Originally posted by jessejamesxx
but there were definitely many things wrong with the official story, right?
The minute I discovered that mysterious blue tarp covered object they were claiming was being carried out of the Pentagon was really a triage tent being brought into the Pentagon, I knew these characters were a bunch of snake oil peddlers tryign to push abject paranoia to make a quick buck. Their claim that flight 93 actually landed in Ohio is just plain laughable.
Originally posted by iamaperson
Originally posted by TupacShakur
-- Our government had knowledge prior of the attacks and knew that airplanes would be hi-jacked, but they took no measure to prevent such an event from happenning. Lieutenant Colonel Anthony Shaffer worked with a military intelligence program "Able Danger" in 2000, and they identified 4 of the hi-jackers as possible Al Qaeda members. Beginning in September 2000, three meetings set up with the FBI by him were each canceled by military lawyers. Shaffer lost his security clearance to view classified information after going public. This prior knowledge blatantly contradicts George Bush's and Condoleezza Rice's statements that nobody could have predicted terrorists to fly airplanes into those buildings.
If they had prior knowledge, doesn't that mean it was not an inside job. What sort of prior knowledge did they have, if they only knew that there could be a terrorist attack involving planes, what should they have done about it? Put in the scanners that people (especially on ATS), are completely against, how would people have reacted to such a move pre911? Would people have been happy with it in 2000, more then they are now? I don't think so.
Didn't the hijackers that flew the planes have commercial pilots licenses, if so I would suspect they can fly planes. Perhaps the quote from the instructor was one of the earlier instructors, not the one who gave the license to fly.
Rest of it I probably cannot reply to, since I have no knowledge in this area, but will say that there have been heaps of these Undeniable Conclusive Evidence threads, and yet I haven't noticed anything major.
Originally posted by jessejamesxx
So many screwy things happened that day, and so many 'coincidences', that even if you don't believe it was an inside job, you have to think something was strange/covered up, right? Even if it's not what "Truthers" are implying, there was something that was lied about that day?
Maybe the hijackers had bombs in the planes, and the GOV didn't want you to know? Maybe Israel or some other entity, ally, that we can't go to war with did this, and the US gov had nothing to do with it? Those are just 'top of the noggin' ideas - maybe it's not as sinister as what Truthers suggest - but there were definitely many things wrong with the official story, right? Can there be some sort of concession here, with skeptics?
Originally posted by Wotcher
99% undeniable and conclusive????
I don't understand.
I'm not saying I disagree with you but....
How can it be undeniable and conclusive if it is only 99%?
100% is absolutely conclusive and undeniable.
Is there still an element of doubt here?
Originally posted by templar knight
I have seen this evidence before but lets look at the evidence for these as moslem extremists:
- Did these people leave any clues that they were going to do such act, willingly and on their own - YES:
BBC Death Wish - Please try to trarck the handwriting on the internet to get a match to Mohammed Atta
Were there other people who wanted to be hijackers? -YES
Even my favourite and probably best net on the TV/Web - Al jazeera claims mess up by CIA/FBI but does not implicate them:
Mistakes by the CIA
US let slip hijacker
And this is the problem with this kind of thread, supporters want to deny that it was done by extremists - but at the same time - get angry and want to do it themselves