Independent Investigation Into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information

Originally posted by jthomas
You've always shown me you are a 9/11 Denier. No mystery there.

No, jthomas. I'm a 911 truther. I don't believe that the full truth has been told about 911. You're wrong again.

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by tezzajw
You infer your own silly assumptions about people based on what you think they type, instead of what they actually type.

Quite the contrary.

No, it is demonstrably true. I have shown, many times, where you have typed false things about me. You have received Moderator warnings, in the past, when you have lost your cool after typing false things about me. You're wrong again.

Originally posted by jthomas

Originally posted by tezzajw
You will not be able to quote me where I believe that 'light poles had wings and attacked the Pentagon'.

I didn't write that you "said" it, but that you "believe" it.

You directly contradict your earlier statement, as you have made your silly assumption about something that I do not believe. Your statement is false. It is not my belief. You're wrong again.

Originally posted by jthomas
This thread is about AA77 being used to attack the Pentagon. Rational people are not obsessed with light poles hitting taxi cabs nor with light poles with wings hitting the Pentagon.

Why have you not been able to prove that the light pole hit the taxi, jthomas? You've had more than eight years to do so.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Why have you not been able to prove that the light pole hit the taxi, jthomas? You've had more than eight years to do so.

In 1953 when the US navy found Japanese military personnel on some isolated Pacific islands and confronted them with the news the War was over - the question asked by the disbelieving Japanese was:

"Why have you not been able to prove that Japan lost the War? You've had more than eight years to do so."





[edit on 11-12-2009 by mmiichael]

reply to post by mmiichael


Why have you not been able to prove that the light pole hit the taxi, mmiichael? You have had more than eight years to do so.

Originally posted by tezzajw
Why have you not been able to prove that the light pole hit the taxi, mmiichael? You have had more than eight years to do so.

Like any reasonably intelligent person looking at what happened at on 9/11, I realize a plane hit the Pentagon and there was peripheral damage to some cars on the highway.

I posted a relevant witness account:

www.ratical.org...

"Wayne Madsen, a respected local journalist, spoke to a camera person at WJLA-TV 7 who had been driving to the Pentagon on instructions from his office, expecting a public statement from authorities there in response to the events in New York City.

Shortly after the crash he saw a woman standing by the road at the edge of the Pentagon, next to her car, and apparently in shock. He stopped to help her and found she could not speak. But she pointed him to the far side of her car. The passenger side had been sheared off in part and sections of the landing gear from the plane were on the ground nearby"

Wayne Madsen could be contacted any time to confirm this. But the credibility challenged Cilly Investigation Team would never speak to him because he's tell them they were idiots.

I don't need to prove landing gear actually sheared off the side of the woman's car or a light pole hit the taxi. Neither even is unusual or unexpected given a plane flying over at less than 50 ft.

No other explanation fits the the overwhelming masses of data, photographs, eyewitness testimony.

If the 75 year old taxi driver want to jerk around some lamebrains interviewing him years later, who cares. Only an idiot would attach any importance to it.





[edit on 11-12-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael
I don't need to prove ... a light pole hit the taxi.

Yes you do.

You claimed that it happened, so you need to prove it.

Originally posted by mmiichael
I posted a relevant witness account:

www.ratical.org...

Shortly after the crash he saw a woman standing by the road at the edge of the Pentagon, next to her car, and apparently in shock. He stopped to help her and found she could not speak. But she pointed him to the far side of her car. The passenger side had been sheared off in part and sections of the landing gear from the plane were on the ground nearby"

I dunno, I'm having a hard time believing that one, unless the landing gear components were actually something else.

There is the odd witness account that reported that the landing gear was down, however the overwhelming majority of them reported that it was not.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by mmiichael
I don't need to prove ... a light pole hit the taxi.

Yes you do.

You claimed that it happened, so you need to prove it.

Who exactly put you of all people in charge of deciding on anything?

It happened. All evidence clearly indicates it. No other credible explanation.
I rule out fantasy.

If some lunatic Investigation Team likes to use it in a pathetic attempt to prove an idiotic theory that only appeals to the intellectually challenged - who gives a damn.

Originally posted by tezzajw

Originally posted by mmiichael
I don't need to prove ... a light pole hit the taxi.

Yes you do.

You claimed that it happened, so you need to prove it.

Hey tezz,

Here you are playing the same old game again.

Have you asked Craig Ranke to prove that a flyover occurred yet?

Originally posted by discombobulator

Originally posted by mmiichael
I posted a relevant witness account:

www.ratical.org...

Shortly after the crash he saw a woman standing by the road at the edge of the Pentagon, next to her car, and apparently in shock. He stopped to help her and found she could not speak. But she pointed him to the far side of her car. The passenger side had been sheared off in part and sections of the landing gear from the plane were on the ground nearby"

I dunno, I'm having a hard time believing that one, unless the landing gear components were actually something else.

There is the odd witness account that reported that the landing gear was down, however the overwhelming majority of them reported that it was not.

We only have the report from John Judge paraphrasing Madsden as to what it was that did the damage. It might be something from the undercarriage, swept along, or maybe even thrown by the explosion. As a journalist Madsden is highly critical of US govt. He has a website. Someone should ask him.



[edit on 11-12-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by discombobulator
Here you are playing the same old game again.

Well, it's been more than eight years and no one has proven that it happened. All I have seen is assumptions, handwaving and a lot of faith placed in the word of Lloyde.

Originally posted by discombobulator
Have you asked Craig Ranke to prove that a flyover occurred yet?

That doesn't concern me, but you already knew that. At least you're worth typing to, dude. I'll give you credit where it is due.

reply to K J Gunderson's post #2424


I have responded to this post in the "Dealing with 9/11 madness" thread, here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 11-12-2009 by scott3x]

reply to post by Pilgrum

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Yes - CIT
Amateur 'investigators'

Why do you think that CIT's investigation was unprofessional?

Originally posted by Pilgrum
and just my take on it but I believe Lloyd was having some fun with them - after all that wasn't his first encounter with them and he obviously knew what they were on about.

What do you believe they were on about?

Originally posted by Pilgrum
He didn't confess to any active involvement in or any knowledge of a conspiracy though.

CIT agrees that he didn't outright confess to being complicit in what happened that day. But he says a lot of things that are suggestive of complicity, as I have outlined to you before.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
What I ask is what physical evidence is there of anything other than the suggestion that a large plane hit the building as reported by the witnesses in a position to see it happen.

I have found there to be little evidence that a large plane crashed at the pentagon. I have found a lot of compelling evidence that the plane that approached the pentagon did so from the north side of the citgo gas station, thereby making it impossible for the plane to have crashed into the pentagon. I find the most likely explanation is that it simply flew over the pentagon and probably landed in the nearby Reagan International airport.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Physical evidence like the damaged poles,

I don't think it would have been that hard to take down the light poles the day before, if the people behind it were part of the pentagon/white house security that day.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
damage to a tree,

Trees are easier to damage than light poles...

Originally posted by Pilgrum
damaged vehicles, damaged building,

Wouldn't have taken that much work to put a hole through Lloyd's windshield, not sure what other vehicles you're referring to. As for the pentagon damage, clearly -something- must have done the damage; from what I've heard, the most likely explanation is that explosive charges were set in the building, much as they were in the Twin Towers and WTC 7.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
plane parts in and around the building,

Most the size that you could pick up. What happened to those enormous wings? The engine that was photographed there was also not from a 757 from what I've heard over at PFT.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
CVR & FDR located and data extracted for analysis and so on IE tangible physical things to indicate where the plane was and what it did.

PFT has made much of the FDR data and I've found their presentations to be very compelling.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
The CIT theory has to negate/discredit every bit of that physical stuff as well as witness testimony that goes against them in order to survive and that's exactly what I've been observing over the years - unsuccessful attempts at least. I don't see them as ever being any threat to the real truth of what happened.

I agree wholeheartedly on that last bit anyway; I think they're putting in a lot of effort into making the truth known.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Just my opinion as always

C'mon Pilgrum, put some backbone into it- it's your belief ;-).

Originally posted by scott3x

I have found there to be little evidence that a large plane crashed at the pentagon. I have found a lot of compelling evidence that the plane that approached the pentagon did so from the north side of the citgo gas station, thereby making it impossible for the plane to have crashed into the pentagon. I find the most likely explanation is that it simply flew over the pentagon and probably landed in the nearby Reagan International airport.

I don't think it would have been that hard to take down the light poles the day before, if the people behind it were part of the pentagon/white house security that day.

Trees are easier to damage than light poles... Wouldn't have taken that much work to put a hole through Lloyd's windshield. As for the pentagon damage, clearly -something- must have done the damage; from what I've heard, the most likely explanation is that explosive charges were set in the building, much as they were in the Twin Towers and WTC 7.

What happened to those enormous wings? The engine that was photographed there was also not from a 757 from what I've heard over at PFT.

That’s quite a story Scott.

You will have to follow up with the other implicit assumptions.

The US government with their planted bombs knowingly did a billion dollars worth of damage to the Pentagon to make it look authentic.

125 Pentagon workers, 60 who boarded Flight 77, were all murdered. None of them have been seen from since. DNA, bones, teeth planted in the wreckage. That doesn’t include the 2,700 systematically murdered in New York and Pennsylvania.

Records of radar, air traffic controller, communication lines, etc – were all altered to conform the faked flight path to the Pentagon.

Hundreds, maybe thousands of witnesses working on the clean-up and medical were bribed or threatened. All now accessories to premeditated planned murder.

Eyewitnesses are all lying except the handful of CIT ones.

How they got one of the original planners to provide details of co-ordinating with the hijackers, faked communications, phone records, transaction slips in places as far away as Pakistan and Yemen is a good question. Got terrorist websiteds to claim victory. Just a few thousand more co-conspirators in the Middle East.

But not a single fuse or blasting cap from an explosive. Nothing on the seismic record. Not a peep from anyone in all these years.


Of forgot. They killed 3,000 people, have a few thousand sworn or intimidated into silence. but Lloyde England is free to blab away on camera.

Like there are holes in this story you could fly a plane through.








[edit on 12-12-2009 by mmiichael]

reply to post by mmiichael


LOL. Most of what you said is bunk and anyone reading any of these threads can see that but my favorite has to be - how could they ever get someone to confess that was not guilty


Apparently you have been living under a rock because getting people to confess to things they did not do is what torture (rendition) is all about.

reply to post by scott3x


Yes, to me, the investigation is very unprofessional to say the least.

What they're on about - they have this conspiracy theory that goes against all the evidence and they're trying to make it look like reality. Lloyd and his wife were aware of their agenda and played with them by throwing in a few things 'suggestive of conspiracy' . Actually I was surprised they spoke to them at all as, if it were me, nothing short of a subpoena would get another word on the matter.

An observation of mine is that pretty much everything you bring up has the same source - CIT and affiliates. What I'd suggest is trying to put all the CIT/PFT videos aside and objectively looking at all the evidence as if you'd never seen it before to see if you could still be in favor of a 'flyover' scenario.

I was not aware of any controversy over the 9/11 events like noplanes, wrong planes, holograms, flyovers, missiles, spacebeams etc etc until I joined ATS in 2007 but I had looked at the details out of interest since 2001 and had no suspicions about it on the physical side of events and I still don't except for the possibility of UA93 being shot down. On the vaguer side of the lack of actions that could have lessened or even prevented the attacks there's plenty of room for alternative ideas.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/22683afd7876.jpg[/atsimg]

That pic shows a number of things like the strike on the camera pole, location of pole 1, the damage to the tree and the final location of Lloyd's cab. Pole 2 would have been at the extreme lefthand side of the pic and I can picture a 125' wingspan 757 with right wing high fitting in there quite nicely confirming the account of Penny Elgas and others.

Sure you could claim that all that was fabricated and staged somehow but is it a realistic proposal? With such detailed precision planning only to have the plane fly a different line and miss the building therefore requiring backup explosive charges to 'simulate' the plane crash? Does that make sense in this or any other universe? Of course there's then the problem of getting the large plane at full throttle plus low altitude out of there unseen and unheard over Washington DC in full daylight

The idea that the plane landed - it wouldn't have had time to even lower the landing gear before reaching Reagan let alone wash off enough speed to land there. Maybe one of our resident aviators could make that a little clearer in terms of what's possible and what isn't.

Originally posted by discombobulator

Originally posted by JPhish
So Lloyde’s testimony is the reason why you believe his cab was impaled by a light pole. You also believe the psychical evidence corroborates his story.

That's more or less correct,

So

Why would Lloyde’s testimony lead you to believe that his cab was impaled by one of those light poles when he himself says that he was not anywhere near the poles when the event took place?

[edit on 12/12/2009 by JPhish]

reply to Pilgrum's post #2455, Part 1

Originally posted by Pilgrum
reply to post by scott3x

 

Yes, to me, the investigation is very unprofessional to say the least.

What they're on about - they have this conspiracy theory that goes against all the evidence and they're trying to make it look like reality

I, on the other hand, believe that they're trying to expose the reality.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Lloyd and his wife were aware of their agenda and played with them by throwing in a few things 'suggestive of conspiracy'

.

Or Lloyd and his wife are aware of the fact that life is full of conspiracies. As to Lloyd's personal involvement in the 9/11 conspiracy, I think that perhaps the most revealing statements he made was when Craig Ranke stated to Lloyd in his car "But they used you" and Lloyd clearly stated:

I'm in it.

There is also, ofcourse, the time a bit before that statement that Lloyd said :

One thing about it you gotta understand something. When people do things and get away with it, you- eventually it's going to come to me. And when it comes to me it's going to be so big I can't do nothing about it. So it has to be stopped in the beginning when it's small.

I can get you the fuller context of those quotes if you like.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Actually I was surprised they spoke to them at all as, if it were me, nothing short of a subpoena would get another word on the matter.

I agree that it's odd that they spoke to them at all, but as you can probably see, Lloyd's wife had serious reservations of doing so. As to Lloyd himself, I personally think that he's suffering from a crisis of conscious, and there's a part of him that desperately wants to "come clean".

Originally posted by Pilgrum
An observation of mine is that pretty much everything you bring up has the same source - CIT and affiliates.

They're the ones who went down to Arlington Virginia and investigated the matter, videotaping their investigations. They then spent the next 3 years analyzing their collected data. I've seen them at work, both in their videos and in their discussions, here and in other forums and despite my disagreements with them on the motives of some of those who disagree with them, I remain summarily impressed with the amount of knowledge they have on the pentagon attack. I sincerely doubt any official story believer even approaches their level of knowledge on the subject.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
What I'd suggest is trying to put all the CIT/PFT videos aside and objectively looking at all the evidence as if you'd never seen it before to see if you could still be in favor of a 'flyover' scenario.

I think I'm fairly objective. I believe that I've objectively concluded that the flyover scenario is the most likely by far. But if you'd like to try to present some evidence that you believe would suggest otherwise, by all means, be my guest.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I was not aware of any controversy over the 9/11 events like noplanes, wrong planes, holograms, flyovers, missiles, spacebeams etc etc until I joined ATS in 2007 but I had looked at the details out of interest since 2001 and had no suspicions about it on the physical side of events and I still don't except for the possibility of UA93 being shot down.

Well it's good to now that you atleast question UA93's being shot down. This is an aside that I'll move to another thread if necessary, but do you think that the WTC bulidings were taken down by the planes alone?

Originally posted by Pilgrum
On the vaguer side of the lack of actions that could have lessened or even prevented the attacks there's plenty of room for alternative ideas.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/22683afd7876.jpg[/atsimg]

That pic shows a number of things like the strike on the camera pole,

I've gone over that black smudge on the pole in a truther forum; basically, it's not the type of mark that a plane would leave.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
location of pole 1, the damage to the tree and the final location of Lloyd's cab. Pole 2 would have been at the extreme lefthand side of the pic and I can picture a 125' wingspan 757 with right wing high fitting in there quite nicely confirming the account of Penny Elgas and others.

I took a look at CIT's list of witnesses, and found this statement concerning Penny Elgas:

9. Penny Elgas (has plane banking, places it 50-80 feet above ground over highway just before the alleged impact, too high to cause damage, did not see plane hit light poles despite being just a short distance back on the highway)

There is also the fact that the only other plane that allegedly hit a light pole that I know of crashed after hitting only one. Then there's the fact that the light poles were all severed at the base, perhaps with a blow torch like device by the looks of it, while the plane that crashed after hitting only 1 light pole severed the pole (and not completely, it was still hanging) at the point of impact.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Sure you could claim that all that was fabricated and staged somehow but is it a realistic proposal? With such detailed precision planning only to have the plane fly a different line and miss the building therefore requiring backup explosive charges to 'simulate' the plane crash?

I don't think the plane was ever meant to take the official story's flight path; the fact that it was claimed that the plane went that way was only done to cover up what truly happened; that is, that it simply flew over the pentagon and probably landed at Reagan International. Likewise, I believe that the whole idea that there were '2 planes' that approached the pentagon during the time of the attack was also used to cover up the fact that 1 person on record and others that were mentioned by someone claimed that a plane flew not into but -over- the pentagon.

[edit on 12-12-2009 by scott3x]

reply to post by scott3x


I have that Lloyd video you're quoting from here somewhere and I have watched it.

As to Lloyd himself, I personally think that he's suffering from a crisis of conscious, and there's a part of him that desperately wants to "come clean"

He doesn't appear to be in crisis at all but does appear to enjoy getting out of the house for a while, chauffer driven too.

I've gone over that black smudge on the pole in a truther forum; basically, it's not the type of mark that a plane would leave.

It's more than a smudge. Have you considered that maybe the galvanising has been removed there exposing the darker steel base metal underneath?
Not to mention the fact that the footpeg has been torn completely off.

What I was getting at with Penny Elgas is the banking she describes
in her own words:

Traffic was at a standstill. I heard a rumble, looked out my driver's side window and realized that I was looking at the nose of an airplane coming straight at us from over the road (Columbia Pike) that runs perpendicular to the road I was on. The plane just appeared there- very low in the air, to the side of (and not much above) the CITGO gas station that I never knew was there. My first thought was “Oh My God, this must be World War III!”

In that split second, my brain flooded with adrenaline and I watched everything play out in ultra slow motion, I saw the plane coming in slow motion toward my car and then it banked in the slightest turn in front of me, toward the heliport. In the nano-second that the plane was directly over the cars in front of my car, the plane seemed to be not more than 80 feet off the ground and about 4-5 car lengths in front of me. It was far enough in front of me that I saw the end of the wing closest to me and the underside of the other wing as that other wing rocked slightly toward the ground. I remember recognizing it as an American Airlines plane -- I could see the windows and the color stripes. And I remember thinking that it was just like planes in which I had flown many times but at that point it never occurred to me that this might be a plane with passengers.

That banking fits in with the pic I posted of physical damage. Her estimation of height in that 'nano-second' may not be accurate considering the 'The plane just appeared there- very low in the air, to the side of (and not much above) the CITGO gas station' statement.

She also said

The plane seemed to be floating as if it were a paper glider and I watched in horror as it gently rocked and slowly glided straight into the Pentagon. At the point where the fuselage hit the wall, it seemed to simply melt into the building.

Not really a description of a flyover there.

As for plane vs pole collisions you need to remember that other incidents involved the pilot desperately trying not hit anything and moving at a fraction of the speed of the Pentagon aircraft. The type of pole is also a factor IE a hardwood power pole would be far stronger than a tubular steel light pole and the physics of destructive impacts seems to be very misunderstood round here. All those light poles were severed at the point of impact which should be providing the clue that most people are missing, they didn't just fail at the frangible bases.

As for landing at Reagan - not possible for reasons I stated earlier.

EDIT - for typing crimes


[edit on 12/12/2009 by Pilgrum]

reply to Pilgrum's post #2455, Part 2

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Of course there's then the problem of getting the large plane at full throttle plus low altitude out of there unseen and unheard over Washington DC in full daylight

When the fireball went off, I think it's reasonable to assume that most eyes were on it. Not everyone though. There was one witness who couldn't see the fireball but -did- see a plane fly over the pentagon at that point in time. He believed the 'second plane' story, but the fact of the matter is, there was only one that was that close to the pentagon at that point in time; the plane that the official story has crashing into the building.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
The idea that the plane landed - it wouldn't have had time to even lower the landing gear before reaching Reagan let alone wash off enough speed to land there.

Do you have evidence for either of these assertions? Furthermore, I believe I heard that one witness mention that the landing gear was already out as it approached the pentagon.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
Maybe one of our resident aviators could make that a little clearer in terms of what's possible and what isn't.

Sounds good.

reply to post by mmiichael

Originally posted by mmiichael
That’s quite a story Scott.

You will have to follow up with the other implicit assumptions.

I think that CIT's flyover theory is the most solid theory out there, and is in keeping with all the reliable evidence.

Originally posted by mmiichael
The US government with their planted bombs knowingly did a billion dollars worth of damage to the Pentagon to make it look authentic.

As a rather prophetic fictional character said in The Lone Gunman's pilot episode:

There you go, indicting the entire government, as usual. A faction, a small faction...

Source:
killtown.911review.org...

Originally posted by mmiichael
125 Pentagon workers, 60 who boarded Flight 77, were all murdered. None of them have been seen from since.

It may well be that they were all murdered. The issue is how it happened and who was responsible for those murders.

Originally posted by mmiichael
DNA, bones, teeth planted in the wreckage.

Perhaps they were. All the reliable evidence makes it clear that there's no way the plane could have crashed into the pentagon, so this being the case, it seems likely that the evidence was planted, perhaps by the very people who "discovered" it. So tell me, do you know precisely who "discovered" this evidence? I remember someone mentioning a team, are the names and the histories of those team members known?

Originally posted by mmiichael
That doesn’t include the 2,700 systematically murdered in New York and Pennsylvania.

I believe that most if not all of the people who died in the Twin Towers really died due to its disintegration. As to whether the planes that crashed into the Twin Towers were actually filled with the alleged passengers who purportedly died there, I'm not sure. And while I believe the official story is that no one died in WTC 7, I remember hearing a report from someone who worked at FEMA (a black man who has now mysteriously died) that he was stepping over bodies in there.

Originally posted by mmiichael
Records of radar, air traffic controller, communication lines, etc – were all altered to conform [to] the faked flight path to the Pentagon.

I'm not sure that this would have been necessary; Pilots for 9/11 Truth could probably go into more depth on this issue.

Originally posted by mmiichael
Hundreds, maybe thousands of witnesses working on the clean-up and medical were bribed or threatened.

Why would this have been necessary? The key is, could the alleged DNA from the passengers that were allegedy on board flight 77 have been planted? To me, this seems to be the most likely way that this DNA was "found" there. And all that that would require might be the team that allegedly "found" this DNA.

Originally posted by mmiichael
Eyewitnesses are all lying except the handful of CIT ones.

I sincerely suggest that you take a look at CIT's eyewitness list. You'll see that only a handful contradict CIT's theory; the rest seem to actually support CIT's conclusions.

Originally posted by mmiichael
How they got one of the original planners to provide details of co-ordinating with the hijackers, faked communications, phone records, transaction slips in places as far away as Pakistan and Yemen is a good question. Got terrorist websites to claim victory. Just a few thousand more co-conspirators in the Middle East.

You're making a lot of claims above; but claims are just that- claims. For them to be more than that, you have to provide evidence.

Originally posted by mmiichael
But not a single fuse or blasting cap from an explosive.

There is a fair amount of evidence that explosives were used. One person who was in the pentagon even smelled cordite. But perhaps most importantly, there was so little plane wreckage found. I continue to think that the lack of almost any wing fragments is quite revealing. And then there's that photographed engine that apparently didn't come from a 757.

Originally posted by mmiichael
Nothing on the seismic record.

I'm not up on the seismic record in the pentagon, but perhaps the explosives used wouldn't have caused one. I hear that the story was different over at the Twin Towers.

Originally posted by mmiichael
Not a peep from anyone in all these years.

You mean not a peep from those who were complicit in the attacks. Honestly, you think that if the people behind it don't confess in 8 years, it can't be real? Meanwhile, there are a growing amount of notable people who believe that the official 9/11 story is flawed:
patriotsquestion911.com...

Originally posted by mmiichael
Of forgot. They killed 3,000 people, have a few thousand sworn or intimidated into silence.

Where do you get this idea that "a few thousand" would have to be in on the deception? For all I know, it could be a select few, perhaps not even reaching 100.

Originally posted by mmiichael
but Lloyde England is free to blab away on camera.

I have a feeling that those behind 9/11 didn't think that CIT would actually go down to Arlington Virginia and ask such relevant questions.

Originally posted by mmiichael
Like there are holes in this story you could fly a plane through.

I think that would best describe the official story.

[edit on 12-12-2009 by scott3x]