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.

 

What made you first suspect that these 9/11 conspiracy stories were false?

page: 5
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by SunnyDee
There are indeed some ridiculous theories out there, but there are the some very basic things to my common sense mind that don't add up at all.

1. The media was calling this a trerrorist attack by Al Quada within an hour. And that's what remained the story to this day. They sure are smart. No need for even a bit of evidence to pinpoint the exact purpetrators right off the bat.The media are just that good.


Actually it was Al Jazeera that first reported that.

And if Dylan Avery had his facts so proven, why did he recant his position. And in the debate with Popular Mechanics, before his recanting, he said Popular Mechanics was yellow journalism.

yellow journalism

NOUN:

Journalism that exploits, distorts, or exaggerates the news to create sensations and attract readers.

Popular Mechanics is a pure science magazine, Loose Change is yellow journalism. If you watch the debate here www.youtube.com... watch how different these two sides are. Popular Mechanics actually spoke with the coroner, Loose Change did not. Popular Mechanics actually spoke with cell phone companies about cell phones in air planes, Loose Change did not.

So let me see, Dylan Avery did not speak to one single important source, all of his information was found on the internet. That makes him so very much unreliable. Popular Mechanics spoke to every source in person. So who is reliable?





edit on 10/7/2011 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 04:47 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


Well not sure what you're trying to say here. Al Jazeera is media, although not the ones I was referring to. I was referring to american media. Our media jumped on that bandwagon rather fast and furious. Not trying to say more than that. Are you trying to say Al Jazeera started the rumor and all our media just went with it within the hour?

Dylan Avery? Loose change guy? That video is pretty weak. No opinion on Avery, although Popular Mechanics seems to be the bible for all 911 OS'rs. I guess I didn't know how knowledgeable the staff writers were over there at PM, so what they say is it, huh? End of story?

I am all about common sense. I personally can't accept all the coincidences. inconsistencies, secrecy, insider tradings, deaths, lack of video...... You go right ahead, it's your right to believe what you want.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by SunnyDee
reply to post by WarminIndy
 



I am all about common sense. I personally can't accept all the coincidences. inconsistencies, secrecy, insider tradings, deaths, lack of video...... You go right ahead, it's your right to believe what you want.


Would you say it was an inconsistency to claim there were no Jews in the WTC? That was the basis for the theories to begin with. So if the whole thing were a conspiracy, go ahead and prove me wrong on that one. I think we all know there were Jewish people that were there. The reason I keep beating this dead horse is because theorists need to go back to the beginning and address that theory. Every theory was based on this original one.

The reason no one wants to admit it was disproven is because of the underlying fear that the whole entire conspiracy theory will crumble. I don't want to hear that I am stupid, foolish, unintellectual or any other name you can toss at me because I am right on this point, but that is what happens, when we present a real truth and because it goes against popular culture the first thing is to try to make people think you are right simply because you have nothing else to defend.

"Truthers" have defended "No Jews", holograms, space beams, physics that defy logic, the lies about nanothermites, Osama bin Laden was uneducated, and a host of other things that have been disproven over and over and over again. The problem is this, there seems to be such an overwhelming desire to follow the trend of "Trutherism" that celebrities tell you to follow that it frightens people to think there actually could really be terrorists who want to do this very thing.

So what will happen next is this, someone will jump in after me saying things like "you believe your government OS" and things like that. I have not insulted anyone, but it will happen to me. The thing is, I do not care if someone does because that will prove that I have shaken their belief in the conspiracy theory, even if it is just a small shake. Common sense does not follow illogical falsehoods.
edit on 10/7/2011 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 06:02 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


I think you might want to talk to someone else in this thread. I haven't brought up any of the subjects you've referred to. No Jews in the twin towers? This is the first I've heard of that theory. Isn't Manhattan full of Jewish people? Weird theory, I don't think it's a popular one. Also, there are plenty of us that think this was an inside job of some type, that was a long time in the planning, for the purpose of creating new paradigms, hide secrets forever, create controls and make a load of money.

I don't know one person who claims to know just how it all went down. Just that it was HIGHLY suspicious.
So, with that said, there are lots of theories, and some real crazy ones, but just because there are highly speculative theories, does not make all of the theories moot.
edit on 7-10-2011 by SunnyDee because: (no reason given)

edit on 7-10-2011 by SunnyDee because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by SunnyDee
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


I think you might want to talk to someone else in this thread. I haven't brought up any of the subjects you've referred to. No Jews in the twin towers? This is the first I've heard of that theory. Isn't Manhattan full of Jewish people? Weird theory, I don't think it's a popular one.


It was the first theory. Why don't you go back to the original "Truthers" and ask them about it. The reason it is not popular is because it has been disproven by the very families of the victims. And this theory was made known the very first few days by people who were not there.

The theory was this...Mossad called the Jews on their cell phones and told them to not go to work. And that because it was Mossad, they said, there has to be an Israeli connection. And the Israeli connection means that Israel and the United States government were in cahoots, therefore it was an inside job. The inside job means that secret agents went in and painted the walls with nanothermites and planted bombs. Therefore, in order to make it not look like bombs and nanothermite, they had to show holograms, hit them with space beams, and that the entire media was showing an edited video that was graphically enhanced. Therefore, because it was editing done, that means all the media reporters were involved in transmitting this false video. Therefore, because the government controls the media, it proves this whole theory because George Bush wanted to go to war. So therefore, this was a plot simply to go to war, therefore they had to create 19 puppets to do their job for them, so therefore, the government had to toss the blame on someone, therefore Osama bin Laden got the honor. But to make it look like Osama bin Laden did it, the government would therefore have to make the planes disappear. How to do that? Land the planes, take all the people off, then fly the planes away, while making it look like those planes hit the buildings. But wait, the pentagon should be hit, so we have to make another false plane story (while hiding the real planes) and we have to throw everyone off by making a false plane hit the field in Shanksville.

Have I got it right so far? Did I miss anything?
edit on 10/7/2011 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 06:49 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


Do you have a problem with someone who doesn't believe the official story, but also doesn't think everything you just said happened either?

You did a really good job of taking the crazier theories and making them sound crazy. I could do that with the official story pretty easily too.

If you are not some shill and just someone that believes the OS, then maybe you can comprehend that some of us think there were people in the know in our govt, in order for such a large situation nationally to go down. You seem to want to project the crazy on all of us, instead of listening.



posted on Oct, 7 2011 @ 09:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by SunnyDee
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


Do you have a problem with someone who doesn't believe the official story, but also doesn't think everything you just said happened either?


I think we should approach it like this, if you prefer not to believe the official story then there has to be another story. What is that other story? I believe the official story. So you believe otherwise, that is your prerogative.
But in saying that you believe something else then you have to consider all possibilities. What are those other possibilities beyond what conspiracy theorists propose?



You did a really good job of taking the crazier theories and making them sound crazy. I could do that with the official story pretty easily too.


Those theories I mentioned is a sum total of every theory from the ground up. Those are theories that we have all heard from Thierry Miessen, Richard Gage, Dylan Avery and a host of others. When I present them as we hear them from conspiracy theorists, suddenly it sounds absurd. Which is exactly what we have been saying all along, it is absurd. All I did was use the conspiracy theories using the same thought process that the rest of us has been hearing for 10 years. If it sounds absurd, that is because it is absurd. If it would help, I can find every theory out there and post them one after the other.

This is the beginning....the No Jews theory.

september11th.multiply.com...
www.freerepublic.com...

Go back to the beginning. Please take a moment to examine the theories for what they really say. It is really easy to say the government blew up the buildings, but to construct a theory around it to include half-truths is detrimental. What has happened is that when one theory pans out another pops up to replace it.

So you can believe whatever way you want to believe, that is your freedom and right to do so. But to not question the theories is really a disservice if you want to find out the truth. The truth is, conspiracy theorists have made a lot of baseless claims constructed from half-truths that they themselves recanted from, without apologizing for spreading.


And when I say conspiracy theorists, I mean Dylan Avery, Thierry Miessen, Richard Gage and the ones on television and in the movies.

edit on 10/7/2011 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 8 2011 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by userid1
 


The thing I'm not understanding is that those witness reports do not refute a plane attack. They simply add questions about the actual flight path.


Right, ok, maybe. I want to say it takes a long time to type all of what I think on this Pentagon witnesses thing so if people could read over just what I put so far in this thread I would appreciate it. Now I'm going to try explaining a bit more.

Dave goes nuts about the accusing Government Agents angle but I want to point out that in my posts I don't really do that. As well, I've mainly been talking about what I personally think about the Pentagon and am not referencing anybody or any old crazy past Truther theories and the like. Anyone, feel free to read my posts to see if this is indeed true.

I'm not sure who did the Pentagon but I am fairly sure from my photography/film background of 20 odd years that there is definite 'staging' at the Pentagon. And every new little thing I find seems to bolster that determination rather than diminish it.

Take my recent observation that no Pentagon witnesses mention the smoke trail over the Pentagon lawn. That's what I'm saying and that's all I'm saying. I'm not saying necessarily, that the 'Government' did it. Check my posts. But I say what I observe, an original unsourced or referenced observation of this Fact and the first thing Dave does is call Government disinfo accusation foul. When I am only pointing out a simple observation anyone could easily verify. It's like I noticed the sky was blue and said so, then Dave starts going on like I think the Government did it. (When he Knows for a fact that's just not possible and ridiculous!)

Ok, so like I don't know how many times I have to type a simple observation before somebody realizes that's all I'm really doing. I'm going to post though, on the Pentagon, until my fingers bleed, and if I have to explain what I think 100 times I will. Why? Because I detect staging there. And staging means planning. And because it's post crash staging even if there was a 757 with terrorists flying it, they're not also likely behind the staging etc. Right?

All logical. Not saying who did it, not involving crazy truther theories, just looking at it and trying to think it through as best I can. So please don't lump me in with who you think I think did it nor with any other truther sites or theories. I'm trying hard to be and do original thinking. I want to popularize it. lol

I been thinking about this much of the time I'm not posting. I wonder if Dave would be so hostile if he realized I wasn't necessarily accusing the Government? I merely took his witness link and looked at his posted Solidworks animated video and asked, "How come none of these 100 witnesses mentioned the smoke trail in the video?"

Dave didn't even try to find one witness who did he just said like, 'well just because they never said it was there don't mean it wasn't there' Maybe. But they also never mentioned a pink Virgin 747 or a giant purple dinosaur with an AK47 attacking the Pentagon on 9/11 either. Were both those things there too?

Somebody else said the plane was going too fast... Hmm, too fast to see the smoke trail over the whole lawn that the lousy gate cams picks up but not too fast to see it's a plane (various witnesses), the landing gear is up (6 witnesses) and shadows of people can be discerned in the little windows (3 witnesses). It's like a robbery at Pizza Hut where 100 people are having dinner and a guy with a shotgun busts in and in the police reports, no one mentions the gun. That's what I think.

So rather than say, "You know, that's an interesting observation, I wonder why that is?" Three people in here immediately jump to offer opinions on why that doesn't matter or why it could be. I know we debate and go at each other in here but refrain for a second, just see that my observation is correct that's all. What it means we'll deal with as we go. So many people cry about the rehashing of old stupid debunked theories. I come along and point something out and people don't like that either. Guess nobody wants their little ideas being rattled...

Varemia, it's interesting to me how you phrase your statement above. You are asserting it was a plane and are only concerned about flight paths etc. To me it's like when Dave asserts it was Al Qaeda but he's only concerned how the different agencies screwed up etc.

No eye witness mentioned seeing the very prominent smoke trail over the Pentagon lawn on 9/11. You don't think that is of any real significance? Or that it even seems strange because some could tell if the landing gear was up and others could see in the windows? They can see in the windows and UNDER THE PLANE and fail to mention the smoke trail.

That doesn't seem odd to you?


Cheers



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 12:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by NWOwned

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by userid1
 


The thing I'm not understanding is that those witness reports do not refute a plane attack. They simply add questions about the actual flight path.


I'm not sure who did the Pentagon but I am fairly sure from my photography/film background of 20 odd years that there is definite 'staging' at the Pentagon. And every new little thing I find seems to bolster that determination rather than diminish it.


With your many years of photography and film, can you answer a question for me that no one else seems to be able to want to address?

In 2001, what video editing software was capable of editing a live event as it was happening? I am trained in film/video production as well and write plays and screenplays.

The theorists have proposed the videos were edited and sent out across all the media via one feed. How is it possible to send the signal via a feed from cell phone cameras and personal video cameras? You know as well as I do how the process works.

Are you saying that the government took pieces of damaged airplanes and planted them there? Then wouldn't people traveling on the interstate be witnesses of that? I have ridden by the Pentagon and know the layout of the area. Did people witness big, black trucks there? Did people witness agents pulling the broken pieces to place them in certain positions just to take pictures and then put the pieces back on the trucks?

When you say "staged", what you are really saying is that you want people to believe something you suggest to them. Both you and I know how to set a shoot up. But when you say "staged" you now have to prove there was a staging of the set.

You were talking about the Pentagon. If the Pentagon were hit by a cruise missile, where was it fired from? Norfolk, Virginia? Was it fired from a ship or a plane? I would think a cruise missile screaming over the interstate would catch the attention of travelers. How would you, as a film professional, stage this event?

Cruise missiles fly at supersonic speed, that means if it went screaming over any areas where houses were at, people would have known because it would have rattled their entire houses. And now the big question is this, if cruise missiles strike a building at a vertical position, then how did the Pentagon get hit from a horizontal position? These are things you have to work out when staging a set.



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 12:55 AM
link   
reply to post by NWOwned
 



I am fairly sure from my photography/film background of 20 odd years that there is definite 'staging' at the Pentagon.



In broad daylight?

In front of all the hundreds of cars on the nearby highways? Cars that had stopped, as traffic stopped overall, when the airplane hit?

What sort of magic could be employed to 'stage' the entire 'scene' in a matter of moments? With no one seeing it??

And....with all that film background, ever actually been on a set, and seen the setting up that takes place? And, the time it takes to do it?



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 03:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProudBird
reply to post by NWOwned
 



I am fairly sure from my photography/film background of 20 odd years that there is definite 'staging' at the Pentagon.



In broad daylight?

In front of all the hundreds of cars on the nearby highways? Cars that had stopped, as traffic stopped overall, when the airplane hit?

What sort of magic could be employed to 'stage' the entire 'scene' in a matter of moments? With no one seeing it??

And....with all that film background, ever actually been on a set, and seen the setting up that takes place? And, the time it takes to do it?


'In broad daylight?'

Why not? Better than at night - more light.


'In front of all the hundreds of cars on the nearby highways?'

Please show me some official tally of the actual number of cars.


'What sort of magic could be employed to 'stage' the entire 'scene' in a matter of moments?'

What 'scene' INITIALLY really? A few small scattered parts on the lawn?

I believe something hit the Pentagon and that caused an impact, explosion, fire, and various (many) small pieces of debris and some larger chunks too but I don't believe it was a cruise missile. I'm not at this time going to go into why - later I will.


'And, the time it takes to do it?'

SEE ABOVE: What 'scene' really? Meaning the initial impact caused an explosion and then the only thing were a few small parts on the lawn to be photographed later...

Basically, except for the small parts photographed later, the impact/explosion WAS the entire extent of the 'SCENE'.


Cheers

edit on 9-10-2011 by NWOwned because: for style



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 09:48 AM
link   
reply to post by NWOwned
 


Nope. It doesn't seem odd to me at all. In the simulation (which could be wrong in some aspects), asserted that the plane didn't start smoking until it hit lamp poles. This is obviously very close to the pentagon, and I imagine that there would have been around a quarter of a second at most to see the smoke (if it was there).

Now, one thing you can't really refute is the damage to the generator. If this was a missile of some sort, why was the generator pushed forward with a chunk taken out of the corner? Wouldn't a missile have blown it outward?

Also, as per the testimony of the second cop in the video that was posted in a link, he said that the plane "yawed" just before impacting. Might hitting something like the generator explain that?



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   
reply to post by NWOwned
 


LOL!! " You funny guy!"....(don't quit your day job):

I asked:

'In broad daylight?'



And your punchline:

Why not? Better than at night - more light.



Uh huh. Yeah, now it's obvious what you're doing.


Like, here....

I asked:

'In front of all the hundreds of cars on the nearby highways?'


You answered:

Please show me some official tally of the actual number of cars.



42. Or, was it 142? What if it was only 99...that's not exactly "hundreds", but you get the point.

Surely, when one is going to speak with such "authority" and make a declaration that he/she is "certain" the scene at the Pentagon was "staged" with airplane debris, then one would have at least visited the area, once or twice, yes?

One would perhaps visit on a weekday....like say, a Tuesday.....(not a Holiday)....at around 0930 (that's 9:30 AM for draft dodgers) when many people are on the roads, commuting to work.....yes, even at that hour of the morning, traffic is very heavy on all of the surrounding roads near the Pentagon.

A bright, beautiful sunny morning (I remember it very well....I lived roughly three miles away, as the crow flies, from the Pentagon, and was home that morning).

So....explain again this "staging" of airplane debris, in front of multitudes of potential, undeniable witnesses, yet not one person saw such activity??


(Oh....and don't forget Sean Boger...know who he is? He was at his station, in the Helipad control tower, on the Pentagon property...he witnessed the American jet impact, by the way.....but he did not see anyone distributing airplane debris around the area as part of a "staging" of the "scene"...and he had a perfect view).



Basically, except for the small parts photographed later, the impact/explosion WAS the entire extent of the 'SCENE'.


That is baloney. There are at least 136 people who came forward on record as witnesses of "an" airplane....103 of those actually saw it hit. Undoubtedly, many more saw, but never identified themselves for whatever reasons....people are like that sometimes. (How would they have thought some crazy French author, and then many others, would take up this ridiculous bandwagon of nonsense that has morphed into the so-called "Truth Movement"??)

Oldie, but goodie:


The impact/explosion WAS the result of the large passenger jet, with lots of Jet-A1 fuel on-board, hitting a building and exploding. That is what happens, in such an event.






edit on Sun 9 October 2011 by ProudBird because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by WarminIndy

Originally posted by SunnyDee
There are indeed some ridiculous theories out there, but there are the some very basic things to my common sense mind that don't add up at all.

1. The media was calling this a trerrorist attack by Al Quada within an hour. And that's what remained the story to this day. They sure are smart. No need for even a bit of evidence to pinpoint the exact purpetrators right off the bat.The media are just that good.


Actually it was Al Jazeera that first reported that.

And if Dylan Avery had his facts so proven, why did he recant his position. And in the debate with Popular Mechanics, before his recanting, he said Popular Mechanics was yellow journalism.

yellow journalism

NOUN:

Journalism that exploits, distorts, or exaggerates the news to create sensations and attract readers.

Popular Mechanics is a pure science magazine, Loose Change is yellow journalism. If you watch the debate here www.youtube.com... watch how different these two sides are. Popular Mechanics actually spoke with the coroner, Loose Change did not. Popular Mechanics actually spoke with cell phone companies about cell phones in air planes, Loose Change did not.

So let me see, Dylan Avery did not speak to one single important source, all of his information was found on the internet. That makes him so very much unreliable. Popular Mechanics spoke to every source in person. So who is reliable?





edit on 10/7/2011 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)
PM claim the exit whole in the pentagon was caused by the landing gear! They lost all credability right there as far as im concerned.

The problem with you os believers is that anybody that questions the os is thrown into a basket and called a "truther" and you think that every truther believes every single crack pot conspiracy out there

Wrong!

Anyone with half a brain cell knows these theories are insane but there are very valid questions that have gone unanswered for the last 10 years unanswered questions raised by family members who lost loved ones that day. Are they truthers? Nutters? Delusional?



posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by kaya82

Originally posted by WarminIndy

Originally posted by SunnyDee
There are indeed some ridiculous theories out there, but there are the some very basic things to my common sense mind that don't add up at all.



The problem with you os believers is that anybody that questions the os is thrown into a basket and called a "truther" and you think that every truther believes every single crack pot conspiracy out there

Wrong!

Anyone with half a brain cell knows these theories are insane but there are very valid questions that have gone unanswered for the last 10 years unanswered questions raised by family members who lost loved ones that day. Are they truthers? Nutters? Delusional?


The crack-pot theory such as "No Jews were killed on 9/11" really has no basis as being true. That is the foundation theory. If you thread every conspiracy theory down to its basic beginning, you will find that one.

Here is one that explains the deceptive practices of the very conspiracy theorists who have made these crack-pot theories.

www.orgonelab.org...

You can say they are crack-pot theories, but by doing so, you have to admit the ones who are making them have to be crack-pots themselves. Would you be willing to say Michael Moore is a crack-pot for pushing out those very theories you claim to be crack-pot?

Who is insane? A person who believes a lie to be true and then keeps insisting it is true even though it has been proven false. Why don't you take a step back and listen to the conspiracy theories. You will see the incredible lengths they go through to keep people convinced. They contradict themselves constantly and some have recanted without apologizing. Why would Dylan Avery, after pushing these crack-pot theories, even have to recant if what he was presenting was truth?

He lied. He got caught for lying. He was never held accountable for lying. He recanted. He never apologized for lying. Yet his theories are still believed. Can you question the theories themselves and who created them?
edit on 10/9/2011 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 10:10 AM
link   
you are talking complete and utter drivel

just because i dont believe the os doesnt mean i subscribe to theories such as laser beams cgi hologram planes and fake victims

you os believers are obsessed with dylan avery you talk about him constanly let them say what they want you believe the os so what are you on a 9/11 conspiracy site for?

you say dylan wasnt held accountable for lying then why did bush an cheney only agree to talk to the commision if they wasnt under oath only spoke together and non of it was recorded or documented

why hasnt any government official been held accountable for letting nearly 3000 people die in the space of a few hours? non of them so much as lost their job for incompetence



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by kaya82
you are talking complete and utter drivel

just because i dont believe the os doesnt mean i subscribe to theories such as laser beams cgi hologram planes and fake victims

you os believers are obsessed with dylan avery you talk about him constanly let them say what they want you believe the os so what are you on a 9/11 conspiracy site for?

you say dylan wasnt held accountable for lying then why did bush an cheney only agree to talk to the commision if they wasnt under oath only spoke together and non of it was recorded or documented

why hasnt any government official been held accountable for letting nearly 3000 people die in the space of a few hours? non of them so much as lost their job for incompetence


Ok, so beyond the OS and every conspiracy theory, what is your theory as to what happened? If you don't believe the holograms and CGI, but millions of people who believe the conspiracy theories do, then planes must have really hit the buildings according to what you are saying.

And, if according to what you are saying, those planes were piloted and we know this because the F.A.A. released the recordings (as they record every transmission from air traffic control and air planes) of the communications from the hijackers. I would agree that you are right there were no holograms or CGI. At least we got on the same page on that one. But the same conspiracy theorists who say there were holograms also say the government let them die.

So if we can both agree the planes were piloted by hijackers, then who were the hijackers? That information was given by United Airlines and American Airlines even though it also proved all the passengers on the planes.

So let me propose this concept, our government does not shoot down commercial planes over our soil when those commercial airlines also carry American passengers. Theorists have problems with Cheney not issuing the order to shoot them down. Think about it though, what if they were shot down if the hijackers really did intend on going back to the air ports? Mohammed Atta says in his transmission "This is the captain, they met our demands and we are going back to the airport". If you were in the government and heard that, would you go ahead and issue the order to shoot it down? When Ziah Jarrah said there were bombs on the plane, would you have issued the order to shoot it down? What is your first priority as air traffic control? To land planes safely.

So from what you and I agree on, the planes were real and piloted that means we agree it was done for a purpose. And since we both agree the panes really hit the buildings, then we can agree there was purpose in hijacking them and hitting the buildings with them. Would that be reasonable to think?



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 11:16 AM
link   
I dont have a theory as i dont know what truely went down and i dont think we, ll ever know.

Yes two planes struck the towers as theres video evidence who flew them and what types of planes they were is debatable

Two planes had crashed into two iconic buildings and two other planes were off course and heading for the white house and pentagon so regardless of what the supposed terrorist said i think we could agree they had no intentions of heading back to the airport.

Shooting a plane down full of innocent ppl is not nice but if it means savin the lives of thousands that is protocol

You go ahead an believe what you wish i dont buy it



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by kaya82
 
Nice one kaya. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld etc...None of them held accountable for the complete lack of response that day, but Dylan Avery now there's someone who should be punished. That's effing hilarious.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by kaya82
 
Nice one kaya. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld etc...None of them held accountable for the complete lack of response that day, but Dylan Avery now there's someone who should be punished. That's effing hilarious.



It is hilarious when you consider that people say the same thing about MSM. All that Dylan Avery and Michael Moore did was keep people thinking it was really all the fault of the Jews. Doesn't that make them anti-Semitic?

I guess anti-Semitism, whether overtly or introvertly, implicitly or explicitly should be acceptable in this day and age.



new topics

top topics



 
14
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join