simulators. I have quite a bit of time in simulators, and I know how realistic they are. I also know that, in the years before September, 2001, if you had the money, you could approach ANY training facility anywhere in the World, and they would let you fly their Simulators. You didn't have to be a good pilot, it didn't matter, as long as you PAID!!!!

If I had the money, I would invite a contigent of ATS members to play along in a Sim, we would likely have to find a company (or airline) that would A) know that we weren't terrorists and B) had time for us to use their Sim. You see, most airlines are very strict, their Sim times are quite tight, since they have to use them for re-current training, and initial training....the Sims are not used much in the early hours, i.e., after midnight until 0600....but that's when the maintenance people come in to repair and 'maintain' the Sims....

BTW, reason for the 'strict' times, it is in the contracts of the airline pilots....

Hope this helps the discussions....WW

Someone who thinks a missile hit the pentagon: Why did they use a missile when they had 4 planes hijacked? We watched 2 airplanes hit the towers, so we know that airplanes were used. Why would anyone go ahead and use airplanes to do that, then use a missile on the pentagon when they could just use another plane.

It doesn't make sense for a missile to be fired at the pentagon because it doesn't fit the method of attack. It would be almost too easy to figure out that a missile was used, then the American public would have to ask, where the hell did a missile come from?

Logic would dictate that if 'they' are trying to stage a terrorist attack, they would simply use planes on all targets.

Logic would also dictate that if you're staging a terrorist attack and you DID use explosives either on the ground or throughout the towers to aid in bringing it down, you'd just make a point of exposing that the terrorists made a joint air and ground attack. Even if 'they' did plan it, they had plenty of time to work out the physics of getting them to fall by hitting them in the right place.

Why would 'they' even remotely consider the possibility of leaving behind evidence to suggest it wasn't a terrorist attack. The simplest plan 'they' could come up with is to actually carry out a terrorist attack with their pawns and then claim it was Osama.

That's why I'm failing to believe in the inside job theories. They all seem to overly complicate how it was done to point to contrived evidence of a conspiracy.

Like I've said before, I can buy into why they would do it. It's not hard to see why an attack like this can benefit certain people. It's the explanations from truthers that make it sound less and less plausible to me.

Originally posted by Sovereign797
Logic would also dictate that if you're staging a terrorist attack and you DID use explosives either on the ground or throughout the towers to aid in bringing it down, you'd just make a point of exposing that the terrorists made a joint air and ground attack. Even if 'they' did plan it, they had plenty of time to work out the physics of getting them to fall by hitting them in the right place.

You are presuming there is such a thing as "the right place." And even if there was, you now have people that it has been shown to have no experience flying airliners, who managed to find the targets at all, now having to hit the towers "just right!" And where was the "just right" place the hit on #7? But frankly, there is (was) no "right place" to hit those buildings to take them down. The whole structure was redundantly supported.

I'm sick of arguing the nits. This is an erroneous assumption.

Why would 'they' even remotely consider the possibility of leaving behind evidence to suggest it wasn't a terrorist attack. The simplest plan 'they' could come up with is to actually carry out a terrorist attack with their pawns and then claim it was Osama.

They left as little as possible, and they relied on the MSM to keep repeating the Official line while people were in shock. And boy did that work. By the time people really started looking, they had shipped off the debris to various places, handed what amounted to a handful of that debris to forensics and said, "Go to town!" By the time we started looking and seeing things that didn't add up, we had plowed over Afghanistan and were headed for Iraq.

Thing is, not enough people were really looking at the evidence.

You say the "simplest plan 'they' could come up with is to actually carry out a terrorist attack with their pawns and then claim it was Osama." And ya know... It wasn't Bush flying into the Towers. It wasn't Cheney on a plane in Pennsylvania (presuming there were planes and not holographic projections... Who knows?).

It was their henchmen who carried it out. And yes. It was the simplest plan for their American Reichstag that got us into a war with no defined enemy, which in turn meant anyone could be the current "enemy," and war is now eternal (making more more for Cheney, et al, than any one of us could picture in our heads.

That's why I'm failing to believe in the inside job theories. They all seem to overly complicate how it was done to point to contrived evidence of a conspiracy.

You haven't really looked at the evidence then, sir. It's all over the web. I'm not going to sit here and enumerate.

Like I've said before, I can buy into why they would do it. It's not hard to see why an attack like this can benefit certain people. It's the explanations from truthers that make it sound less and less plausible to me.

Let's see... You can see the motivation, but you can't buy that they would actually do it if they thought they could get away with it?

What's there to explain? Why won't they release footage from public cameras from that day if there is nothing unexpected to be found? There's one I would like explained.

Why did the debris get such a poor excuse for a forensics examination? There's another.

Why are the questions of the Jersey Girls not answered?

Why did Cheney say orders still stood when he was told a plane was approaching the Pentagon (and we must presume those orders were to do nothing)?

Why did the Towers fall like controlled demolition?

Why did #7 fall? Like controlled demolition?

Why did the investigation take 14 months! to start? With Bush/Cheney fighting it every step of the way?

Why were so many questions not addressed in the "investigation?"

And on and on.

Interesting thing is... We don't have to ask any of these questions if we start from the "inside job" supposition. Every single one of them is answered. Every one. All we need to ask is...

Who in our government was involved? Bush and Cheney for sure. What other criminals are there? How many have been lured by high living and intrigue (manifestations of the worship of money) that they sold us down the river? What other evil lurks in these who believe that because they have money, they are better than us? That we are quite literally...sheep?

I ask you now. Are you really one who just can't look, or are you one who sold your fellow spirit into slavery? I have my probabilities on the both calculated out, but I'm going to keep them to myself.

Originally posted by Amaterasu
Let's see... You can see the motivation, but you can't buy that they would actually do it if they thought they could get away with it?

What's there to explain? Why won't they release footage from public cameras from that day if there is nothing unexpected to be found? There's one I would like explained.

Why did the debris get such a poor excuse for a forensics examination? There's another.

Why are the questions of the Jersey Girls not answered?

Why did Cheney say orders still stood when he was told a plane was approaching the Pentagon (and we must presume those orders were to do nothing)?

Why did the Towers fall like controlled demolition?

Why did #7 fall? Like controlled demolition?

Why did the investigation take 14 months! to start? With Bush/Cheney fighting it every step of the way?

Why were so many questions not addressed in the "investigation?"

And on and on.

Interesting thing is... We don't have to ask any of these questions if we start from the "inside job" supposition. Every

so, now we can all agree that the people with the most questions are right?

well then let us types that believe in the official story start asking ridiculous questions as well.

why do "truthers" think that most deaths of public figures are conspiracies?

if they are conspiracies why haven't all of the "truthers" started disappearing?

Why do you think there is a gov./ mass media conspiracy?

why havent you "truthers" started moving to countries that are less worse than America if our gov. is flying around in black helicopters doing all sorts of dastardly deeds?

if i wanted i could go on, but the "proof by question" stuff needs to end.

Originally posted by irongunner
so, now we can all agree that the people with the most questions are right?

Oh, let's not go this route. It's the questions that are being asked and you know it.

well then let us types that believe in the official story start asking ridiculous questions as well.

Did I understand this correctly? You are going to ask ridiculous questions? Let me guess. This is calculated to to suggest that my questions are ridiculous. Rather than obliquely imply this, please explain why the questions I ask are ridiculous. But don't attack each one and explain it away. Please explain why the whole of these pieces does not point to "inside job."

Let's see what, as you have have to ask...

why do "truthers" think that most deaths of public figures are conspiracies?

Off topic. We'll discard this one.

if they are conspiracies why haven't all of the "truthers" started disappearing?

I suspect this is off topic, too. Mainly why I am not sure is that I am unclear what you're asking. Truthers have disappeared. Whether it was a conspiracy connected to 9/11 or not... [shrug] But either way, the fact remains that things have just started. And you can look around and see this is not the country Thomas Jefferson believed he was creating. though he saw the potential of this and did warn us. I'll give you this one.

Why do you think there is a gov./ mass media conspiracy?

There's a lot of stuff out there that explains it. Ask the Jersey Girls for some of it. (Notice how the MSM just toys with idea they represent, if they are mentioned at all?) But let me ask you... Why don't you think there is a conspiracy?

This was a question about why I believe something. Off topic. No point.

why havent you "truthers" started moving to countries that are less worse than America if our gov. is flying around in black helicopters doing all sorts of dastardly deeds?

Heh. In case you hadn't noticed, there is an economic problem in our country. And passports cost money. And air flights, and moving all one's s**t, and so on. And then there's getting a job somewhere else, and having a place to go to...

Dude. If I could move to Amsterdam, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

Still, this is off topic. No point.

if i wanted i could go on, but the "proof by question" stuff needs to end.

We covered that at the beginning of my post. We're not going there. We are going to look at the whole picture. Your questions assumed an awful lot about "truthers." They were disjointed a bit and did not follow any one point. They were more a list of your perceptional complaints about others, rather than addressing 9/11 at all. You weakly scored 1 out of four.

The number of questions I had, being irrelevant, I won't bring up. But I must point out every one of MY questions related specifically to something that happened on 9/11.

And every one of my questions can be answered presuming an "inside job."



[edit on 4/5/2008 by Amaterasu]

Originally posted by Amaterasu
Let's see... You can see the motivation, but you can't buy that they would actually do it if they thought they could get away with it?

It's not even that I don't believe they'd do it. If they did, there wouldn't be this much supposed evidence that they did. Or maybe I'm just smarter than our government to think that the easiest way to not get caught is to carry the attack out just like a terrorist would? Using controlled demolitions and missiles is sloppy and would lead to getting caught.

So I'm left with three possible explanations.

The people who planned this according to the truther explanations are apparently completely inept and truthers have nailed them!

The people who planned this ARE indeed in our government and did exactly as I said, carried out a terrorist attack using terrorist methods and truthers are just coming up with bogus evidence in an attempt to uncover it, all the while losing credibility because their assumptions are off the map.

Or terrorists carried out the attacks that day and 50% of their plan actually worked. The buildings coming down nearly right on their bases was just an eerie coincidence due to the construction of the buildings and where they were hit. The pentagon was hit by an airplane, but they failed to cause any real damage because they hit it totally wrong and were going too fast to aim where they should have. The 4th plane also failed. And unpreparedness and a series of communications failures led to this even being possible.

I could go either way on two of those, can you guess which?

...Why won't they release footage from public cameras from that day if there is nothing unexpected to be found? ...

I can't answer this for you. We have the frames related to the aircraft hitting the pentagon, what more do you need? If you think it wasn't an airplane, you must subscribe to the theory that those who planned this are stupid enough to use a missile or plant explosives. That's great, but can you answer why they would do that instead of doing what a terrorist would do and crash a plane into it?

Why did the debris get such a poor excuse for a forensics examination?

Sometimes it's never enough. How much examination would have been good enough? A super thorough examination is really only necessary when there's a question on what happened. So either the government sent all that stuff away to hide what they did, or we already knew what happened. I'm not going to argue this point, because you either believe it was an inside job or you don't. This is not evidence.

Why are the questions of the Jersey Girls not answered?

Good question.

Why did Cheney say orders still stood when he was told a plane was approaching the Pentagon (and we must presume those orders were to do nothing)?

Do we know what the orders were? Even if we presume the orders are to do nothing, would you want to make the call to kill innocent civilians? How much of that plane do you think an air to air missile would destroy? Sometimes they don't even destroy entire fighter jets, you'd have debris falling all over.

Why did the Towers fall like controlled demolition?

Lots of people like to claim that they know it was a controlled demolition, some because they are professionals, some because they've seen it on tv, or in person. That's great that you have something to compare it to, I've seen controlled demos too, and it looked similar as it fell to me too once someone mentioned it. By show of hands, who here has seen a building collapse from airplanes hitting it? Well, now we have, so now we have a frame of reference.

Why did the investigation take 14 months! to start? With Bush/Cheney fighting it every step of the way?

Because we knew what happened. The only question was how did the terrorists slip through the cracks.

Originally posted by Sovereign797

Originally posted by Amaterasu
Let's see... You can see the motivation, but you can't buy that they would actually do it if they thought they could get away with it?

It's not even that I don't believe they'd do it. If they did, there wouldn't be this much supposed evidence that they did. Or maybe I'm just smarter than our government to think that the easiest way to not get caught is to carry the attack out just like a terrorist would? Using controlled demolitions and missiles is sloppy and would lead to getting caught.

Really? Hmm. Ok. I'm sure there may be other and perhaps better ways to do what they did, but they did what they did with the people they knew that could count on. Sometimes a "better way" may not be an option because you don't have a goon in place at a crucial point in space or time.

So I'm left with three possible explanations.

The people who planned this according to the truther explanations are apparently completely inept and truthers have nailed them!

Huh? I suspect that at this point they don't care how many figure it out. The plan has done its job. It got us into the Middle East. It further eroded the Bill of Rights (from where they were eroded by the War on Drugs) to the point that they now lie raped, dismembered and buried. It gave Fuhrer powers to the President. It has bled us mostly dry, putting us into an unassailable debt by calling up billions after billions from the "Fed." It has handed all economic power to a private bank, who now holds us indentured by our debt.

They covered enough to get to this point, and I think they think they got more miles out of it that they expected.

But I think it's odd that you dismiss all the evidence of an inside job by assuming that "they" wouldn't be so sloppy as to leave it. Wow. Who DID leave all the evidence? That's kinda weird, having Cheney tell people to do nothing as the plane (whether with or without missile) approached the Pentagon... Just to plant evidence that makes it look like an inside job?

Don't you think?

The people who planned this ARE indeed in our government and did exactly as I said, carried out a terrorist attack using terrorist methods and truthers are just coming up with bogus evidence in an attempt to uncover it, all the while losing credibility because their assumptions are off the map.

Well... That may be. And if they did it, they are also out there posing as looney tunes, coming up with the most weird sh...stuff, or people who "believe" their beloved government and try to derail solid inquiries with off-topic denigration, thus furthering a confused public's inability to discern.

But this theory does not fit all the evidence. Sad to say. So far, the only one that does is one in which they brought down the towers and 7 with explosives/incendiaries (and maybe holograms...?).

Or terrorists carried out the attacks that day and 50% of their plan actually worked. The buildings coming down nearly right on their bases was just an eerie coincidence due to the construction of the buildings and where they were hit.

Putting aside the issue of #7, I think it's cute that you still bring up the idea that the towers came down because of the planes. The evidence to support the idea that they could easily withstand the impacts and flames is rather overwhelming, while "theory" after "theory" of how and why otherwise has been brought up and discarded. And it's all just a "coincidence" that they collapsed exactly the same way...

I wouldn't count on this holding water so far...

The pentagon was hit by an airplane, but they failed to cause any real damage because they hit it totally wrong and were going too fast to aim where they should have. The 4th plane also failed. And unpreparedness and a series of communications failures led to this even being possible.

The Pentagon was hit right where they wanted it to be hit. Whatever delivered the blow was brought nearly 180 degrees around to nail that specific, uninhabited side of the building. None of "theirs" died.

We don't have a whole story on the Pennsylvania flight. There are a LOT of questions (that can be answered with the inside job theory) surrounding that flight.

And I am amazed that you are so willing to believe we were so ill-prepared. SO ill-prepared, I guess, the Cheney had no clue what to do and ordered everybody to do nothing as the plane (with missile, most likely) came heading towards the Pentagon. 50 miles out. He was sweating the responsibility and had, apparently, already ordered everybody to do nothing.

40 miles out... He's in a panic, unable to act. 30 miles out. He's helpless. 20 miles out. His knees are shaking and he's soiling himself. 10 miles out, and he's asked if the orders still stand. In his blind fear, anxiety, incapacity... He snaps, "Of course they still stand. Have you heard any differently?" (Going by memory; some words might be a bit different.)

That makes sense.

I could go either way on two of those, can you guess which?

Heh. I might guess, but really, I think you've made your position clear.

More in next post. I ran out of characters.

Originally posted by Sovereign797

Originally posted by Amaterasu
...Why won't they release footage from public cameras from that day if there is nothing unexpected to be found? ...

I can't answer this for you. We have the frames related to the aircraft hitting the pentagon, what more do you need? If you think it wasn't an airplane, you must subscribe to the theory that those who planned this are stupid enough to use a missile or plant explosives. That's great, but can you answer why they would do that instead of doing what a terrorist would do and crash a plane into it?

Are you kidding??? We have frames, you say. We have a few frames from two or three pieces of footage, that show absolutely nothing identifiable. There are at least 20 cameras - maybe a lot more - that recorded the incident. Trying to claim we have anything with the small number of frames with a blur at best is highly dishonest. Either you are lying to yourself, or trying to lie to others here.

What more do I want? ALL the footage. Thank you very much.

Now could you explain WHY the missile theory is "stupid?" You make this claim but do not address the logical support. No more unsupported claims, eh? As to why they might want a missile... Would you trust those you are working with to the luck of a pilot that had no training in airliners to hit the right place, causing no casualties? If *I* were in change, I surely wouldn't do that.

Why did the debris get such a poor excuse for a forensics examination?

Sometimes it's never enough. How much examination would have been good enough? A super thorough examination is really only necessary when there's a question on what happened. So either the government sent all that stuff away to hide what they did, or we already knew what happened. I'm not going to argue this point, because you either believe it was an inside job or you don't. This is not evidence.

Again, you make it sound like it's ok to give forensics a lick and a promise on the biggest crime committed in our country's history. No other crime, or suspected crime, has had such pathetic forensics. "Sometimes it's never enough," my...rectal orifice.

Or maybe we should just dispense with forensics in all cases where we "know" what happened. Is that a good idea? I can tell you there are a great number of suspects, where they were arrested because somebody "knew" they were guilty - that were released because forensics came back with evidence that they were innocent. But let's save ourselves the cost and bother to investigate crimes because we "know" who did it.

Sir, that path leads to taking our right to a fair trial being raped, dismembered and buried.

Why are the questions of the Jersey Girls not answered?

Good question.

Excellent dismissal tactic. Care to speculate? (Geez.)

Why did Cheney say orders still stood when he was told a plane was approaching the Pentagon (and we must presume those orders were to do nothing)?

Do we know what the orders were? Even if we presume the orders are to do nothing, would you want to make the call to kill innocent civilians?

I think our armed forces have jets that, if not off playing games all at once that week, would have - at the 50 mile mark - had enough time to get lofted and in place to divert and contain that jet. And if they crashed, they were dead anyway... Dude. If they hit population, not only were they dead, so were the people they hit. I would decide to get it away from people if I could and shoot it if I couldn't.

I would not have a choice about the lives on the plane, but I surely would have some control over those on the ground.

How much of that plane do you think an air to air missile would destroy? Sometimes they don't even destroy entire fighter jets, you'd have debris falling all over.

Lemme tell ya... Debris mostly falls in the direction of the blast initially upon being hit. This, in turn, decreases their movement downward, giving more time to duck if you can. And it comes with a warning sound long before it hits. And it's smaller pieces. And it's pretty much back at the start towards terminal velocity, so less energy, perhaps when it hits... And I think I'd rather duck and cover, hoping for the best, than to have my first warning be the nose of an airplane in my skull and out my...the other end.

I think the better choice is to shoot it down. If I can make that choice, I think an honest (innocent) VP could, too.

Why did the Towers fall like controlled demolition?

Lots of people like to claim that they know it was a controlled demolition, some because they are professionals, some because they've seen it on tv, or in person. That's great that you have something to compare it to, I've seen controlled demos too, and it looked similar as it fell to me too once someone mentioned it. By show of hands, who here has seen a building collapse from airplanes hitting it? Well, now we have, so now we have a frame of reference.

I shake my head. Sir, give it up. The evidence does speak. But it now doesn't matter. They are at the end of their plan, with concentration camps in place. Look around on the web... REX-84.

I guess I just keep hoping that somehow it's not too late. I keep hoping. That is why I speak up.

I don't think I'll make a difference, and we will see our country crushed in vengeance for the defeat of the Third. I expect I will visit their Ministry of Love. But hope...dam' it all. It springs eternal.

Why did the investigation take 14 months! to start? With Bush/Cheney fighting it every step of the way?

Because we knew what happened. The only question was how did the terrorists slip through the cracks.

Good thinking. Again.

Oh... Another coincidence that...no one at the Pentagon was killed?

You do have to stack up coincidences here, don't you?

reply to post by Amaterasu


Golly Gosh, gee whilickers, Amater...

Your final statement, no victims at the Pentagon? Really, this is simply untrue, and tends to invalidate and impugn anything else you may care to write.

[outside source] "Many survivors suffered horrible injuries. Kevin Shaeffer was watching coverage of the attacks in New York City with co-workers in the Navy Command Center when the plane struck, instantly killing 29 in the same office. Shaeffer sustained second- and third-degree burns over 4- percent of his body." 'Recovering, PBS.org, 9/11/2003'

125 total dead victims inside the Pentagon...plus the 54 from the airplane (not including the five hijackers, since no families came forward to provide DNA samples for matches).

Ya know, a lot of darned rumors fly around on the internet...some that a little determined research would easily dispel......

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

Golly Gosh, gee whilickers, Amater...

Your final statement, no victims at the Pentagon? Really, this is simply untrue, and tends to invalidate and impugn anything else you may care to write.

[outside source] "Many survivors suffered horrible injuries. Kevin Shaeffer was watching coverage of the attacks in New York City with co-workers in the Navy Command Center when the plane struck, instantly killing 29 in the same office. Shaeffer sustained second- and third-degree burns over 4- percent of his body." 'Recovering, PBS.org, 9/11/2003'

125 total dead victims inside the Pentagon...plus the 54 from the airplane (not including the five hijackers, since no families came forward to provide DNA samples for matches).

Ya know, a lot of darned rumors fly around on the internet...some that a little determined research would easily dispel......

Ok. I missed that people died in the Pentagon. Pardon me. I'll take back what I said about the deaths at the Pentagon. Makes the dude all the more sinister, letting his own get killed...or maybe "his own" are "above" the poor souls that died, where the first warning was a nose cone out the...tail end.

Go to town on the rest of my stuff.

Originally posted by seasalt

The other plane, did not make it's destination, due to heroic actions(or REactions)by certain flight passengers that morning.

so your saying that a plane with a cockpit door(that can only be opened on one side) stonger then a watertight door that aircraft carries use was able to be pried open by a box cutter/plastic knife. then even though the door is some 10ft away from the pilots seats the passengers ramming food carts into the cockpit door was able to make the plane crash.

and tell me this. how the hell are 4 terrorists that can't even pass flight school able to fly fully loaded 757's and 767's like they work for the air force?

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by Amaterasu

 

Golly Gosh, gee whilickers, Amater...

Your final statement, no victims at the Pentagon? Really, this is simply untrue, and tends to invalidate and impugn anything else you may care to write.

[outside source] "Many survivors suffered horrible injuries. Kevin Shaeffer was watching coverage of the attacks in New York City with co-workers in the Navy Command Center when the plane struck, instantly killing 29 in the same office. Shaeffer sustained second- and third-degree burns over 4- percent of his body." 'Recovering, PBS.org, 9/11/2003'

125 total dead victims inside the Pentagon...plus the 54 from the airplane (not including the five hijackers, since no families came forward to provide DNA samples for matches).

Ya know, a lot of darned rumors fly around on the internet...some that a little determined research would easily dispel......

so the emt that was driving past the pentagon who ran down to help the 'dead' and 'injured' was lying when he said that there where no bodies or wreckage that indicated there was a 757 that crashed into the building?

www.rumormillnews.com...