Gitmo Prosecutor: Flight 93 Was Shot Down On 9/11!

Not that long. About as long as it took for someone to actually read the piece you cited from. But of course, the retraction didn't come from the corner you expected, did it?

reply to post by burdman30ott6

---

Read my above comment before you start up with the personal attacks on my character as well. Thanks. It was a mistake, but certainly not deliberate. I edited too quickly, and did not pay attention to the fine print there.

reply to post by DimensionalDetective

---

Dude, the headline! READ THE HEADLINE! It isn't about fine print. Rawstory doesn't alter their headlines without putting an edit tag in and they certainly don't add exclamation marks to their serious headlines.

reply to post by _Del_

---

Indeed. I read through this, as well as edited this, too hastily, and unfortunately incorrectly. I am man enough to admit when I've made a mistake. It was not intentional, as others have suggested, I just rushed through too much in haste after skimming through it, and took rawstory's headline to heart, without paying attention.



[edit on 24-7-2008 by DimensionalDetective]

reply to post by burdman30ott6

---

WHOA WHOA---WAIT A SECOND!

The title of this story DID NOT say that when I first posted this from Raw story---It said EXACTLY what my title said, word for word, minus the ! at the end. So RAWSTORY changed that heading title from the one they INITIALLY leaked the story with! They DID change the heading!



[edit on 24-7-2008 by DimensionalDetective]

reply to post by Neaux

---

(pushes to the front of the crowd)...Excuse me, I don't believe the statement has ever made any mention of these phones being used...the "alleged" calls were made from the passengers cell phone. Feel free to look it up.

Sorry, but this doesn't fly. The five words you excised were not "fine print," they were the context of the story. It would be impossible to read them and mistake it as Stone's own words.



If you were worried about the text limit, why then in the next post did you include a snippet that was 77 words-in-length? Your first post, with the excised text included, would be only 72 words.

reply to post by MrMicrophone

---

no once again conspiracy theorists didnt read the bloody article - or this thread for that matter

it clearly states in the article that stone is quoting the claims of the defendant

as it hadnt sonk in - i pointed this minor fact out in my post on PAGE ONE of this thread

but i guess the " TRUTHERS " didnt read that either and just kept plabering thier ignorance

" truth movement " my arse - nothing could be further from the truth

PS - edit to add - a sprinkling of stars for all thouse that could actualy read



[edit on 24-7-2008 by ignorant_ape]

Outside of everyones squabbling...

I don't care who said it, a US representative, or an Al-Qaeda representative, it's been said.

(They had to shoot United 93 down, otherwise it would have hit the capital.)

... you might as well tack on

(but the other planes... we needed them to hit their targets... civilians aren't real people anyways.)

I'm not one to create "conspiracy theories" in fact, most conspiracy theories look rather ridiculous to me. But everything in this scenario seems to add up as such...

----
The Bush administration had in fact received intelligence information regarding Al-Qaeda intending to attack the United States. They didn't bother reading it because they were already aware.

Remember Bush being quoted saying "we need another pearl harbor"? Freudian slip. It would have been back then when he was initially aware of a joint venture between Al-Qaeda and key figures in the US to have an attack on the US occur. I don't believe it was his view, but he didn't disagree with it.
He also had such Freudian slips as repeatedly calling himself a "War Time President", and often stating that, he 'really' doesn't want to have to be one...
... nobody says that, unless they had foreknowledge of becoming one.

Meanwhile the decks were being stacked in the US.
Those with knowledge of the coming strike were pooling assets (If they hadn't already pooled assets) into Arms Manufacturing, and Oil.
... woops... did they just invest in the two things necessary for a modern war?

Al-Qaeda wasn't going to be left out of this deal either. Not that their gains were to be financial... they were about to have a HUGE surge in membership, a refreshment on the "we hate America" viewpoint, and allot of key Middle Eastern political members beginning to sympathize with their cause.

All that had to happen, was for the US to wage another war in the Middle East... only, this time, it would be a war where you couldn't help but get ALLOT of civilians killed.
Hence, Al-Qaeda gets sympathy from the civilians, new recruits who want to avenge their families... pretty much, you become a major player again in the Middle East.

The key US players would get their reward in the means of money. Yep, they pooled assets into Weapons Production and Oil for a reason.

So, agreement, war is in the best interest of both sides (the key players, not the soldiers or civilians), Bush got that "pearl harbor" he made the Freudian slip about, NORAD was placed into some form of a training drill to make sure they wouldn't interfere... (look into how often that happens, then tell me it was a coincidence.)
Bush was sure to be out of the "Dome" at the time, "Damn... can't go back to the white house just yet, but, I'm the president, aren't I supposed to do something? Better keep reading to the children, I might look innocent that way."

Trade centers come down... nobody tries to stop them, even though they had what, over an hour of knowledge the planes had been hijacked?

Pentagon gets hit... very beautifully I might add in an area that was largely unoccupied.

And they shot down that last plane they promised Al-Qaeda could use to hit the White House... we didn't really MEAN you could hit the white house, we just said that to sweeten the deal. Whaddya gonna do? We'll be at war soon anyways.


Like I said, this is the way the pieces fit together for me. Motives, time lines, even Freudian slips indicating what they were thinking... all of it seems to line up.
... It lines up A HECK of allot better than the official story.

-They expect me to believe NORAD was shut down by coincidence on the same day that the largest damn attack on the US took place?
-That the only plane attempted to be intercepted, was the one heading for the government buildings?
-That bush was quoted saying "we need another pearl harbor" shortly before the US got what it called "another pearl harbor?"
-That their investments into Oil and Weapons Manufacturing were done, because they DIDN'T know they'd be starting a war?
-That even though they keep telling us, we try not to hit civilians, the only "sources" they seem to use regarding terrorist locations, involve getting a whole whack of civilians killed?

The list goes on. Maybe my puzzle pieces are just deceiving me... but whatever the real story is, the one the government has given us looks like a freaking Piccasso. It's a blatant lie.
And for that, they should be imprisoned... THEN we'll start working out what really happened.

Remember, we can jail them indefinitely now, without trial.

[edit on 24-7-2008 by johnsky]

reply to post by SaviorComplex

---

Savior-Don't start up with your assumptions and personal attacks with me, like you do everyone else. I couldn't care less whether you think "that flies" or not-That's what happened-Period. Don't assume to know what I did or did not do, because you don't--I read the headline of this, got a little too excited, and did not pay attention carefully enough to how I was editing it. I don't give a crap whether you believe it or not, it was definitely not intentional on my behalf.

As I have already stated, >I PERSONALLY< have not even formed a solid opinion on this subject, so I am still listening to both sides of this argument. I don't have some "sinister agenda" to make up things about it, particularly when >I MYSELF< am still learning about it.

There are a few people here that believe the official story, I however, am not one of those people. What I did was use the official story to poke a big hole in the arguement of some other poster who is really doing his best to argue but not doing a very good job of it. If you think for one second that I believe that passengers stormed the cockpit causing flight 93 to crash and vaporize, then you clearly did not read my post clearly.

reply to post by DimensionalDetective

---

If you're still just "learning" about 9/11, can I suggest that there are far better places than the extremely leftist RawStory where you can get your information from, DD? Obviously I'm not suggesting you go to FOX for your sources, but RS is way out in the liberal ether, man. If they actually changed their headline, then I apologize for jumping you, BTW. If that is truly what happened, then their first headline should tell you all you ever need to know about their agenda and their credibillity and if I was you I'd be pretty damn infuriated at them because they made you look like an ass.

I don't need to assume anything, the evidence is there.

But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on this one. I can accept it is as an honest mistake. And I am sure you can see where my suspicions came from.

Especially since excising text to change the context and meaning is a hallmark of the 9-11 "Truther" movement.

People make mistakes, and I for one am willing to give DD the benefit of the doubt. I know how it can be when you are rushing to get something posted that you think I a big deal. and you race through it hoping not to get beat out by someone else. DD has made a zillion threads on here, and one mistake. Those are pretty good odds if you ask me. Treating him as a hoaxer is a ludacris idea and seems to me that you are just looking for a fight "Savior"

I never said I wanted him treated as a hoaxer. And if you are going to give him the benefit of the doubt, perhaps you should do the same with me.

Man, you guys must be terrorist...you sure hijacked the hell out of this thread like professionals,

reply to post by MrWendal

---

benefit of the doubt ?

" truthers " never give any of the alleged ` perpertrators ` of 9/11 - the benefit of the dobut

guilt is alleged to hinge on a single word - a facial expression etc etc

if you want benefit of doubt - be prepared to give it too

reply to post by DimensionalDetective

---

You don't deserve the attack. It is uncalled for. You explained it well enough as an honest mistake. I don't agree with you sometimes but you put a lot of work in on this Board and it is appreciated You others, acting like a pack of wolves, need to get a grip. Unless your perfect that is and I doubt that.

Having said that, you should consider changing the title of the thread. When I read the article I had the same reaction at first as others have had. The title is misleading.

>> I'm not bitter. But to me, 9/11 is a life-lesson.

My opinion of the "inside job" was formed when I saw the video showing how quickly it fell. The twenty stories that disintegrated in mid-air. Then the actions later of the Bush administration that stank of cover-up.

The lone-gunman MIGHT have shot FDR -- but who stole his brain later?

It was also, how strongly the "tin-foil-hat' and Conspiracy Theorist moniker came out. Look, if you want to say something that slanders an individual and is completely made up -- it seems that these points are not made so much. The "Truther's" were just talking about THIS Conspiracy, and the anti-truther's were tying it to ALL CONSPIRACIES. Someone would talk about Big Foot, or one theory might be proposed of laser-guided remote controlled aircraft -- things we cannot know. But if ANYONE was speaking nonsense -- we all were.

I also learned that yes, people can get paid to lie to the public. We found out that a TV Anchor was paid $250,000 to tell everyone that Bush's "NO Child Left Behind" education program in Texas was a complete flop. I remember everyone talking about it in the early days and saying what wonders it did for Texas. Which turned out to be based upon a lie. It has failed to work as a national program as well -- but nobody is paid to give us the right figures anymore.

So, you can be all alone in this world with what you think and your personal experience. Your brother can call you an idiot and refuse to talk about it on purely emotional grounds. You can be ridiculed. You will not be promoted having the notion that our trade policies are bad. Following the status quo will reward you, and get you more friends. You will be told not to believe your own lying eyes.

Sometimes, sometimes, you are right and everybody else is wrong. People are getting paid to destroy the truth, and without anything we can hold faith in -- we are going to have our own theories on everything and not join together. It isn't that our administration thinks that we are believing the propaganda they put forth (enough do), or that they care that my brother now thinks the elections are rigged. It's that they know they can lie to us straight to our face, and confidently know that they can do it tomorrow. We are left feeling powerless, alone, and that nothing can be done -- because the White House Press Secretary just told us Iraq does not want US troops to leave, and the press lets them.

Everybody knows we are constantly lied to -- but 9/11 is special. We can look back on the Lusitania and say; "well, that was then" -- but to accept that 9/11 was an inside job is to accept that "everything you know is wrong." It was little Toto pulling back the curtain on the Great Wizard.

Love the bitter twisted vultures here gloating over the corpse of DD's error!Good job their not mods

I dont believe this story in the slightest,and thought something was wrong when i read it in the papers earlier this week



Only the fat Bin laden actor has admitted to the 9/11 attacks and all of a sudden we have someone else saying he planned it!Pure BS,If Bin Laden did plan it then He would have boasted as soon as he could!

He came out and said he had nothing to do with it right after the attacks

This story is rubbish and is designed to be another link between the attacks and the long dead Bin laden