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

Originally posted by kaya82
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

What is debatable from the very transmissions recorded from air traffic control as to what kind of planes they were? What is debatable about United Airlines and American Airlines losing their airplanes? But what you are saying is this, if the only threat at the time the transmissions were recorded were of them going back to the airports, then there is no issued threat to fly them into the buildings.

Would you shoot down airplanes if there were no threat to fly them into buildings? The hijackers did not say over the air that was what they were going to do. But they did. Which means they had it planned to do so. And part of that planning includes what would happen if they did transmit that threat. What you are proposing is a preemptive strike against a threat that does not exist yet. Did those air traffic controllers report the threat of them hitting buildings? No, that is because at that point the air planes were merely hijacked. Did the flight attendants say on any transmission that the hijackers said they were going to fly into buildings? No, they only said the planes were hijacked. There was simply no threats made from the hijackers to indicate that. And that is how a conspiracy works, to keep the victim from knowing.

So you would approve a government for striking down a commercial airplane when there is no threat from the hijackers to hit buildings? It was only on AA 93 that passengers did something, but still, in the transmissions, not one single air traffic controller asks if that was the threat. Even the other pilots on the other planes who witnessed AA 93 never said there was the threat to hit the Capitol Building.

They were off course and it was recorded by the pilots and air traffic control. The other pilots witnessed AA 93 banking, the air traffic control relayed this information. There was a lot of chatter during that moment but not one word about them going to hit the Capitol Building.

So now the government should issue a preemptive strike against planes going off course? Then most planes would be shot down.

Im no longer having a conversation with you like i said if you wish to believe everythin your government tells you with out proof go ahead.

The planes were off course and refusing to co_operate

I believe they were military drones flew via remote control but we, ll never know

reply to post by WarminIndy
When you guys attempt to play the race card, you are missing the point. To most of us, whether or not the perps are jewish is irrelevant. What is relevant, is who stood to gain the most from this attack, and when the dots are connected there seem to be quite a few jews involved. If that is anti-semetic to you, then so be it. But, don't try to minimize the larger issue, which is a crime has been committed.

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by WarminIndy

 

When you guys attempt to play the race card, you are missing the point. To most of us, whether or not the perps are jewish is irrelevant. What is relevant, is who stood to gain the most from this attack, and when the dots are connected there seem to be quite a few jews involved. If that is anti-semetic to you, then so be it. But, don't try to minimize the larger issue, which is a crime has been committed.

And to say there are Jews involved is exactly anti-Semitism because that is a statement meant to cast blame on Jews as an entire group and not individuals. To many conspiracy theorists, the term "Jews" involves the entire race and religion. So what are conspiracy theorists really saying? Instead of saying individuals, they say "Jews" as though everyone who is Jewish is involved in a world wide conspiracy to take over the world.

And you would not hear conspiracy theorists say "The blacks did it" or "The Asians did it." Why not? Because no one would even dare say blacks or Asians as though the entire populace of those groups are involved. But you do say "The Jews", so it is Anti-Semitism no matter how you spin it. And the first theory was that Mossad called all the Jews that worked there and told them not to come in to work.

Who would gain the most by making those comments? Those who perpetuate Anti-Semitism for profit.

We were told, essentially, that people just ” gave up” on the airplanes, and the attacks happened with cave men using box knives.

People are convinced that a few guys with box knives used those knives and threats, to take over american airplanes for a suicide mission, and succeeded while being very much out numbered on each plane.

I can't even think of a old person in my neighborhood that would just give up to 2 or more muggers with knives on the street.



P.s. the seat floatation device could be a vet obvious and good shield.

Originally posted by violence=answer
We were told, essentially, that people just ” gave up” on the airplanes, and the attacks happened with cave men using box knives.

Wrong. We were told that the "cave men" who had university degrees or took flight classes killed someone on the plane, took over the cabin, and then used the intercom to tell the passengers that they had a bomb and were going to land at an airport to make demands. This was not an uncommon maneuver, and so the passengers did not resist. Flight 93 got wind of the use of the planes as weapons, and that is why they began resisting.

People are convinced that a few guys with box knives used those knives and threats, to take over american airplanes for a suicide mission, and succeeded while being very much out numbered on each plane.

Read above.

I can't even think of a old person in my neighborhood that would just give up to 2 or more muggers with knives on the street.

P.s. the seat floatation device could be a vet obvious and good shield.

Read above.

Originally posted by Varemia

Originally posted by violence=answer
We were told, essentially, that people just ” gave up” on the airplanes, and the attacks happened with cave men using box knives.

Wrong. We were told that the "cave men" who had university degrees or took flight classes killed someone on the plane, took over the cabin, and then used the intercom to tell the passengers that they had a bomb and were going to land at an airport to make demands. This was not an uncommon maneuver, and so the passengers did not resist. Flight 93 got wind of the use of the planes as weapons, and that is why they began resisting.

That is right, we can't imagine what those passengers went through in their minds. What would we do if we were on a plane and it was hijacked and we were told there were bombs on board? Betty Ong called the service desk for the airline company for help and she had to remain calm enough to say what was happening.

Flight attendants do more than just fly around the world for fun, their job is to take care of passengers. Their job is to reassure passengers when there is a crisis. She was doing her job and did it during the most horrific thing any flight attendant or passenger could go through and she did it with professionalism. She remained on the air phone until it hit the WTC. She didn't have someone reassure her, she didn't have someone comfort her but she did her job and should be remembered for doing it well.

People have forgotten the human faces of that day.

Betty Ong saying they were hijacked, not saying she was on a military plane or a drone.
www.youtube.com...


CeeCee Lyles on AA 93
www.youtube.com...

These were flight attendants from the hijacked planes. Let us not forget these flight attendants.

Originally posted by violence=answer
We were told, essentially, that people just ” gave up” on the airplanes, and the attacks happened with cave men using box knives.

People are convinced that a few guys with box knives used those knives and threats, to take over american airplanes for a suicide mission, and succeeded while being very much out numbered on each plane.

It's becoming more and more apparent that the standard procedure for the conspiracy mongors is to invent some completely goofball version of what the "official story" is (I.E. 19 university educated Islamic fundamentalists are really "illiterate cavemen") and then turn around and say the "official story" is nonsense. Of COURSE the official story as they see it is nonsense! Their version doesn't even remotely resemble what the 9/11 commission report said.

What say from now on, we classify the term "official story" as being the conspiracy mongor's own absurd Wile E. Coyote Cartoon version of what happened on 9/11, and the term "actual events" is what really did happen on 9/11. In this way, the people who want to discuss "the actual events" can discuss how Susan Olson called her husband from flight 77 while the people who want to discuss "the official story" can complain how absurd it is for 19 quadriplegic ten year olds to take over four planes loaded with fully armed Navy seals with only a box of kittens.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by violence=answer
What say from now on, we classify the term "official story" as being the conspiracy mongor's own absurd Wile E. Coyote Cartoon version of what happened on 9/11, and the term "actual events" is what really did happen on 9/11. In this way, the people who want to discuss "the actual events" can discuss how Susan Olson called her husband from flight 77 while the people who want to discuss "the official story" can complain how absurd it is for 19 quadriplegic ten year olds to take over four planes loaded with fully armed Navy seals with only a box of kittens.

Actual events is the right way to say it. And I did laugh out loud, but had to type it in full because we are not supposed to use texting in post.

And the Pentagon hit was just a couple of guys playing football in the parking lot(they were getting ready for the upcoming tailgate party for the Army-Navy game) and they crashed through the wall because the quarterback yelled "go long" but then went really too long. That football was really the missile because that quarterback has a good throwing arm. They never have recovered pieces of that football and I want to see pictures of it, but too bad, all the pictures were edited to look like baseballs. And why is there no security cameras that recorded this epic football throw? I want to see the video.

All the government had placed bets on this parking lot game, Bush had his money on the Army team but Rumsfeld had his on the Navy team. And since you can't gamble on government property, they had to cover it up so no one would know. So that is why people thought they were baseballs, the Muslims were playing in the parking lot of the Doubletree Inn that day and who better to blame it on....

As bad as my conspiracy theory is, there is someone out there who will believe this. And that is what is sad about it.

Originally posted by kaya82
Im no longer having a conversation with you like i said if you wish to believe everythin your government tells you with out proof go ahead.

The planes were off course and refusing to co_operate

I believe they were military drones flew via remote control but we, ll never know

So you're telling me that when you saw that video of the plane coming in and hitting the south tower, your first initial gut reaction ws that this was a military drone disguised as a passenger jet. Is this really what you're saying? OR, are you saying you were somehow convinced it was really a military drone by one of those damned fool conspiracy web sites?

I would have throught most people would apply critical analysis here and realize it was actually proof the conspiracy theories were false, not the 9/11 commission report.

Originally posted by WarminIndy

 

As bad as my conspiracy theory is, there is someone out there who will believe this. And that is what is sad about it.

No need to feel sad about it because by definition, you don't need to prove why your "football game" conspiracy is true. Everyone else needs to prove why your "football game" conspiracy is false, which will be impossible because everything your critics are saying is really disinformation planted by secret government agents.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by kaya82
Im no longer having a conversation with you like i said if you wish to believe everythin your government tells you with out proof go ahead.

The planes were off course and refusing to co_operate

A remote control plane that has the ability to choose to co-operate or not? A remote control plane is this...a plane that is remotely controlled. Remotely controlled means someone is controlling it, remotely. How does a remote controlled plane decide to follow its own path and not co-operate?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by WarminIndy

 

As bad as my conspiracy theory is, there is someone out there who will believe this. And that is what is sad about it.

No need to feel sad about it because by definition, you don't need to prove why your "football game" conspiracy is true. Everyone else needs to prove why your "football game" conspiracy is false, which will be impossible because everything your critics are saying is really disinformation planted by secret government agents.

And people like me are apparently being paid for believing in the actual events. So I suppose if I am being paid for believing it, I can say whatever I want...so GO ARMY FOOTBALL.

You know, I think I will ask Brett Favre if it is not possible to throw the football that epically, he is an expert so he should know. And if he debunks me, I can edit a video of him throwing a football at the Pentagon, so the whole conspiracy involves the NFL because they do not want baseball fans giving their money away at baseball games, they want to keep it all for themselves even if it means going to sport wars in September.

Originally posted by WarminIndy
You know, I think I will ask Brett Favre if it is not possible to throw the football that epically, he is an expert so he should know. And if he debunks me, I can edit a video of him throwing a football at the Pentagon, so the whole conspiracy involves the NFL because they do not want baseball fans giving their money away at baseball games, they want to keep it all for themselves even if it means going to sport wars in September.

Why are you asking Brett Favre this? Everything he says is suspect because it's a documented fact that he knows someone, who knows someone, who knows someone, who knows someone, who knows someone, who knows FBI director Robert Mueller, Adolf Hitler, the illuminati, and Yahoo Serious.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by WarminIndy


Why are you asking Brett Favre this? Everything he says is suspect because it's a documented fact that he knows someone, who knows someone, who knows someone, who knows someone, who knows someone, who knows FBI director Robert Mueller, Adolf Hitler, the illuminati, and Yahoo Serious.

Dave, I am going to have to stop reading your posts, you are too funny and I laugh too much reading them. But on topic, to respond to the OP, he used to be a believer in the conspiracy theories and began to wake up to the many falsehoods perpetuated by the original "Truthers".

In the interest of National Security, there are things that should not be made known but the MSM thinks they should broadcast everything. Remember when George Bush was being flown from city to city on 9/11, the media kept telling us where he was. No other government in the world allowed that information to be known about their leaders.

I have seen reporters talk about how to make bombs or say the names of websites that show how to do it. There are things that should not be said. But conspiracy theorists have the ability to ask a question for people to fill in the blanks and then tell them they are right with no evidence whatsoever to support the claims.

It just makes no sense whatsoever for the government to cover up bomb explosions that they could have very easily have cast blame on someone else for but instead to make up false planes to hit the buildings to cover up bomb explosions that were easily blameable.

reply to post by NWOwned
here's a list of witnesses that saw a plane

Gary Bauer, Paul Begala, Bobby Eberle, Mike Gerson, Alfred Regnery, and Greta Van Susteren. Many of them need no introduction, but let's run through the list anyway: Gary Bauer: Talking head and former Republican presidential candidate who has been linked to the notorious Project for a New American Century. Paul Begala: Democratic Party operative and nominally liberal punching bag on CNN's "Crossfire." Bobby Eberle: President and CEO of GOPUSA, a portal of right-wing propaganda. Mike Gerson: Director of George W. Bush's speech writing staff. Alfred Regnery: President of Regnery Publishing, another portal of right-wing propaganda -- one that has seen fit to bestow upon the world the literary stylings of Ann Coulter, the Swift Boat Veterans, and numerous other accomplished liars. Greta Van Susteren: Nominally liberal legal analyst for Fox News.

just this list alone makes me suspicious

I was at the Navy Annex, up the hill from the Pentagon when I heard the explosion. I always keep a digital camera in my backpack briefcase just as a matter of habit. When the explosion happened I ran down the hill to the site and arrived there approximately 10 minutes after the explosion. I saw the piece, that was near the heliport pad and had to work around to get a shot of it with the building in the background. Because the situation was still fluid, I was able to get in close and make that image within fifteen minutes of the explosion because security had yet to shut off the area. I photographed it twice, with the newly arrived fire trucks pouring water into the building in the background ... s Your Ad Here Right after photographing that piece of wreckage, I also photographed a triage area where medical personnel were tending to a seriously burned man. A priest knelt in the middle of the area and started to pray. I took that image and left immediately ... I was out of the immediate area photographing other things within 20 minutes of the crash. To say that Mr. Faram's account of his actions that morning strains credibility would be a gross understatement. Imagine this scenario: you are a reporter for a major news service, and you happen to find yourself, purely by chance, among the first on the scene of the most significant news story in decades -- one that would occupy all of the media's time for weeks to come. Would you be at all surprised to find a triage area already set up and staffed by medical personnel and a priest? And, more importantly, would you just take a quick look around, snap off a few quick photos, and then hurriedly leave the scene, because there was apparently something else to photograph on the other side of town -- like maybe a really important dog show? Despite the dubious nature of Mr. Faram's account, he did at least provide us with some useful important information -- specifically, that USA Today and Navy Times are both part of the Gannett family of news outlets. Actually, if Faram weren't so modest, he would have noted that Gannett also publishes Air Force Times, Army Times, Marine Corp Times, Armed Forces Journal, Military Market, Military City, and Defense News. In other words, it's just your typical independent, civilian media organization.

Having established that, let's now take a look at who our group of mystery witnesses are (or who they were at the time of the Pentagon attack): Bob Dubill was the executive editor for USA Today. Mary Ann Owens was a journalist for Gannett. Richard Benedetto was a reporter for USA Today. Christopher Munsey was a reporter for Navy Times. Vin Narayanan was a reporter for USA Today. Joel Sucherman was a multimedia editor for USA Today. Mike Walter was a reporter for USA Today. Steve Anderson was the director of communications for USA Today. Fred Gaskins was the national editor for USA Today. Mark Faram was a reporter for Navy Times. Is it just me, or does anyone else detect a pattern here? Bob Franken: What can you tell us about the plane itself? Tim Timmerman: It was a Boeing 757, American Airlines, no question. Franken: You say it was a Boeing, and you say it was a 757 or 767? Timmerman: 7-5-7. Franken: 757, which, of course ? Timmerman: American Airlines. Franken: American Airlines ...

Witnesses are bought and paid for all of the time

Originally posted by TWILITE22
reply to post by NWOwned

 

here's a list of witnesses that saw a plane

...

Witnesses are bought and paid for all of the time

hmmm, so you mean the thousands of regular people there who witnessed this were all bought and paid for? Can you prove one regular witness who got money? Can you even prove they got money in the first place? Because you know, your side has said that even I get paid for believing it.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by kaya82
Im no longer having a conversation with you like i said if you wish to believe everythin your government tells you with out proof go ahead.

The planes were off course and refusing to co_operate

I believe they were military drones flew via remote control but we, ll never know

So you're telling me that when you saw that video of the plane coming in and hitting the south tower, your first initial gut reaction ws that this was a military drone disguised as a passenger jet. Is this really what you're saying? OR, are you saying you were somehow convinced it was really a military drone by one of those damned fool conspiracy web sites?

I would have throught most people would apply critical analysis here and realize it was actually proof the conspiracy theories were false, not the 9/11 commission report.

no my gut reaction wasnt drone i just knew something wasnt right when 3 sky scrappers collapsed when 2 planes impacted. Its only after reading up and researching i come to the conclusion it my have been a drone.

Were you convinced by those damm fooled government do gooders it was a commersial jet?

I couldnt give a monkeys back side what you believe and couldnt care less what you think of my beliefs. Your constant repetative drivel on a conspiracy site wont change anyones veiws

reply to post by TWILITE22


David Angell, producer of the hit television show Frasier was killed on AA 11. Also killed was his wife Lydia. He won multiple Emmy Awards for his work in television. He was on the same plane as Betty Ong, the flight attendant who reported on the airphone that the plane had been hijacked.

Seth McFarland was scheduled to be on that flight but was late. So would you be willing to say all these people were non-existent?

So let me ask this...if NBC and Fox had two of the most famous shows on television and making a lot of money off them, but then their reporters were telling lies and NBC and Fox were part of the larger conspiracy, why would they kill their own moneymaker David Angell and almost Seth McFarland?

reply to post by WarminIndy
I'll be the first to say I don't know the answers to 911,it's one of the reasons I don't post in these threads.I will say though there are too many unanswered questions to the official story that hasn't been addressed.

I find it very curious to say the least that a number of eye witnesses were all connected to the media and that is they way of the whole official version..it's the number of small things that just don't add up in my mind.Can the media lie?..yes have they been caught lying?..yes.Is the government capable of this?...yes..do they have the means?...yes..do they have the motive?..yes..should there be another independent investigation?...absolutely yes.
from one proud "damn conspiracy theorist"