UNDEBUNKABLE 911 Facts = Complicity

page: 2
15
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 14 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   
The fact is, the moment the call was put out there were two flights of fighters scrambled- a flight of F-16s from Virginia and a flight of F-15s from Massachussets- and F-15s were seen over the skies of NYC a few minutes after the 2nd impact. This whole "there were wargames" bit is nothing but irrelevent scare mongoring conjured up by the conspiracy mongers to instigate paranoia in an otherwise cut and dried event.

THESE are the "undebunkable 9/11 facts", and if these conspiracy people have to embellish their claims to such absurd lengths like this, then it's a de facto admission that they know what they're saying is false.



[edit on 14-6-2010 by GoodOlDave]




posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 09:15 AM
link   
reply to post by Shadow Herder
 


As discussed previously, a former air force colonel and director of the Star Wars program stated "If our government had merely done nothing, and allowed normal procedures to happen on that morning of 9/11, the twin towers would still be standing, and thousands of dead Americans would still be alive. [T]hat is treason"

Osama bin Laden: "I was not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States nor did I have knowledge of the attacks. There exists a government within a government within the United States. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; to the people who want to make the present century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity. That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks. ... The American system is totally in control of the Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States."

On the morning of September 11th, 2001, Dick Cheney was running several war games in the north eastern portion of the United States. These drills included many hijacking scenarios, where commercial jets were hijacked and flown into buildings. At the same time Cheney had arranged for a drill involving a bio attack on NY. This resulted in FEMA setting up a command post on pier 29 in New York on September 10th.

Google Video Link



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Come one weedwhacker, hooper and Goodoledave. You seem to be the only 'debunkers' who attempt to discredit facts here on ATS.

3 out of 1000 is quite the minority. Some facts are hard to bury or cover with lies such as the ones put forth in this thread.

[edit on 16-6-2010 by Shadow Herder]



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 04:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder

Fighter jets were also sent far off-course over the Atlantic Ocean in the middle of the attacks (testimony of Senator Mark Dayton), so as to neutralize their ability to intercept the hijacked airliners.
[edit on 10-6-2010 by Shadow Herder]


MONSTROUS HUGE ERROR!!!

For this GROSS ERROR, the ability to conclusively resolve MEANS, MOTIVE and OPPORTUNITY of 9/11 is not possible and the "Truthers" will always be running around in a circle whilst the actual witnesses can be silenced with impunity.

There is a gross assumption made by 99% of all "Truthers" and by the official story. Everyone it seems assumes that there can only be two explanations for why the fighters were sent to sea area Whiskey 386. The third possibility is never considered. If this third, seemingly unthinkable possibility is considered, it immediately solved how the mass murder of 9/11 was done and who did it.

The false assumption by everyone is that they planes were sent there either because...

1. It was a gross error with people going back to "default: procedure of sending the fighters where they always go.
2. That they were sent there deliberately to get them out the way.

The third possibility which is stunning in its simplicity is this...

3. That The US Air Force base at Langley correctly identified the source of the attack on the USA, despatched fighters to combat it and, had they not been turned back, would have entered direct combat with the source of the attack on the USA, sitting in sea area Whiskey 386.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
Come one weedwhacker, hooper and Goodoledave. You seem to be the only 'debunkers' who attempt to discredit facts here on ATS.

3 out of 1000 is quite the minority. Some facts are hard to bury or cover with lies such as the ones put forth in this thread.

[edit on 16-6-2010 by Shadow Herder]


All right...

a) What the air force colonel says is true. If procedures were followed, 9/11 wouldn't have happened. The 9/11 commission report documents many of the failures that happened that day from people failing in their responsibilities to orders not being handed down properly, so if you agree that there were failures, then why are you contesting the 9/11 commission report?

b) that interview comes entirely from a written interview sent from the Daily Uhmat to Bin Laden in care of the Taliban, who almost certainly censored it or even fabricated it themselves. They were giving Bin Laden sanctuary so there's no way any interview implicating bin Laden or the Taliban would ever leave their offices. The interview can't be taken at face value.

c) You are lying. Dick Cheney wasn't running the wargames. Canadian captain Mike Jellinek and Canadian Major General Rick Findley were in charge of NORAD when the 9/11 attacks occurred.

Anythign else you'd like to get out of your system?



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by trebor451

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Example # 3- the "interceptors were sent out over the ocean" claim. What isn't being pointed out is that out by Long Island there's a military aircraft staging area, where miliitary planes are put into holding patterns so they won't collide with commercial aircraft. This is classical cherrypicking information out of context.


Exactly, and the exact same standard operating procedures are exhibited with the aircraft that launched out of Langley.

These procedures had not been updated since the cold war era, 10 years prior. The threat for these NORAD interceptors was going to be external - long range Soviet Bears and Badgers pressing to 200 miles or closer to launch air to surface missiles at whatever targets they deemed were worthy along the coast.

Launching an alert section or aircraft would initially be sent to a marshaling point off the coast until a definitive vector was ready or the necessary intercept information was obtained.

The confusion or "fog" of 9/11 resulted in the Langley aircraft being sent out to the overwater warning area - nothing extraordinary about that to anyone who a) is familiar with the standard operating procedures or b) did the *barest* amount of research into the events that day.


OR POSSIBILITY C. LANGLEY correctly identified the source of the attack on the USA and directed planes to counterattack correctly.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   
dble post


[edit on 16-6-2010 by Shadow Herder]



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
So the majority agrees that the 911 attacks has shown that it has been planned withing the country and not from who the media claims caused 911.

The exercises taking place in 2001 were used as an operational cover to execute the attacks.


Just because the majority or even all but one agree that this is so does not ake it so.

The basics of the law and of crimonology are simple to understand, one must consider MEANS, MOTIVE and OPPORTUNITY.

There are actually ground to suggest that this was not planned in the USA - if the planning had been done so, someone by now wouldhave broken ranks and spoken.

It is also utterly illogical - a conspiracy only works if as few people as possible know.

FURTHERMORE, to suggest these things shows EXTREME failure to understand how a conspiracy works. These people were doing something that could have them before a firing squad or sent to the electric chair. Only an imbecile would think that given the choice between:-
a. Doing it as imperceptably as possilbe and not being caught
b. Being "patriotic" and uying America

That anyone would ever risk the electric chair just to buy American kit, particularly, as they clearly were not interested in supporting America in attacking it.

This insane belief amongst the "Truthers" that those responsible for 9/11 all "bought AMerica" when considering their options is mega-stupid, yet accepted everywhere.

Hard Fact... Traitors are, by definition NOT PATRIOTIC.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Your whole post was full of errors and made up junk. Who are your trying to fool.

1. Wrong

2. Wrong

3. Wrong.


You should not spend so much time at your damned fool debunker sites. Jref is quite the pathetic site to get info from. We all know this.



posted on Jun, 16 2010 @ 04:32 PM
link   
More reason why the 911 official story is a sick joke which involved the killing of good americans and the ugly world of 911 cover up

... AWOL Chain of Command
a. It is well documented that the officials topping the chain of command for response to a domestic attack - George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Myers, Montague Winfield - all found reason to do something else during the actual attacks, other than assuming their duties as decision-makers.
b. Who was actually in charge? Dick Cheney, Richard Clarke, Norman Mineta and the 9/11 Commission directly conflict in their accounts of top-level response to the unfolding events, such that several (or all) of them must be lying.

2) Air Defense Failures
a. The US air defense system failed to follow standard procedures for responding to diverted passenger flights.
b. Timelines: The various responsible agencies - NORAD, FAA, Pentagon, USAF, as well as the 9/11 Commission - gave radically different explanations for the failure (in some cases upheld for years), such that several officials must have lied; but none were held accountable. c. Was there an air defense standdown?

3) Pentagon Strike
How was it possible the Pentagon was hit 1 hour and 20 minutes after the attacks began? Why was there no response from Andrews Air Force Base, just 10 miles away and home to Air National Guard units charged with defending the skies above the nation''s capital? How did Hani Hanjour, a man who failed as a Cessna pilot on his first flight in a Boeing, execute a difficult aerobatic maneuver to strike the Pentagon? Why did the attack strike the just-renovated side, which was largely empty and opposite from the high command?

4) Wargames
a. US military and other authorities planned or actually rehearsed defensive response to all elements of the 9/11 scenario during the year prior to the attack - including multiple hijackings, suicide crashbombings, and a strike on the Pentagon.
b. The multiple military wargames planned long in advance and held on the morning of September 11th included scenarios of a domestic air crisis, a plane crashing into a government building, and a large-scale emergency in New York. If this was only an incredible series of coincidences, why did the official investigations avoid the issue? There is evidence that the wargames created confusion as to whether the unfolding events were "real world or exercise." Did wargames serve as the cover for air defense sabotage, and/or the execution of an "inside job"?

5) Flight 93
Did the Shanksville crash occur at 10:06 (according to a seismic report) or 10:03 (according to the 9/11 Commission)? Does the Commission wish to hide what happened in the last three minutes of the flight, and if so, why?




[edit on 16-6-2010 by Shadow Herder]



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 02:34 PM
link   
Good post Dave. The entire conspiracy web is built in giant leaps of logic. A few facts sufficient to provide plausibility are established then a whole scenario is constructed of supposition, dissembly and conjecture to "prove" the hypothesis. Our government doesn't help either with it's proclivity toward lying and obfuscation. Any explanation for a fact that doesn't support the paranoia is dismissed. I would disagree your final statement though. Most of the people I know who believe in the 9/11 conspiracy mashup are true believers. I am sure there are some who are pushing conspiracy who have a ulterior motive. I just don't know any.


Originally posted by GoodOlDave
You really need to learn to stop going to these damned fool conspiracy web sites for your information. Their agenda has absolutely nothing to do with researching the events of 9/11 and everything to do with getting people all paranoid over shadows.

Example # 1- the "NORAD ran drills of planes being used as wepons" claim. This person omits the fact that planners always believed such planes would be flying in from outside the country. The posters own sources says that there was never any drill that was identical to the events of 9/11. This is classical conspiracy monger innuendo dropping.

Example # 2 - the "Cheney was in charge of the wargames" claim. The false claim is made that "the secret service is in charge of the air force" (only in matters of presidentiual security can the secret service influence Air Force planning), which then leads to "Bush was out of commission at a florida school leaving Cheney in the White House" overlookign the fact that Bush was still president regardless of where he was, which is then perverted into becoming, "cheney was in charge of the war games". This is classical five degrees of separation, Kevin Bacon game playing.

Example # 3- the "interceptors were sent out over the ocean" claim. What isn't being pointed out is that out by Long Island there's a military aircraft staging area, where miliitary planes are put into holding patterns so they won't collide with commercial aircraft. This is classical cherrypicking information out of context.

Whether you're a truther, debunker, researcher, realist, or just a stamp collector, it doesn't matter. If someone has to play these mind games to manipulate their material to get the rest of us to believe what they want us to believe, and then pass it off as "undeniable facts", it's a de facto admission they know what they're saying is false, regardless of who it is that's doing it.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 02:45 PM
link   
So what was it? An inside job or not? How does one leap from "...warnings from every intelligence agency on earth." to believing it was an inside job? As for OBL. Perhaps he wanted a meet. How many journalists would give up a an interviewee? I dare say very few. All OBL has to do or had to do is or was stay in the tribal areas of northern Pakistan to evade death or capture. Believe it or not intelligence is not infallible. We did know several times where he was but his op sec was good enough to keep him on the move. People on the 10 most wanted list stay hidden for decades sometimes and that is within the borders of this country. And you final statement is just absurd. Buffoons maybe, terrorists? no, unless you're of the "one man's terrorist is the other's freedom fighter" mindset and if so there is no point in talking.


Originally posted by time91
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


Have you ever read Crossing the Rubicon? War games on 9/11 aren't just about "getting paranoid over shadows". What about the insider trading, the warnings from every intelligence agency on earth, the fact that a jerk off doofus reporter managed to find Bin Laden but our intelligence agencies (with the highest budget of any intel agency on earth) have been looking for him for years, and can't find him...
Just a few more nails in the coffin of the OS. The only option left that saves the government from being complicit is that the "terrorists" have been running our intelligence agencies for years.



posted on Sep, 12 2010 @ 03:11 PM
link   
i have one thing to add. If it all happend the way they claim it did, why were all cctv videos of the Pentagon crashed removed and never shown to the public?



posted on Sep, 13 2010 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by thedarktower
i have one thing to add. If it all happend the way they claim it did, why were all cctv videos of the Pentagon crashed removed and never shown to the public?


Sadly you won't find the answer to that excellent question in this thread by anyone who supports the Official Story. I mean they could create some kind of "national security" excuse where the FBI was forced to remove videos from a nearby hotel. To me it sounds like obstruction of justice. The absence of video evidence at the Pentagon and its surrounding buildings is alarming.

edit on 9/14/10 by Big Trouble in Little Chi because: (no reason given)



edit on 9/14/10 by Big Trouble in Little Chi because: Spelling Error



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedarktower
i have one thing to add. If it all happend the way they claim it did, why were all cctv videos of the Pentagon crashed removed and never shown to the public?

Because there weren't any.

The FBI collected videos from locations around the Pentagon, which they thought would contain footage of the plane crash. But since most of the cameras were pointed at things they were supposed to protect, rather than a government building with its own security detail, the videos contained nothing useful. And since they were private videos of private property, they were returned to the owners.

The list of what the videos showed used to be on Flight77.info, but sadly that site has been taken off the web. However, it is mirrored at www.911myths.com...



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 11:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by thedarktower
i have one thing to add. If it all happend the way they claim it did, why were all cctv videos of the Pentagon crashed removed and never shown to the public?


Becuase it's entirely from the propaganda the conspiracy theorists are manufacturing that theorizes there's even any additional usable video to begin with. Security cameras are going to be trained on high traffic areas like parking lots, building entrances and (in the case of the video they did release) security gates, not on blank walls or empty front lawns. Suppose they did release video of a bunch of people standing in the parking lot who all suddenly turn their heads to look at something off camera. How does that help you?

This is really neither here nor there. The Pentagon isn't out in the middle of the desert or at the bottom of the ocean. It's in an industrial park and there were hordes of eyewitnesses who saw the impact, and they all say it was a passenger jet they saw. This whole "Pentagon video" bit is nothing but a dishonest red herring meant to create innuendo.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by pacific_waters
Good post Dave. The entire conspiracy web is built in giant leaps of logic. A few facts sufficient to provide plausibility are established then a whole scenario is constructed of supposition, dissembly and conjecture to "prove" the hypothesis. Our government doesn't help either with it's proclivity toward lying and obfuscation. Any explanation for a fact that doesn't support the paranoia is dismissed. I would disagree your final statement though. Most of the people I know who believe in the 9/11 conspiracy mashup are true believers. I am sure there are some who are pushing conspiracy who have a ulterior motive. I just don't know any.


I acknowledge they're true believers. That doesn't mean the conspiracy claims they believe in are true any more than the universe revolving around the Earth is true becuase medieval people believed it was true. All it means is that someone successfully suckered them with enough snake oil that it got them into suspecting something isn't right. If they don't check the veracity of what they've been told, they're not going to know they've been suckered with a lot of snake oil.

When people make claims like "a cruise missile hit the Pentagon" it really doesn't matter whether they sincerely believe it becuase they've been told that by someone, or whether they're pushing it out to get gullible people to buy their book. In the end, it's still rubbish.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadow Herder
2) Air Defense Failures
a. The US air defense system failed to follow standard procedures for responding to diverted passenger flights.
b. Timelines: The various responsible agencies - NORAD, FAA, Pentagon, USAF, as well as the 9/11 Commission - gave radically different explanations for the failure (in some cases upheld for years), such that several officials must have lied; but none were held accountable. c. Was there an air defense standdown?


The US Air defense system had 14 - thats fourteen alert fighters at its disposal covering the whole of the continental United States on the day of 9/11. Thats one plane per 271,000 square miles.

Anything not on alert my be fueled, but not armed and not ready to fly. To get a plane in the air from cold takes at least 30-45 minutes of prep, and probably longer in order to get the pilots in flight suits, aircraft checked and briefed and out to the airplane, and even then its unlikely the planes would be armed with anything but canon.

The USAF does not - contrary to what some people might believe, have hundreds of fighter planes ready to launch on a moments notice.

And as a comparison, the UK has four planes on QRA, with four others on 15 minute alert and others in varying states of readiness



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 01:29 PM
link   
I would like to ask Debunkers and Truthers about the motives for the Pentagon and Shanksville planes.

Fanatical Muslims would, I assume, want to cause maximum carnage and crash as many planes as possible into
any high profile target they could get their hands on.

NWO false flag types, however, would surely not risk complicating such a delicate operation with anything other than the WTC planes. What exactly was the point of hitting the Pentagon with a missile? Has it been established what the target of the Shanksville plane was? What would have been the point of hitting that target for the NWO?

Just the WTC should have been sufficient for provoking a war for oil.



posted on Sep, 14 2010 @ 01:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by 12arcFanatical Muslims would, I assume, want to cause maximum carnage and crash as many planes as possible into any high profile target they could get their hands on.

I'd say the Pentagon and the Capitol (target of United 93) would qualify as high profile.

Remember, the terrorists wanted to hit the symbol of the US financial power (WTC), military power (Pentagon) and political power (Capitol).





top topics
 
15
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join