permalink for this thread : http://search.catflaporama.com/post/browse/889720
BrokenLance Posted on 31/12/2008 12:22
9/11 in plane sight

Watched it last night. Some interesting points, video footage and eyewitness account. Demolition of the buildings has already been covered. Ditto the 'plane' that hit the Pentagon. But new info that the two planes that hit the two towers may also have been military drones, not commercial planes. Also, newspaper report that Flight 93 touched down for refueling two hours after it was supposed to have crashed.

So, if the reports are correct, and no commercial airliners were involved in the attack, what happened to the original commercial airliners, and the passengers?

Bush admitting to watching the first plane hit the first tower on a tv screen when there was no live footage of the event, may just be down to him being a thick cnut, but then again.......would you trust the americans?

Official government documents at the time of the Cuban Crisis prove that certain officials wanted to attack American cities and blame it on Cuba, to drum up support for an invasion.

Now we have the War on "Terror", which feeds the military machine and support industries, which are owned by Dick Cheney and co. All their civil liberties (and ours) are being taken away from us since the 'justification' for this phoney war was presented by the media.

Big_Shot Posted on 31/12/2008 12:32
9/11 in plane sight

All a load of B******* though.

As for

'Also, newspaper report that Flight 93 touched down for refueling two hours after it was supposed to have crashed.'

Thats simply not true. It was a mistake by the media which was rectified at the time.

Gibbos-finger Posted on 31/12/2008 12:35
9/11 in plane sight

the passengers are probably at area 51

SKEELO Posted on 31/12/2008 12:35
9/11 in plane sight

What channel was it on ?

Gibbos-finger Posted on 31/12/2008 12:37
9/11 in plane sight

it funny how all cover ups start with the media got it wrong and has rectified the "mistake"

Ouroboros Posted on 31/12/2008 12:38
9/11 in plane sight

But didn't some tourists happen to turn their video cameras to the first plane as it roared at full throttle towards the first tower? Then the crash would have been shown on TV shortly afterwards.

Conspiracy theory TV. Goes along with the theory that man has never set foot on the moon, it's all faked.

Not_Smog Posted on 31/12/2008 12:43
9/11 in plane sight

There is simply no way that a cover up of that magnitude, involving that many different government organisations and funding would not make its way into the public domain eventually.

I think the only thing covered up was the decision to pull down building 7 rather then letting it burn.

Was 'in plane sight' that documentary where the retard presenting it claims there's a "pod" on the underside of the plane when it's clearly the shaddow from the engin?









Big_Shot Posted on 31/12/2008 12:43
9/11 in plane sight

Well the media did admit they got it wrong on the day when they gave out that Flight 93 hadn't crashed. They reported that it landed at another airport, but this turned out to be a different plane. Easy mistake to make at the time what with all that was happening. What is funny is that 8 years on people are going on about this tiny mistake as if it was some kind of cover up. No they just got it wrong, and admitted so within the hour.

Anyone with interest in this subject can find interviews with passengers from this other flight who can confirm that it wasn't Flight 93. I guess those were omitted from this crappy documentary. I guess they must be in on it also.

BrokenLance Posted on 31/12/2008 12:48
9/11 in plane sight

It was on EDGE last night. Available on the web also.

Footage of the first planestrike was only by a film crew doing a documentary of the Fire Service. It was not apparently broadcast till the following week.

Remember shortly afterwards, when the FBI 'instantly' pulled up a list of the culprits, and it turned out that at least half of them were still alive, in various locations.

I have some yank friends, and a yank wife, who believe anything their government tells them, no matter how implausible.

BrokenLance Posted on 31/12/2008 12:49
9/11 in plane sight

As for the 'pod' on the underside of the second plane, the program shows a report from a company who examined the video footage (4 different ones) and determined it was not a shadow.

darlonorth Posted on 31/12/2008 12:51
9/11 in plane sight

There is no point arguing or reasoning with 9/11 conspiracy theorists. As soon as you disprove one stupid theory they'll hop straight onto another ''ah ok but what about this, what about that''

Its a complete waste of time and energy talking to conspiracy theorists. As was posting this most likely.

parmoandstella Posted on 31/12/2008 12:59
9/11 in plane sight

I still cannot F***in believe that people still think it was all a set up.

It was a terrorist attack, the pictures are all there for every one to see. Were did the 2000 or so victims go ? Did they just get their identitys changed ? What about the 100 or so young kids in the towers creshes that 'vanished' ?

Its endless ! But sating that, a goverment set up theory will never go away.

Nien_Nunb Posted on 31/12/2008 13:02
9/11 in plane sight

here it is


Link: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=

lakeoffire Posted on 31/12/2008 13:10
9/11 in plane sight

The USgovernment have probably pulled a lot of S*** in their time. including aliens etc... but... there's no way they did this. What kind of government kills innocent babies?

jeff_potato Posted on 31/12/2008 13:18
9/11 in plane sight

A country that hasn't got universal healthcare, where government leaks are rife, manages to hit everything but targets with expensive weaponry yet they can pull off history's most prominent terrorist attack...

It's amazing how people in general always have some kind of gripe with a basic mechanism of government yet when it comes to a high level conspiracy, the same organisations are capable of Bond supervillain style planning, foresight and execution.

Capybara Posted on 31/12/2008 13:21
9/11 in plane sight

Indeed. And, as Not_Smog says, keep quiet about it afterwards.

sheriff_john_bunnell Posted on 31/12/2008 13:25
9/11 in plane sight

If 9/11 was conducted by the US government it would have been contracted out to a company like Expedia rather than a bunch of hairy fanatics from Saudi.

sheriff_john_bunnell Posted on 31/12/2008 13:28
9/11 in plane sight

HANG ON ONE SECOND THOUGH!!!!!

I've just gone through civil service vacancies for 2000 on the US website and come across the following:

Flight technician:

desirable qualities: ability to fly plane
massive beard
MS Word and Excel skills
Good communication skills
Lack of conscience

craig-pancrack Posted on 31/12/2008 13:32
9/11 in plane sight

All conspiracy theories are lies. Always believe what governments tell you.

swordtrombonefish Posted on 31/12/2008 13:49
9/11 in plane sight

Good Lord, look over there, a flying pig!

Muttley Posted on 31/12/2008 13:51
9/11 in plane sight

"Always believe what governments tell you" no-one is saying that, just that in this incidence only a fool would cling to the belief that it is a conspiracy.

But if that floats your boat craig, you cling to it, kidda.

Big_Shot Posted on 31/12/2008 13:53
9/11 in plane sight

'All conspiracy theories are lies. Always believe what governments tell you. '

As opposed to silly half baked theories that some idiots make up that are easily pulled apart. Never quite understood why people seem to try and make out those of us who believe the perfectly sensible version of events are just believing what we are told.

ITS THE LIKES OF YOU WHO BELIEVES ANY OLD RUBBISH, NOT US.

BrokenLance Posted on 31/12/2008 14:32
9/11 in plane sight

Main thing that got me started on all this was the hit on the Pentagon. Each wing of the Pentagon has four cctv cameras. Garage up the road, with it's camera trained on that side of the pentagon had it's cctv footage confiscated by the FBI. All that was released was a single frame of footage showing an explosion of some sort. Only damage was a 16 foot hole, No wreckage, no crater, just a hole. Wingspan of the plane was supposed to be 64 ft. No damage either side of said 16 foot hole.

As for Building 7, they have Silverstein on camera saying it was demolished. Giuliani's emergency control centre-strange he didn't go anywhere near the place. Such a demolition would have taken weeks to set up, not 8 hrs. Went down in much the same fashion as the twin towers, with firefighters on camera stating they heard a series of explosions as the two towers collapsed.

Believe in what your government's tell you, if you must. I prefer to make my own mind up over the evidence. It's obvious where supposed facts don't agree with what actually happened. Never blindly believe in what you are told. You have a brain. Use it.

Bren_MFC Posted on 31/12/2008 14:35
9/11 in plane sight

there would have been too many people involved in a conspiracy of that magnitude, there would have been a leak somewhere along the line, just accept the fact that there was a terrorist attack, why not?

maca88 Posted on 31/12/2008 14:37
9/11 in plane sight

Whether you believe in the theories or not, the point that should be taken is that we hould never just accept everything were told, true democracy works by being challenged.

Everyone seems to hate the politicians, so why are they in charge?? answer because the rest cant be bothered to do anything about it but are very happy to complain to others that wont do anything about it.

Muttley Posted on 31/12/2008 14:37
9/11 in plane sight

BL have read through the wikipedia article on the 9/11 conspiracies as a starting point


Link: Here's some of the non-existant debris

BrokenLance Posted on 31/12/2008 14:45
9/11 in plane sight

Looks like something the USAF did for Roswell. Weather Balloon or plane? Where are the two whopping big Rolls Royce engines? The program showed live video footage of the scene as firefighters started tackling the blaze. Just a 16 ft hole, with no damage either side, or even upto the 2nd floor. Structural damage caused the side of the building to collapse later. A plane that big does not disintegrate before causing a lot more damage than was shown.

Why, for all the cctv cameras that were trained on that side of the building (total of FIVE, including the garage) did we only get shown a single frame of footage which does NOT show a plane?

Muttley Posted on 31/12/2008 15:01
9/11 in plane sight

Roswell? Ah yes the aliens in Area 51? Oh dear.

Just to take one point, "A plane that big does not disintegrate before causing a lot more damage than was shown" how do you know? The Pentagon is a fortified building. There is (somewhere on the web) footage of a Phantom jet being launched at high speed into a concrete block, not much is left afterwards.

There is no point in debating the point with a "convert" read the official report and then do some research into both sides of the argument. The stuff you are spouting is even discredited by the likes of Jim Hoffman who believes that there IS a conspiracy surrounding what happened that day, he however agrees that the overwhelming evidence is that a Boeing 757 did indeed impact the Pentagon.

darlonorth Posted on 31/12/2008 15:01
9/11 in plane sight

I'm not sure BrokenLance. You sound like you might be the man to solve this groovy mystery though. With your keen detective senses, years of expertise in air crash investigations and terrorism, and a yearning for the truth.. get yourself a gang of like minded individuals, a Great Dane and a groovy painted van and travel around solving such mysteries.

j_d76 Posted on 31/12/2008 15:01
9/11 in plane sight

"Whether you believe in the theories or not, the point that should be taken is that we hould never just accept everything were told, true democracy works by being challenged."


Couldn't agree more.

I don't particularly subscribe to everything those "conspiracy theorists" have to say on 9-11, but after the weapons of mass destruction lies (which incidently came from some of the very same people who told us the official line of 9-11), no one should ever condem those who ask questions and look at the alternative viewpoint.

"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance." ~ Albert Einstein

scooby Posted on 31/12/2008 15:05
9/11 in plane sight

Just ignore all those eye-witnesses who saw the plane hit it then.

scooby Posted on 31/12/2008 15:07
9/11 in plane sight

Yes you shouldn't just blindly accept what the governments tell you but nor should you continue to believe in a conspiracy once you've had amply chance to check alternative information sources for almost 8 years.

gazanolan Posted on 31/12/2008 15:09
9/11 in plane sight

I think the conspiricy theories are B******* but when Me and Mrs Gaz were talking the other day Is nt it stange how much more debris there was from the Lockerbie Crash/Explosion than at the Pentagon crash site

darlonorth Posted on 31/12/2008 15:16
9/11 in plane sight

Gaz the Lockerbie disater was the result of a bomb planted on board the plane. Tearing the plane open several thousand feet in the air, scaterring thousands of pieces of debris large and small for miles across the area.

The Pentagon crash was the result of a plane flying directly into the side a massive building, flying at several hundred miles per hour.

gazanolan Posted on 31/12/2008 15:30
9/11 in plane sight

That was my point surely an explosion thousands of feet in the air with large lumps still intact as opposed to a plane not flying at "hundreds of miles an hour" by all accounts crashing into a low building .Just strange to me and as I say Im not one for the conspiricy theory but you appear to know more about crashing planes and explosions than me so I bow to your knowledge

BrokenLance Posted on 31/12/2008 15:34
9/11 in plane sight

The program showed one woman in the street stating "That wasn't an American Airlines plane...." They also played a recording of another individual who was up in one of the other skyscrapers and watched the first plane hit. He said "there were no windows in the plane..."

All this was new to me, and my first thought was what happened to the original planes and passengers then? The program didn't ask that question. That's why I posted the thread really. Wasn't intending to re-start another conspiracy thread. You either believe what the government tells you, or you don't. I don't. You believe what you like.

I could go on about the 'explosions' and the fact that photos exist of the steelwork showing it molten (only achievable with demolition charges-not possible as a result of the aviation fuel explosion or sundry fires or the actual 'collapse' of the buildings. There are many reports on this, some 'official' and others not. Both are easy to fake. You've got to weigh their contents and use your own judgement as to which is the more likely.

The most telling point on the documentary was the government documents proving the scenario to attack their own cities and blame it on a foreign power to start a war, was already in the US mindset as far back as Cuba. Dust of the plan, update it, and sounds like 9/11 to me.

American media, like our own, do what they're told. All owned by General Electric, who are owned in turn by, Dick Cheney. Tony Bliar waves a piece of paper in the air which he says is proof Saddam can launch WMD in 45 minutes, and everyone invades Iraq. Was PROVED to be lies, though, wasn't it? The truth will out eventually.

Big_Shot Posted on 31/12/2008 15:56
9/11 in plane sight

Do go on about these explosions?

sheriff_john_bunnell Posted on 31/12/2008 16:04
9/11 in plane sight

Since when has "The Government" been the only source of information on 9/11.

Our media does not do what they are told. remember the Hutton report?

What I find troubling is that people equate rational thought like disbelieving propagandistic spin, such as the dossier produced to support a war on Iraq being complete bullS***, with completely irrational notions such as the building collapsed in what LOOKED like a controlled explosion ergo the world is controlled by giant neo conservative zionist lizards. There is no rational line of inquiry.

If you choose not to believe anything then what can you take as fact to make sense of the world. Perhaps the british attacked pearl harbour to get the americans into the war? Maybes the sun revolves around the earth?

Muttley Posted on 31/12/2008 16:07
9/11 in plane sight

"the fact that photos exist of the steelwork showing it molten (only achievable with demolition charges-not possible as a result of the aviation fuel explosion or sundry fires or the actual 'collapse' of the buildings."

Really there are photographs of the actual steelwork in the towers melting? Or do you mean there are photographs of the same grade of steel and proof that it melts at a certain temperature? You see this is exactly the sort of half baked science that infests the conspiracy theories. You don't have to melt structural steel to make it fail, indeed if the steel WAS molten any structure made from steel would have collapsed a long time before the steel HAD melted. It's a logical impossibility.

So, please feel free to post a link to these photographs.

Big_Shot Posted on 31/12/2008 16:19
9/11 in plane sight

There was a documentary earlier this year about WTC7. And this 'expert' was banging on about how he'd seen 100 buildings on fire and that none of them collapsed like WTC7. Thats the sort of thing that gets put into these documentatries. However they conveniently ignore a demolition expert explaining how buildings don't collapse in the same way so what he said doesn't actually mean anything.

The first guy went on to say that it must have been a controlled demolition. The other guy said it would take 3 months to set it up. The first guy them suggested that the building was built with explosives in place. To which the other guy said, he said what? really? And went on to explain that explosives only have a life of a couple of years after that they become unsafe so thats a nonsense.

Within a few minutes the first guy had lost any credibilty. But I bet this same clown still crops up on these documentaries with his 100 buildings nonsense.

BrokenLance Posted on 31/12/2008 16:22
9/11 in plane sight

Firefighters on film stating they heard a series of explosions going off before and during the collapse of the two towers. Buildings only fall straight down when 'demolished' in a process which takes weeks to set demolition charges in the right places. Two towers and Building 7 fell identically.

We have Silverstein on film stating Building 7 was 'demolished', so if you believe the official line, they set demolition charges and brought it down in less than 8 hours.

Workers in the two towers complained about 'building works' going on in the building for weeks before the attack. Floors being closed off, lots of drilling, and dust everywhere. Building insurance was about to expire as it didn't conform to latest fire regs. Were they making repairs or setting charges?

Photos of demolished building steel show bits of it as molten, ie sheared at an angle by det-charges. Check out the melting point of steel. It's a lot higher than a fire could produce. Steel doesn't melt in compression.

The program compared the incident with another that happened under Clinton, where the Oklahoma Bombing incident took place. Film footage of police and firemen claiming they had found another three bombs(only one went off), and the FBI were filmed announcing they hoped to use those unexploded bombs to find more info on the makers of the bombs. No more was heard about those three bombs. McVeigh took the rap on his own, even though it would have taken more than one man to plant four big bombs like that. Another cover up. Reports can be faked, or pulled and claimed as 'mistakes'. Who has the most power to do that sort of thing? Who has the most to gain?

Look what's happened since. Both our countries are fighting wars we can't win. Our civil liberties are being taken away from us. Big Brother is invading every walk of life. The only people benefiting from all this are governments, and the companies that supply war ordnance or support infrastructure-cue Cheney and Bush again.

Didn't we learn anything from the first Gulf War? we were promised British Firms would get a lot of work out of it? Did we? No. It all went to the yanks. They can't be trusted. I'm married to one. I should know.

If they were prepared to attack their own people over Cuba, it proves the scenario was already written, just waiting to be dusted off, and updated, to justify the war on 'terror'.

j_d76 Posted on 31/12/2008 16:23
9/11 in plane sight

"The most telling point on the documentary was the government documents proving the scenario to attack their own cities and blame it on a foreign power to start a war, was already in the US mindset as far back as Cuba. Dust of the plan, update it, and sounds like 9/11 to me."


Is this about The Project for the New American Century document?

I didn't see the program but have read about something similar, about the document drawn up by the Bush administration 8 months prior to 9-11 that among other things contained a report called "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century".

It concluded that America would need to suffer a catastrophic event such as a new Pearl Harbor before the project could be put into motion and apparantly came to light a few years ago when published in the mainstream media.

sheriff_john_bunnell Posted on 31/12/2008 16:26
9/11 in plane sight

If I told you I demolished a doughnut this morning would you take it to mean i rigged it with explosive charges and then detonated it?

Big_Shot Posted on 31/12/2008 16:28
9/11 in plane sight

So these 'explosions' that these fireman heard can only be from bombs? A couple of years ago there was an explosion around midnight at Terra over towards Billingham, I heard it, I would describe it as an explosion. Its turned out it it wasn't a bomb or dynamite or whatever detonation. So we know its not an exclusive noise only those things make. But we get people saying oh this guy said he heard an explosion on 9/11, he probably did, doesn't mean S*** though really.

Aurora Posted on 31/12/2008 16:31
9/11 in plane sight

I saw a programme about that ages back. They got a british demolition guy to say how it could be done - he said itd take 2 weeks of laying cables and putting in explosives - not something that could be done in secret

Muttley Posted on 31/12/2008 16:35
9/11 in plane sight

"Photos of demolished building steel show bits of it as molten, ie sheared at an angle by det-charges. Check out the melting point of steel. It's a lot higher than a fire could produce. Steel doesn't melt in compression."

Photos of which building steel? From the WTC? Are we talking about after the collapse?

You need to learn some elementary physics. Steel does not have to melt to fail, is that clear? Even demolition charges do not work by "melting" the steel.

sheriff_john_bunnell Posted on 31/12/2008 16:36
9/11 in plane sight

you don't really need to crash planes into buildings to start a war really do you? all it takes is a few people firing rockets.

I can think of loads of better ways to start a war by manufacture. have a spy come up with plans for a nuclear missile. shoot down an F16. Its a wonder the Japanese chose to blow up a piece of railroad and blame it on the chinese rather than massacring a load of their own people to start WWII. And if you're going to crash planes into buildings at least make a few of the hijackers Iraqi rather than a bunch of saudi's, at least provide some faked evidence that Osama has been seen having brunch with saddam.

Big_Shot Posted on 31/12/2008 16:38
9/11 in plane sight

and not forgetting to remove these 'pods' from the bottom of these planes. We'd have gotten away with it without those pesky 'pods'.

Space_Face Posted on 31/12/2008 16:40
9/11 in plane sight

So where did flight 77 and it's 60 odd passengers go?

sheriff_john_bunnell Posted on 31/12/2008 16:43
9/11 in plane sight

they now reside on Moonbase Zion with Henry Kissinger and Big Fun.

Big_Shot Posted on 31/12/2008 16:44
9/11 in plane sight

And as for

'McVeigh took the rap on his own, even though it would have taken more than one man to plant four big bombs like that. Another cover up.'

Never heard of Terry Nicholls then. Also you do realise the bomb was in a van, it wasn't planted anywhere, he parked it up and walked away. This is basic stuff about the Oklahoma bombing and you don't even know that.

j_d76 Posted on 31/12/2008 16:44
9/11 in plane sight

Sherrif,

It takes a lot more than firing a few rockets or shooting down an F16 to get westerners up off their arses and away from watching the x-factor [;)]

scooby Posted on 31/12/2008 16:45
9/11 in plane sight

Go and look at a real controlled explosion and you will see that those buildings never fall straight down. The tend to have charges rigged to in sequence so that the outsides collapse inwards.

Then look at the two towers coming down and notice the massive amount of debris falling off the top and over the side onto surrounding buildings in a waterfall fashion.

They couldn't look anything less like a controlled explosion other than if they simply fell over like Wurzel Gummage.

BrokenLance Posted on 31/12/2008 16:46
9/11 in plane sight

The steel was molten. It didn't 'fail' and suddenly decide to melt itself.

As well as firefighters, there were other people in the street, and also policemen who stated they heard explosions.

Pod shown in four separate bits of video footage which was examined by presumed video experts, and declared not a shadow. Documentaries present evidence in a way which supports their stance, but they are not allowed to lie, else they and the network which broadcasts them can be sued. Only governments can get away with disinformation, as our own government has done with us on numerous occasions, knife crime stats, immigration figures etc. Even when proved to be wrong, they seem safe from prosecution for the way they try and mislead us.

Pearl Harbour attack was advised by Churchill to Roosevelt in advance, but Roosevelt let it happen, as a way of kickstarting America into the War and out of Recession.

scooby Posted on 31/12/2008 16:47
9/11 in plane sight

Nothing confirms a conspiracy theory to be true better than another conspiracy theory.

Big_Shot Posted on 31/12/2008 16:48
9/11 in plane sight

and as we've already ascertained, explosions don't necessarily mean bombs.

sheriff_john_bunnell Posted on 31/12/2008 16:53
9/11 in plane sight

"Documentaries present evidence in a way which supports their stance, but they are not allowed to lie, else they and the network which broadcasts them can be sued. Only governments can get away with disinformation, as our own government has done with us on numerous occasions, knife crime stats, immigration figures"

these are exactly the same thing? presenting evidence in such a way that is favourable to you.
A government is far more accountable than a television station anyway. Why do you think they bother to spin things? its because it is too costly to lie. see Richard Nixon.
and like i said, it is not "the government" who are our sole source of information on 9/11.

flaps Posted on 31/12/2008 16:58
9/11 in plane sight

Good lord, this again. More silly 'what ifs' from conspiracy theorists making money from those the gullible. Every single conspiray theory 'ah but' point is easily explained, or turns out not be true anyway.

Every single one.

The most absurd notion is the idea that buildings like those at the World Trade Center could have been rigged with explosives.

flaps Posted on 31/12/2008 16:59
9/11 in plane sight

"but they are not allowed to lie"

lmao you heard it here first folks - journalists arent allowed to lie.

JLinardi Posted on 31/12/2008 17:03
9/11 in plane sight

The only thing I find a bit dodgy about it all is apparently the owner of the buildings took out a huge policy on them just before the attacks. Could be just a lucky coincidenceor maybe.....


Also about the explosions, theres a video on the net that shows the towers collapsing and you can see small puffs of smoke going off in sequence down the tower as if they were charges going off.

Big_Shot Posted on 31/12/2008 17:05
9/11 in plane sight

Those were windows blowing out.

ProudToComeFromTeesside Posted on 31/12/2008 17:09
9/11 in plane sight

The bit about the explosions as the towers collapsed could be a bit of a red herring. With the fires, fuel and electrics, it's no surprise there were explosions. During wartime, it wasn't uncommon for there to be explosions as ships sunk after being torpedoed or hitting mines, ie after the initial explosion as they sank/broke up, so this wouldn't be a total surprise.

I admit, there are questions to be answered. Thing is, why would the USA hire people to fly planes into buildings? Nobody other than the likes of Islamic extremists would volunteer for such a suicide mission but Islamic extremists are not going to volunteer to do such a thing so that the US could start a war on Islamic extremism. It doesn't make sense. Bit like turkeys voting for Christmas.

Although the USA does give the impression at times that it exists for war, and that they don't need much excuse to flex their military muscles, I think some people wish to believe there's more to things than there really is. It's true that war is big business in the US. President Eisenhower warned of the unwarranted influence of the military industrial complex. I just don't buy some of the conspiracy theories re 11/9.

merrykoala Posted on 31/12/2008 17:43
9/11 in plane sight

Eyewitness accounts are often worh jack-S***.

There are eyewitness accounts from the Jean Charles De Menezes shooting that say he was a mad eyed arab wearing a thick coat and a "bomb belt" with wires hanging out.

I was actually on a job down at Stockwell station yesterday, wandering around disused tunnels looking for a room, I was half expecting to see his ghost.

Jonny_Ingbar Posted on 31/12/2008 17:47
9/11 in plane sight

Come on people please.

If the US government wanted to hoax a terrorist attack to give them justification to invade Iraq then its a fairly complex plan in anyones opinion.


merrykoala Posted on 31/12/2008 17:48
9/11 in plane sight

Also not all of these suicide bombers are necessarily Islamic Extremists, many have been found to have tested positive for HIV, have financial incentives that their families will be taken care of and proof provided before carrying out the act and have even shown behaviour that puts doubts on their strictness in following their beliefs (one of the 9/11 hijackers was known to eat pork and gamble), it's not all as black and white as some like to think.

Bren_MFC Posted on 31/12/2008 17:50
9/11 in plane sight

you've just made that up, where does it say that?

BrokenLance Posted on 31/12/2008 17:51
9/11 in plane sight

Documentary seemed to indicate that the pods were proof they were military planes hitting the WTC, which presumably could have been remote flown? Otherwise, another possibility is the US heard about the plot in advance, and allowed it to be carried out. WTC was no longer fully utilised, and stood 1/3 empty. Acceptable losses?

Strangest thing is, if it's all true, what happened to the original planes and the passengers? That's a question that should have been asked.

Journos are NOT allowed to lie, else they get sued. Name me anyone who has tried to sue the government?

Lots of theories, and they all have bits in them that don't ring true.

Anyway, enough for one night. Getting ready to go out. Anyone wants to chin me, I'll be in the Blue Bell about 8 pm. 5ft 4inches, short grey hair, goatee beard, brown leather jacket. I'll be stood with a 6ft 4inch mate/bodyguard ;-).

Best wishes to ALL. Hope next next year is a damn sight better than this one.

Jonny_Ingbar Posted on 31/12/2008 17:54
9/11 in plane sight

What I do believe is that there is fairly credible evidence to suggest mossad and Israel were aware of the plot to attack the WTC and sat back and let it happen, because of the political capitol that was at stake.

Space_Face Posted on 31/12/2008 17:56
9/11 in plane sight

'Strangest thing is, if it's all true, what happened to the original planes and the passengers? That's a question that should have been asked.'


And that alone should tell you it's nonsense.

merrykoala Posted on 31/12/2008 17:57
9/11 in plane sight

Assuming all this is true and the government has gotten away with it then the passengers were offloaded from their planes and killed at an air force base or makeshift runway in the desert and their bodies buried along with the burnt out and dissasembled plane before the site was irradiated or something.

Why leave a bunch of people who are supposed to be dead alive as potential evidence?

Expect a visit in the middle of the night some time from the thought police for finally cracking the case though.

flaps Posted on 31/12/2008 17:59
9/11 in plane sight


"Journos are NOT allowed to lie"

This is hilarious.

Senor_Chester Posted on 31/12/2008 18:13
9/11 in plane sight

BrokenLance your begining to look a bit daft here as you've either chose to ignore or not seen any of the impartial research contary to your points. I'd give it up mate.

Muttley Posted on 31/12/2008 18:34
9/11 in plane sight

OK

Let's look at it from another angle. It was a CIA/NSA "black operation" how did they do it?

Remote controlled planes? WTC rigged for demolition? Missile fired at the Pentagon? Boeing downed by F-16s over continental USA?

How the phuck can anyone organise a hoax on such a grand scale and get away with it but cannot avoid getting caught shipping arms to Iran or war crimes in Iraq or any other number of naughty things that they would rather not get caught doing? It's beyond preposterous.

Of course Governments lie to their electorate, it's what they do but they get found out nearly every time! Because as Abraham Lincoln may (or may not) have said "You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time."

parmoandstella Posted on 31/12/2008 18:44
9/11 in plane sight

IT WAS ALL STEWART DOWNINGS FAULT, HE DEMOLISHED THEM, MIGHT AS WELL BLAME HIME, HE GETS BLAMED FOR EVERY FOOKING THING ELSE !

leroy Posted on 31/12/2008 21:40
9/11 in plane sight

if you want to believe watch 'loose change' on youtube, a brillaint one sided documentary

stuar_tripley Posted on 31/12/2008 23:39
9/11 in plane sight

Ha Ha Ha Ha, BrokenLance you have provided me with 15 minutes' worth of hilarious reading material! A worthy and successful effort to chalk up a ton though [;)]

Space_Face Posted on 31/12/2008 23:55
9/11 in plane sight

Loose Change started out as a fictional piece about a group of people who find out about 9/11 being an inside job, only later did they change it into a 'documentary'(when they started to believe the fiction they were writing). It's also a load of bo11ox.

row_7 Posted on 01/01/2009 01:45
9/11 in plane sight

QUOTE : Buildings only fall straight down when 'demolished' in a process which takes weeks to set demolition charges in the right places. Two towers and Building 7 fell identically.

Utter total and complete b0llocks - with a capital B
A few months after 9/11 the New Civil Engineer magazine printed an article written by a consortium of this countries leading structural and civil engineers and all were in total agreement that buildings of that type of construction would fail in EXACTLY the way they did when subjected to the combination of heat and impact damage that they experienced.


BrokenLance Posted on 01/01/2009 10:34
9/11 in plane sight

What evidence is ever impartial?

The American Association of Engineers produced a report showing how the 'plane' caused damage to the Pentagon. The documentary it's lack of credibility.

The report included a 3D animation showing the plane hitting the building, and it's fuselage and wings taking out all the main support columns in the first three outer rings of the Pentagon. Strangely, it showed no damage at all caused by the tail, which was 45ft high. But let's look at the main claim.

For the plane to have caused all that 'internal' damage, the wings and engines must have folded back along the fuselage, at the initial impact, and then popped back out to their full wingspan ONCE IT GOT PAST THE ORIGINAL 16FT DIAMETER HOLE.

That's the main point people. A 16ft diameter hole.

This is an official report by the American Association of Engineers. Impartial? Incompetent certainly.

Who put them upto it? Who expected anyone to believe it? Oh, sorry, there are some on here who will believe anything they are told.

One frame of cctv footage was released, showing only an explosion (nothing like the size of the explosions caused by the impacts on the WTC). There were FIVE cctv cameras trained on that section of the Pentagon. Where is the footage? Where is the plane?

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it has to be a plane I guess.............sarcasm, folks (for those in need of Ibuprofen).

If this one incident is so obviously trumped up, the odds are there's something fishy about the other incidents too.

Aurora Posted on 01/01/2009 10:54
9/11 in plane sight

2 issues here.

Firstly no amount of computer/expert simulation can excatly predict the effects of a plane hitting a tower -0 too many variables. You'd need to test it and as far as im aware that hasnt been done. Looking at the video evidence i think that what you see is what you get - 2 planes hit 2 towers and bang

secondly the other 2 planes - one goes for the pentagon the nerve centre of uS defence. A gnat wouldnt get near it so a plane has no chance- i reckon it got taken out as it approached and the reason theres little damage to the pentagon is cos its only bits of plane that hit it.

The one that hit the field - either the passengers overcome the terrorists and it crashes or it gets shot down.

In either case the US govt isnt going to admit to those.
SO i reckon youve half a conspiracy there

j_d76 Posted on 01/01/2009 12:07
9/11 in plane sight

People have lost sight of the real issue here. We all saw what happened on 9-11, and no one will ever prove or disprove if the planes were remote controlled or not, or if the WTC was rigged with demolition charges, or if it was a cruise missile that hit the pentagon and not a jetliner. Those debates will go on forever. Just like how the JFK conspiracy rages on to this day.

The whole 9-11 conspiracy theory is a classic case of broadening a debate to a point where people lose focus on the real issue. Instead they go round in circles arguing the same old stuff over and over again.
The questions people should be asking about 9-11 is who, why, and for what reason. Not questions about the mechanics of what went on that day.


For example, so far not one piece of hard evidence has ever come to light linking Osama bin Laden to 9-11 (even the FBI have now admitted it - see link below). This is the very same Osama bin Laden who during the Afghan-USSR war was trained and funded by the CIA by the way. A bloke we've failed to locate for 8 years, despite (among other things) having the technology to read a car number plate from space.

Everything we've been told about the official reasons BEHIND 9-11 have come from statements - not evidence - issued by the US government via the mainstream media. So are those who dismiss the conspiracy theory out of hand doing so based on an assumption that the US governement is telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth despite providing no evidence to backup their claims? Remember this is the very same government that a few months later told us Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and used it as justification to get a significant and PERMANENT military prescence in the middle-east (something the Project for the New American Century Report indicated as a key goal 1 year prior to 9-11).

Its a genuine question by the way. I'm no subscriber to all these conspiracies, but I've read enough independent stuff to keep an open mind about the REASONS behind 9-11 and not let myself get lost in the mechanics of it. And one thing I won't do anymore (especially after Blair's blatant lies over Iraq) is believe without question anything either the US or UK government tells me to believe.

Those who do so without question are just as gullible as those who believe there's a conspiracy in anything and everything just for the hell of it.


Link: No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden

BrokenLance Posted on 01/01/2009 12:42
9/11 in plane sight

Aurora, if it got taken out before it hit the Pentagon,and only bits of the plane hit it, what happened to the rest of the wreckage? Shot down over downtown Washington, you'd think someone would have noticed. It was a missile strike. Nothing else could have caused the internal damage with so little exterior damage.

j_d76, exactly my point. Tell a lie often enough, and more and more people eventually accept it as fact. I don't claim to have all the answers behind 9/11, but I have lots of questions that no one has yet answered.

Big_Shot Posted on 01/01/2009 14:02
9/11 in plane sight

Bloody hell, you're now an expert on planes hitting buildings. You have no idea how much damage that a plane hitting the Pentagon would cause, don't pretend you do.

Here's a simple one for you. What about the hundreds of witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon, how do you manage to ignore all those, but believe some idiot in a documentary?

BrokenLance Posted on 01/01/2009 14:11
9/11 in plane sight

What 'hundreds of witnesses' ???

More media manipulation. Have you spoken to them all personally? Do they exist? Who do they work for? Disinformation is easy to spread when so many people are just prepared to accept it without question and without using their own brains.

Everyone saw the damage caused by the plane hitting the 2nd tower. Both wings penetrated the building and a large explosion occurred. Contrast that with the small explosion and small hole in the Pentagon.

You'd think it would be easy for the Pentagon to prove it was a plane, with FIVE cctv cameras trained on that part of the building, but they haven't produced anything other than a single frame, showing a small explosion. Strange, don't you think? Why conceal the footage from those cameras unless it disproves their claim.

Big_Shot Posted on 01/01/2009 14:13
9/11 in plane sight

Answer the question, how do you dismiss them?

To be honest, you're complete lack of knowledge of the Oklahoma bombing lost you any credibility that you probably didn't have in the first place.

Space_Face Posted on 01/01/2009 14:39
9/11 in plane sight

Have you found the planes and hundreds of passengers yet?

Barba_papa Posted on 01/01/2009 14:43
9/11 in plane sight

Looka right ya pack of doyles. It wasn't a plane or a missile. Our lass had made beans for me tea and let out a proper ripper of a fart and blew a hole in the side of the pentagon. Yes it was me. It looked like an 18 wheeler had done a handbrake turn in me apple catchers after anall!

BrokenLance Posted on 01/01/2009 15:09
9/11 in plane sight

First, a 'witness' needs to be credible and unbiased. Reports can be faked, testimonies can be faked. I have heard people say they saw a plane, and I have heard others say it was a missile. Why won't they simply release the footage from the other cctv cameras PROVING it was a plane? Easy enough to do, so WHY DON'T THEY DO IT? Instead they wheel out 'witnesses' that SWEAR they saw a plane. All hearsay evidence. No proof, when it would be simple to provide it.

Physical evidence does not match a plane crash. Little in the way of debris, 16 ft diameter hole as opposed to 65ft wingspan with two rather large Rolls Royce engines.

As for the planes and passengers, that was the question I asked in the very first thread. Not everything adds up. But I remember a film entitled Capricorn One, where NASA faked a martian landing, and when the ship crashed coming back, they were left with three rather alive astronauts, who were then hunted down and killed (all except the one that got away).

darlonorth Posted on 01/01/2009 15:16
9/11 in plane sight

''I don't claim to have all the answers behind 9/11, but I have lots of questions that no one has yet answered.''

Haha why would/should anyone answer YOUR questions? You have a question for every answer you are given. Your questions are based on what exactly? - watching a TV programme!! plus of course your many years of absolutely zero expertise & experience in the area's you're questioning.

As mentioned there's no point arguing or reasoning with 9/11 conspiracy theorists. As soon as you disprove one stupid theory you hop straight onto another ''ah ok but what about this, what about that''

They (US Government) couldn't keep a blowjob secret!. Yet you seriously believe a network of thousands from the highly intelligent George Bush down to demolitions contractors could plan and execute 9/!! and there be not one single person spill the beans.

Think of the scores of people who made phone calls to their loved ones. their husbands, wives, sons, daughters, screaming in terror that they were under hijack, the last minutes of their lives recorded on a answerphone. That's some prank call that, if was all bullS***. Makes Russell Brand looks like an amateur.

Happy New Year, maaan.

oldsmoggie Posted on 01/01/2009 15:20
9/11 in plane sight

But the point is that was a film, make believe, not real, I think you are getting real life and pretend somewhat mixed up here.

Big_Shot Posted on 01/01/2009 15:33
9/11 in plane sight

'First, a 'witness' needs to be credible and unbiased. Reports can be faked, testimonies can be faked. I have heard people say they saw a plane, and I have heard others say it was a missile'

Thats a lie. Nobody has ever said the saw a missile.

BrokenLance Posted on 01/01/2009 15:49
9/11 in plane sight

In the years since 9/11 I have read many reports, and seen much footage. Sorry, but I can't recall the exact place where the guy mentions the missile. Must watch Fahrenheit 9/11 again sometime soon.

We can argue about various points, but it goes back to the Pentagon. Why have they not released footage from the other FOUR cctv cameras to PROVE that a plane hit it? Seems obvious to me. They have something to hide.

ian_elliot Posted on 01/01/2009 15:50
9/11 in plane sight

This is so funny

Should make it into a regular column

Next week - BrokenLance proves the world is flat

Senor_Chester Posted on 01/01/2009 16:18
9/11 in plane sight

"Why have they not released footage from the other FOUR cctv cameras to PROVE that a plane hit it?"

Why the hell do they have to prove anything? At the end of the day if they had proof you'd only get the conspiracy theorists saying it was fake anyway.

I'm glad your back on arguing this again today - it's hilarious!

BrokenLance Posted on 01/01/2009 16:42
9/11 in plane sight

People who blindly believe what they are told instead of using their own eyes and brains, amaze me.

No wonder we let our governments run roughshod over us when so many are just lambs being blindly led to the slaughter.

How can you tell when a politician is lying? Easy, his mouth's open. Yet so many gullible people still have faith in them.

Bush cheated to win the election over there, and yet the dumb barsterwards voted him in for a second term. So many idiots, and never enough ammunition.

ian_elliot Posted on 01/01/2009 16:47
9/11 in plane sight

>"People who blindly believe what they are told instead of using their own eyes and brains, amaze me."

But you aren't using your own eyes and brains - you're blindly believing what the documentary makers told you. That is amazing.



Senor_Chester Posted on 01/01/2009 16:47
9/11 in plane sight

Most people who have replied to you have NOT blindly believed what the US Government has told them but looked at the impartial evidence. I say you are the one who is more gullable by believing impossible theories.

terry_cochrane_on_the_wing Posted on 01/01/2009 17:28
9/11 in plane sight

I've seen this program and similar ones like it. But people who ask questions like bigshot get on my tits.

"Here's a simple one for you. What about the hundreds of witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon, how do you manage to ignore all those, but believe some idiot in a documentary?"


What about the hundreds of people who said it wasn't a plane?

Oh, thats right, they went against what the official line said so their testimony was ignored in the 9/11 commission.

Ok, forget about the witnesses who said it wasn't a plane and ask yourself this. Why has there never been any definitive video evidence showing a jet aeroplane crashing into the pentagon? A building that is supposed to be the most secure building on earth, a building that has hundreds of surveillance cameras all around it monitoring it both inside and out, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week? Why was the only piece of video footage ever released on this particular incident taken by a poorly placed camera at an oblique angle and photographed nothing more than semi-stills and shows NO EVIDENCE what so ever that a 100 ton jet airliner crashed in to the Pentagon? Why was the CCTV footage from a nearby gas station, just 200 metres away and pointing in the exact direction of the pentagon confiscated by the CIA within minutes of the incident and subsequently never shown to the public?

Ask yourself this, with all that video coverage of the most secure building on earth, why hasn't the US government released absolute photogtrahic proof that a 737 (or whatever it was) hitting the Pentagon on 9/11 to finally blow all these conspiracy theroies out of the water once on for all?

Once you've asked yourself that and can honestly come up with a reason, your statement of "What about the hundreds of witnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon" will be a valid question from an equiring mind that didn't swallow everything it was fed.

Space_Face Posted on 01/01/2009 17:32
9/11 in plane sight

Do you know where the original planes and all the passengers went Terry?

Senor_Chester Posted on 01/01/2009 17:35
9/11 in plane sight

Or why the Government need to disprove the conspiracy's?

terry_cochrane_on_the_wing Posted on 01/01/2009 17:40
9/11 in plane sight

I have no clue where that plane went. For all I know it did hit the pentagon. I just don't understand how people fail to ask the question, or get at least the little bit suspicious about something as blatant as a 100 ton aeroplane hitting a building when the only proof submitted was a 3 second piece of grainy video. A bit of wreckage would have helped too (but thats another argument).

I just don't understand how people take it on blind faith what the media and government tells them when all it takes is a simple release of survellliance tape of the pentagon that day showing everyone what really happened.

For years this particular incident never sat right with me. For years I waited for final unequivocal proof of video surveillance of a jet hitting the pentagon to be released by the american governement to at least shut the conspiracy nuts up.

So far, nothing. Why??????

Senor_Chester Posted on 01/01/2009 17:43
9/11 in plane sight

"So far, nothing. Why??????"

Why does it need proving?

terry_cochrane_on_the_wing Posted on 01/01/2009 17:48
9/11 in plane sight

Jesus H Christ!!!!

IRAQ and everything that has gone on since that day in september 2001, thats fooking why!!!!

We went to war and have killed thousands of people thanks to the events of that day. 9/11 was the catalyst and the main reason for the whole war on terror campaign and the growing erosion of our civil liberties here at home!

two_banks_of_four Posted on 01/01/2009 17:53
9/11 in plane sight

"Why has there never been any definitive video evidence showing a jet aeroplane crashing into the pentagon?"

sharp bit of googling later.......




Link: plane pentagon

two_banks_of_four Posted on 01/01/2009 17:58
9/11 in plane sight

from wikipedia som eyewitness testimony. All goverment lackeys obviously.

The Pentagon is bordered by Interstate 395 and Washington Boulevard, on the side where the impact occurred. Mary Lyman, who was on I-395, saw the airplane pass over at a "steep angle toward the ground and going fast" and then saw the cloud of smoke from the Pentagon.[46] Omar Campo, another witness, was cutting the grass on the other side of the road when the plane flew over his head. "I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could never imagine I would see anything like that here."[47] Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work but stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flew over. "There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in."[47] Daryl Donley witnessed the crash and took some of the first photographs after the crash.[48]

USA Today reporter Mike Walter was driving on Washington Boulevard when he witnessed the crash, which he recounted, "I looked out my window and I saw this plane, this jet, an American Airlines jet, coming. And I thought, 'This doesn't add up, it's really low.' And I saw it. I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings. It went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon".[49] Terrance Kean, who lived in a nearby apartment building, heard the noise of loud jet engines, glanced out his window, and saw a "very, very large passenger jet". He watched "it just plow right into the side of the Pentagon. The nose penetrated into the portico. And then it sort of disappeared, and there was fire and smoke everywhere."[50] AP reporter Dave Winslow recounted, "I saw the tail of a large airliner ... It plowed right into the Pentagon."[51] Tim Timmerman, who is a pilot himself, noticed American Airlines markings on the aircraft as he saw it hit the Pentagon.[52] Other drivers on Washington Boulevard, Interstate 395, and Columbia Pike witnessed the crash, as did people in Pentagon City, Crystal City, and other nearby locations.[46]

terry_cochrane_on_the_wing Posted on 01/01/2009 18:03
9/11 in plane sight

Brilliant!!!

The unequivocal video footage I've been waiting for all these years!!!!



Oh hang on a minute.

Thats the same old footage we've all seen.

In fact its the ONLY footage we've all seen despite the 1001 video survelillance camera's surrounding the Pentagon.


Let me quote myself again two_banks_of_four since you obviously missed it....

"Why was the only piece of video footage ever released on this particular incident taken by a poorly placed camera at an oblique angle and photographed nothing more than semi-stills and shows NO EVIDENCE what so ever that a 100 ton jet airliner crashed in to the Pentagon?"


All I see in that piece of footage is a grainy object hitting the pentagon. It doesn't look like a heavy jumbo jet and it doesn't look like a small cruise missle... it looks like a blur.

Go find me a piece of footage of a 100 ton jet aeroplane hitting the Pentagon. There must be at least one somewhere. It is the most secure building and most heavily surveillanced building in the world, so I'm sure it won't be too tough a task for someone with your obvious googling skills.

leedfc Posted on 01/01/2009 18:05
9/11 in plane sight

did you know the weekend before TT were hit people could not get to there offices as workmen were working.
also some say they saw workmen working on the TT for upto 2 weeks before.
gives them the chance to rig the TT up.
funny how 9/11 and 7/11 were having terrorist drills in case of attack on the same day of the attacks.
as for the terrorist why were some found alive a few years later by the bbc and now you dont hear anything about now.funny that one.
also bbc claimed that building 7 had falling down a few hours before it did.
the thing is you could see it in the background still standing.

you saw the planes hit like me and i believed the story but when i saw them fall then i start to think thats not right.

flase flag opp by a side group in the usa thats who i think done it.
why the next day was bin laden brother flow into the usa with cia all round him news clips on the web proves it.

bay of pigs ring a bell to anyone and why JFK was shot.



Senor_Chester Posted on 01/01/2009 18:08
9/11 in plane sight

I'll tell you what Terry since we both know theres no videos will hundreds of witnesses who seen a plane be any good for you? Obviously not?

Are these people all making this up as well?

Jonny_Ingbar Posted on 01/01/2009 18:09
9/11 in plane sight

The most concerning thing about this thread is that the conspiricy brigade are allowed to vote.

God help us all!

BrokenLance Posted on 01/01/2009 18:09
9/11 in plane sight

It took five years, and a freedom of information act request to get those two video clips released, which show only a blurred image of 'something' hitting the Pentagon. Didn't look like a plane to me. Even the commentator said the tapes were vague, in response to claims by the Government spokesperson that they were 'conclusive proof' a plane and not a missile had hit the building.

They had five years to doctor those two tapes. They should have produced them IMMEDIATELY after the event.

They admit they have other footage, yet won't release them. The tape from the garage was looking straight onto the face of the pentagon, and would have gotten a perfect view of what struck the building. That's one of the tapes they won't let anyone see.

Why should they produce evidence? Because otherwise it is just Hearsay. Trouble is, too many people put their blind faith in their elected government, and are prepared to believe anything that government tells them.

I didn't accept everything that documentary told me. Read the first thread again. I questioned 'what happened to the planes and passengers?' if what they are claiming in this latest theory was true.

Senor_Chester Posted on 01/01/2009 18:11
9/11 in plane sight

We finally have someone to equal brokenlance, I give you - leedfc!

Jonny_Ingbar Posted on 01/01/2009 18:18
9/11 in plane sight

I think the fact there isn't conclusive CCTV to show the impact, is exactly why we can say there wasn't a conspiricy.

I can't believe I'm even debating this, FFS [:)]

terry_cochrane_on_the_wing Posted on 01/01/2009 18:20
9/11 in plane sight

Senor_Chester I'm not discounting those witnesses and never have.

But for every witness who said it was a jet, you'll find an equal number who said it wasn't. But you won't find them named in official documents.

My whole point is just because we only ever heard testimony from those who said it WAS a jet, it doesn't invalidate those people who swore it wasn't. In fact, the very fact that a certain group of witnesses' testimony was favoured over others should of at least raised an eyebrow.

People just took everything on face value, believed everything they were told while discounting the mearest of possibility that there may be just one or two flaws in the whole official story of 9/11. Afterall the governement wouldn't lie about something as big as 9/11!

They would never in a million years go to war based on a lie, would they?

two_banks_of_four Posted on 01/01/2009 18:21
9/11 in plane sight

Its a surveillance video looking over an entrance to the pentagon. So it will be surveillance video quality image of a object travelling 300 odd mile an hour across the not very wide area of ground. What do you want an IMAX camera footage from three different angles, but surely that would be too good?

1001 survelillance cameras, really is there? Or have you just made that up I doubt many are looking at the walls anyway?

A quick bit of googling reveals eyewitness testimony, pictures of debris after the impact, pictures of widespread damage to the pentagon including damage from the wings and some poor quality video of a largish white object flying fast into a building. I am all for a bit of radical scepticism but what more evidence do you need? Do you actual believe in anything?

Big_Shot Posted on 01/01/2009 18:22
9/11 in plane sight

'What about the hundreds of people who said it wasn't a plane?'

There aren't any. Thats a lie.

BrokenLance Posted on 01/01/2009 18:25
9/11 in plane sight

The only view that's accepted and publicised is the official line. Anyone asking questions, or putting forward a different theory is branded a conspiracy freak. Their views are suppressed.

There actually ARE conspiracies, you know. The one used by UK/USA to invade Iraq (Colin Powell trying to convince everyone 'that grey rectangular blob is actually a mobile chemicals processing plant'), Roswell (and the admittance and then later retraction by the USAF about the debris-what was shown was not what was found), JFK assassination (lone gunman?), Monroe's murder(police not called by Peter Lawford till hours after he supposedly discovered the body), etc.

Just because people don't have all the answers to them, the media move on to something else, as people have such short memories, and so few braincells, they can only process what they are TOLD to believe. They can't make up their minds for themselves.

Big_Shot Posted on 01/01/2009 18:28
9/11 in plane sight

Surely you must see the irony in your last paragraph [:D]

BrokenLance Posted on 01/01/2009 18:29
9/11 in plane sight

Big_Shot, you can state quite clearly that claims of people saying it was a missile are a lie. How do you know? Have you talked to everyone? Have you watched every piece of footage, and read every report on 9/11? You ask for evidence to back up this claim, yet you say you don't need evidence to believe the Pentagon's claims of a plane strike. Can't you see the obvious contradiction with you argument? Or are you part of the cover-up? A Man in black?

Big_Shot Posted on 01/01/2009 18:32
9/11 in plane sight

Well quite simply because if someone said they had saw a missile it would have been on that documentary you saw, and every other one for that matter.

As for me, where do I say I don't need any evidence. I've seen plenty of evidence to back up the official line in the plane hitting the Pentagon in numerous documetaries and article. I believe it to be true.

leedfc Posted on 01/01/2009 18:36
9/11 in plane sight

chester instead of walking through life blind open your eyes for once.
not everything you are told is true.
rem we are at war and the rules the tv and the papers have to play by are not the same as before.
if you dont understand what happens when we are at war should read up on some history.
why do you think all theses new laws are passed very quickly because of this so called war on terror.
our rights are been took way because we are at war.
for those who still think people are cranks running around trying to prove it was a inside job.
one day soon will be shocked when it all comes out.

never believe what you are told only what you think.

terry_cochrane_on_the_wing Posted on 01/01/2009 18:37
9/11 in plane sight

two_banks_of_four

You've totally and utterly missed the point.

I'm not arguing with you about what that survelliance camera shows. I'm pointing out that its the ONLY piece of footage ever released.

The ONLY piece!

Got it?

There isn't another piece of video footage, not from the pentagons' sureveliiance cameras, nor from the confistcated CCTV footage from other bulidings detached from the Pentagon. Not even a still.

Why is that inconclusive piece of footage the ONLY piece ever made public?

Can it be by any chance simply BECAUSE its so inconclusive that it was made public?

Like I said, to shut the conspiracy nuts up all the governement had to do is to show us one, just one other photo or video clip from a different camera. Or do you think a building like the Pentagon has just one poorly placed camera near it acting as its sole piece of surveillance equipment?

leedfc Posted on 01/01/2009 18:41
9/11 in plane sight

good point terry

Like I said, to shut the conspiracy nuts up all the governement had to do is to show us one, just one other photo or video clip from a different camera. Or do you think a building like the Pentagon has just one poorly placed camera near it acting as its sole piece of surveillance equipment?


Senor_Chester Posted on 01/01/2009 18:43
9/11 in plane sight

I don't know why I'm debating this and certainly can't be bothered listing all the impartial evidence this dismisses all of these daft theories.

Terry you've got me convinced now, a couple of grainy still shots or videos haven't been released so therefore there is no other expalnation that it can't have been a plane.

two_banks_of_four Posted on 01/01/2009 18:53
9/11 in plane sight

Terry,

You seem to be missing my point. Perhaps the high quality footage of the actual impact jsut doesn't exist. Perhaps the penatagon doesn't have cameras covering every section of wall in high def cameras.

The lack of high def video does not negate the rest of the evidence demostrating that it was a plane.


leedfc Posted on 01/01/2009 19:00
9/11 in plane sight

the penatagon not a corner shop.lol

BrokenLance Posted on 01/01/2009 19:00
9/11 in plane sight

'I've seen plenty of evidence to back up the official line in the plane hitting the Pentagon in numerous documetaries and article. I believe it to be true'.

Correction. You haven't SEEN any evidence. You've listened to someone TELLING you it was a plane, and without any evidence to back up that statement, you take it on trust.

terry_cochrane_on_the_wing Posted on 01/01/2009 19:04
9/11 in plane sight

Senor_Chester, I respect your own beliefs on 9/11. All I was asking is a question that never got answered, or more correctly, got swept under the carpet regarding the non-existant PROOF either way from the Pentagon's lonely sole corner-shop quality camera.

We can argue back and forth forever, but there will be a lot of people reading this thread who haven't got involved. If it offers a different perspective to the one they were sold and makes them think about some of those questions brought up here, then thats all that matters.


two_banks_of_four

Fair enough if thats what you truely think. I just don't believe that single peice of inconclusive footage released was the only piece of footage of the pentagon that day.

two_banks_of_four Posted on 01/01/2009 19:18
9/11 in plane sight

Terry,

The point is that there is no point in trying to argue about the 'truth' when you have no idea what you mean by truth. Why do you believe anything is 'true'. As I said I am all for scepticism, but it has to end somewhere otherwise you are in a right metaphysical pickle.

As leeds said "never believe what you are told only what you think". How very Cartesian of him (Rene Descartes)


Link: never believe what you are told only wha

DavidShayler Posted on 01/01/2009 19:23
9/11 in plane sight

Google: IMEMC News - which is the "Independent Middle East Media Centre" for an objective up to date perspective or try:

the ANN - "Alternative News Network" - that might give you something to think about.

ian_elliot Posted on 01/01/2009 19:24
9/11 in plane sight

This is such a cracking thread - basically 120 or so posts with BrokenLance lecturing everyone on not believing everything they hear from the government or the press.

Well its a good point, but sadly critically weakened by the fact that he's basically getting his arguments and evidence from the media.

If he'd done some first hand research - maybe spoken to workers at the pentagon, or examined the twisted wreckage of the towers - he may be able to speak from some position of authority, however as it is he's providing some cracking entertainment telling people off for believing what other people have told them!

DavidShayler Posted on 01/01/2009 19:24
9/11 in plane sight

Apologies, that should be: "International Middle East Media Centre".

Muttley Posted on 01/01/2009 19:25
9/11 in plane sight

So, because you haven't seen any photographic evidence that it WAS a plane you are prepared to believe that what hit the Pentagon was a missile? Why do you want to believe this? Have you examined the motivation of those who made the film that you are parading as some sort of oracle?

Dylan Avery - denied admission twice by Purchase College's film school

Korey Rowe - a "deserter" from the US 101st Airbourne

Jason Bermas - an activist who has demanded a new independent investigation into 9/11

In other words chancers, not reputable investigative journalists or documentary film makeres of even minor repute, but chancers with a view to making a few dollars out of the paranoia surrounding the events of that day or getting their chance in a competitive industry.

With regard to why there is no released camera footage of the plane, well just perhaps it doesn't exist?

I would imagine that cameras on the Pentagon were not positioned to record attack by a hijacked airliner but to enable security staff to monitor the environs of the Pentagon for the purposes of preventing attack by ground assault or lone nutter and as such they just weren't pointing in the right direction? Seems more than plausible to me.

leedfc Posted on 01/01/2009 19:26
9/11 in plane sight

lee dfc
not leeds thank god lol

DavidShayler Posted on 01/01/2009 19:40
9/11 in plane sight

www.therealnews.com

scooby Posted on 01/01/2009 19:43
9/11 in plane sight

They rigged up a building of that size with explosives and not a single person noticed them for a week? I guess they must have chased them all into channels or fitted them behind false walls. Impressive work, that.

Especially considering rigging small high-rises in the UK of about 20 floors takes MONTHS to rig up and they don't even have to hide it!

You are a F***ing imbecile if you still believe that.

ProudToComeFromTeesside Posted on 01/01/2009 19:46
9/11 in plane sight

To be fair, tc on the wing is playing devil's advocate. He's not saying he has conclusive proof there was a conspiracy, just suggesting that there might be holes in the official version of what happened. As for those having a go at Broken Lance, he's started a really good debate on here and provoked an interesting discussion on one of the most important and tragic events of our lifetime. Just because people disagree with his assertions, there's no need to have a go at him.

I think those arguing in favour of a conspiracy are not so much saying that there was a conspiracy, only raising questions that remain unanswered.

scooby Posted on 01/01/2009 20:00
9/11 in plane sight

Proud, they start off saying "I don't believe in conspiracy theories" but then end up posting evidence that a missile hit the building. Everytime you get people to post their "questions that remain unanswered" they invariably tend to have already been answered but not with a version that fits their conspiracy fantasy.

While we should be respectful to people in discussions let's not forget they are accusing thousands upon thousands of Americans of murdering their own people and keeping the sinister plan under wraps.

ian_elliot Posted on 01/01/2009 20:02
9/11 in plane sight

>"As for those having a go at Broken Lance, he's started a really good debate on here and provoked an interesting discussion on one of the most important and tragic events of our lifetime. Just because people disagree with his assertions, there's no need to have a go at him."

I'm just pointing out that he's telling us not to just blindly believe what people tell us because thats just naive and sheep-like, we should instead be blindly believing what a different group of people tell us.

If the US government wanted to stage such events as a jet crashing into the Pentagon they would probably have made damn sure they had produced excellently lit high def super slo-mo images that could be played on the media the world over to make sure everyone believed it.



flaps Posted on 01/01/2009 20:51
9/11 in plane sight

"and without any evidence to back up that statement, you take it on trust."

What evidence do you have beyond what you have been told?

BrokenLance Posted on 01/01/2009 23:03
9/11 in plane sight

None of us will have the opportunity to interrogate any witnesses to this event. We all get our information from the same sources. Internet and television media. Mainstream media edit what gets broadcast, and that is usually the official version. Do your own investigation.

I am more likely to believe what I can see, over what someone tells me.

The documentary only used footage from already available dvd's which were already on the market, and gives reference to their sources. For those who haven't seen it, I suggest you do so. It's available as an online download if you Google for it.

I have never said I believed everything in that documentary, and as I've said a couple of times, re-read my first thread where I question 'what happened to the planes and passengers, if the documentary theory is correct?'.

I question. I don't take what I'm told as Gospel.

twoshots Posted on 01/01/2009 23:18
9/11 in plane sight

Interesting viewing for Broken Lance, and anyone else on the thread with an hour to spend. Just watched this while mrs shots was watching a girlie film.

Don't agree with most of it, but as a 9/11 discussion document, it's interesting.




Link: zero

flaps Posted on 01/01/2009 23:31
9/11 in plane sight

I have never been to Mongolia. I have never met somebody from Mongolia. I only know it exists because of what people have told me and what I read in books and see on TV. Should i be sceptical of the existance of Mongolia?

flaps Posted on 01/01/2009 23:34
9/11 in plane sight

"I question."

You don't question. You regurgitate the questions of others based on misinterpreation that forwards their agenda. You disbelieve anything that comes from the 'authorities' preferring to believe a bunch of cranks from the states.


Big_Shot Posted on 01/01/2009 23:51
9/11 in plane sight

'Correction. You haven't SEEN any evidence. You've listened to someone TELLING you it was a plane, and without any evidence to back up that statement, you take it on trust.'

But you have no problem with me saying you are telling lies. YOU ARE A LIAR IF YOU CLAIM TO HAVE SEEN ANYONE SAY THAT THEY SAW A MISSILE HIT THE PENTAGON.

flaps Posted on 01/01/2009 23:54
9/11 in plane sight

What's more likely:

A plane hit the pentagon

or

A missile hit the pentagon, and they managed to dump a load of plane wreckage there without anyone noticing.

j_d76 Posted on 02/01/2009 09:25
9/11 in plane sight

"a load of plane wreckage"


It landed safely on the lawn, then David Copperfield (a known CIA agent) was drafted in to do the rest.

[:D] Here's the proof!


Link: the real reason no wreckage was found!

BrokenLance Posted on 02/01/2009 09:44
9/11 in plane sight

Big_Shot, forgive me, but of all the video evidence I've seen on the subject, I can't remember where I saw someone claim it was a missile. I have no intention of trawling through them all again, just to prove a point.

You are insisting it was a plane, without any evidence to back that claim up, yet I'll refrain from calling you a LIAR, as you are just too trusting in believing what people tell you.

flaps, what plane wreckage? 16 ft hole, as opposed to 65 ft wingspan. Even if the rest of the fuselage mysteriously disintegrated, the two Rolls Royce engines would have survived. I'm not convinced. Never will be until the missing cctv footage is released. It won't be.

lakeoffire Posted on 02/01/2009 09:58
9/11 in plane sight

there's a couple either way;

a)the burning etc had to stop somewhere, so the claim that the computer and book would be exposed is B*******
b)the guy claims it couldn't have penetrated 9ft of steel. but it didn't it penetrated 1ft of steel 9 times or whatever it was.

however;

1) no wreckage on lawn
2) no engines as brokenlance said
3) hole in pentegon not big enough
4) no CCTV footage... of the FOOKIN PENTEGON.. hmmmm
5) as someone else pointed out, there are as many people claiming it to be a missile as there was a plane.

Also, the bit about the 2nd plane being a military plane is quite scary

mwelolo Posted on 02/01/2009 09:58
9/11 in plane sight

I assume it is accepted that planes flew into the two towers, it was filmed and witnessed by many people.

That being the case why would anybody want to create an ilusion of a plane flying into the Pentagon and create such a security nightmare. Surely the planes into the twin towers made quite enough impact. That is what people remember, not the Pentagon.

As usual, a fascinating story but sadly not one which stacks up.

lakeoffire Posted on 02/01/2009 10:01
9/11 in plane sight

well if you'd watched it all you'd see that it looked like a military plane that flow into the 2nd tower and that there wasn't much footage of the plane that flew into 1st tower. There were plenty of people who said it was a misile as well.

mwelolo Posted on 02/01/2009 10:04
9/11 in plane sight

Didn't look like a military plane to me.

Muttley Posted on 02/01/2009 10:08
9/11 in plane sight

well this prety much looks like...


Link: ...wreckage on the lawn

craig-pancrack Posted on 02/01/2009 10:21
9/11 in plane sight

missile..erm...airplane doh!



Link: slip of the tongue??!!!

sheriff_john_bunnell Posted on 02/01/2009 10:22
9/11 in plane sight

It was neither a plane nor a missile that hit the pentagon, it was a cow, hurled by the French from a trebuchet. You can clearly see a cow shaped hole in the building.

mwelolo Posted on 02/01/2009 10:26
9/11 in plane sight

No. I think you will find it was actually the CIA who propelled the cow.

j_d76 Posted on 02/01/2009 10:26
9/11 in plane sight

"That being the case why would anybody want to create an ilusion of a plane flying into the Pentagon and create such a security nightmare. Surely the planes into the twin towers made quite enough impact. That is what people remember, not the Pentagon."


This is a good point. The Pentagon represents America's military and intelligence community. A building that was supposed to be untouchable. The fact it was a target put into peoples minds that no where and no one was safe anymore.

As for why people think it was a missle or small Learjet... If you do a bit of background reading you'll find organisations such as "Pilots for 9-11 Truth" that have over the years poured scorn on the governments claims.

If you think about the twin towers, they were massive buildings 1,400 feet high, pretty hard to miss even by hijackers who've had only a few hours training in a single engine cesna.

However, qualified airline pilots have gone on record as saying flying a large heavy airliner into a building like the pentagon that is only 77 feet high, and leaving no skid marks on the lawn would be nigh-on impossible for a fully qualified and experienced pilot to achieve. Yet we're supposed to believe a hijacker who had less than 20 hours training in a piston engine cesna flew that 100 ton jet with incredible accuracy to achieve just that.

By the way, Flight 77 must be the only ground aircrash in history were the only wreckage found would fit into a suitcase... as Muttley's photo shows.


Link: Someone didn\\\'t read the script

lakeoffire Posted on 02/01/2009 10:50
9/11 in plane sight

people have only two real choices.

they believe what the government tells them

or

they believe it was an elaborate hoax of some kind

human logic and theory will tell me most people to believe the easiest and simplest explanation

Muttley Posted on 02/01/2009 11:16
9/11 in plane sight

"most people to believe the easiest and simplest explanation"

As opposed to paranoid delusions of elaborate conspiracies involving massive numbers of people who have all remained resolutely silent afterwards and for which there is not a single irrefutable fact?

Governments lie to us all the time (WMD in Iraq springs to mind) but they get found out. In the case of Iraq, why did the CIA not simply plant a few nukes or barrels of dodgy chemicals in the basement of one of Saddam's Palaces? It would have been a lot easier than this elaborate conspiracy proposed by the paranoiacs on here. Yet they chose to appear as liars and warmongers to the world?

As a last shot about the Flight 77 thing how did a "missile" knock over several lamp-posts and road signs before impacting the Pentagon? Why were the initial reports of a plane hitting the Pentagon ("like a missile") so congruent? Don't bother to answer I know, it was a CIA cloaking device projecting the image of a 757. And agents with stihlsaws sorted out the street furniture. Silly me.

Big_Shot Posted on 02/01/2009 11:16
9/11 in plane sight

'Big_Shot, forgive me, but of all the video evidence I've seen on the subject, I can't remember where I saw someone claim it was a missile. I have no intention of trawling through them all again, just to prove a point.'

Really, so its safe for me to assume that you just made that up. You said there were hundreds. Surely a quick google search would find some of these hundreds for you without too much trawling. I just found it a bit rich someone choosing to answer a straightforward question about eyewitnesses by claiming that there were others who said it was a missile. When there aren't, and never have been. By all means think what you want, I'm not trying to convince you otherwise, and I suspect you aren't interested anyway. But at least have the decency to not resort to just making things up.

lakeoffire Posted on 02/01/2009 11:19
9/11 in plane sight

Muttley, there's a few pictures showing that there were no street lights knocked out and no damage to the lawn

Muttley Posted on 02/01/2009 11:21
9/11 in plane sight

Phucking cloaking devices eh? You just can't rely on them to work when you really need them.

Keep wearing the tin foil hat.

attonBORO Posted on 02/01/2009 11:27
9/11 in plane sight

it all makes perfect sense to me, great link and interesting programme

Rauko Posted on 02/01/2009 11:49
9/11 in plane sight

A 10 second search for missle witness :




Link: .. cruise missle with wings ..

Muttley Posted on 02/01/2009 11:55
9/11 in plane sight

"it was LIKE a cruise missile with wings"

He is describing the behaviour of the aircraft, that is all.

Bacofoil anyone?

twoshots Posted on 02/01/2009 11:58
9/11 in plane sight

Selective quote.

Watch the full interview. He describes the American Airlines plane flying in.


Link: american airlines!

Big_Shot Posted on 02/01/2009 11:59
9/11 in plane sight

Nope, he doesn't say he saw a missile hit the building. As Muttley said 'LIKE' is the key word there.

Big_Shot Posted on 02/01/2009 12:01
9/11 in plane sight

Nice one twoshots [:D]

flaps Posted on 02/01/2009 12:05
9/11 in plane sight

"flaps, what plane wreckage? 16 ft hole, as opposed to 65 ft wingspan"

The plane wreckage shown in uncropped photos of the pentagon after the plane crashed into it.

As for the hole shape? Real life isn't like Tom and Jerry.

rivals_oldschool Posted on 02/01/2009 12:09
9/11 in plane sight

Why do people say time after time about the lack of wreckage.

The plane disintegrated on impact. It is that simple. What’s so hard to understand?

Look at the air crash at Madrid airport a few months back.
A rescue worker was quoted as

"When emergency crews arrived on the scene, "you couldn't distinguish that there was an aircraft there, apart from the remains of the tail," Ergivio Corral said. "If you didn't know it, you wouldn't have been able to say there was a plane."

If a plane that couldn’t even make it off the ground completely disintegrated, I think one purposely trying to crash into a building might do just the same thing.



Link: link

BrokenLance Posted on 02/01/2009 12:18
9/11 in plane sight

Big_Shot, follow craig_pancrack's thread, and you'll find video footage of one government spokesman using the word 'missile' before 'correcting' himself.

If you're the type of person who believes the official government line, in spite of all the evidence against (yes I'm talking evidence, like traces of military grade thermite found in the rubble of WTC, and eyewitness accounts of explosions inside the WTC at various floors and basement levels, former USAF pilot stating categorically that it was not a commercial airliner that hit the Pentagon after his analysis of those two frames of cctv footage) then feel safe in the knowledge that you are not alone. There are a lot more gullible people like yourself who believe just as blindly.

Big_Shot Posted on 02/01/2009 12:21
9/11 in plane sight

No, he isn't an eyewitness. You said there loads who said it was a missile. Was that a lie?

sheriff_john_bunnell Posted on 02/01/2009 12:26
9/11 in plane sight

do you think perhaps that missile is a catch all term for something that is propelled at something, or did some bloke manage to smuggle a cruise missile into villa park to throw at Harry Redknapp?

j_d76 Posted on 02/01/2009 12:32
9/11 in plane sight

"Selective quote.

Watch the full interview. He describes the American Airlines plane flying in."



Interesting.

So in one clip we have a reporter stating (sometime after the event) that he saw an American Airlines plane fly into the Pentagon (like a cruise missile with wings).

And in the clip I've linked below we have a different reporter whose actually on the ground at the time of the incident saying it wasn't an aeroplane.

The key thing here is the timing. 1st reporter makes his statement sometime after the event, most likely after its been news-saturated that it was a jet airliner... he even goes on to say "I was listening to the events in New York on the radio and put 2+2 together". And the 2nd reporter who hasn't been exposed to any other outside news sources, since his report comes from being right there on the spot minutes after the impact, saying it wasn't a plane and he could find no evidence of a plane.

Its not a case of whose right or wrong, its a case of looking at the wider picture, and realising that saturating news coverage of one version of events that gets repeated over and over again becomes accepted as the norm.

So you either believe the first bloke whose recollection of the events he saw *could* have also been tainted by what he subsequently went on to see and read prior to his interview, or you believe the 2nd guy whose speaking from his immediate memory and experience of the event.

Any psychology students reading this? [:D]


Link: Johnny on the spot

sheriff_john_bunnell Posted on 02/01/2009 12:36
9/11 in plane sight

God help anyone who makes any sort of mistake reporting the next disaster that comes our way. If using an ambiguous term like "pull it" make sure you clearly identify what it means. Do not use similies, do not use metaphors. Do not make mistakes.

rivals_oldschool Posted on 02/01/2009 12:41
9/11 in plane sight

I’m quite sure the US Govt on an inside job could have managed to scrape up a third plane for the pentagon hit since they managed to fly two airliners into the twin towers packed with explosives (that nobody knew about) whilst also managing to shoot down a fourth airliner.

sheriff_john_bunnell Posted on 02/01/2009 12:42
9/11 in plane sight

psychological study regarding eyewitness testimony, rather apt:

Reliability of eye-witness accounts
Eye-witness testimony is often a vital factor taken into account by juries in deciding whether defendants are guilty or not guilty. It is important, therefore, that we have some idea of how reliable these testimonies really are. The answer to this question seems to be that they are not always very accurate. Cromberg et al. (1996) interviewed people one year after an air crash in Amsterdam. Of the 193 questioned, 55% said that they had seen the plane hit the building when they had not and 59% inaccurately reported that a fire had started immediately on impact.



This should not surprise us. Bartlett (1932) suggested that although we think we remember accurately, we are continually trying to make sense of what is around us and our memories tend to be fitted into existing schemas. This process is known as effort after meaning. Loftus’s research shows that memory is not simply a ‘tape-recording’ of past events.


lakeoffire Posted on 02/01/2009 12:49
9/11 in plane sight

"God help anyone who makes any sort of mistake reporting the next disaster that comes our way. If using an ambiguous term like "pull it" make sure you clearly identify what it means. Do not use similies, do not use metaphors. Do not make mistakes."

he's not just anyone tho is he?!!
someone of such stature should be careful of the words they use.

BigCasino Posted on 02/01/2009 12:52
9/11 in plane sight

Quick question.

If it wasn't the AA plane that hit the Pentagon then what happened to the passengers of the AA plane?

Gassed at the departure gate in Dulles?

One of them being a famous TV presenter/producer if memory serves.

j_d76 Posted on 02/01/2009 12:56
9/11 in plane sight

"we are continually trying to make sense of what is around us and our memories tend to be fitted into existing schemas"



Which adds weight to the fact reporter #1 could have just done exactly that. He did go on to say "he put 2+2 together after hearing of the events in New York", hence in his mind it MUST of been an American Airliner that hit the pentagon like a cruise missile with wings. - thats my take on it anyway.

The other reporter wasn't exposed to any outside influence and spoke from direct recollection... or at least thats how I understood both of those reports... I'll leave the rest up to the real pyscology people to work it out!

BrokenLance Posted on 02/01/2009 13:12
9/11 in plane sight

Big_Shot, if my lack of recall over where I heard/saw this, makes me a liar, then so be it. I can't be @rsed.

We've all seen footage of air crash sites. Pentagon exterior looked nothing like one. 16 FOOT HOLE!!!!!!!

FAA protocols were changed three weeks before 9/11, by Sec of Defense Rumsfeld, to a slower response, requiring FAA to get permission from the Pentagon to launch fighters in response to possible hijacks. FAA did this on the day of the attacks, but no one picked up the phone. Hence these hijacked planes were allowed to fly around in some of the most restricted airspace in the USA for over an hour and a half. Protocols were changed back to fast response on 9/12.

FAA tracking the 'plane' as it approached the Pentagon, stated it was flying faster than a normal airliner CAN fly at low altitude, and executed maneouvers that flight instructors of the alleged terrorist hijackers said they were incapable of making.

A total of 86 cctv camera footage was confiscated by the FBI. Not one of them, according to the FBI, showed a plane.

Also strange that most USAF personnel in charge on 9/11 were all later promoted. People got sacked after Pearl Harbour, but strangely no one's fault on 9/11, despite the FBI receiving warnings on threats to use airlines, as early as April 2001.

I remember Bush sat in that classroom, as an aide told him about the second hit on WTC. No facial reaction. He just sat there, as though waiting for news of further strikes, as though he expected them, till an aide took him off camera.

All the hallmarks of a cover-up, yet there are so many people prepared to go along with it.

They had the plan for this as far back as Cuba. Strike at their own people, and invade Cuba. Change Cuba to Iraq and you're good to go-just update the targets. War machine rumbles on, making money for Bush, Cheney and co. Russia is no longer an enemy, so what are they going to do? De-mob the biggest military machine in the world? Create a new enemy. Keeps the Middle East de-stabilised. On the home front, they take away all our civil liberties, cctv everywhere, identity cards, patriot acts, illegal phone tapping now made legal, tracking all your e-mails, and mobile phone use. We live a police state. All as a result of 9/11.

Bin Laden will never get caught, as no one wants to catch him. He's too easy to use as a scapegoat, and broadcast incorrect dubbing over his video releases (as was revealed by a German news agency).

Lies were used by the UK and USA to justify invading Iraq, resulting in thousands of deaths. You think they were the only lies those two governments have told? What is the WTC by comparison to the deaths in Iraq? A drop in the ocean.

lakeoffire Posted on 02/01/2009 13:18
9/11 in plane sight

The only thing i disagree with is the Bush thing.
He had to act like that, he couldn't just rush out causing panic.

However, were'nt there serverely less people at work in the WTC AND the pentegon on 9/11 for a non bank holiday or weekend?

attonBORO Posted on 02/01/2009 13:21
9/11 in plane sight

great points B_L

Chappy112 Posted on 02/01/2009 13:54
9/11 in plane sight

I believe something went on that day and the government were either responsible or knew about it. There are too many strange things that went on.

But some people believe and some don't so there ain't much point debating it, like someone said just look through websites and make your own mind up.

One thing I always wonder though is how these 3 planes were so accurate.


Link: Good site

scooby Posted on 02/01/2009 13:58
9/11 in plane sight

Didn't look like cruise missiles to me when they hit the twin towers. Or is it just the pentagon that you are reserving this special treatment for?

Pseudo-scientists FFS!

Big_Shot Posted on 02/01/2009 13:58
9/11 in plane sight

Hang on, you started this thread and have argued for 2 days. But when you get pulled up about something you posted, you simply say you can't be arsed. What can't you be arsed about? Backing up what you claimed. I'll take you not being arsed as an admission that you simply made something up in response to a question you were asked.

Chappy112 Posted on 02/01/2009 14:00
9/11 in plane sight

Well what do you expect Big Shot it is much easier for you to argue than him. He has to provide all this evidence and type out big long essays and you can simply say but the government said this or that's a lie.

Don't think I could be arsed either. I'd rather just keep it to myself what I believe.

BrokenLance Posted on 02/01/2009 14:06
9/11 in plane sight

WTC before 9/11 was no longer fully utilised, as many of the companies who had based themselves there had moved on to other locations. Estimate I heard was only about 1/3 of the floors were in use. No, Big_Shot, I can't remember where I heard it. Guess I'm lying again, huh?

Buildings themselves no longer met building regs, and would not have been given insurance when their inspection was due.

Recent purchaser Silverstein, adds 'terrorist attack' to the existing building insurance, a few months before the attacks.

'Renovation' work starts on numerous floors of both WTC buildings in the weeks prior to 9/11, reported by numerous employees.

During the attack people in the basement, report huge explosions, UNDERNEATH them, later excused by the FBI as gas tanks from the kitchens, and later rubbished by employees who state there is no gas in the building. Canteens/kitchens etc all electric. We also have eye witness account of other explosions going off inside the WTC buildings on various floors.

WTC7 just happened to be the FBI Evidence Building, as well as Giuliani's Emergency HQ, and was holding all the evidence in the Enron investigation at the time. We have Silverstein on video claiming it was 'pulled', ie demolished. All happened within 8 hours and setting of demolition charges normally takes weeks, therefore it was pre-wired with demolition charges. All three buildings fell in an identical manner. No skyscrapers before or since have fallen as a result of fire, or aircraft being flown into them. One building in Madrid was completely engulfed in flames for over 20 hours in 2005. It remained standing. Buildings were supposedly designed to withstand aircraft strikes.

Traces of military grade thermite/thermate found in rubble of all three buildings. Molten metal found in rubble weeks afterwards. Melting point of steel is over 1600C. Heat of fire no more than 800C. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the anomaly there.

Checkout in Plane Sight.Check out Zero, Fahrenheit 9/11 etc..... Don't take my word for it. Twin Towers, Bldg 7, Pentagon, flight 93, lack of FAA response to allow hijacked jets to fly unhindered over secure air space, the official stories on all these events just do not add up. Just because we don't yet know the truth, doesn't mean it isn't out there.

Big_Shot Posted on 02/01/2009 14:07
9/11 in plane sight

He doesn't need to type long essays if he doesn't want to. Everything he types has been sufficiently explained many many times anyway. But he made a claim in answer to a direct question I asked him, which he had obviously just made up. He won't admit it, so just say he can't be arsed.

Gibbos-finger Posted on 02/01/2009 14:09
9/11 in plane sight

look at this ive just put this on the other 911 thread
the whole thing stinks of conspiracy wouldn't terrorists have done it half an hour later when the building would've been full


Link: wtc

Big_Shot Posted on 02/01/2009 14:10
9/11 in plane sight

'Guess I'm lying again, huh?'

Maybe you are. You lied eariler.

lakeoffire Posted on 02/01/2009 14:18
9/11 in plane sight

http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=1032

BrokenLance Posted on 02/01/2009 14:24
9/11 in plane sight

Big_Shot, for the last time, I will respond to your claim of me lying.

I recall hearing/seeing people claiming it was a missile hitting the pentagon not a plane. Memory is subjective, and sometimes prone to lapses. I am either right in what I remember, or mistaken. Without a lot of digging, I cannot prove I am right, but why are people asking the question over this? Why are people trying to DISprove claims of a missile strike? Someone must have made those claims in the first place or there would be nothing to argue against, and because I can't recall who did, you accuse me of lying.

There is no evidence to prove a plane strike, and what evidence there is, such as regarding the speed, altitude and maneouvers of whatever hit it, does not match the capabilities of a 757, or the person allegedly flying it.

I'll ask you a few questions. How old are you? Are you black, white or somewhere in between? Where do you live? I could go on, but for every answer you give me, I could call you a liar. How would you prove your answers were correct? Anyone can say anything on here, within reason, and either the argument you put forward backs up your words, or it doesn't. In the case of a missile strike, the majority of the evidence indicates it was not a plane which struck the Pentagon.

So now it's your turn to put up or shut up. Let's see you provide evidence of a 'plane'. Not conjecture, not hearsay, find some PROOF.

rivals_oldschool Posted on 02/01/2009 14:31
9/11 in plane sight

Like popular mechanics?

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan?

A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide — not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.

Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"



Link: Tin foil hats

ian_elliot Posted on 02/01/2009 14:33
9/11 in plane sight

Why this fascination about 65 foot wingspan and a 16 foot hole?

I havent put this to the test in any way but I would imagine that when the wings hit what I'd assume is a fairly solidly built building, they would either be torn off on impact or would fold back alongside the body of the plane.

In fact I'd go so far as to say I'd ve very suspicious if there was a hole in the building that looked like a perfect cross-section of a plane (unless of course the building was a fake)

Senor_Chester Posted on 02/01/2009 14:34
9/11 in plane sight

Any creditability you had BrokenLance has disappeared in this thread. Why are you persisting on posting the same old points (in a more moronic fashion) that have been pretty much disproved (and ignored by you) by external, non US Government sources?

If you want to do a point at a time I'll be willing to give you a logical debunk.

As someone said before, and going back to your original post, if it was a setup do you not think they would be a load of footage about of a plane flying into the Pentagon? And as someone else said, think of the WMD's they could have "discovered" in I-rack.

Big_Shot Posted on 02/01/2009 14:36
9/11 in plane sight

You see this is my point. IF there were people who said they saw a missile not a plane hitting the Pentagon, you wouldn't need to go digging anywhere. This documentary you watched would have covered this in great detail, and it would have been in all those other silly documentaries. The fact it isn't suggests to me that its simply not the case, and you made that up in response to a question I posed.

As for proof. There's a clip of a bloke on this thread saying he saw a plane hit it. He'll do for me. I believe him.

j_d76 Posted on 02/01/2009 14:37
9/11 in plane sight

Gibbos-finger, you'll find hundreds of witness testimony and live on air accounts like that on the net.

You'll find hundreds of documents, hundreds of statements from organisations like Pilots for 9-11 Truth, Architects and Engineers for 9-11 Truth, Firefighters for 9-11 Truth.

Even the families of the victims of 9-11 are now demanding answers.

There are pages and pages of witness testimony, not just from the average bloke off the street who got caught up in the events of 9-11, but also from police, military, pilots, air-traffic controllers, and even politicians, all telling a different version of events that the government and mainstream media have constantly bombarded us with for the last 8 years.

You'll even find clips of spokesman after spokesman representing the government line, slipping up from time to time when talking about what went on that day.

But you won't see any of that in the mainstream. And rarely will you see it in TV documentaries simply because it goes against the "official" version of events.

The problem is there are thousands of consipracy theorists that jump on stuff like this and put their own spin on stuff so that the real message gets lost in a never ending debate about missiles, thermite, and remote controlled jets. And there are an equal number of people who believed everything CNN told them who won't even bother looking. Their mind is already set in stone. Both are as bad as each other.

You either believe one version, or you believe the other. Or you can keep an open mind and do your own research and come to your own conclusion.


"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance."


And with that, I'm out. Enjoy banging your heads together [:)]

Senor_Chester Posted on 02/01/2009 14:43
9/11 in plane sight

Theres 5 parts to this which should be linked in youtube but I've only just posted the one:




Link: Snotty nosed no marks

lakeoffire Posted on 02/01/2009 14:43
9/11 in plane sight

I think the bit on the video which shows the explosion before the plane hits tower two is creepy as. why would it do that?

Is it not down to the fact that the aluminium nose of the plane might not penetrate a steel structured building?

as if you can discredit BrokenLance, he's put loads of info on here and people have said, "no, its not true"

Senor_Chester Posted on 02/01/2009 14:46
9/11 in plane sight

"as if you can discredit BrokenLance, he's put loads of info on here and people have said, "no, its not true" "

I seriously had to check back on your previous posts as I thought you were being sacastic there!

Senor_Chester Posted on 02/01/2009 14:51
9/11 in plane sight

Taken from the other thread (we don't need 2) from our man the Lance:

"You either believe the official line or you don't. There is more evidence to support the unoffical line, in my opinion, but do your own digging, and make your own mind up. Don't be told what to think."

You don't have to fall into one category at all for a start and there is no evidence what so ever that can conclusively prove that the events that happened didn't happen how we were told they happened, even after years of trying. Your trying to come across as an intelligent uber philospher but your just churning out half baked facts from some crappy tv show! Keep it up though I'm enjoying this.

BrokenLance Posted on 02/01/2009 14:57
9/11 in plane sight

It's also clear in the footage of the second plane hitting the WTC that the wings penetrate the building. They do not liquify, shear off, or fold back along themselves.

We have witnesses, and supposed 'experts' trotted out on various videos and newscasts, giving their views on what happened. Why do they all differ to such an extent? You can't discount ALL the people who disagree with the government version of events as nutcases and conspiracy theorists when so much of the government version doesn't add up.

The laws of science do not change. They are there to be applied.

Steel does not melt at 800C, and no other skyscrapers in the world have been brought down by fire alone.

You can't set demolition charges in 8 hrs as they'd have you believe happened in WTC7.

A 757 was not capable of performing the maneouvers recorded to hit the Pentagon, and that hole in the outer ring was not made by anything the size of a 757. The alleged pilot was incapable of making those maneouvers according to his instructor at flight school.

No fighter jets scrambled, leaving the hijacked planes to fly off-course, over some of the most restricted air space in the world.

I know which version of events I believe. If someone presents me with convincing evidence to the contrary, I'll take it in, and judge it on it's merits. Might even CHANGE my mind, but I doubt it.

Muttley Posted on 02/01/2009 15:00
9/11 in plane sight

"you can discredit BrokenLance, he's put loads of info on here"

Where?

He has typed lots of shight and not provided a single link to any corroborating evidence unlike those of us without the bacofoil hats.

While we're on, can you settle a bet?

Who killed JFK? Martians, Commies or Gangsters?

lakeoffire Posted on 02/01/2009 15:04
9/11 in plane sight

Please can the people who discredit brokenlance provide us with evidence otherwise?????

coz ur not doing much to convince me (fence sitter) otherwise

ian_elliot Posted on 02/01/2009 15:07
9/11 in plane sight

>"It's also clear in the footage of the second plane hitting the WTC that the wings penetrate the building. They do not liquify, shear off, or fold back along themselves."

Again I'm no expert on construction matters, but I'd be surprised if the one of the world's tallest building - a skyscraper for civilian use - was constructed in the same manner as the Pentagon.

I'd have thought particularly the higher levels of the WTC were made of lightweight materials around a solid core, whereas a low level squat security building is probably built with a more solid shell.

Just a thought.

Big_Shot Posted on 02/01/2009 15:07
9/11 in plane sight

'It's also clear in the footage of the second plane hitting the WTC that the wings penetrate the building. They do not liquify, shear off, or fold back along themselves.'

I can't believe you've even posted that. I'll let you have a think and realise why there might be a difference in the impacts.

rivals_oldschool Posted on 02/01/2009 15:07
9/11 in plane sight

It would if you bothered to read the popular mechanics site.


Senor_Chester Posted on 02/01/2009 15:11
9/11 in plane sight

This is great, haha, when were done here will you start a thread on another subject - the moon landing or something BrokenLance?

leedfc Posted on 02/01/2009 15:17
9/11 in plane sight

BrokenLance you made some good points.
what makes me laugh when people say the government would not lie about something like this.
well for years they have lied about how the banks work.
eg.for every pound you put into the bank the bank can make 9 out of thin air.dont believe check it out for yourselfs.
thats why this crash is going tobe bigger than 1929.
so the house you own if you do,the money you got out of the bank it was not the banks its out of fresh air.if you get my meaning.
here a few things that you may know or not.

1,over 10000 usa troops in the 2nd world war were kept by stalin and worked to death with the backing of the usa government.
2.patton was going back to usa in dec 1945 but was in a car crash
for 2 weeks he thought for his life few days before he died he seems he was getting better then died the next day.
its now come to light he may have been murdered
his own book he wrote for his childern he said he was going back to fight for those troops the stalin had.
all this is coming out now as the files have been released.
3.bay of pigs {good clues in the JFK film}what went on.

back to the TT.
anyone who watched the clip of the penatagon building falling to me thats how a building falls not like the TT.
plane wreckage on the lawn come on how big do you think that came from a big plane.

as for bin landen it has been said for years he had been killed think about winter 2002.
these clips you see of him now look at them its not even him it doubles.check it out for your self
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=4GyIGEH1qV4&feature=related

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=AM9cEngcqVM&feature=related



ian_elliot Posted on 02/01/2009 15:20
9/11 in plane sight

>"well for years they have lied about how the banks work.
eg.for every pound you put into the bank the bank can make 9 out of thin air.dont believe check it out for yourselfs"

Wow - have they been lying about that? Was that a big secret?
I did an economics a-level 20 years ago and I'm sure I remember my economics teaching leaking that piece of top secret info.

But you're right though - governments lie and journos always tell the truth.

BrokenLance Posted on 02/01/2009 15:22
9/11 in plane sight

So many theories, so little time........

Actually I don't know how to post a link on here, that's why I've just recommended people check out the various sites, youtube etc. They go into the sort of detail that people here would probably not have the patience to read through. Better told with visuals.

To think, all this started about a question I asked, DOUBTING the theory put forward in the PLANE SIGHT documentary. We all have our opinions and beliefs. It's not a good idea to believe everything you are told, without wanting to see the proof with your own eyes.

Muttley Posted on 02/01/2009 15:24
9/11 in plane sight

Can you provide a link to the story about US troops held under Stalin?



I do agree that if Bin Laden was to be killed it would suit everyone if it wasn't made public. Al qeada keep their leader, US keep the Bogeyman.

Space_Face Posted on 02/01/2009 15:25
9/11 in plane sight

I did see planes full of people get flown into buildings with my own eyes. And you would have me believe it was military drones - the real planes had been dismantled somewhere and the hundreds of passengers shot dead after making frantic 'prank calls' to their loved ones.

flaps Posted on 02/01/2009 15:30
9/11 in plane sight

What is it about conspiracy theorists that prevents them from understanding rational and verifiable responses to their various 'ah buts'?


sheriff_john_bunnell Posted on 02/01/2009 15:40
9/11 in plane sight

"{good clues in the JFK film}"

are you talking about the FICTIONAL oliver stone film?!

Gibbos-finger Posted on 02/01/2009 15:41
9/11 in plane sight

well i think its got something to do with the nwo new world order the Illuminati one body to control the world starting with total government control of banks theres plenty of videos on youtube about this

leedfc Posted on 02/01/2009 15:52
9/11 in plane sight

was on the radio today.not england but usa

this is what i have found for you so far not much togo as yet.
http://judicial-inc.biz/patton_murder.htm

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1099384/Controversial-General-Patton-murdered-cover-secret-deal-U-S-U-S-S-R--new-book-claims.html

leedfc Posted on 02/01/2009 15:54
9/11 in plane sight

i said about the bay of pigs lol

BrokenLance Posted on 02/01/2009 15:56
9/11 in plane sight

Space_Face, check the top of the thread. That's the question I asked which kicked all this off.

j_d76 Posted on 02/01/2009 16:16
9/11 in plane sight

"I do agree that if Bin Laden was to be killed it would suit everyone if it wasn't made public. Al qeada keep their leader, US keep the Bogeyman."


Didn't you know?

Bin Laden is already dead [;)]

Take a look at this clip, its got some annoying yankee commentry on it and some bad language, but watch the whole clip.


Link: The Woman Who Knew Too Much

j_d76 Posted on 02/01/2009 16:17
9/11 in plane sight

Sorry, couldn't resist showing how deep this rabbit hole goes [:D]

Rauko Posted on 02/01/2009 17:40
9/11 in plane sight

Confirmation Bias :

"In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias is a tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions and avoids information and interpretations which contradict prior beliefs."

It doesn't matter which side of the fence you fall on .. we ALL suffer from confirmation bias .. you believe one thing (official story or conspiracey) - you will cherry pick information and evidence which supports your belief system ignoring the claims or relevencey of other information / evidence which counters your belief.

For those who claim the plane would have atomised on contact with the Pentagon .. 'cos theres a video somewhere showing it in an experiment - i seen it' .. fail to realise that that video was of an experiment where they were testing a new building material to protect nuclear reactors from aeroplane strikes.

The pentagon would NOT have been made of this material .. just re-enforced concrete.

For those who still believe the plane would have atomised .. question : what made the 16 foot wide hole then?

If the aircraft was atomised so no debris was left then it wouldn't have been in any fit state to make even a 16 foot hole.

We can't have the plane in one particular state (atomised) and so very little debris and then another state (not atomised) so that it punches a 16 foot wide hole in the building. Its not Schrodengers Cat .. Was it atomised or not?



two_banks_of_four Posted on 02/01/2009 18:27
9/11 in plane sight

The pictures of plane debris in front of the pentagon would seem to rule out it been 'atomised'.

two_banks_of_four Posted on 02/01/2009 18:34
9/11 in plane sight

"So, if the reports are correct, and no commercial airliners were involved in the attack, what happened to the original commercial airliners, and the passengers?"

The obvious answer to the rational person is that considering all the evidence for and against the scenario, the commercial airliners did fly into the WTC and Pentagon. This neatly removes the issue that was troubling you BL. Remember don't have nightmares.


Rauko Posted on 02/01/2009 18:43
9/11 in plane sight

But there was very little debris outside .. I'm not going to flan the flames of conspiracey here, but so little debris that it could have easily just been pulled out the back of a car and dumped to give a good photo opportunity .. (I'm not saying it was - just Devils Advocate time!).

So if there was so little debris (and only small pieces at that) - it would suggest that the plane was, if not atomised, smashed into itty bitty bits .. so again, what punched a 16 foot hole deep into the Pentagon?

The plane either kept its integrity to punch a 16 foot wide hole deep into the re-enforced concrete walls of the Pentagon - or, it smashed into itty bitty pieces on impact. Which was it?



two_banks_of_four Posted on 02/01/2009 18:49
9/11 in plane sight


From the popular mechanics report posted earlier answering the question of the lack of debris.

Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"


The same article on the size of the hole or holes

FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

"Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide — not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage."



Link: just read it

ian_elliot Posted on 02/01/2009 18:50
9/11 in plane sight

Question for all you conspiracy theorists - if a commercial airliner crashed either into the Pentagon directly, or into the ground and then on into the Pentagon, where would you expect the debris of the plane to be?

It seems to me that most of the debris would be inside the shell of the Pentagon where the main impact was, and it seems to me that those saying "there was no debris" are basing their view on the photos of the outside of the Pentagon, rather than the inside where any debris would be.

Just a thought.

Big_Shot Posted on 02/01/2009 19:03
9/11 in plane sight

'The plane either kept its integrity to punch a 16 foot wide hole deep into the re-enforced concrete walls of the Pentagon - or, it smashed into itty bitty pieces on impact. Which was it?'

The problem here is you are saying that it had to be one or the other, when that simply isn't the case. There's no reason why the plane couldn't make the damage to the building AND also leave little debris on the outside of the building. Remember it crashed into the building, so I don't suspect it would be expected to leave lots of debris outside. Look at the plane crash in Madrid, there wasn't much left of the plane afterwards. So we can see other examples of planes leaving not as much debris behind.

Aurora Posted on 02/01/2009 19:08
9/11 in plane sight

fffs dont start him on the madrid plane crash.....apparently that didnt happen...it was a ruse by Real Madrid to unsettle Barca ahead of the forthcoming derby match...

Rauko Posted on 02/01/2009 19:49
9/11 in plane sight

First off - where have I said that no plane hit the pentagon?






Rauko Posted on 02/01/2009 19:57
9/11 in plane sight

Ah S*** .. crap .. and bollox!

Was just editing a biggish piece I'd written above and actually deleted the whole damn thing by mistake! Grrrr!

Jist was : Personally - I do think a plane hit the pentagon but doesn't mean I can't ask question ..

BrokenLance Posted on 02/01/2009 20:00
9/11 in plane sight

Popular Mechanics is talking out of it's @rse.

FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report.

They even show a photo of the SIXTEEN foot hole above this comment. The only 75ft hole was created AFTER the building collapsed. A typical example of a supposed official body putting out disinformation.

To get to the third ring, any aircraft would have had to go through the first and second rings, VIA the sixteen foot hole.

As for claims that the guy 'I held in my hand the tail section of the plane,' well, the tail section was 45 foot high, so I guess he must have been quite strong then???

flaps Posted on 02/01/2009 20:11
9/11 in plane sight

So in summary

The twin towers were rigged with explosives and then hit by either military planes or jumbo jets with pods or cruise missiles (depending on who you ask) then they were then blown up for good measure.

Tower seven was also rigged for explosives and was blown up too, luckily for the conspirators it caught fire from the WTC twin towers (wonder what they would have done had it not?)

These explosives were installed without anyone noticing.

The pentagon was hit by a cruise missile which looked like a jumbo jet, then plane wreckage was strewn around the grounds by some guys with a truck.

This has all happened without any of the hundreds of people who would have been involved leaking one scrap of information, nor going to the press.



Pretty impressive stuff.


Am I on the right track?

Rauko Posted on 02/01/2009 20:31
9/11 in plane sight

You forgot to mention, BrokenLance, that the Popular Mechanics article was written by a guy called Benjamin Chertoff who is a close relative of Michael Chertoff who was the Secretary of State for Homeland Security.

Benji claims he doesn't know if he was related - but his mother confirmed that they were cousins when people researched it.

Now, ok, its up to the individual to decide whether or not that tid-bit is relevent or whether you can therefore still trust the PM article (ie. vested interest) - but add to it that the PM debunk has been debunked by numerous scientiste who claim it "distorts" the facts and presents many "flawed conclusions".

Bit like Global Warming - X amount of scientists say we'll be living on an inferno in 2 years, X amount say that thats bollox. Depending on your belief system, confirmation bias will kick in and you'll believe what you want to believe ..

As for the "hundreds of people" involved .. never heard of compartmentalisation, Flaps? People told, on a need to know basis, to go and do their job without knowing how it fits into the bigger picture? Every single organisation in the world works on the principle ... as a result, you can have 100s .. even 1000s of people .. just "doing their job" without realising what their little contribution means in the grand scheme.

For those in key positions who could possibly join the dots " ... hhm .. Me and a couple of mates got told to wire up the WTC to blow a couple of months back" ... I think 1 bullet in the back of the head each would solve that.

As a result, you could be left with 1000s of people not knowing they contributed to 911 .. to just a couple who know how the picture fits together. And those 1000s are none the wiser.

flaps Posted on 02/01/2009 20:38
9/11 in plane sight

"Benji claims he doesn't know if he was related - but his mother confirmed that they were cousins when people researched it."

Wrong: http://www.911myths.com/html/benjamin_chertoff.html

"Here's the story, as best as I know: I'm not related to Michael Chertoff, at least in any way I can figure out. We might be distant relatives, 15 times removed, but then again, so might you and I. Bottom line is I've never met him, never communicated with him, and nobody I know in my family has ever met or communicated with him.

As for what my mom said: When Chertoff was nominated to be head of homeland security it was the first I'd heard of him, and the same for my family (and, FYI, we'd already sent the 9/11 issue to the press by then!). My dad and I thought there might be some distant relation. When Chris Bollyn called and asked my mom if there was a relation (introducing himself as only "Chris"), she said "they might be distant cousins.""


"never heard of compartmentalisation, Flaps?"

Yes I can see how that would work. Surely the guy who was told to install explosives in the WTC would never realise that what he did had a bearing on the events of 9/11. Similarly the guy who was asked to dump plane wreckage at the pentagon would assume it's routine maintenance. This all makes perfect sense.




Muttley Posted on 02/01/2009 20:55
9/11 in plane sight

flaps, we're dealing with the seriously deluded here, possibly Geordie grade. I've just looked at the stuff leedfc posted about General Patton being murdered to cover up thousands of US soldiers imprisoned in the USSR. Fantastic stuff a phuckwit quoting a whacko conspiracy theory to prove the validity of ANOTHER whacko conspiracy theory. Genius.

Just seen footage of the plane that came down on the West Coast Mainline today, not much left of that either and that didn't hit a fortified structure. Something wrong there n'all?

leedfc Posted on 02/01/2009 22:07
9/11 in plane sight

muttley check some of these out.

http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=endgame&hl=en&emb=0&aq=f#

http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=terror+storm&www_google_domain=www.google.co.uk&hl=en&emb=0&aq=0&oq=terror+strom#


if they dont work google vids enter endgame
or enter terrorstrom

i will let you make your own mind up.
i know what i think and that all what counts.

terror storm a must see

flaps Posted on 02/01/2009 22:34
9/11 in plane sight

I saw a BBC documentary that followed the story of Loose Change, perhaps the most famous conspiracy theory Internet movie. It was very even handed, though was able to cleary demonstrate why most of the conspiracy theories were tosh.

It was amusing to see the guy that made Loose Change respond to these counters, instead of having intelligent responses of his own he resorted to getting upset and swearing.


leedfc Posted on 02/01/2009 22:44
9/11 in plane sight

loose change 1/2 not all facts are right but even if one of them is right then it blows holes in what we are told.

i watch these films and know loads are bull@@@@ but you take out what you think is right.

terror strom is a must if you have not seen it.
it opens your mind.
do you still think the bbc tells the truth.
bbc today trying to push us to get rid of the pound and join the euro.
would you want that to happen i dont.
but then you read why.
BIG FAT GRANT OFF THEM.

two_banks_of_four Posted on 02/01/2009 22:48
9/11 in plane sight

Pretty poor BL, even by your standards. The picture above the quote from Popular Mechanics is of a 12ft hole in Ring C of the pentagon.

The plane hit Ring E ie the outside one and aparently made a 75ft wide hole. The article clearly states that this was before the building collapsed.

The question is this, where is your 16ft hole I cannot find metion of it anywhere?


two_banks_of_four Posted on 02/01/2009 22:55
9/11 in plane sight

Lee how when the film by your own admission contains errors do you sort the wheat from the chaff. If some of the facts presented are obvious bull@@@@ surely this casts doubt on the whole film?

Your point is based on an argument from authority ie the film is a more reliable source than the others available. If some 'facts' are not then surely its entire credibility should be doubted?

leedfc Posted on 02/01/2009 23:08
9/11 in plane sight

well that upto you.
i watch films and try and work out the facts from the bull@@@.
yes i have seen some that are way off line but some i think hey thats not right.
am someone with a avg IQ but that does not stop me asking questions.
what i do know is about history and what has happened in the past.
because of that i look at things different to the everyday person.

why did the bbc say building 7 had falling on the news with the building 7 still standing in the background.
please explain that one.

flaps Posted on 02/01/2009 23:31
9/11 in plane sight

"why did the bbc say building 7 had falling on the news with the building 7 still standing in the background."

The reporter made a mistake.

leedfc Posted on 02/01/2009 23:47
9/11 in plane sight

well to me i see that the bbc have been given the info before hand and made a mistake telling the world before it happened.

SOME MISTAKE.

elnino1 Posted on 02/01/2009 23:48
9/11 in plane sight

Regards the Pentagon crash, there a few things that make me wonder:

1. How did a low trained part time pilot manage to hit that target at such a speed?

2. why virtually no damage to the lawn?

3. Why no lamp posts damanged?

4. Why not release the footage confiscated footage from the gas station?


I don't know what I'm suggesting did happen, those are just some thoughts I have. Regards the NYC attacks, i think it's obvious that the official version of events are correct. These explosions mentioned are windows blowing out.

As someone else stated earlier, this all takes away from the question, who was behind this, as it is well documented there is no official evidence linking Bin Lid.

flaps Posted on 02/01/2009 23:50
9/11 in plane sight

"well to me i see that the bbc have been given the info before hand and made a mistake telling the world before it happened"

That's what makes you a bit of a loon, sorry.

leedfc Posted on 03/01/2009 00:15
9/11 in plane sight

why would you say that after everything that has come out over the years.
dont shot me down please do some looking youself.

if you had the time to look whats out there info wise i think you would be in the same camp.

will say it again
dont beleive what you are told only what you think.

flaps Posted on 03/01/2009 00:18
9/11 in plane sight

Leedfc, I'm sure you do have plenty of time to take in the vast amount of bilge spouted by people with little better to think about. While I can't dedicate so much of my own to this endeavour I'm happy that the official explanation of the events of that day stand up to scrutiny.

I don't mean to 'shoot you down', but we can go around the houses like this all day but ultimately it boils down you to a desire in you - and people like you - to find greater meaning in everything, regardless of how nonsensical it may be.

Take a step back and read what you're saying. It's bonkers. You're bonkers.

Rauko Posted on 03/01/2009 00:25
9/11 in plane sight

Ha! What Flaps is telling you Leedfc is that he doesn't believe any 911 conspiracey - but he certainly believes in time machines and tea-leaf reading because someone at the Beeb knew 25 minutes before WTC 7 came down that it had come down - when it hadn't, even tho it eventually did. Man, time travel tales always do my head in. That same someone at the Beeb also claimed to have lost ALL 911 footage when they "moved" and when that clip was asked to be served up from the archives.

Alternatively, the Beeb got a press release saying that WTC 7 had come down and someone (maybe the same would-be time traveler??) made the mistake of reading it out 25 minutes early when WTC 7 is plainly visible in the live shot behind the reporter reading it out!

One of the two options, anyway.





flaps Posted on 03/01/2009 00:28
9/11 in plane sight

The reporter just made a mistake. She talked about it in the BBC documentary on conspiracy theories.

flaps Posted on 03/01/2009 00:32
9/11 in plane sight

Actually, here's the video for it. If you have an interest in the subject you might want to watch, though it possibly won't meet with you approval. Skip to 42 minutes in. It would also appear that the BBC found that footage.


Link: link

appletonlesmog Posted on 03/01/2009 00:50
9/11 in plane sight

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH!

Can't quite believe this thread is still going.
Getting so mixed up in aimless half-baked, C****eyed conjecture on a subject which has been so throughly explored is an entirely pointless excercise. Myth-making is something that takes place within and without the government and media, and a great many charlatans and faux-experts are looking to make a name for themselves by exploiting this event. I reckon it's a good idea not to jump into bed with them too quickly!
Further, attempting to link the disjointed minutiae of a massively complex event characterised by both design and chance to form some kind of 'alternative truth' meta-theory is an inherently DUMB idea, which as BrokenLance has inadvertantly demonstrated leads to the posing of even DUMBER questions to which there are only thoroughly DUMB answers. It's an enterprise which entirely cheapens genuine research into the problems and processes which led to the attacks, the responses of our governments, their failures, their propaganda - namely, the real issues surrounding 9/11 and the 'war on terror'. There are enough genuine examples of governmental duplicity and bungling which raise real issues here, without trying to invent new ones THAT DO NOT EXIST outside the heads of a few disgruntled f&ckwits who are probably self-medicating.
One last thing: BrokenLance appears to a) think most people are resoundingly stupid and shallow, b) have a very high opinion of himself. Here's the thing: "I question". Good lord above my face hurts, and my trousers now fit me differently. I need to know what his sources are (apart from the telly - and for the record, Farenheit 9/11 is a terrible piece of journalism not even deserving the moniker 'polemic'). The media is a broad church, as is academia - what he needs to bear in mind is that everything is written for an audience and a purpose. Plane Stoopid is no exception: objectivity in research and presentation is simply impossible (in my considered opinion, which is no more valuable than yours).

These have been literally 10 WHOLE minutes of my life, which I will never get back. To anyone that actually read the above, I am very very sorry for wasting your time. Nighty night.

in-gibbo-we-trust Posted on 03/01/2009 00:55
9/11 in plane sight

BrokenLance:

not trying to have go but government version is the real one mate, take one look at fools who made these stories up and think about it.

Rauko Posted on 03/01/2009 01:09
9/11 in plane sight

So I see - let me see if I can get the rules straight then .. Whenever something crops up that supports the suggestion of a conspiracey then its just someone making a mistake .. Yet when something crops up that supports the official story, then Yes-siree - hard fact, no mistakes made there then - everything is how they say it. Is that right?

Some examples relative to 911 that crop up - point out if I've got the gist of the rules right ..

So we have Silverstien saying "pull it" which is demolition parlance for demolition of a building - he made a mistake, he didn't mean that?

We have Bush claiming to see the 1st plane hit the WTC live and commenting "jeez - what a bad pilot" before going to read about a goat where he was then informed about the 2nd plane hitting the tower however many minutes into his learning experience .. He made a mistake? He didn't mean that?

We have a numerous TV / Radio reporters on the scene telling us bombs were going off .. we have numerous firefighters interviewed telling us the same things ... they all made a mistake? They didn't mean it?

We have Bhutto claiming Bin Laden was murdered a few years back? She made a mistake? She didn't mean it?

We have reporters and eye witnesses on the day claiming the aircraft that hit the TTs looked like military planes / cargo planes. They made mistakes? They didn't mean that?

By the end of the next day after 911 - despite not having any foreknowledge of what transpired and what caught the US completely unaware - they had 19 terrorists and what they had for breakfast displayed on our screen for all to see - despite 7 of them turning up alive .. Thats just a mistake aswell - I think I'm getting it now.

Certainly in the US it was spouted that there was a link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda - which of course was retracted when it was pointed out that Saddam and Al-Qaeda actually believed in different versions of Islam and hated each other. Just a mistake tho .. nothing to do with blatently lying to the public to justify a war ..

WMDs in Iraq .. errm .. Well, I don't have to mention that one ..

We have a high ranker in the US claiming that a missle - erm - aircraft hit the pentagon. Fortunately, he corrected his mistake, so he obviously never meant that.

We have people claiming to have Mohammed Attas passport which survived a fire that apparently melted steel. Once more, they corrected that 'mistake' when it was pointed out just how fooking ridiculous it was.

Slightly related - different attack / different country - Menendez .. Another "mistake" ..

I could go on - ok .. so its a "mistake" when something is said which points to a conspiracey - fook me - a lot of people make mistakes .. Theres what - 10 "mistakes" I've just pulled off the top of my head.. fook me, how the hell does anything work when there are so many god-damn mistakes made ?

Do these people get ANYTHING right? Oh yes, they do, that which supports the official story and when the "lie" is watertight - that goes without question and you don't need to question it at all - no chance of a mistake being made there .. Any "story" that gets pointed out to have more holes in it that my underpants turns out to be just a "mistake" .. phew .. thank god for that.

Still - much easier for the public to accept incompetence as a reason rather than complicity - surprisingly, its better for the polls.











leedfc Posted on 03/01/2009 01:20
9/11 in plane sight

wow.
i could not explain that as well as you have as am dyslexia.
should give them food for thought.

YouAreMyBoro Posted on 03/01/2009 01:35
9/11 in plane sight

If you watch the actual programme you'll see that it's gash, and has a Partridge-esque presenter who keeps repeating himself whilst sat next to a video player and a telly. He keeeps saying question, and makes suggestions rather than making statements. He doesn't say 'this happened and so did this' he says 'is it outside the realms of suggestion that this could not be the case that it might be possible that...'

I recently read a book about German WWII technologies. The author suggested using the same kind of terminology that the Nazis are now in charge of the world economy, still have a base in the Antartic (at lake Vostock), and had flying saucers during the second world war. Now I'm not saying that there isn't a conspiracy to be uncovered, but I am saying that I'm half way through watching the documentary and it's cack.

By the way, I've watched a few other conspiracy documentaries and they were actually thought provoking. Apologies to hoofing this thread.

Rauko Posted on 03/01/2009 01:39
9/11 in plane sight

Leedfc : Unlikely .. :o)

As I mentioned a few posts up - people cherry pick information and evidence to support their belief system and ignore anything that questions it. I do it .. You do it .. everyone does it. We like to live in the comfy world which we believe exits and it takes a hell of a lot to shake us out of it.

If whats been said on this thread gets just 1 person thinking and asking questions about what we get told to believe - even if they come to the same conclusion as the official story come the end of it - then thats all that matters.


BrokenLance Posted on 03/01/2009 10:15
9/11 in plane sight

two_banks, there is video footage of the firefighters attending the scene, and it clearly shows a 16 ft hole in the outer ring. The 75ft hole only occurred twenty minutes after initial impact, and the roof caved in.

The two frames of video footage that were released only show an explosion in the outer ring, at the ground floor. Therefore whatever hit the building had to have gone through that 16ft hole.

Would you rather believe what you've been told, or what you can clearly see on live broadcasted video footage?

BrokenLance Posted on 03/01/2009 10:22
9/11 in plane sight

Strange that no one has yet mentioned that most of the alleged 'hijackers' turned up at various Embassies across the Middle East the next day, demanding apologies for being identified as such, when THEY WERE STILL ALIVE. FBI has not changed the official list of the hijackers, seven years later.

Official version of events DOES NOT ADD UP.

Muttley Posted on 03/01/2009 10:49
9/11 in plane sight

"Strange that no one has yet mentioned that most of the alleged 'hijackers' turned up at various Embassies across the Middle East the next day, demanding apologies for being identified as such, when THEY WERE STILL ALIVE."

People bearing the same names as the named hijackers?

Have you read the official report on 9/11, or as I suspect, stuck to the rabid meanderings of the delusional? Read the critiques of the conspiracy theories they are ALL founded on flawed science, sensationalism and ignorance.

I agree that you should question that which is presented as fact but when there is no other logical alternative you should just acknowledge that sometimes shidt happens.

leedfc Posted on 03/01/2009 11:37
9/11 in plane sight

Alex Jones Show, December 23, 2008 Building 7.
might clear some things up.
am going to watch it now.
copy and paste

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=T8zXPoUq7vc

two_banks_of_four Posted on 03/01/2009 11:39
9/11 in plane sight

see linked picture. Looks a bit bigger than 16ft to me or perhaps the fire engine and firefighters are tiny?

As far as I can tell after 5 minutes of reading you are repeating a myth that was first perpetuated by 'Loose Change'. A film that we have already established contains "obvious bull@@@@"

Would you rather believe what you've been told, or what you can clearly see on contemparaneous photos.


Link: evidence?

flaps Posted on 03/01/2009 11:43
9/11 in plane sight

The problem, Rauko, is that conspiracy theorists done come up with explanations of evidence of their own. I'd be much more open to such ideas if, instead of using bad science and lies (examples include the doctored video footage to show the collapse of the twin towers, cropped images of the pentagon) to discredit the accepted version of events they actually came up with some facts and evidence themselves.

Sorry i don't take it seriously, but it's like saying there's a goblin living in my telly drawing what I see on screen, then accusing me of being stupid for not opening up my TV to find out for myself.

So, Rauko, show me the goblin.

two_banks_of_four Posted on 03/01/2009 11:43
9/11 in plane sight

Just so we know who Alex Jones is. I remember watching him on numerous UFO documentaries back in the day.


Link: American paleoconservative

elnino1 Posted on 03/01/2009 11:49
9/11 in plane sight

Looking at that photo, I would again ask, how the hell did a virtually untrained pilot manage to steer that plane into the building without damaging the lawn?


elnino1 Posted on 03/01/2009 11:50
9/11 in plane sight

What do you think of the lack of damage to the lawn and surrounding light posts flaps? Pretty weird?

hewielewie Posted on 03/01/2009 11:58
9/11 in plane sight

So we have two points here:

1. The official version of events does not add up.

2. The unofficial (conspiracy) version of events does not add up.

The only way we are going to find out is to get these guys in.


Link: Those pesky kids

flaps Posted on 03/01/2009 12:15
9/11 in plane sight

"What do you think of the lack of damage to the lawn and surrounding light posts flaps? Pretty weird?"

This image:

http://67.19.222.106/rumors/images/pent2.jpg

Shows the damage to the front of the pentagon building and ground in front. You can see the damage caused by the wings. The plane didn't skid into the building, it crashed into it, penetrating deep into this massive structure:

http://67.19.222.106/rumors/images/pentagon.jpg

This is taken from: http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.asp

Included there is a quote from someone who witnessed the event described lamp posts being clipped. Are there pictures showing intact lamp posts close to the pentagon?

I don't know anything about the skill of the pilot, or the skill required to crash a jumbo jet into a buiilding. Do you?

Big_Shot Posted on 03/01/2009 12:29
9/11 in plane sight

'Strange that no one has yet mentioned that most of the alleged 'hijackers' turned up at various Embassies across the Middle East the next day, demanding apologies for being identified as such, when THEY WERE STILL ALIVE. FBI has not changed the official list of the hijackers, seven years later.'

More lies. Please stop making things up.

darlonorth Posted on 03/01/2009 12:53
9/11 in plane sight

BrokenLance- So where were you on September 11th? There is evidence to suggest that you were responsible for the attacks. The lengths you are going to place the blame on others doesn't sit right with me. Its obvious that you are trying to cover something up. Ther's a conspiracy by people like you to put the blame on the US government, to deflect attention from your own involvement in this mass murder. You have blood on your hands.

From the several thousand eye witness's in New York I have seen evidence that one person said, ' There was chaos all around, no one knew what the hell was happening, I'm sure I heard someone with an English accent in the street before the second attack, i'm not that good with accents, It may have been an Australian, no wait a minute, I'm certain is was an English man'' -how do you explain this? why would this witness say this if you weren't there?

I have been unable to find any video evidence on any website showing your location that day. Surely in the age of CCTV and mobile-cameras you would have provided video evidence to prove you were not responsible. Please do not try to tell me that there is no video evidence of your location. Or has the video evidence been destroyed? If you have destroyed it ..why? what have you got to hide.

It doesn't take a genius to search Wikipedia and see that -and I'm quoting here- ''The term ''LANCE'' has become a catchall for a variety of different pole weapons based on the SPEAR'' Now its obvious to anyone that a MISSILE -like a spear- is a weapon aimed at a target from a distance. So your name brokenLANCE is directly related to the word Missile. Its obvious this a codename you use as a cover because you fired the missile at The Pentagon.

You posted the first message in this thread on the date 31-12 at 12:22. Looking at those numbers, in particular the 3.1.1 and the 1.2.2.2. ....1222 - 311 = 911 or in other words 9/11.

Anyone who opens their eyes, uses their brains, and doesn't swallow what the government tells them can see the above evidence that you are responsible for the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon. You are a mass murderer. I'm telling the feds on you.

This is all bullS*** of course but proves any freak with a little bit of time can find 'evidence' to back up their agenda and skewed view of reality. I'm a firm believer that the conspiracy theorists are all deluded.

BrokenLance Posted on 03/01/2009 13:12
9/11 in plane sight

darlonorth, excellent post ;-) Actually, I was due to fly on 9/13, but my flight got cancelled.

Big_Shot, you're getting VERY tiresome! I get my information from the same sources as you do, the controlled media and the internet. Go take it up with them. In particular, parts 10 and 11 of the Zero documentary.

Just watched Terrorstorm-very informative.

I’d heard rumours about the black-ops which put the Shah on the throne in Iran in the fifties, but not details which concluded the UK was involved at the time.

Other false flag ops such as Johnson trying to get the Israelis to sink one of his own ships as an excuse to invade Egypt were not known to me, nor was the STAGED Gulf of Tonkin incident which started the Vietnam War. Just goes to show the Americans will go to any lengths to expand their global influence.

Footage on there now adds weight to the allegations about 7/7, and based on what happened with 9/11, I can believe Bliar would adopt the same tactics Bush used to get his popularity ratings up once more, and strengthen support for an illegal war.

Another point about WMD in Iraq….last year the American Military announced it had found some. It produced ‘Yellowcake’ and claimed it was part of Saddam’s stockpile. It was allegedly found in Iraq, months previously, but instead of publicizing the find immediately, to disprove allegations that there were no WMD in Iraq, it was decided to ship it all secretly back to the US, before displaying it there.

‘Honest, we really found it in Iraq. Why would we lie?’

Oh, I can think of a few reasons…….

If after viewing all the available evidence, you can still believe government versions of events, concerning 9/11 and other incidents, all I can say is there are none so blind as those who will not see, and there are quite a few out there.

newjersey Posted on 03/01/2009 13:30
9/11 in plane sight

Having lived through this a little more than most on here, I take a lot of interest in this topic and have watched documentary after documentary about it and read article after article. I've had to bit my tongue several times while reading this shoddy trail.

To believe anything ANY government tells you wholesale is a stupid position to take. Doubtless, we will find out more about what really happened that sunny Tuesday in September in time.

But I am more than 100% certain that nothing from In Plane Sight will be part of that truth.

It is sensationalist uber-right wing nonsense of the worst kind, flimsy and more than a little partial.

To assume that it presents anything new or raises questions that haven't already been answered or to believe that it is presented in some quest for truth is just naive.

For example, if the paranoid big-govt-is-out-to-get-us Christian nutter in the video had any interest in the truth, he would have shown:

The photos of the bigger crater at the Pentagon
The eyewitness accounts of people who saw the plane
The logistics of an aircraft hitting the building
Pods on other commercial aircraft
etc etc

But he doesn't. Because like all conspiracy theorists, that's not what he is interested in.

The truth may be out there, people, but please don't fall for this bunch of arse






ian_elliot Posted on 03/01/2009 13:49
9/11 in plane sight

>"well to me i see that the bbc have been given the info before hand and made a mistake telling the world before it happened.

I don't believe I just read that...

So lets get this straight, not only did the US Government launch the attacks, they also gave press releases to the major broadcasters half an hour or so before the attacks and asked them if they wouldn't mind keeping it all hush hush until they had happened?

You couldn't make it up. Actually... you just did!

leedfc Posted on 03/01/2009 13:50
9/11 in plane sight

heres the updated one.

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-8136133221213939183&ei=z2lfSbLbNIrojgKy29H7CA&q=terror+storm+final+cut&hl=en

for people who have not watch this please do.

BrokenLance Posted on 03/01/2009 14:06
9/11 in plane sight

Not just the BBC. Think you'll find CNN broadcast a similar report about an hour before WTC7 went down-also shown on Terrorstorm.

newjersey, my first post actually queries what Plane Sight presented.

Lots of different documentaries, and each present their own view. Only thing you can say about all of them, is most give more credible explanations than the US government. All you can do is view as much as possible, and make up your own mind. Don't let the government make it up for you.

ian_elliot Posted on 03/01/2009 14:19
9/11 in plane sight

So you actually believe that the US government briefed the world's largest news organisations on an attack they were about to launch on their own country?

I'm afraid there's no helping the pair of you.

j_d76 Posted on 03/01/2009 14:21
9/11 in plane sight

Rauko you're wasting your time.

People will believe a given thing, not on its own merits, but because its the accepted "norm". The accepted norms in society are those that are constantly repeated to us over and over and over and over again. The people who accept the norms recognize consistency as being more valid than evidence and reason. If a group of people believe a given thing, they will go along with the group to avoid the social upheaval and community opposition that occurs to anyone who dares to dissent and question those norms.

The points you raised in your post about how the game works are all valid. But those who have rejected any alternative viewpoint by what is known as reflex action won't even read them, or will simply pull out govermental press released quotes that try to counter each argument. They won't take those points on their own merits because they go against the "norm" of what has been repeated to them over and over again. They won't painstakenly research those alternative questions, just like they won't painstakenly research anything they've heard on CNN or out of the mouth of the Tony Blair's of this world. Its just easier for them to accept the status quo and go back to watching Eastenders. Its human nature.

So you will never get the open-minded debate you're looking for.
Save your energy. There comes a time when you decide that what feels right with you is the only thing that matters, and screw the rest.

ian_elliot Posted on 03/01/2009 14:24
9/11 in plane sight

>"There comes a time when you decide that what feels right with you is the only thing that matters, and screw the rest."

Please don't do that, this thread is comedy gold!

BrokenLance Posted on 03/01/2009 14:25
9/11 in plane sight

Ian, get real. TWO major news organisations made the same mistake???? You can dream up excuses for one, and for me that would be CNN, but the BBC was a LIVE broadcast, with WTC7 clearly shown in the window behind the American correspondent.

Silverstein is already on video saying they decided to demolish it. He or his staff may have released the statement earlier han intended. I don't pretend to know HOW it happened, but I can't deny it DID (unlike you and a few others).

ian_elliot Posted on 03/01/2009 14:26
9/11 in plane sight

Simple question : what could the government possibly achieve by briefing the media in advance as opposed to the unsupportable risk that someone in one of those organisations would spill the beans?

Do you know how news networks operate? Have you head about the news wire?

BrokenLance Posted on 03/01/2009 14:31
9/11 in plane sight

Ian, as I've suggested, the press release may have been accidentally released early. I doubt they intended to do it beforehand. I don't know how it happened, but it DID.

ian_elliot Posted on 03/01/2009 14:37
9/11 in plane sight

>"the press release may have been accidentally released early"

Wow.. thats quite a mistake. And its quite amazing that no-one from any of these news agencies have come forward and spilled the beans - you'd think that would be a nailed on Pulitzer for someone.

Or, alternatively in all the confusion someone from the PA head incorrectly about another building and put a story on the news wires, and in the fast-moving situation two networks reported it in good faith?

Just a thought.

flaps Posted on 03/01/2009 14:38
9/11 in plane sight

"Ian, get real. TWO major news organisations made the same mistake????"

Do you know what Reuters is? It's the news agency that released this incorrect info. Journalists use Reuters and other such agencies to pool and share information. In this case, Reuters had incorrectly reported that the tower had collapsed, then issued a retraction, but not in time for the BBC to make the mistake.

How can argue that it was a mistake when she reported it with the tower stood behind her is beyond me.

Tower seven wasn't demolished. It collapsed. That's what the firemen in the building think, and I think they have the experience and knowledge to know. Have a bit of respect for them.

leedfc Posted on 03/01/2009 14:38
9/11 in plane sight

Ian
do some searching and you will find out who owns the usa media.
i mean the top men then it might sink in then.

ian_elliot Posted on 03/01/2009 14:40
9/11 in plane sight

>"who owns the usa media"

Who owns the BBC?

flaps Posted on 03/01/2009 14:47
9/11 in plane sight

The funny thing about this is that people like leedfc have far more faith in the governments of the UK and the US than I do.

There's no way they could organise something like this, then keep it quiet, yet here the theorists are thinking that they're super-efficient and able to coordinate an effort like this that would take a cast of thousands. Incredible.

ian_elliot Posted on 03/01/2009 14:49
9/11 in plane sight

>"There's no way they could organise something like this, then keep it quiet"

Ah but they've not fooled BrokenLance and Lee though. They are good but not THAT good!

BrokenLance Posted on 03/01/2009 14:52
9/11 in plane sight

flaps, Reuters MISTAKENLY announced it had collapsed, and then COINCIDENTALLY it was demolished a short time later???

We have Silverstein on video admitting it was DEMOLISHED, not collapsed. I have not seen any footage of fireman stating that building collapsed, and even if such footage did exist, how do you explain Silverstein's admission on camera?

You should be the one wearing the tin-foil hat, I think.

scooby Posted on 03/01/2009 14:57
9/11 in plane sight

An amazingly executed plan let down by the fact that they had to give every news organisation in the world a playlist of how things were going to happen before they did. They couldn't possibly have them just report what was happening, could they?

It really is ludicrous that you think that they were able to con so many people yet made such childish and comical errors such as releasing the news of something that would have been reported anyway.

flaps Posted on 03/01/2009 15:17
9/11 in plane sight

"Reuters MISTAKENLY announced it had collapsed, and then COINCIDENTALLY it was demolished a short time later???"

It wasn't demolished, it collapsed. The firemen im talking about are on the video I linked to earlier. It's not coincidence that a building that was about to collapse was incorrectly identified as having collapsed already.

You lack thinking skills.

j_d76 Posted on 03/01/2009 15:25
9/11 in plane sight

"Who owns the BBC?"


Who indeed?

Take a look at the David Frost interview clip I've linked below.

Ask yourself why the BBC (who are supposed to be the most impartial news network in the world) censorded THAT particular comment.

Then ask yourself why the ONLY bit of editting done on the entire interview was done on THAT particular comment.

Then either convince yourself it was just another simple journo mistake along the lines of the WT7 interview, or open your mind a bit and take a deeper look.


Look, I don't think anyone is trying to convince anyone else what to believe is right or what is wrong. Just that people shouldn't take everything they're force-fed through the media anymore without asking a question or two - especially after the lies about WMD's that got us embroiled in a never-ending war.


Link: The woman who knew too much

ian_elliot Posted on 03/01/2009 15:28
9/11 in plane sight

>"Look, I don't think anyone is trying to convince anyone else what to believe is right or what is wrong. Just that people shouldn't take everything they're force-fed through the media anymore without asking a question or two"

I totally agree - but that healthy cynicism should apply equally to crackpot conspiracy theorists as it applies to government statements.

I don't think you'll find anyone on this thread who says that everything that the government tells you is accurate or "the whole truth" - simply that the theories put forward by these conspiracy documentaries have been thoroughly debunked time and again and yet some people think because they are saying the opposite of the "party line" then it must be true.


Rauko Posted on 03/01/2009 15:50
9/11 in plane sight

Its this Tea-Leaf reading Smurf again - Demolished, Collapsed or brought down by the pixies .. people can think what they will - it doesn't hide the fact that someone had forknowledge that it was coming down at least 30 minutes before it did - coupled with Silversteins later comment .. erm .. mistake ... that they decided to "pull it" .. doesn't it in the very least make you think?

I'm reading over and over on here about how "1000s involved and no body has let it slip? They aren't that good .. "

As has been pointed out - fecking LOADS of people have let things slip - the problem is people CHOOSE to ignore it. Isn't that what these "mistakes" are that you are constantly using as an excuse to support the comfy little reality we're told to believe? These "mistakes" ARE the cracks that the "1000s involved" are letting "slip".

WE are choosing to accept the "ohh .. that was just a mistake" excuse whem something is let slip. Phew - nothing to worry about then. The more "mistakes" that get pointed out - even if they are genuine "mistakes" - doesn't it make us question what else could have been a "mistake" even tho it conforms to official story?

If a "mistake" was made in reporting on a building that had collapsed when it hadn't .. if a "mistake" was made in saying "pull it" when in fact it collapsed with no outside help .. If a "mistake" was made by Bush saying he watched live the 1st plane hit the WTC when there was no live footage of it .. If a "mistake" was made in any of the others I mentioned above or the many other "mistakes" that could be dredged up - how the hell can we then blindly accept everything else without questioning it?

If you ran a company and I worked for you and I had been caught out making so many frigging mistakes - wouldn't you at least double check everything I done previously and did thereafter? And not - like what people seem to do - blindly accept what I say is a mistake and what isn't?

Somehow it seems - something is only a "mistake" when someone has been caught with their hand in the Cookie Jar .. If they haven't been caught - well, they are telling us the Gods Honest truth. Everything is fine. Nothing to worry about. Phew.




j_d76 Posted on 03/01/2009 15:57
9/11 in plane sight

"simply that the theories put forward by these conspiracy documentaries have been thoroughly debunked time and again"


But whose doing the debunking? Aren't they just as crackpot as those who put forth an alternative view depending on what "side" of the fence you sit on?

Are the debunkers people who swallowed everything they were told? Are they COMPLETELY impartial? Aren't these debunkers just doing a reversal of what the conspiracy theorist are doing - submitting "evidence" and offering an alternative viewpoint?

They're one and the same.

An open mind is a free mind. Condemnation without Investigation is the Height of Ignorance etc..... all old quotes from wiser people, but very relevant here it seems.

BrokenLance Posted on 03/01/2009 16:00
9/11 in plane sight

flaps, the Silverstein admission is shown on numerous documentaries. If you wish to walk through life with your eyes closed, there's no hope for you.

What about the Holocaust? Did that really happen, or was it more propaganda by the Jews, as the Arabs keep saying?

ian_elliot Posted on 03/01/2009 16:04
9/11 in plane sight

>"without Investigation"

Yep thats right - those quoting the conspiracy theories haven't done any - they are believing what they are being fed by the film makers.

Personally I think the conspiracy theories are a load of B******* but thats not my point - its that some people have the mindset that whatever view is against the orthodoxy must be right and the minority view is "telling it like it is" and anyone believe the rational explanation is falling for it hook line and sinker.

If anyone claiming any degree of intelligence subjected the claims of the conspiracy theorists to the same degree of scrutiny as the official line they would quickly realise its just a fanciful fairytale.

cantbearsed Posted on 03/01/2009 16:06
9/11 in plane sight

this what you on aboot



In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.

Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, “I said, you know, we’ve had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” Mr. McQuillan has stated that by “it,” Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building [emphasis added].17


Rauko Posted on 03/01/2009 16:41
9/11 in plane sight

Yeah .. thats it. When these "mistakes" are made "it" refers to a group of people and not a building. Of course it does - silly people for not understanding basic English. Can just imagine that conversation :

"Firefighters are in there" ..
"Better pull it then" ..
"it?" ..
"Yes it" ..
"It? The building?" ..
"No!! The firefighters" ..
"Oh them!" ..
"Yes, it!" ..
"No!! Them!" ..
"Bah - whatever - we'll just pass that one off as a mistake".





flaps Posted on 03/01/2009 16:45
9/11 in plane sight

"Can just imagine that conversation :"

If you properly read the post you're replying to, you'll see the 'pull' comment was made in an interview afterwards, not at that time, so you don't have to imagine silly conversations like that.

flaps Posted on 03/01/2009 16:48
9/11 in plane sight

"Can just imagine that conversation :"

If you properly read the post you're replying to, you'll see the 'pull' comment was made in an interview afterwards, not at that time, so you don't have to imagine silly conversations like that.

Rauko Posted on 03/01/2009 17:46
9/11 in plane sight

"Can just imagine that conversation :"

If you properly read the post I was replying to, you'll see the 'pull' comment was part of a conversation that Silverstein was relating :

"I SAID, you know, we’ve had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.”

My emphasis .. Don't worry tho - just a "mistake" on your part.

Go on .. read it again .. actually see whats being said rather than what you want to believe was said.


leedfc Posted on 03/01/2009 17:47
9/11 in plane sight

bit of info about the Pentagon also trying to take Rumsfield and cheney to court.
long read but few more things to think about.
please take alook.

http://www.infowars.com/?p=6628

flaps Posted on 03/01/2009 17:54
9/11 in plane sight

"Can just imagine that conversation :"

If you properly read the post you're replying to, you'll see the 'pull' comment was made in an interview afterwards, not at that time, so you don't have to imagine silly conversations like that.

hoija39 Posted on 03/01/2009 17:56
9/11 in plane sight

flaps - who do you believe perpetrated 9/11 then? Do you think it was masterminded by Bin Laden - as the official story dictates?

If so, can you please explain to me why not even the FBI feel there is strong enough evidence to go after Bin Laden re:9/11. Just check the FBI's most wanted page on him. He is NOT wanted for 9/11 because, according to them, there is not enough evidence to link him to crime. Don't believe me? Well look at would Rex Tom said, FBI Director of Investigative Publictiy, who stated:

“The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice then decides whether it has enough evidence to present to a federal grand jury. In the case of the 1998 United States Embassies being bombed, bin Laden has been formally indicted and charged by a grand jury. He has not been formally indicted and charged in connection with 9/11 because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11.”

The main question, then, has to be that if the FBI are not willing to link Bin Laden to 9/11, why are we, the public, and the mainstream media, being told that this man is wholly and exculsively and responsible for the attacks? In fact, so much so that we are to support a war on terror against him?


Link: bin laden\\\'s most wanted page over at fbi

ian_elliot Posted on 03/01/2009 18:03
9/11 in plane sight

hoija I think your basic inability to understand the written word may be behind some of your problems.

Nowhere in your quote does the FBI bloke say they don't think Bin Laden was connected with 9/11. He says they don't have "hard evidence".

Its like in this country when the CPP decide not to prosecute a case even if they know damn well they have the perpetrator, when they lack sufficient evidence that is admissable in court. It doesn't mean that they don't have good reason to believe that their suspect is guilty, just that they don't have enough evidence to convict on.

scooby Posted on 03/01/2009 18:07
9/11 in plane sight

Interesting quotes from the Feds there. Just remind me, are we allowed to believe what the government say now or not? I can't keep track of when it is ok to blindly believe what the government say or not. You will keep us informed of who we are allowed to listen to won't you? I'd hate to be one of those people who just believes what we are told, that is of course unless it is you telling me who to believe.

j_d76 Posted on 03/01/2009 18:08
9/11 in plane sight

I already posted about that a long way up the list hoija39. None of the quoir picked up on it though or bothered mentioning it among other stuff (like the censored Bhouto interview claiming bin Laden is dead).

Selective reading me thinks, only picking holes in stuff that's already been "debunked" is easy didn't you know? [;)]

j_d76 Posted on 03/01/2009 18:20
9/11 in plane sight

"Its like in this country when the CPP decide not to prosecute a case even if they know damn well they have the perpetrator, when they lack sufficient evidence that is admissable in court. It doesn't mean that they don't have good reason to believe that their suspect is guilty, just that they don't have enough evidence to convict on."


So they don't have enough evidence for a conviction of bin Laden, but apparantly have enough to justify a never-ending war that has so far killed hundreds of thousands of people?

Ok.

flaps Posted on 03/01/2009 18:23
9/11 in plane sight

"flaps - who do you believe perpetrated 9/11 then?"

I think Islamic fundamentalists planned and carried out the attacks. I'm quite prepard to believe they had the backing of an Islamic state in doing so. I'm also happy to believe that Bin Laden has died and that certain sections within the american military would rather his status is unconfirmed rather than being confirmed dead.


ian_elliot has done a fine job demonstrating how you have misinterpreted your own quote.

Who do you think carried out the 9/11 attacks?


"Selective reading me thinks, only picking holes in stuff that's already been "debunked" is easy didn't you know?"

The problem is that there is no coherency to the conspiracy arguments. There's no single unified theory that brings it together. It's just a series of questions posed based on chinese whispers, falsehoods and innaccuracies. Why not tell me what you think the chain of events were? This is what I think happened:

* Islamic terrorist group, with the backing of an Islamic state decides to commit an act of terrorism on US soil

* They choose a series of highly symbolic targets

* They have guys armed with low-tech weapons take advantage of lax security to hijack several planes (plane hijacking is nothing new)

* They fly them into these targets*

* The twin towers fall, the pentagon is hit, one of the planes is crashed after a struggle with passengers




* just an addition: ome of the hijackers had flight training, you often hear that they 'wouldnt have been able to fly a jumbo jet'. I've never flown one, I don't know how hard it is. What I do know is that the most difficult part of flying a plane is takeoff and landing. The planes were already in the air. I imagine following a baring then pointing it in a certain direction is one of the less demanding skills.

flaps Posted on 03/01/2009 18:28
9/11 in plane sight

"So they don't have enough evidence for a conviction of bin Laden, but apparantly have enough to justify a never-ending war that has so far killed hundreds of thousands of people?"

Hundred of thousands of people have died in Afghanistan?

leedfc Posted on 03/01/2009 18:32
9/11 in plane sight

anyone heard of harrp.
China Earthquake caused by HAARP weapon.
watch this one i dont know what to think of this one.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=ecLwVgvvTvU&feature=related

if you dont want to watch the start skip to about 7.00mins
its 10 mins long.

BrokenLance Posted on 03/01/2009 18:32
9/11 in plane sight

Silverstein's EXACT words from that interview, after stating he'd been talking to the fire crew and 'they didn't think they could contain the fire', was "we agreed the smartest thing would be to pull it, and then we watched the building collapse." IT, not THEM. PULL is slang for DEMOLISH in the industry.

I know the yanks don't speak proper English, but there is no way you can confuse the word IT with THEM. Even the yanks don't B******ise the language that much.

Why do you think this comment, on video, has been so widely publicised? That's what he actually said, and that is the general interpretation of his words.

Do your own research on the guy. Perhaps the Jews were behind the whole thing ;-). Silverstein certainly made a lot of money out of 9/11. So did all Cheney's defense contractors.

People will believe what they want, and pick and choose the evidence that backs up their own beliefs. But IS it their OWN beliefs, and not something they have been brainwashed by, by the US government? There is more evidence for a conspiracy, than supports the government's explanation of events.

They've done similar false-flag work before in Iran, and Vietnam. Planned to do the same to Cuba. Even tried to sink their own ship in the Med (with Israel's help) to give them an excuse to invade Egypt. Would you really trust the American government to tell the truth?

In a democracy, a dissenting voice is often looked upon with suspicion, if not outright derision. We all know the Yanks are so blindly patriotic, most will not hear a word spoken against their government. But why do more than 80% of the American families affected by 9/11 think the whole thing was an inside job? Why are they still protesting and demanding answers from their government?

flaps Posted on 03/01/2009 18:35
9/11 in plane sight

"Why do you think this comment, on video, has been so widely publicised? "

Because it's been latched on by conspiracy theorists?


"But why do more than 80% of the American families affected by 9/11 think the whole thing was an inside job? "

Got a source for this? Or have you made it up?

"In a democracy, a dissenting voice is often looked upon with suspicion, if not outright derision."

How does democracy lead to a dissenting voice being looked upon with suspicion? What system of government encourages dissenting voices? What is going on in your mind to link these two notions together and believe this to be a meaningful statement?


"Perhaps the Jews were behind the whole thing"

So you're a a racist. Nice.

Rauko Posted on 03/01/2009 18:37
9/11 in plane sight

Still trying to push that one Flaps ?? Want me to spell it out?

Silverstein - giving an interview about 911 .. WTC 7 crops up .. He RELATES A CONVERSATION he had at the time where they were trying to decide what to do in regards WTC 7 .. HE SAID .. in the interview ... "I SAID [relating to the conversation they had the time] ... you know, we’ve had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it [relating to the building]" ... In the interview they were talking about the building - not Fireman Sam on the 12th floor.

You're repeating your post like a Mantra thinking that the more you say the more chance people will believe it .. Which brings us to what hoija39 said ... there is NO evidence linking Bin Laden to 911 .. All we've had is a Mantra : "911 - 19 terrorists - Osama Bin Laden - Al-Qaeda - 911 - 19 terrorists - Osama Bin Laden - Al-Qaeda - 911 - 19 terrorists - Osama Bin Laden - Al-Qaeda - 911 - 19 terrorists - Osama Bin Laden - Al-Qaeda - 911 - 19 terrorists - Osama Bin Laden - Al-Qaeda"

Say it enough and people will believe it without any evidence needed to put forward and they'll just eventually assume its true .. "it must be - its what the government said"

Now - I don't know if 911 was an inside job or orchastrated from a cave in Afghanistan - I don't know. Thing is - neither do you. The only people who know for certain were the people who were actively involved in it - Al-Qaeda or Al-CIAda .. take your pick. However, that doesn't mean questions can't be asked and answers sought .. and if people make "mistakes" either in their duty or in the explanation of events then those people need to be hauled over the coals until the truth - one way or the other - comes out.

As I mention above myself, J_D76 .. things do get ignored .. At work in regards of something like 911 - on both sides of the argument it has to be said - is Confirmation Bias .. a psychlogical state that we all suffer from .. Its the process of having a pre-concieved idea or belief (real or implanted) and then only seeking information or evidence which supports that belief and ignoring anything that counters it.

Yes, the conspiracey "nut jobs" automatically believe that 911 was an inside job and will only look for evidence that supports that belief - like wise tho, the "Flat Worlders" automatically look for evidence which supports their point of view and both sides ignore the bits in the middle where the truth can be found.

For instance ... as pointed out in numerous posts on this thread - the "official story" brigrade say :

"A conspiracey this big would need 1000s of people involved and people would easily find out about it" ..

yet fail to see the irony of what they are saying in that they believe :

"1 man in a cave planned it and 19 guys with box cutters simultaneously hijacked 4 aircraft in the skies of the worlds only Super-Power and it was completely missed by the most highly funded intelliegent agencey in the world."

Why 1000s in a cospiracey when the "reality" is 1 man in a cave and 19 Arabs?

And they say conspiracey theorists are bonkers ..



j_d76 Posted on 03/01/2009 18:37
9/11 in plane sight

The war on terror isn't exclusive to the borders of Afghanistan. There's a little country called Iraq nearby.

But now you're going to tell the world Iraq had nothing to do with the war on terror aren't you? No need though, you already proved my selective reading comment [;)]

j_d76 Posted on 03/01/2009 18:38
9/11 in plane sight

"Interesting quotes from the Feds there. Just remind me, are we allowed to believe what the government say now or not?"

No, you just need to read what Rauko posted at 15:50. You might learn something. But I doubt it.

ian_elliot Posted on 03/01/2009 18:39
9/11 in plane sight

>"But why do more than 80% of the American families affected by 9/11 think the whole thing was an inside job? "

Is that less or more than the percentage of American families that believe that the Moon Landing was shot in a big sound stage in Hollywood?

leedfc Posted on 03/01/2009 18:40
9/11 in plane sight

HERE COMES THE RACIST CARD.
cant win so pull that one.

flaps Posted on 03/01/2009 18:43
9/11 in plane sight

"the "Flat Worlders" automatically look for evidence which supports their point of view and both sides ignore the bits in the middle where the truth can be found."

Wait - you think the truth of the shape of the earth is somwhere in the 'middle' between flat and round?


"yet fail to see the irony of what they are saying in that they believe :"

I didn't say one man in a cave. Again, you're demonstrating a worrying lack of reading skills. I think a state-backed islamic terrorist organisation carried out the 9/11 attacks. But yes, I do think it requires less effort for a bunch of guys to do what they did than for a governmental organisation to rig buildings with explosives and make hundreds of people dissappear etc as you would have us believe.

Do you think the hijackings of the 70s and 80s never happened? Or did the US gubment do them too?




Your repeated view is that there is credibility on both sides of the argument, and that both should be looked at equally. This is not true. The accepted version of events is the fact, it's up to the conpiracy theorists to disprove this - something that they cannot do.

flaps Posted on 03/01/2009 18:44
9/11 in plane sight

"cant win so pull that one."

Wait - doesn't pull exclusively mean 'demolish with explosives'?

flaps Posted on 03/01/2009 18:45
9/11 in plane sight

"The war on terror isn't exclusive to the borders of Afghanistan. There's a little country called Iraq nearby.'

The attack on which was not justifed by the 911 attacks.

j_d76 Posted on 03/01/2009 18:56
9/11 in plane sight

"The attack on which was not justifed by the 911 attacks."

No it was justified on WMD's. The very same WMD's the Bush administration said it didn't want falling into terrorist hands. The terrorist hands that supposedly perpertrated 9-11.


"Wait - doesn't pull exclusively mean 'demolish with explosives'?" I actually like that one [;)]

Rauko Posted on 03/01/2009 18:56
9/11 in plane sight

Flaps - You'll also note that I'm not a Tea-Leaf reading Smurf like what you think works at the BBC and am unable to "read the future" or second guess what your typing when I'm currently typing my own post.

You think the world is round??? I'd suggest you do a little more reading as you'll find it isn't round at all .. ;) .. but now you're just trying to be silly / clever but two can play at that game - its actually an Elipsoid. So yes - not quite the accepted view postualated between the "round worlders" and the "flat worlders".

There is little doubt there are real "genuine" terrorist organisations in the world who carry out their own individual terrorist activities. They believe in the Jihad. However there are also many terrorist organisations that are funded and controlled by the intelligence agencies of the world - some of those agencies are the "goodies" and some "baddies" - and are used to fight small proxy wars around the Elipsoid (I was going to say "globe" but thought better of it).

And now you've summed it right up - thank you :

"Your repeated view is that there is credibility on both sides of the argument, and that both should be looked at equally. This is not true. The accepted version of events is the fact, it's up to the conpiracy theorists to disprove this - something that they cannot do."

So your finally admitting that you don't look at things equally - only the accepted version of events?

Or was that a Silverstein-esque "mistake"??





flaps Posted on 03/01/2009 19:01
9/11 in plane sight

"like what you think works at the BBC"

Why do you think I believe tea-leaf reading smurfs work at the BBC?


"So your finally admitting that you don't look at things equally - only the accepted version of events?"

I'm happy that the evidence backs up the accepted view of events. Neither you or anybody in this thread is able to provide counter evidence. I don't look equally at lots of arguments. I don't think the moon is made of cheese, for instance. Neither do I believe that arguments used by racist organisations for the removal of ethnic minorities for this country carry much weight.


Do you really consider all arguments to have equal merit by virtue of their existance?

Rauko Posted on 03/01/2009 19:29
9/11 in plane sight

Tea-Leaf reading smurfs - somebody obviously read the future at the BBC / Reuters / Associated Press in regards WTC 7 .. I just figured you were relating to a tea-leaf reading, future seeing, smurf.

No - of course all arguments don't have equal merit just because they exist. But - when there is "form" such as Tonkin, Liberty, Watergate, WMDs, Iran-Contra and many other scandals and conspiracies purputrated by governments around the world - and there is a chance - even if its itty-bitty - that the accepted version of events or the official story isn't what we're being told then we have to ask questions ..

Its all argument and counter argument and neither side is in full possesion of everything we need to know and we probably never will .. Those who believe the official story will constantly believe and constantly move the goal posts and would only change their view if Bush came on TV and confessed ... like wise, those that don't believe the official story aren't going to be convinced by any arguement or evidence. Thats what we do - we're all human and we all do the same thing.

Personally, with 911, I genuinely don't know .. on the one hand we have the official story .. on the other we have a large number of questions and anomolies .. you feel those questions and anolomies have been answered .. so be it, thats your right .. I'm never going to be able to convince you otherwise ..

However, there are many many people and even more as we speak - looking at it and figuring that it doesn't add up ... some of those are conspiracey tin-foil-hat wearing nutjobs .. some are normal people .. some are politicians .. some are scientists .. some are professionals .. some are military. They aren't all conspiracey tin-foil-hat wearing nutjobs - they are people who have genuine concerns.

Like anything - 911 can't be taken as an isolated incident and be judged completely on what happened that day. No-body can argue against - genuine or conspiracey - that we're being affected by its events 8 years on (and will do for many more) with either our involvement in Afghan / Iraq and possible upcoming others, stripping of civil liberties etc etc and a massive "making the most of it" agenda has been carried out.

The world isn't what we think it is - that much I am sure of - and we are constantly lied to about things .. sometimes malignently, sometimes for benign reasons .. but lied to or "spun", nonetheless - whichever word you want to use, manipulation of public opinion is at its core.

scooby Posted on 03/01/2009 19:36
9/11 in plane sight

Rauko, you sound like a paranoid mentalist.

BrokenLance Posted on 03/01/2009 19:38
9/11 in plane sight

flaps, check out Terrorstorm for yourself. Stick with it for the whole two hours. It's quite informative, and mentions the American Families canvassed about 9/11.

Democracies are nice, when everyone toes the line. If you don't, and you speak out about things, you make yourself a target, the odd one out, a dissenter, kill him!!!!! Many Americans won't hear a word spoken against their government. They voted them in, so any criticism aimed at the government is aimed at them also.

You missed the ;-) behind the word Jews. I'm no Racist. Actually, that IS one theory that's put forward by some groups (no I can't quote them, Big-Shot before you start). Feel free to accuse me of lying again.

You have to look at who benefits from something like this. Silverstein certainly benefited, but he didn't have the ability to stand down Norad so no fighter jets got scrambled. That was done by Cheney, who controls quite a number of defense contracts.

We now have a War on Terror, which has taken away our civil liberties, creates unrest in the Middle East with the permanent constructions the US Army is building in Iraq, and a fortune for defense contractors whose companies are run by the likes of Cheney and Bush senior. This War on Terror will never end. It's just another means of controlling the masses, and expanding American Influence across the Middle East.

Rauko Posted on 03/01/2009 19:40
9/11 in plane sight

Thank you Scooby .. you sound like a brain-dead hairy arsed monkey - nice to meet you.

Now - care to add anything worthwhile or is that the limit of your intellect?


flaps Posted on 03/01/2009 19:40
9/11 in plane sight

"somebody obviously read the future at the BBC / Reuters / Associated Press in regards WTC 7"

Yes it must have taken Nostradamus to make the mistake of describing a building in danger of collapsing as having collapsed.


"I'm never going to be able to convince you otherwise .."

For all your talk of evenhandedness, you certainly come across as somebody who has decided the american government is responsible.

The affect this war on terror has had on our civil liberties is real and can be seen. This is an issue that requires thought, energy and outrage. Silly theories involving secret explosives and miscronstrued statements only serve to distract people from the real issues and problems in the world.

A true conspiracy theorist could only conclude that conspiracy theorists themselves are in the employ of the government, instructed to throw people off the true agenda going on around them with laughable claims as have been put forward in this thread.

There is enough wonder and horror in the world for all to see without the need to make up a fantasy alternative reality.

flaps Posted on 03/01/2009 19:44
9/11 in plane sight

"If you don't, and you speak out about things, you make yourself a target, the odd one out, a dissenter, kill him"

This has absolutely nothing to do with democracy. This could happen under any system of government.


"Actually, that IS one theory that's put forward by some groups (no I can't quote them"

Maybe you should stop writing things you can't cite because you just come across as being a bit dim.

Rauko Posted on 03/01/2009 20:10
9/11 in plane sight

Once again tho Flaps your failing to see the link between a too-early report of WTC 7 falling and Silversteins later comment about how they should "pull it". If the decision had been made to "pull it" then it fully explains how someone knew before it came down that it was coming down. A lot of press releases get released early with a "don't broadcast until such and such a time" notice on it .. If the demolition had been delayed for some reason and the BBC never got notification of the delay and went ahead with the release ........

Just to have a laugh tho :

"Yes it must have taken Nostradamus to make the mistake of describing a building in danger of collapsing as having collapsed."

Shame they never brought in Nostradamus for the Twin Towers - hell, could have brought in Mystic Meg going on your logic instead considering they were damaged far more than what WTC 7 was yet no-one expected them to come down, were they?

So obviously - its not as easy to come to the conclusion WTC 7 was in danger of collapsing as what you seem to claim seems as tho the never saw it coming with the far more damaged Twin Towers.

Your making another big assumption in thinking that I think the US government was responsible - are you making these assumptions to fit in with your cosy world view?? No - even if there was a conspiracey - I don't place the blame on Bush or the US government - but elements within it and surrounding it. Bush couldn't plan his bedtime story let alone something like 911 .. as I mentioned above - 911 can't be judged as an isolated incident and neither can the alledged players in the game.

Bin Laden isn't just the terrorist as we are led to believe - he's not just the "black sheep" of the Bin Laden family which is in bed with the Bushes - his history goes way back to the CIA and, incedently, to the man currently backing and pushing Obama - Zbigniew Brzezinski - who was the driving force behind the Afghan resistance against the Soviets which turned into the Muhijadean and later the Taliban / Al-Qaeda. Yesterdays buddies - todays boogey-men. Or are they?

You said above that you feel that Bin Laden and his cronies carried out 911 with state help. I think your right - but, if a conspiracey exists, disagree with you on what that state was or more accurately, elements within that state. Thats probably the one area me and you differ.

There is a lot of dis-info gets spouted around the conspiracey world and passed off as true - I'll agree - but why, we must ask, would intelligence agencies spend so much time muddying the waters of a group of tin-foil hat wearing "paranoid mentalists" if it was all a load of bull? Don't they have anything better to do like - I dunno - trying to stop events like 911 happening? Or - is there something to hide? I don't know - I'm just asking questions.











flaps Posted on 03/01/2009 20:36
9/11 in plane sight

"Once again tho Flaps your failing to see the link between a too-early report of WTC 7 falling and Silversteins later comment about how they should "pull it""

Because there is no link.


"yet no-one expected them to come down"

But people in this thread would have us believe the twin towers were rigged for demolition. Why would those in the know save people in tower 7 but not the twin towers?



"Your making another big assumption in thinking that I think the US government was responsible "

I don't know who you think was responsible, and I don't care. Sorry if I didn't make it more clear but beyond the reponses I made to you, my post wasn't directed particularly at you.

flaps Posted on 03/01/2009 20:46
9/11 in plane sight

Got a question for you Rauko, how do you feel about every bit of information you have posted that apparently questions the accepted version of events having turned out to be based on a falsehood:

* 'cruise missile' youtube vide - an edited version, the full version of which has the guy describing it being a 'plane coming in like a cruise missile with wings'

* 'pull it' being a conversation at the time - it was in fact the guy recounting it some time later for an interview

* 16 foot hole - the hole is not 16 feet

* Benjamin Chertoff's mother claiming to he is a cousin of Michael - she didn't say that


Any thoughts?

Are there any things you have posted related to the events of that day that have not been disproved this thread?




sheriff_john_bunnell Posted on 03/01/2009 21:01
9/11 in plane sight

sometimes the bbc makes mistakes. they miss something quite important happening in this live news footage.


Link: doh!

BrokenLance Posted on 03/01/2009 21:14
9/11 in plane sight

flaps, type in 'Jews behind 9/1' and you'll get 350,000 hits. PICK ONE and do your own research. You can't seriously expect me to quote every source on the web.

I suggest you keep up to date on what's happening in the world, and then we wouldn't have to keep educating you.

sheriff_john_bunnell Posted on 03/01/2009 21:22
9/11 in plane sight

how is looking at Jew hate websites keeping up to date with what is happening in the world?

lakeoffire Posted on 03/01/2009 21:26
9/11 in plane sight

I actually believe it was terrorists BUT

anyone with a brain can't watch these video's without thinking there's something fishy about a lot of it.

1)why were there explosions before the 2nd plane hit tower two?
2)how did a non flying expert hit such a small target (the pentegon) without bouncing off the lawn first?
3)why were there no windows on the 2nd plane when it was a commerical jet?


where's moulder when we need him?

ian_elliot Posted on 03/01/2009 21:30
9/11 in plane sight

>"2)how did a non flying expert hit such a small target (the pentegon) without bouncing off the lawn first?"

a) Why do you say "non flying expert" - I thought that the terror suspects had been undertaking pilot training?

b) I'd have though the Pentagon would be a lot easier to hit than the 2 towers


scooby Posted on 03/01/2009 21:34
9/11 in plane sight

I'll counter those three:

1: There wasn't, unless you count the massive ones caused by a F***ing plane hitting the other building.

2: The pentagon is not a small building FFS and it doesn't take much skill to F***ing crash an aeroplane.

3: If you say so, I'm surprised none of the passengers who died on it didn't think something was fishy when they got on.

I can't wait to see the proof but I can't be arsed rebuking it because it'll be utter tosh.

flaps Posted on 03/01/2009 21:34
9/11 in plane sight

"flaps, type in 'Jews behind 9/1' and you'll get 350,000 hits. PICK ONE and do your own research."

No I'll leave that to you and your buddies at the BNP.

"I suggest you keep up to date on what's happening in the world, and then we wouldn't have to keep educating you."

Trust me, hating the Jewish is nothing new. You're just the latest in a long line of anti-semites.

lakeoffire Posted on 03/01/2009 21:34
9/11 in plane sight

"Why do you say "non flying expert" - I thought that the terror suspects had been undertaking pilot training?"

Well the guy training him said he'd had a few lessonS!
don't think i could land on the pentegon that good with a few lessons. He also said not many good pilots could.

I believe the twin towers wouldn't be that hard.

line the plane up from around 10 miles with the tallest tower in new york.

flaps Posted on 03/01/2009 21:36
9/11 in plane sight

"don't think i could land on the pentegon that good with a few lessons"

If it was a landing he was attempting to perform he did a pretty poor job.

lakeoffire Posted on 03/01/2009 21:38
9/11 in plane sight

you've hardly debunked the questions scooby

more like you've just said no to them all.

when was the last time you crashed a 757 by chance?

flaps Posted on 03/01/2009 21:39
9/11 in plane sight

What explosions were there in the second tower before it was hit? Who said there were no windows in the second plane?

How hard is it to crash a plane?

scooby Posted on 03/01/2009 21:46
9/11 in plane sight

lake, I've refuted them. It's up to you to provide supporting evidence suggesting a global conspiracy involving thousands of government employees and thousands of journalists in a plot to murder thousands of Americans. That's how it works.

I have never flown a 757 but neither have you so me saying it is easy enough to crash it is as valid as you saying it is too hard. I'll say this though, I have evidence that it can be done because some terrorists with limited training managed to do it 3 times on September 11th 2001.

lakeoffire Posted on 03/01/2009 21:49
9/11 in plane sight

well ive seen video's of the explosion in the 2nd tower before it hits and i've flown a plane and know how hard it would be to hit the a target without hitting the floor first

leedfc Posted on 03/01/2009 21:50
9/11 in plane sight

did anyone read any of this i posted it before.
please read.
Pentagon survivor April Gallop sues Rumsfeld, Cheney, saying no evacuation order given on 9/11
copy and paste

http://www.infowars.com/?p=6628

lakeoffire Posted on 03/01/2009 21:53
9/11 in plane sight

i wouldn't waste your time lee, they'll just ignore it

scooby Posted on 03/01/2009 21:54
9/11 in plane sight

How many times did you try to crash the plane on your lessons?

I'll raise your "I've seen a video" with "I've seen loads of camera angles showing two jumbo jets hitting those towers".

Or are some videos more right than others?

All these threads are full of people discounting video evidence, eyewitness testimony and independent news reporting while it suits their argument but presenting it as unshakable fact when it suits them too.

lakeoffire Posted on 03/01/2009 21:58
9/11 in plane sight

"
All these threads are full of people discounting video evidence, eyewitness testimony and independent news reporting while it suits their argument but presenting it as unshakable fact when it suits them too."

Oh my F***ing god. like your not doing any of that.

ive seen plenty of footage showing an explosion, has have others.
I've even said its probably bollox but i'm obviously slightly more open minded than people like yourself.

And in flying a plane I know how a plane handles (not like your computer games that you probably play) (nothing against computer games)

scooby Posted on 03/01/2009 21:58
9/11 in plane sight

Do you two know what suing actually means?

I can sue anyone for any reason but the important thing is you have to wait until the thing GOES TO COURT and a judgement is given on it. Considering that article is dated 15/12/2008, I suspect we have a while to wait.

Can we not come back to that once it has been to court and a ruling has been made? An accusation is NOT proof of guilt you daft sods.

Rauko Posted on 03/01/2009 22:01
9/11 in plane sight

* 'cruise missile' youtube vide - an edited version, the full version of which has the guy describing it being a 'plane coming in like a cruise missile with wings'

As was pointed out by someone else (I forget who) - the first description of an event is usually the most accurate .. He witnessed it at the time " .. like a cruise missle with wings .." .. Who describes an American Airlines jet as "like a cruise missle with wings?" Isn't an American Airlines Jet an .. ermm .. American Airlines jet? No - his first interpretation of what he was seeing was something " .. like a cruise missle with wings".

Witness testimony is usually the weakest part of any investigation due to the inaccuracies inherent within it. In the guys own words - " .. he put 2 and 2 together". He made sense of what he was seeing by using external information " .. I heard on the radio about the events in New York and put 2 and 2 together"

Despite that - I never posted that video as "proof" but in repsonse to someones request for a video of someone describing a missle-like attack. Personally - I think a plane did hit the pentagon. Was it a Boeing 757? I don't know - do you?

* 'pull it' being a conversation at the time - it was in fact the guy recounting it some time later for an interview

Do you understand the meaning of "recounting" a conversation? He was letting the interviewer know what was said at the time ..

"I said" - [to the people who he was discussing it with] - "You know, we've had such a loss of life today. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it.” "

Thats what "recounting" a conversation is .. Its saying what was actually said - not something entirely different to what was said. If the conversation at the time was actually "Maybe the smartest thing is to pull the firemen out of the building and let it fall" .. Why not actually say that in the interview instead of a mysterious "pull it" which suggests demolition?


* 16 foot hole - the hole is not 16 feet

The width of the body of a 757 is 12.4 feet wide so therefore that is consistant with a hole in the 16 to 20 feet wide range with "splash" damage if indeed a 757 did hit it. I've seen people arguing against the conspiracey theorists talking about 75 foot holes - you think that? Because if you are - your suggesting something a helluva lot bigger than a 757 hit the pentagon.

* Benjamin Chertoff's mother claiming to he is a cousin of Michael - she didn't say that

You say potatoe - I say potato. Maybe what she said was just another Silverstein-esque "mistake" then which left an independent researcher under the impression she had said that when in fact she had said something entirely different. Apparently - everyones doing it.

Lets throw a question back at you ..

You've admitted that you don't look at the alternative suggestions put forward by the other side equally and to the same degree as which you've looked at the official version of events - and proven that you care little for the "devil in the details" when suggesting the world is round (just for fun :mrgreen:). You also make incorrect assumptions based on little information ..

Is it fair to say then that you've only looked at that which confirms your already entrenched beliefs and automatically dismiss anything that questions that?

Actually - you don't have to answer ..

lakeoffire Posted on 03/01/2009 22:02
9/11 in plane sight

I think the point is that someone from the pentagon on 9/11 is suing for neglagence. But of course you say even these people are wrong.

scooby your so narrow minded it isn't true.

I can see you at the computer crying

flaps Posted on 03/01/2009 22:03
9/11 in plane sight

"And in flying a plane I know how a plane handles"

You've flown a passenger jet?


"ive seen plenty of footage showing an explosion, has have others."

Can you link to these videos please?

flaps Posted on 03/01/2009 22:25
9/11 in plane sight

"As was pointed out by someone else (I forget who) - the first description of an event is usually the most accurate "

No, you're not reading properly again. That video is a shortened version. In the full one he describes it as a jet then goes on to say the bit you posted. He was using it as a description.



"Do you understand the meaning of "recounting" a conversation? He was letting the interviewer know what was said at the time .."

Recounting is my word. He was describing what happened at the time. We have no way of knowing if he used the word 'pull' at the time, how he used it or in what context. People are not tape recorders - why do you think he was acting like one when interviewed? Because it suits you to maybe?

"you think that? "

The point of the '16 foot hole' is to minimise the damage done to the pentagon, in line with it being a smaller cruise missile rather than a fuel laden jet. The pictures in this thread alone discount that.

"Was it a Boeing 757? I don't know - do you?"

Witness testimony, wreckage on the lawn and balance of probabilities leads me to the conclusion that a Boeing 757 hit the pentagon on 9/11.


"You say potatoe - I say potato"

No, I say potato and you say cauliflower. You're basing an argument on something nobody said, ever.

"You've admitted that you don't look at the alternative suggestions put forward by the other side "

No I haven't. Please stop putting words into the mouths of others. It's a terrible way to argue a point.


"You also make incorrect assumptions based on little information .."

There is a wealth of information on the subject. Much of it has been posted here to debunk your little pet theories. Oh wait - what am i saying - you don't believe anything because you don't 'know' anything. What a tiresome, and poor, devil's advocate you are.

lakeoffire Posted on 03/01/2009 22:30
9/11 in plane sight

my point being that a passenger jet is harder to handle than a small plane you dumbass.

and fyi, first post

flaps Posted on 03/01/2009 22:32
9/11 in plane sight

How hard is it to crash a passenger jet I don't know I've never flown one.

BTW, scooby's point about suing is that anybody can sue for anything at any time. I could sue you for keying my car if I liked. Does that make you guilty of the offence?

scooby Posted on 03/01/2009 22:35
9/11 in plane sight

"I think the point is that someone from the pentagon on 9/11 is suing for neglagence. But of course you say even these people are wrong."

People in the US have tried to sue God before. You don't understand what suing is has to be my conclusion. Let's wait until after the court case and if they uphold all those claims in the legal document they linked.

"scooby your so narrow minded it isn't true."

So you don't understand what suing is and don't understand what being open-minded is as well? If I still believed there was some truth in the conspiracy after I'd looked at and considered the evidence then I'd be an idiot.

2+2=4 - I'm convinced of that and I've never been convinced by any evidence to the contrary but I wouldn't keep an open mind about it being 5, would I?

"I can see you at the computer crying"

You're the one pulling his hair out in frustration trying to convince everyone that something sinister is afoot. You are doing a terrible job, by the way. Let's face it, the conspiracy theorists on here have been utterly hammered.

scooby Posted on 03/01/2009 22:40
9/11 in plane sight

"my point being that a passenger jet is harder to handle than a small plane you dumbass."

[:D] The fact that there are far more crashes in light aircraft each year than in passenger jets is pretty compelling evidence to suggest otherwise.

BrokenLance Posted on 03/01/2009 22:42
9/11 in plane sight

I can't believe the abuse I'm getting on here. I get called a liar by Big_Shot simply because I can't be bothered to quote every reference to the information I've gleaned on this subject. It's out there on the web, but Big_Shot insists if I can't give a specific link to my source, that I'm lying.

You are doing exactly the same thing. Are you Big_Shot in disguise? Do both of you have trouble using Google? Do you need lessons?

To further insult me, you now accuse me of being a racist, checking out anti-semitic websites, and a member of the BNP.

I mentioned the Jews behind 9/11 as a joke. Check out the ;-) in my post, which you seem determined to ignore. I did a quick Google as you seem either too lazy to do it yourself, or lacking the knowledge to do a simple web search, and I get all this abuse hurled at me.

You and others on this board seem to delight in playing Devil's Advocate, and refusing to accept commonly held beliefs, and evidence which does not match your own narrow view on things.

You've probably never even watched some of the documentaries quoted above. Probably have the retention span of a Mayfly.

flaps Posted on 03/01/2009 22:47
9/11 in plane sight

"To further insult me, you now accuse me of being a racist"

You've made several reference to Jewish people in this thread. Maybe to you it's a joke, but I find it to be in pretty poor taste. If you want to be taken seriously maybe you should tone it down.

"You and others on this board seem to delight in playing Devil's Advocate, and refusing to accept commonly held beliefs, and evidence which does not match your own narrow view on things."

This has left me baffled. What commonly held beliefs am I refusing to accept?

CemetryGates Posted on 03/01/2009 22:49
9/11 in plane sight

In between various boffins quoting various experts there have been a couple of posters who have stated the most important fact, ie THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE INVOLVED FOR AN INSIDE JOB OF THAT MAGNITUDE.
It simply isnt possible and you can quote all the pilot experts and debris experts you like, there would have to have been 100s in on it and not 1 has come forward.

I spent 7 years in NYC and I can tell you it wasnt an inside job it was sheer gross incompetence. Bush is an idiot, the country is being attacked and he sits listening to schoolkids for 20mins- not because hes in on it but because he didnt have a clue what to do.
Even Guillani who most seem to think was a hero made so many mistakes with regard to 9/11- witness his recent barracking by firemen at the 9/11 memorial.

It was a terrorist attack that was helped by US incompetence nothing more, despite how interesting conspircay theories are.

twoshots Posted on 03/01/2009 22:49
9/11 in plane sight

Rauko, I posted that link:

You said

"As was pointed out by someone else (I forget who) - the first description of an event is usually the most accurate .. He witnessed it at the time " .. like a cruise missle with wings .." .. Who describes an American Airlines jet as "like a cruise missle with wings?" Isn't an American Airlines Jet an .. ermm .. American Airlines jet? No - his first interpretation of what he was seeing was something " .. like a cruise missle with wings".

No. It is not a separate interview - just edited for effect.



Link: selective quote (again)

scooby Posted on 03/01/2009 22:50
9/11 in plane sight

The only people who watch those things are the people they are targeted at. IE, people who desperately want to believe in something so that they can have the satisfaction of being 'in the know' and knowing something that others don't. I've watched all-sorts of videos on it and read loads of conspiracy theories but then read the rebuttals and the rebuttals win EVERY TIME.

Even the sites with the evidence on tend to have links to books to 'read more' or dvds for the curious. They know they will make money on them because they know that people who seek out conspiracy theories are addicted to the conspiracy and not really interested in considering and digesting evidence.

There's a reason why there are entire sites dedicated to conspiracy theories and that is because there is a huge market of people who F***ing lap 'em up.

nidge Posted on 03/01/2009 22:59
9/11 in plane sight

scooby Posted on 03/01/2009 21:46 Email this Message | Reply
9/11 in plane sight

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have never flown a 757 but neither have you so me saying it is easy enough to crash it is as valid as you saying it is too hard. I'll say this though, I have evidence that it can be done because some terrorists with limited training managed to do it 3 times on September 11th 2001.




I've trained in a Piper PA38 Tomahawk, not too dissimilar in size and weight to the Cesna's the arabs trained in.

There is no phooking way on gods earth that someone with a few hours flight training in a light single-engine aircraft could fly a 125 ton twin engine passenger jet 100 miles into the midwest, turn it around, navigate it 100 miles back without it veering off course either way, pinpoint a ground target within a large urban city from a distance that allows them to put it into a controlled decent that would bring it right smack bang into a building 60-odd feet high without first slamming it into the ground well short, gouging out a trench on its immediate approach, hitting something just as substantial beforehand, or over-shooting that target completely.

This is a 125 ton twin-engine aircraft travelling at 400 mph. Flight Sim 2000 it aint.

As far as I know they had no significant navigational training either visually or intrumentally, no training on twin engine aircraft, no training on jet engined aircraft, and no one was talking them through it all like you see in the Airport disaster movies.

There are fully qualified airline pilots with years of experience stating even they coudn't pull it off. Someone mentioned the pilots for 9.11 truth website. Go educate yourself.

flaps Posted on 03/01/2009 23:00
9/11 in plane sight

So who do you think were flying the planes, nidge?

scooby Posted on 03/01/2009 23:04
9/11 in plane sight

nidge, the fact that 3 757s were flown into those buildings that day suggests it was possible. I've got thousands of eyewitnesses who can vouch for it too.

Or perhaps the rolls royce engines inside the pentagon got there somehow else. Might be a bit hard to get them past the metal detectors.

nidge Posted on 03/01/2009 23:50
9/11 in plane sight

No idea flaps, but wouldn't be suprised if it was fitted with something similar to a JSTARS system. Not even totally convinced it was something as big as 757 and won't be until they release clearer cctv coverage.

Mr_Black Posted on 04/01/2009 00:02
9/11 in plane sight

Conspiracy theories are impossible to disprove. When someone declares something as a conspiracy they simply look at the official version and pick a few holes in it. And this is always possible because any event of sufficient complexity (such as 9/11) inevitably has some unlikely happenings within it. Then after these happenings have been disputed they'll claim the only explanation is a conspiracy.

But if they were to stop for a second and look at the official version VS the conspiracy version it is clear to see that the conspiracy version has far, far more holes in it and is much more unlikely. When this is pointed out they'll claim that they're just trying to ask questions and get closer to the truth and the the rational people opposing them are blindly believing what they are told.

Hopefully one day they'll start to logically, rationally and sensibly, and they'll grow up and get on with their lives. But I won't hold my breath.

oldsmoggie Posted on 04/01/2009 01:34
9/11 in plane sight

I have read this thread with interest and although I dont believe the conspiracy theory was quite impressed with Broken Lances arguments but as soon as he made his anti semetic and ignorant remarks about Jewish or in his racists term "Jews" then he has lost all credibility.
He is clearly an anti semite racist apologist

ian_elliot Posted on 04/01/2009 09:48
9/11 in plane sight

Somebody more mathematically minded than me can maybe answer this question which was touched on earlier but not really in much detail.. video evidence seems to be at the heart of much of this.. both the lack of good video at the Pentagon, and the suggestion of a lack of windows on one or both of the planes crashing into the twin towers.

TV footage is traditionally something like 50 frames per second (or at least back in 2001 it was). Passenger aircraft traditionally cruise at around 500mph - assuming they had been slowed down to hit a target they still have to be going at least 150mph. I assume that any one CCTV camera on the outside of the Pentagon is trained on a fairly small area - maybe 100 metres at the max.

How much video would you expect an object travelling at 150mph to be in? Someone can do a bit of maths but I reckon a handful of blurry frames even if you say the plane is travelling at right-angles to the camera over 100 metres. So how does a lack of clear video footage lend any weight to a cover-up?

With regards the lack of windows on the plane(s) - they tend to be approx 12" high on a commercial airliner. I think I'm right In saying that they crashed about 20 stories up which would be at least 200 feet up. Video footage would be recorded on cameras at least 8 years old so at a resolution of less than 1 megapixel, so by my estimate even if the angle of the plane was perfect to show the windows off (ie the windows were pointing straight at the cameraman) they would take up about 1-2 pixels each. I've seen photos taken on the ground of commercial airliners from a distance of around 200 feet where you can barely discern the windows, let alone one in the air. Most of the pictures I've seen have claiming to be proof of "no windows" have been very poor grainy images of the plane at a poor angle.

If you're looking for high quality video evidence one way or the other you ain't going to get it.

Bottom line is, even taking all the other highly improbable factors into account and assuming that the government (or factions within) staged it all - the biggest set up in history and 100% guaranteed to be analysed in infinitessimal details - why would they not use an exact replica of the plane they claimed crashed rather than a military aircraft with no windows? I'm sure that "they" would be able to procure a Boeing and presumable the attack was at a time of their choosing so they'd have plenty of time to prepare. And why would they use a missile instead of a plane to crash into the pentagon and then claim it was a plane despite the fact the angle of "attack" took the "missile" over a crowded main road where loads of people would see it (see link below).

As for the legal case quoted above as far as I can see the plaintiff is accusing the government of complicity in the loss of life because they didn't evacuate the building, not because they fired a missile into it themselves.




Link: Eyewitnesses

ian_elliot Posted on 04/01/2009 09:57
9/11 in plane sight

Also a quick lesson in selective editing and the art of the simile in the eyewitness accounts I linked to :

"It was no more than 30 feet off the ground, and it was screaming. It was just screaming. It was nothing more than a guided missile at that point," Creed said.

"I can still see the plane. I can still see it right now. It's just the most frightening thing in the world, going full speed, going full throttle, its wheels up," Creed recalls. "




"It was nothing more than a guided missile at that point"? I wonder if his comment has ever been used on the pro-conspiracy propaganda but with the last three words missing?


BrokenLance Posted on 04/01/2009 10:04
9/11 in plane sight

oldsmoggie, my comments regarding Jews were meant as a joke, after I asked the question 'who would benefit?' Silverstein certainly benefited, and he is a Jew. I'm not the one accusing them of 9/11, but lots of other people have. Try getting a sense of humour.

I support Israel in it's current action, (not because I am anti-Arab, just the fact that they are fighting Hamas, a terrorist organisation). Don't call me a racist without proof. How is the use of the word 'jews' racist? Is the use of the word 'arabs' racist also? They describe ethnic groups, that's all.

flaps, commonly held views such as their is a cover-up over 9/11. For all your comments about how can such a large conspiracy be covered up, look at what the Americans have done in the past.

Details only recently released under the Freedom of Information act, regarding terrorist atrocities to depose a democratically elected government in Iran, starting the Vietnam war with a faked attack on an American ship in the Gulf of Tonkin, and even more incredulously, LB Johnson colluding with the Israelis to sink an American ship in the med, to give them an excuse to blame it on Egypt and invade during the 6 Day War. Operation Northwoods, although never carried out, proposed attacking American cities and blaming it on Cuba.

All those activities were kept secret for a long time. Perhaps we'll have to wait as long to find out the truth about 9/11.

ian_elliot Posted on 04/01/2009 10:13
9/11 in plane sight

Lancy boy you are an odd person

You accuse Flaps of "refusing to accept commonly held beliefs, and evidence which does not match your own narrow view on things."

Whereas the vast majority of people believe that muslim terrorists hijacked a number of commercial airliners and succesfully crashed two of them into the twin towers and one into the pentagon.

That strikes me as a commonly held belief which you are refusing to accept, and evidence that does not match your narrow view of things.


I also love your comparison of the Gulf of Tonkin incident and 9/11. Even allowing for your deliberate over simplification of the former (there were two attacks reported on the Maddox, one of which there is no argument about, the other may have been deliberately misrepresented "to cover up honest intelligence errors" according to the NSA report you presumably refer to), that is hardly comparable to agencies of the US Government deliberately launching a massive terror assault on its own people.

Big_Shot Posted on 04/01/2009 10:30
9/11 in plane sight

'Big_Shot, you're getting VERY tiresome! I get my information from the same sources as you do, the controlled media and the internet. Go take it up with them. In particular, parts 10 and 11 of the Zero documentary.'

Why, because I keep pointing out that you are making things up. No hijacker went into any embassy the next day reporting themselves to be alive. Thats simply a lie and is actually more tiresome than me having to point it out.

leedfc Posted on 04/01/2009 10:55
9/11 in plane sight

BrokenLance me and you better watch out what we are saying.lol


David Leppard, The Sunday Times, January 4, 2009
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle5439604.ece

THE Home Office has quietly adopted a new plan to allow police across Britain routinely to hack into people's personal computers without a warrant.

The move, which follows a decision by the European Union's council of ministers in Brussels, has angered civil liberties groups and opposition MPs. They described it as a sinister extension of the surveillance state which drives "a coach and horses" through privacy laws.

The hacking is known as "remote searching". It allows police or MI5 officers who may be hundreds of miles away to examine covertly the hard drive of someone's PC at his home, office or hotel room.

Material gathered in this way includes the content of all e-mails, web-browsing habits and instant messaging.

Under the Brussels edict, police across the EU have been given the green light to expand the implementation of a rarely used power involving warrantless intrusive surveillance of private property. The strategy will allow French, German and other EU forces to ask British officers to hack into someone's UK computer and pass over any material gleaned.

A remote search can be granted if a senior officer says he "believes" that it is "proportionate" and necessary to prevent or detect serious crime - defined as any offence attracting a jail sentence of more than three years.

However, opposition MPs and civil liberties groups say that the broadening of such intrusive surveillance powers should be regulated by a new act of parliament and court warrants.

They point out that in contrast to the legal safeguards for searching a suspect's home, police undertaking a remote search do not need to apply to a magistrates' court for a warrant.

Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, the human rights group, said she would challenge the legal basis of the move. "These are very intrusive powers - as intrusive as someone busting down your door and coming into your home," she said.

"The public will want this to be controlled by new legislation and judicial authorisation. Without those safeguards it's a devastating blow to any notion of personal privacy."

She said the move had parallels with the warrantless police search of the House of Commons office of Damian Green, the Tory MP: "It's like giving police the power to do a Damian Green every day but to do it without anyone even knowing you were doing it."

Richard Clayton, a researcher at Cambridge University's computer laboratory, said that remote searches had been possible since 1994, although they were very rare. An amendment to the Computer Misuse Act 1990 made hacking legal if it was authorised and carried out by the state.

He said the authorities could break into a suspect's home or office and insert a "key-logging" device into an individual's computer. This would collect and, if necessary, transmit details of all the suspect's keystrokes. "It's just like putting a secret camera in someone's living room," he said.

Police might also send an e-mail to a suspect's computer. The message would include an attachment that contained a virus or "malware". If the attachment was opened, the remote search facility would be covertly activated. Alternatively, police could park outside a suspect's home and hack into his or her hard drive using the wireless network.

Police say that such methods are necessary to investigate suspects who use cyberspace to carry out crimes. These include paedophiles, internet fraudsters, identity thieves and terrorists.

The Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo) said such intrusive surveillance was closely regulated under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. A spokesman said police were already carrying out a small number of these operations which were among 194 clandestine searches last year of people's homes, offices and hotel bedrooms.

"To be a valid authorisation, the officer giving it must believe that when it is given it is necessary to prevent or detect serious crime and [the] action is proportionate to what it seeks to achieve," Acpo said.

Dominic Grieve, the shadow home secretary, agreed that the development may benefit law enforcement. But he added: "The exercise of such intrusive powers raises serious privacy issues. The government must explain how they would work in practice and what safeguards will be in place to prevent abuse."

The Home Office said it was working with other EU states to develop details of the proposals.

BrokenLance Posted on 04/01/2009 11:26
9/11 in plane sight

Ian, I have considered all the evidence presented pro and con a conspiracy, and in my view the most convincing evidence points to a cover up.

Big_Shot, I have responded to your calls for sources, I have told you where they are, and you refuse to check them out. I can't force you to open your eyes, but by your stance, I think you're just showing yourself up with your ridiculous and repetitive claims of lying. You won't look at the evidence when it's given to you.

Big_Shot Posted on 04/01/2009 11:31
9/11 in plane sight

I can't check out things that simply don't exist. You claimed that, and I quote you:

'most of the alleged 'hijackers' turned up at various Embassies across the Middle East the next day'

No they didn't. None of them did. Its not even open for debate. That didn't happen.

terry_cochrane_on_the_wing Posted on 04/01/2009 11:41
9/11 in plane sight

"How much video would you expect an object travelling at 150mph to be in? Someone can do a bit of maths but I reckon a handful of blurry frames even if you say the plane is travelling at right-angles to the camera over 100 metres. So how does a lack of clear video footage lend any weight to a cover-up?" - ian elliot



I'm glad someone brought the pentagon camera back up again since everyone failed to answer the question I posed a few days ago. But well done, you've just shown everyone how the mind works in people like you.

Your focus is plainly on what we have been shown - a single piece of footage from a solitary fish-eye-lense security camera that is no better quality than what you'll find down at the local corner shop.

Instead of focusing on that single clip taken from that single camera, why don't you think a little broader and ask why the Pentagon (the heart of america's intelligence network) had just one solitary P*** poor camera working at that exact moment?

You see, getting people to spend all their attention on what we got diverts them from asking about what we didn't get. Its an easy game to play and people fall for it all the time. You're a classic example.

Are you not the tiniest bit suspicious why no other footage was released proving once and for all what hit the Pentagon? Are you not the tiniest bit suspicious why the united states governement refuses to release cctv footage taken by other buildings from around the pentagon? What have they got to hide? Surely it would strengthen their case? Are you not the tiniest bit suspicious why no other footage was taken if thats all there is?

But go ahead and make exucuses for that governement. Tell us other footage doesn't exists, or what we got is all there is since the Pentagon cameras only show a very narrow bit of the building each, or tell us its being withheld in the interests of national security. Then write us another essay on the physics of a solitary corner-shop quality image of the most extraordianry event in modern times so that you'll never have to ask yourself those awkward questions ever again. As for eyewitness, its already been discussed in depth, or did you conviently miss that little tidbit too?

I've read through some of your drivvle and have physically felt my IQ dropping. Its a unique talent you've got there kidda!

BrokenLance Posted on 04/01/2009 11:44
9/11 in plane sight

TERRORSTORM, PTS 10 AND 11, that's just one of the documentaries where this is mentioned.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/hijackers.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm
http://www.welfarestate.com/911/
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2007/03/911_hijackers_s.html
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=f7ixuf236Dk
http://www.the7thfire.com/Politics%20and%20History/9-11/9-11_hijackers_still_alive.htm
http://911review.org/Wget/members.fortunecity.com/911/september-eleven/hijackers-alive.htm

Get off your lazy @rse and view them, and then come back with your denials.

Big_Shot Posted on 04/01/2009 11:50
9/11 in plane sight

Its safe to assume that in none of those articles it will be claimed that 'most of the alleged 'hijackers' turned up at various Embassies across the Middle East the next day'. Thats what I'm getting at. Its common knowledge that a short while afterwards a few of the hijackers were reported to be still alive, which turned out to not be true. But you never said that. I'm pulling you up about what you said. And am curious as to whether you'll admit you were wrong.

leedfc Posted on 04/01/2009 11:50
9/11 in plane sight

see if you have the time and read through this then ask did bush and them know before hand.

Who Knew? The Unanswered Questions of 9/11
by Seth Ackerman


On July 24, Congress’ joint intelligence panel finally released a declassified version of its inquiry into the 9/11 attacks. Described variously in the next day’s press reports as “scathing,” “damning,” “harshly critical,” and an “indictment” of White House secrecy, the report detailed a stunning series of failures by the CIA and FBI that led to the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

No one in the early post-9/11 months, when the panel was born, could have predicted how damaging its findings would eventually prove. Although the committee was established in defiance of the White House—President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney each personally asked Tom Daschle to limit any investigation to the regular intelligence committees—its work got off to an uninspiring start. Its first staff director, Britt Snider, resigned in April 2002 as committee members squabbled over the scope of the investigation. Expectations for the probe were low.

But the investigation was transformed a month before its first hearings were set to begin. In May 2002, a string of explosive leaks ignited a public debate over the government’s handling of the 9/11 attacks and made the performance of the intelligence agencies a political issue. CBS reporter David Martin revealed that weeks before the attacks, the CIA had warned Bush personally of Osama Bin Laden’s intent to use hijacked planes as missiles. That followed the damaging exposure by The Associated Press’s John Solomon of a pre-9/11 FBI memo from an officer in Phoenix warning of suspicious Middle Eastern men training at flight schools—a warning that went unheeded.

The disclosures rocked the administration. “BUSH KNEW,” blared the May 16, 2002 cover of the Murdoch-owned New York Post. A front-page headline in the Washington Post warned, “An Image of Invincibility Is Shaken by Disclosures.” Even worse for Bush, the news set off an interagency war of press leaks over who was to blame for the mishaps, with each embarrassing leak from the CIA provoking a defensive counter-leak from the FBI. The result of the battle, which wore on through the summer, was political misery for the White House.

By September 2002, Bush was forced to accept the one thing he had been desperately hoping to avoid: an independent blue-ribbon commission into the 9/11 attacks. The commission, as Newsweek put it, may turn out to be “the most far-reaching and explosive government inquiry in decades.” Bush agreed to it only after a series of contentious White House meetings with families of 9/11 victims who were outraged over the summer’s disclosures. Faced with this powerful new political force, the administration saw no way out. “There was a freight train coming down the tracks,” one White House official said. The resulting National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, formally established in late 2002, will not release its final report until May 27, 2004.

In the meantime, the 858-page report of the congressional inquiry is the fullest official accounting to date of what went wrong with the government’s handling of the 9/11 plot. The picture that emerges from its pages (and from information that didn’t make it between its covers) entirely contradicts the administration’s initial portrayal of how 9/11 happened: that a group of quietly efficient attackers slipped unnoticed into the United States and blended into an anonymous, open society, leaving the authorities no chance to pick up their trail—what Seymour Hersh, citing a former FBI counterintelligence official, has labeled “the superman scenario.” Bush himself encapsulated this view two weeks after the attacks when he said: “These terrorists had burrowed in our country for over two years. They were well organized. They were well planned. They struck in a way that was unimaginable.”

In reality, Hersh quotes a top CIA official as saying, the plotters “violated a fundamental rule of clandestine operations.” Instead of “working independently and maintaining rigid communications security, the terrorists, as late as last summer, apparently mingled openly and had not yet decided which flights to target. The planning for September 11th appears to have been far more ad hoc than was at first assumed.”

Moreover, the hijackers did not fly under the radar of the intelligence agencies. The agencies, it turns out, did in fact manage to spot—and even monitor—several several of the 9/11 hijackers before they carried out the attacks, in some cases long before. Yet for reasons that so far remain a mystery, counterterrorism officials at FBI headquarters and the CIA consistently dropped the ball when it came to apprehending them—sometimes acting in ways that ran counter to standard practice, at times to the bafflement and anger of their colleagues.

It’s a point that was underlined during a revealing exchange that took place at a recent meeting between senior FBI agents and relatives of 9/11 victims. At the meeting, Kristen Breitweiser, a widow of one of the dead, posed a question: “How is it that a few hours after the attacks, the nation is brought to its knees, and miraculously FBI agents showed up at Embry-Riddle flight school in Florida where some of the terrorists trained?”

“We got lucky,” was the reply, according to an account of the meeting by Gail Sheehy in the New York Observer.

Breitweiser then asked how the FBI had known exactly which Portland, Maine ATM machine would turn up a videotape of Mohammed Atta, the terrorist ringleader. “The agent got some facts confused, then changed his story,” Sheehy reports. Finally, he asked Breitweiser: “What are you getting at?”

“I think you had open investigations before September 11 on some of the people responsible for the terrorist attacks,” she said.

“We did not,” insisted the agent.

Yet that is exactly what the evidence unearthed by the congressional investigators points to. If at one time it seemed as if catching the hijackers prior to the attacks would have been like finding a needle in a haystack—how could anyone have pinpointed 19 covert terrorists among 290 million Americans?—now the right question seems to be how the FBI and CIA failed to catch the terrorists when they were right under their noses.

Why Were Hijackers Left Off the Watchlist?

A key section of the congressional report tells the puzzling story of a pair of Saudi hijackers who settled in San Diego almost two years before the attacks. Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi were two of the terrorists aboard American Airlines Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon. In the report’s judgment, their story represents “perhaps the intelligence community’s best chance to unravel the September 11 plot.”

The tale begins in late 1999, when counterterrorism agents working round-the-clock in preparation for the Millennium celebrations got wind that al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi, who had been connected to the 1998 East Africa bombings, were planning a trip to Malaysia. According to a CIA officer who testified to the committee, “a kind of tuning fork buzzed” when he and his colleagues heard the news. The CIA arranged for Malaysian intelligence to monitor the pair once they landed in Kuala Lumpur on January 5, 2000. Their behavior, CIA Director George Tenet testified, “was consistent with clandestine activity.”

In Kuala Lumpur, the two men attended a high-level al-Qaeda meeting at the home of Yazid Sufaat, a Malaysian chemist with ties to the bin Laden network. Photographs of the gathering were taken secretly by Malaysian intelligence and transmitted back to CIA headquarters. By that time, the CIA had obtained a copy of al-Mihdhar’s Saudi passport, giving the agency his full name, passport number, birth date and other details. The passport showed that al-Mihdhar had a visa, issued at the U.S. consulate in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia, giving him the right to enter the United States at any time until the visa expired in April 2000.

Yet no action was taken to warn U.S. customs officials. According to Tenet, “We had at that point the level of detail needed to watchlist [al-Mihdhar]—that is, to nominate him to State Department for refusal of entry into the US or to deny him another visa. Our officers remained focused on the surveillance operation and did not do so.”

It got worse. In March, CIA headquarters received a cable from one of its own overseas stations informing them that shortly after attending the Malaysia meeting, al-Hazmi had boarded a plane and flown to Los Angeles, entering the United States on January 15, 2000. A message addressed to the CIA’s bin Laden unit from a different station noted “with interest” the fact that “a member of this group traveled to the U.S. following his visit to Kuala Lumpur.”

Despite the fact that al-Hazmi was already regarded as a “terrorist operative” by the intelligence agencies, again no action was taken—even though only three months earlier, CIA headquarters had sent a cable to all its bases reminding officers of the importance of watch-listing potential terrorists: Information on suspects need only “raise a reasonable suspicion that the individual is a possible terrorist,” the reminder said.

It was in January 2001, while investigating the USS Cole bombing, that the CIA managed to identify one of the Malaysian plotters captured on film as Khallad bin Attash, a mastermind behind the Cole attack. “This was the first time that CIA could definitively place al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar with a known al-Qaeda operative,” Tenet testified. In May, a CIA counterterrorism officer investigating the Cole case put in a request to dig up the year-old surveillance photos of the Malaysia meeting. He explained in an e-mail that he was interested “because Khalid al-Mihdhar’s two companions also were couriers of a sort, who traveled between [the Far East] and Los Angeles at the same time.” In other words, as the congressional report explains, “information about al-Hazmi’s travel to the United States began to attract attention at CIA at least as early as May 18, 2001”—four months before the World Trade Center attacks.

All along, al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi were living openly in the San Diego area, using their real names on their California driver’s licenses and rental agreements. Even more shocking, they had befriended and moved in with a prominent local Muslim leader, Abdussattar Shaikh, who, unbeknownst to them, was a long-time undercover FBI counterterrorism informant in regular contact with a terrorism case officer in the bureau’s San Diego office. According to Newsweek, it was such a close encounter that “on one occasion the [FBI] case agent called up the informant and was told he couldn’t talk because ‘Khalid’—a reference to al-Mihdhar—was in the room.”

The congressional investigators who prepared the report asked to talk to Shaikh, but, they explained, “the [Bush] Administration and the FBI have objected to the Joint Inquiry’s request to interview the informant and have refused to serve a Committee subpoena and notice of deposition.”

Another associate of the hijackers was Omar al-Bayoumi, a Saudi national living in San Diego. Al-Bayoumi, who fled the country shortly before 9/11, assisted al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi on various occasions. He co-signed their lease and paid their first month’s rent and security deposit. According to the congressional report, al-Bayoumi “had access to seemingly unlimited funding from Saudi Arabia.” In recent months, he has become the focus of intense scrutiny in Washington over his suspected links to Saudi intelligence.

On the day of his first meeting with the hijackers, at a Los Angeles restaurant, al-Bayoumi stopped by the Saudi consulate for a closed-door chat. Some law enforcement officials, according to Newsweek, believe he met there with Fahad al Thumairy, a member of the consulate’s Islamic and Culture Affairs Section, who was later expelled from the United States for suspected links to terrorism. The congressional report cites the FBI’s “best source” in San Diego as saying that al-Bayoumi “must be an intelligence officer for Saudi Arabia or another foreign power.” A senior FBI official went further, telling Newsweek: “We firmly believed that he had knowledge [of the 9/11 plot], and that his meeting with [the hijackers] that day was more than coincidence.”

It was only on August 23, 2001—three weeks before 9/11—that CIA officers reviewing their files on the year-and-a-half old Malaysia meeting made a decision to try to track down the Saudi militants. An alert was sent out to the FBI and other agencies to find the “bin Laden-related individuals” al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar. The search failed.

Who Was Watching? Who Was Stalling?

Allegations that another key hijacker, Mohammed Atta, was being watched by authorities before 9/11 went unaddressed by the congressional panel. On September 24, 2001, the German newsmagazine Focus reported that Atta, the suspected terrorist ringleader, was under FBI surveillance while he was living in Hamburg during the months before he moved to the United States. Sourced to German police investigators, Focus reported that from January to May 2000, “U.S. agents followed him around the greater Frankfurt area and noted that he made purchases at numerous different drugstores and apothecaries and amassed a substantial amount of chemicals that could be used to construct a bomb.” The German Staatschutz, or state security police, were not informed.

Like 9/11 widow Kristen Breitweiser, a German official quoted by Focus was struck by the FBI’s amazingly detailed knowledge of Atta’s history in the days immediately after 9/11: “Security experts are still dumbfounded, as they were at the time, by the speed with which the FBI was able to make a presentation to [German investigators] laying out the extremely conspiratorial connections between Atta and his alleged Hamburg accomplices. ‘It was like all they had to do was push a button,’ said one insider. ‘It was as if the Americans had already amassed scads of information long before in their database about the perpetrator.’”

Particularly strange is that Atta received approval for his visa from the U.S. Embassy in Berlin on May 18, 2000, exactly when, as Focus put it, “his designated agent from the US secret service was observing his suspicious chemical buying.” Focus quoted a Staatschutz official who declared: “It can no longer be ruled out that the Americans kept their eye on Atta after his entry into the United States.”

Perhaps that’s not so far-fetched. On June 6, 2002 Knight Ridder revealed that the National Security Agency (NSA) was monitoring Mohammed Atta’s phone calls while he was in the United States, and translated several conversations between Atta and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks who was apprehended in Pakistan last March. Some U.S. officials said the NSA failed to share the information with other intelligence agencies, though one official told Knight Ridder it was “simply not true” that the information was collected and not shared.

Not only are these episodes staggering intelligence failures in their own right, they also illustrate how crucial the FBI’s mishandling of a third case turned out to be—that of Zacarias Moussaoui, the supposed “20th hijacker.” A French citizen of Moroccan descent, Moussaoui was arrested on immigration charges a month before 9/11 after a flight-school instructor in Minnesota, alarmed by his suspicious behavior and large cash payments, called the FBI. John Rosengren, the flight school’s director of operations, feared that Moussaoui “could have been a hijacker who could have tried to take an airplane filled with passengers,” according to the New York Times. “There was discussion of how much fuel was on board a 747-400 and how much damage that could cause if it hit anything.”

According to a now-famous whistle-blowing memo from FBI agent Coleen Rowley, the agent who responded to the call “identified [Moussaoui] as a terrorist threat from a very early point.” These suspicions, she wrote, “quickly ripened into probable cause, which, at the latest, occurred within days of Moussaoui’s arrest when the French Intelligence Service confirmed his affiliations with radical fundamentalist Islamic groups and activities connected to Osama bin Laden.”

The agents became “desperate” to search Moussaoui’s personal computer and other belongings. To do this, they needed permission from FBI headquarters to request a search warrant from a judge. Had they been granted a warrant before 9/11, they would have found a treasure trove of evidence. A notebook belonging to Moussaoui contained the phone number of Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, the former roommate of Mohammed Atta in Hamburg. Just two weeks before the arrest, Bin al-Shibh had wired money to Moussaoui and twice in the previous year he had wired money to yet another hijacker, Marwan al-Shehhi, in Florida. Agents also would have found a letter from bin Laden operative Yazid Sufaat, whose Kuala Lumpur apartment had been the venue for the January 2000 al-Qaeda meeting attended by al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar.

But the Minneapolis agents never got their search warrant. “Key FBI [headquarters] personnel,” according to Rowley, “continued to, almost inexplicably, throw up roadblocks and undermine Minneapolis’ by-now desperate efforts to obtain a FISA search warrant, long after the French intelligence service provided its information and probable cause became clear.”

One FBI supervisor in Washington, Rowley says, “seemed to have been consistently, almost deliberately thwarting the Minneapolis FBI agents’ efforts.” He and other officials “brought up almost ridiculous questions in their apparent efforts to undermine the probable cause.” And at one point the official “deliberately further undercut” the search warrant effort by omitting key intelligence information about Moussaoui from a warrant request while “making several changes in the wording of the information”—all of which made it unlikely that the warrant would be approved. One Minneapolis agent described Washington’s actions as “setting this up for failure.”

To obtain a warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the FBI must show, according to former Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder, that a suspect is “a member of or connected to a terrorist organization, that there was reason to believe that he was actively engaged in the aims of that terrorist organization.” In off-the-record interviews with reporters, FBI officials in Washington denied that the information from France linked Moussaoui to bin Laden. They claim the data connected Moussaoui only with Islamic rebels in Chechnya, who don’t figure on the official U.S. list of “terrorist” groups.

But in a pathbreaking investigative report, CBS reporter Scott Pelley traveled to Paris, where he spoke with “a number of sources inside French intelligence” who insisted that France “had reason to connect Moussaoui to the organization of Osama bin Laden.” French agents had monitored Moussaoui’ s trips to Afghanistan and Pakistan; they believed he met with Abu Jaffa, a top aide to Osama bin Laden; and Moussaoui’s name had been placed on a French terrorist watch list. In the words of top French terrorism judge Jean-Louis Bruguiere, “we gave [the FBI] everything we had.”

According to the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward, on the morning of 9/11, as aides rushed over to George Tenet’s table at the St. Regis Hotel restaurant to tell him the news of the World Trade Center strike, the CIA director was overheard to say: “I wonder if it has anything to do with this guy taking pilot training.”

Why Did We ‘Back Off’ Investigating the Saudis?

“Almost everyone’s first question was ‘Why? Why would an FBI agent(s) deliberately sabotage a case?’” Rowley wrote in a footnote to her memo. “Jokes were actually made,” she added in an eye-catching aside, “that that the key FBIHQ personnel had to be spies or moles, like Robert Hanssen, who were actually working for Osama bin Laden to have so undercut Minneapolis’ effort.”

Rowley assumed that careerism, timidity, and bureaucratic inertia at FBI headquarters had simply gotten the better of crime-fighting instincts. So far, that has also been the gist of most of the speculation in the press.

But some have alleged that other factors were at work. Several cases from recent years have come to light in which FBI agents complained of being held back by superiors from investigating Islamic extremist groups. In each instance, it was alleged that high-ranking officials acted out of concern that these inquiries could lead back to America’s closest Arab ally: Saudi Arabia.

“All the answers, everything needed to dismantle Osama bin Laden’s organization can be found in Saudi Arabia,” John O’Neill, the FBI’s former top bin Laden investigator, said shortly before his death in the World Trade Center. O’Neill explicitly referred to interference from US policymakers concerned about U.S.-Saudi relations. He “complained that the F.B.I. was not free to act in international terror investigations because the State Department kept interfering,” according to a New York Times account of O’ Neill’s interview with French journalist Jean-Charles Brisard shortly before his death. O’Neill “explains the failure in one word: oil.”

Last year, the Washington Times reported that in in the mid-’90s, the Clinton administration had “shut down” an investigation of Islamic charities operating in the United States, “concerned that a public probe would expose Saudi Arabia’s suspected ties to a global money-laundering operation.” Citing law enforcement authorities and others, the Times reported that “the State Department pressed federal officials to pull agents off the previously undisclosed probe after the charities were targeted in the diversion of cash to groups that fund terrorism.”

In October 2001, in The New Yorker, Seymour Hersh reported on the 1994 defection of a Saudi diplomat in the United States. “He brought with him, according to his New York lawyer, Michael J. Wildes, some fourteen thousand internal government documents” including “evidence that the Saudis had given financial and technical support to Hamas, the extremist Islamic group whose target is Israel.”

Wildes held a meeting at his office with two F.B.I. agents and an Assistant United States Attorney. “We gave them a sampling of the documents and put them on the table,” Wildes told Hersh. “But the agents refused to accept them.” In an interview on BBC’s Newsnight, Wildes said that the FBI agents wanted to accept the documents, but had been forbidden from doing so by higher-ups.

The BBC’s Greg Palast said that a “high-placed member of a U.S. intelligence agency” told him that “while there’s always been constraints on investigating Saudis, under George Bush it’s gotten much worse. After the elections, the agencies were told to ‘back off’ investigating the Bin Ladens and Saudi royals, and that angered agents.” The official added that “since September 11th the policy has been reversed.”

On orders of the Bush administration, a 28-page section dealing with suspected Saudi ties to the 9/11 plot was blacked out of the declassified version of the congressional report. Bush claimed that declassifying the information “would reveal sources and methods” and “help the enemy.” But Sen. Bob Graham, ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, decried the redactions. “In my judgment there is compelling evidence that a foreign government provided direct support through officials and agents of that government to some of the September 11 hijackers,” Graham said. Sen. Chuck Schumer went further: “There seems to be a systematic strategy of coddling and cover-up when it comes to the Saudis.”

leedfc Posted on 04/01/2009 12:03
9/11 in plane sight

hijackers still alive.
copy and paste.

http://www.rinf.com/news/nov05/911-hijackers.html

Not_Smog Posted on 04/01/2009 12:05
9/11 in plane sight

Just seeing how many replys this thread has got goes to show the level of stupidity amongst the average poster on this thread.

You people honestly believe that the US government devised a plan to invade Afghanistan by using Saudi pilots to fly airliners into the World Trade Center?

They then had the ability coarse every respected news agency on the face of the earth that it was a terrorist attack as well as having the ability to keep everyone of the literally thousands of people that would have known and worked on the project about it quiet?

Honestly get a grip, give your collective heads a shake.

leedfc Posted on 04/01/2009 12:13
9/11 in plane sight

not_smog
if you and the others took time to read what i and many others have posted.
you may see where we are coming from.
do some looking yourself.



terry_cochrane_on_the_wing Posted on 04/01/2009 12:15
9/11 in plane sight

"....as well as having the ability to keep everyone of the literally thousands of people that would have known and worked on the project about it quiet?"


*shakes head and reads it again*

Thats right because conspiracy theories just instantly pop up out of thin air.

Now you shake your head and think about what you wrote there.


Actually don't bother since someone else described it in pretty decent detail a long ways back up amongst all the other cyber duelling, but of course you didn't bother to take a look did you.

BrokenLance Posted on 04/01/2009 12:32
9/11 in plane sight

Big_Shot, I haven't seen claims that the reports are false. You are now claiming it. Does that make YOU a liar. I don't make things up, I just highlight what I've heard and seen. Some of it MAY not be correct, but I don't base my opinions on SINGLE reports.

You still quite pointedly refuse to look at the evidence for yourself. I have given you numerous sources, and numerous opportunities to verify what I'm saying for yourself.

No point in talking to you. Bye Bye.

oldsmoggie, there are currently another two threads on this board where a number of posters use the word Jews. I don't see your name on those threads, taking them to task and accusing THEM of being racists.

flaps Posted on 04/01/2009 12:34
9/11 in plane sight

lmao

Big_Shot Posted on 04/01/2009 12:43
9/11 in plane sight

But you're missing the point. You claimed that 'most of the alleged 'hijackers' turned up at various Embassies across the Middle East the next day', and I don't think they did, so are pressing you on it. Remember you brought this issue to the thread, and therefore you should be prepared to be challenged about it. You then posted some links, none of which backed up what you claimed. So I'd like you to either put up evidence to back up what you said or admit you were wrong.

leedfc Posted on 04/01/2009 12:46
9/11 in plane sight

big shot
will post it again

hijackers still alive.
copy and paste.

http://www.rinf.com/news/nov05/911-hijackers.html

flaps Posted on 04/01/2009 12:47
9/11 in plane sight

"No point in talking to you. Bye Bye."

No point in talkin to racists either. Especially stupid ones like you. Toodles.

Big_Shot Posted on 04/01/2009 12:48
9/11 in plane sight

A pro conspiracy article claiming the hijackers are still alive don't make it so.

Even so I bet that article doesn't claim 'most of the alleged 'hijackers' turned up at various Embassies across the Middle East the next day'.


leedfc Posted on 04/01/2009 12:50
9/11 in plane sight

did you watch the bbc a few years back about it them been alive.
rem the bbc dont lie.

Big_Shot Posted on 04/01/2009 12:58
9/11 in plane sight

Its common knowledge that a few were reported to have still been alive shortly after the attacks. However these stories quickly went away and none of them have been heard from since. Which to me sorts of backs up the theory that it was actually a mistake and they were all indeed dead. Also, I think that if these people were still alive they might have actually appeared in person in the last 8 years.

I actually thought a martyr video released a couple of years back from one of the alledged alive hijackers would have drawn a line under this silly notion once and for all. Seems not.

leedfc Posted on 04/01/2009 13:01
9/11 in plane sight

take alook at this.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=VgXUFHB8GBQ.

makes you think.

terry_cochrane_on_the_wing Posted on 04/01/2009 13:06
9/11 in plane sight

Racists remark on here??? If they're talking about the tongue-in-cheek remark regarding Silverstein anyone with a modicrum of common sense could see it for what it really was. But I suppose its easy to twist stuff like that if your position is weak and then use it to attack a person. Those who are citing it are just using it as an excuse to bail out on a never ending debate. Can't blame them really, this thread could beat that last person to post thread in size! [:o]

Big_Shot Posted on 04/01/2009 13:12
9/11 in plane sight

Not in the slightest. Anyone can put a video together and claim whatever they want.

What I do find odd though is that people will not be convinced that a plane hit the Pentagon until CCTV of the incident is produced. But these same people will look at a 8 year old article claiming that some of the hijackers are alive and say see they're alive. How come they don't want more proof before being convinced that this people are still alive, say maybe in the form a video or a picture. Surely you'd want the same level of proof for everything.

Rauko Posted on 04/01/2009 13:20
9/11 in plane sight

I see the goalposts have been moving again.

I'll perfectly admit that there is no "smoking gun" and a lot of evidence put forward is circumstantial at best and that point is the chain around the conpiracey theorists neck - however, there are some things offered which can be classed as real bona-fide evidence such as the incidents of some of the alledged terrorists being alive - even one link supplied by BL there from the esteemed BBC themselves, unless it was another "mistake".

If even 1 of those alledged are still alive then it casts doubt on the other 18 as it shows that the intelligence gathered by the official story in this regard is flawed. To quote from the BBC article for those who couldn't be bothered to check the links :

"Saudi Arabian pilot Waleed Al Shehri was one of five men that the FBI said had deliberately crashed American Airlines flight 11 into the World Trade Centre on 11 September.

His photograph was released, and has since appeared in newspapers and on television around the world.

Now he is protesting his innocence from Casablanca, Morocco.

He told journalists there that he had nothing to do with the attacks on New York and Washington, and had been in Morocco when they happened. He has contacted both the Saudi and American authorities, according to Saudi press reports.

He acknowledges that he attended flight training school at Daytona Beach in the United States, and is indeed the same Waleed Al Shehri to whom the FBI has been referring.

But, he says, he left the United States in September last year, became a pilot with Saudi Arabian airlines and is currently on a further training course in Morocco."

Raises the question of how he is able to protest his innocence when he's apparently been splatted on a New York street.

Remember : if just 1 of these hijackers is still alive then it casts doubt on the other 18 ..

.. and if there are doubts with who the terrorists are - why can't there be doubts with the rest of the story?

The final paragraph of the BBC article :

"FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledged on Thursday that the identity of several of the suicide hijackers is in doubt. "

They have even used the word "doubt" themselves .. yet the same terrorists are still bandied around as killing themselves in the 911 attacks - even the alive ones.

And as someone pointed out above about Bin Laden - there is NO evidence linking Bin Laden to the 911 events at all. None. Nada. To quote from the FBI website :

"Usama Bin Laden is wanted in connection with the August 7, 1998, bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, and Nairobi, Kenya. These attacks killed over 200 people. In addition, Bin Laden is a suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world."

He is merely classed as a "suspect in other terrorist attacks throughout the world" .. No specific mention of 911 because they have no evidence linking him to it - they'd just like to talk to him about it. All they have is a political mantra ..




Big_Shot Posted on 04/01/2009 13:24
9/11 in plane sight

A couple of problems, that article was from 8 years ago, and a martyr video of the person in that article was released a couple of years back.

BrokenLance Posted on 04/01/2009 13:25
9/11 in plane sight

Rauko, be surprised if Big_Shot even takes the time to read your post. He has his mind made up for him, and will not consider any evidence which might contradict his own views. He is obviously one of the brainwashed masses who can't think for himself.

flaps is an obvious sh!tstirrer, who has contributed nothing worthwhile to this thread.

Rauko Posted on 04/01/2009 13:29
9/11 in plane sight

And by the same token Big_Shot we can say the same things about 8 year old articles supporting the official story - people have only got what they are presented to form a judgement.

I'll coin a quote here from Leo Tolstoy which sums up both sides of the argument :

"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."

Big_Shot Posted on 04/01/2009 13:30
9/11 in plane sight

To be honest, what you say means nothing to me. Having to resort to lying lost you any credibility a long time ago. Its just a shame you can't admit you made things up.

Rauko Posted on 04/01/2009 13:30
9/11 in plane sight

Haa! I think are unconsciously trying to make this a 1000 post thread!

Big_Shot Posted on 04/01/2009 13:32
9/11 in plane sight

Rauko, absolutely. Although I don't see anyone doing that who are agreeing with the official version of events. Thats why I mentioned it. An 8 year old article, of which there has never been any further development isn't the most reliable source. What about the video released of that person in the article?

Rauko Posted on 04/01/2009 13:34
9/11 in plane sight

Of course it means nothing to you - I fully expect it to mean nothing to you. Why should anything different mean anything to anybody who already has all the answers?

Don't know if your comment was directed at me or not - so I'll put this disclaimer on and apologise if not!


Big_Shot Posted on 04/01/2009 13:36
9/11 in plane sight

Eh? I think you've got a crosswire. I was replying to BrokenLance who when challenged about his lying decided to call me brainwashed instead of simply putting me right.

terry_cochrane_on_the_wing Posted on 04/01/2009 13:39
9/11 in plane sight

Stop this idle chit chat.

I miss ian_elliot's essays.

We're long over due one [:(]

Rauko Posted on 04/01/2009 13:40
9/11 in plane sight

We all do it tho, Big_Shot - every last jack one of us. If we believe in something we'll only seek out evidence to support what we believe and ignore anything else to the contrary. Ok, this doesn't mean that "anything else" is true and we're being an idiot for ignoring it - but we won't look at it fairly - whether its a potential conspiracey or something mundane - we have a pre-concieved idea that "Its a conspiracey!" or "No! The official story is true!" and we barely budge from that stance no matter whats put in front of us.


Rauko Posted on 04/01/2009 13:41
9/11 in plane sight

I editted a disclaimer in there Big_Shot befoe you'd replied!! :)

leedfc Posted on 04/01/2009 13:43
9/11 in plane sight

9/11 Video Clips Dan Rather Would Rather Not Show You

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_0eC3uns3pA&feature=related

please watch 10 mins long

darlonorth Posted on 04/01/2009 13:52
9/11 in plane sight

Rauko: Haa! I think are unconsciously trying to make this a 1000 post thread!

911 posts would be more appropriate :)

PS- for the dudes who always say the hijackers wouldn't possess the skill to steer the planes into the buildings... -maybe the hijackers just forced the pilots to do it. We will never know.

Rauko Posted on 04/01/2009 14:04
9/11 in plane sight

Very appropriate .. :)

We don't know what happened on the planes .. Whether a terrorist flew the plane, forced the pilot or as those who favour a conspiracey would say : used something like on the Global Hawk system - ie. remote control.

To be honest tho - I'd find it unlikely a pilot would do let himself be forced into it. I think he'd rather take a box-cutter to the head than be responsible even through force .. if he reckons he's going to die anyway then make it as difficult as possible or even pull away at the last minute.

BrokenLance Posted on 04/01/2009 14:06
9/11 in plane sight

Nice video. So, NO plane wreckage found at the supposed Flight 93 'crash' site eh? Obviously, FoxNews broadcasting more LIES ;-)

BrokenLance Posted on 04/01/2009 14:06
9/11 in plane sight

Disinformation spread by Dick Cheney:

http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/archives/2001/04/april_9_2001.html

April 9, 2001
Mohammad Atta allegedly meets with senior Iraqi intelligence officials at the Iraqi embassy in Prague. The 9/11 Report (Section 7) will later debunk this claim: "The FBI has gathered evidence indicating that Atta was in Virginia Beach on April 4 (as evidenced by a bank surveillance camera photo), and in Coral Springs, Florida, on April 11, where he…leased an apartment. On April 6, 9, 10, and 11, Atta's cellular telephone was used numerous times to call various lodging establishments in Florida from cell sites within Florida… No evidence has been found that Atta was in the Czech Republic in April 2001." Dick Cheney will nevertheless repeatedly invoke the meeting as evidence of a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam.
Posted on 04/09/01 at 12:29 PM
Tags: Atta, Cheney, DOJ/FBI, FALSE INTEL, TRUE INTEL
September 19, 2001
President Bush tells CIA chief George Tenet, "I want to know about links between Saddam and al Qaeda. The Vice President knows some things that might be helpful." Vice President Cheney tells Tenet about a report that one of the hijackers, Mohammed Atta, met with senior Iraqi intelligence officials in Prague. Tenet promises to investigate. Two days later, Tenet reports back: CIA's Prague office thinks the Atta story "doesn't add up." Moreover, the intelligence community knows that Atta's credit card and phone were used in Virginia during the period in question. Cheney, however, will continue to cite the alleged meeting in public appearances.
Posted on 09/19/01 at 2:12 PM
Tags: Al Qaeda, Atta, Bush, Cheney, CIA, FALSE INTEL
December 9, 2001
Vice President Cheney, appearing on Meet the Press, claims it has "been pretty well confirmed that [Mohammed Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April, several months before the attack." He will continue to say this even after the FBI, CIA, and Czech intelligence back off the claim. The 9/11 Commission will debunk it thoroughly.
Posted on 12/09/01 at 3:40 PM
Tags: Al Qaeda, Atta, Cheney, CIA, DOJ/FBI, FALSE INTEL
September 8, 2002
Vice President Cheney also says on Meet the Press: "Mohamed Atta, who was the lead hijacker, did apparently travel to Prague on a number of occasions. And on at least one occasion, we have reporting that places him in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center."

Tim Russert: "What does the CIA say about that?"

Vice President Cheney: "It's credible."

The CIA in fact deemed this not credible a few days after Cheney first mentioned it.
Posted on 09/08/02 at 3:09 PM
Tags: Al Qaeda, Atta, Cheney, FALSE INTEL, FEAR FACTOR
January 29, 2003
In a report entitled “Iraqi Support for Terrorism,” the CIA revisits the claim that Mohammad Atta met with an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague. “Some information asserts that Atta met with IIS chief…al-Ani, but the most reliable reporting to date casts doubt on this possibility.... A CIA and FBI review of intelligence and open-source reporting leads us to question the information.”
Posted on 01/29/03 at 1:50 PM
Tags: Al Qaeda, Atta, CIA, FALSE INTEL, TRUE INTEL

BrokenLance Posted on 04/01/2009 14:08
9/11 in plane sight

The Pakistan Connection:

http://www.btinternet.com/~nlpwessex/Documents/armitageISIatta.htm
"Some circles in the US see a linkage between the recent high-profile visit of Mr. Richard Armitage, US Deputy Secretary of State, to New Delhi, the unpublicised visit of Mr.George Tenet, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), to Islamabad where he had an unusually long meeting with Gen. Pervez Musharraf, the self-styled Chief Executive of Pakistan, and the surprise decision of the Government of India to invite the General to New Delhi for talks without any longer insisting on the stoppage of Pakistani support to cross-border terrorism as a pre-condition for a resumption of the bilateral dialogue at the political level. Mr. Armitage, who had spent some years of his career in the CIA/DIA and holds the highest Pakistani civil decoration that could be awarded to a foreigner for his role during the Afghan war of the 1980s, has a large circle of friends in the Pakistani military and the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) Directorate."
MUSHARRAF: FROM CIA WITH LOVE?
South Asia Analysis Group, 25 May 2001
"If the 9-11 Commission is really looking for a smoking gun, it should look no further than at Lieutenant-General Mahmoud Ahmad, the director of the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) at the time. In early October 2001, Indian intelligence learned that Mahmoud had ordered flamboyant Saeed Sheikh - the convicted mastermind of the kidnapping and killing of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl - to wire US$100,000 from Dubai to one of hijacker Mohamed Atta's two bank accounts in Florida.... Mahmoud's involvement in September 11 might be dismissed as only Indian propaganda. But Indian intelligence swears by it, and the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has confirmed the whole story: Indian intelligence even supplied Saeed's cellular-phone numbers. Nobody has bothered to check what really happened. The 9-11 Commission should pose very specific questions about it to FBI director Robert Mueller when he testifies this month. In December 2002, Graham said he was 'surprised at the evidence that there were foreign governments involved in facilitating the activities of at least some of the [September 11] terrorists in the United States ... It will become public at some point when it's turned over to the archives, but that's 20 or 30 years from now.' He could not but be referring to Pakistan and Mahmoud. If Mahmoud was really involved in September 11, this means the Pakistani ISI -'the state within the state' - knew all about it. And if the intelligence elite in Pakistan knew it, an intelligence elite in Saudi Arabia knew it, as well as an intelligence elite in the US..... On September 10, the Pakistani daily The News reported that the Mahmoud visit to the United States 'triggered speculation about the agenda of his mysterious meetings at the Pentagon and National Security Council'. If he'd been to the National Security Council, he had certainly met Rice. Mahmoud did meet with his counterpart, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director George Tenet. Tenet and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage had been in Islamabad in May, when Tenet had 'unusually long' meetings with Musharraf. Armitage for his part has countless friends in the Pakistani military and the ISI. Mahmoud also met a number of high officials at the White House and the Pentagon and had a crucial meeting with Marc Grossman, the under secretary of state for political affairs. Rice maintains she did not meet Mahmoud then.... Million-dollar questions remain. Did Mahmoud know when and how the attacks of September 11 would happen? Did Musharraf know? Could the Bush administration have prevented September 11? It's hard to believe high echelons of the CIA and FBI were not aware of the direct link between the ISI and alleged chief hijacker Mohammed Atta. On October 7, Mahmoud was demoted from the ISI. By that time, Washington obviously knew of the connection between Mahmoud, Saeed Sheikh and Mohamed Atta: the FBI knew it.... as Asia Times Online has reported, Mahmoud did disappear. He lives in near seclusion in Rawalpindi....The families of September 11 victims, US public opinion, the demonized Islamic world, the whole world for that matter, all everybody wants to know is what really happened on September 11.... The genie - the crucial information - is still in the bottle. "

j_d76 Posted on 04/01/2009 14:08
9/11 in plane sight

BL & leedfc its a waste of time posting all those links. People who have already made their minds up won't ever look at them or read any of the stuff you've cut and pasted.

Those reports, interviews, and eye-witness accounts haven't been repeated over and over again in the mainstream media to a point where they became the accepted version of events. They were aired once when they went out live, and thats it.

The only reports, interviews and eye-witness accounts we'll ever see in the mainstream are those that follow the official story. Those ones get aired constantly so its no wonder people discount anything other than what's been rammed down their throats for the past 8 years. Its called rejection by reflex action and just human nature.

If people want to look at that stuff I'm quite sure they know how to find it, so don't waste your energy digging it up all the time.

BrokenLance Posted on 04/01/2009 14:09
9/11 in plane sight

The CIA Connection:

Atta’s CIA connection:
Published today, 12/18/06, in New York Megaphone, print run: 40,000, circulation: 66,700, NYC and Environs
by Sander Hicks
Daniel Hopsicker is an independent journalist working in Venice, Florida, outside the decommissioned military airstrips where three pilots from the 9/11 attack were trained. Hopsicker found the secret life of 9/11 ring-leader Mohamed Atta, who lead the operation by piloting the first plane into the World Trade Centre. Hopsicker found Atta’s American girlfriend, Amanda Keller. What she said broke new ground for truth-seekers worldwide. Atta had social connections and a party-boy life that indicated there was more to his story than people had been told. The American media establishment turned a blind eye to Hopsicker’s work, however. He has been called a “conspiracy theorist” in mainstream media in Florida, when he’s paid any attention at all.
Yet, in November, 2006, Hopsicker’s career turned a corner. Sources connected to the Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) told The Megaphone that his work began to be used to track Atta’s former associates. A researcher close to JTTF, speaking on condition of anonymity, told The Megaphone that the "JTTF relied heavily on Daniel's research on Atta and Amanda [Keller]. I faxed them pages from [Hopsicker’s book] Welcome to Terrorland."
The lead paid off: on November 16, 2006, the Joint Terrorism Task Force issued a “Terror Alert” for a certain Wolfgang Bohringer, a German-born, naturalized U.S. citizen who had reportedly partied with and protected Mohamed Atta in Florida. Bohringer’s name came up often in interviews with Amanda Keller. Amanda called the two “inseparable” and described how they had been kicked out of bars together. Atta called Wolfgang “brother,” a name he reserved for particular white Europeans.
Why “Brother?” During Atta’s university years in Cairo, the engineering guild that he joined had made him a member of the group Muslim Brotherhood. (9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is also a card-carrying Muslim Brother.) The group has two wings. Their front men in Egypt are non-violent, but the sordid history of the Brotherhood is that, since 1928, its anti-Semitism and anti-Zionist ideologies have made it a partner in crime for Nazis, European fascists, American far-rightists, and their powerful counterparts, the neo-conservatives.
The JTTF swiftly descended on Wolfgang Bohringer, outside Fanning Island, in the South Pacific, about 1000 miles south of Hawaii, on the 17th of November. Sources reported that the arresting officers said, “The first thing out of his mouth made him go from a ‘5’ to an ‘8’” (on a scale of importance). Allegedly, Bohringer had claimed, “You can’t arrest me, I’m working for the CIA.”
It looks like Bohringer was right. The day after the arrest, The Megaphone’s JTTF sources did an about-face. With a mix of threats and attempts at persuasion, they claimed that an error had been made: Bohringer had not been arrested. It was someone else. They couldn’t say who. That identity was secret.
Daniel Hopsicker felt betrayed. In an email to a JTTF source, he said, “perhaps y'all are unaware up there that i haven't spent the past five years in venice bumF*** florida because i have a fetish for blue-haired widows. i'm the person who discovered that mohamed atta had a close german associate named wolfgang bohringer…if NOBODY there feels that i deserve to be briefed on this story, please pass on my cordial ‘f@ck you’ to all involved.”
The Megaphone approached other sources inside national and international security agencies. One source, a former JTTF informant and undercover operative for the anti-terrorist Operation Diamondback, phoned The Megaphone office on Dec. 11, and confirmed that Wolfgang Bohringer was arrested on Nov. 17, 2006: “The answer is yes, and he's working—can't talk about it."
The message was pithy, but the effect is devastating: This might be the closest anyone has come to “proof” that Mohamed Atta had connections to the CIA.
If sources are correct, Bohringer was working for CIA when he befriended Atta in Florida. Bohringer was CIA when he was arrested by the Joint Terrorism Task Force on November 17th, 2006.
And according to the Diamondback source, Mohamed Atta best friend, Wolfgang Bohringer today is still “working” for CIA.
At this point, The New York Megaphone is out front on a story no one else has. The only thing we can say is “Qui custodiat ipso custodies?” Latin for “Who watches the watchmen?”
According to polls, national opinion is shifting towards thinking more critically about 9/11. But the only people who seem adamant these days about defending a lie are the people tasked with finding the truth.
Hicks recommends: Hopsicker's take on this story. (Reprinted below)
Source URL: http://voxpopnet.net/attascia.html


THINK, people........

jimborored Posted on 04/01/2009 14:10
9/11 in plane sight

"Why was the CCTV footage from a nearby gas station, just 200 metres away and pointing in the exact direction of the pentagon confiscated by the CIA within minutes of the incident and subsequently never shown to the public?"

If as you say Terry this was an elaborate conspiracy and by your statement you are implying that the US government had something to do with it. Then don't you think they would of done something about this camera 200 meters away before they launched their cunning plan.

Big_Shot Posted on 04/01/2009 14:12
9/11 in plane sight

Is there anything about 'most of the alleged 'hijackers' turned up at various Embassies across the Middle East the next day' in all that. I reckon not, am I right?

Not_Smog Posted on 04/01/2009 14:19
9/11 in plane sight

IT WAS THE ALIENS, THE ALIENS DID IT ALL, JFK, ROSWELL, FAKE MOON LANDING and 9/11. DAMM THOSE PESKY ALIENS!!!!

I suggest some of you go and seek help from a mental health professional before you end up in a darkened room ranting to yourself about your theorys you total and utter NUT JOBS.






leedfc Posted on 04/01/2009 14:34
9/11 in plane sight

please watch this done by the bbc.
the powers of nitghtmares think theres 3 parts.
its a must for everyone very good watch.


http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=alex+jones&hl=en&emb=0&aq=f#q=the%20powers%20of%20nitghtmares%20&hl=en&emb=0

if it does not work goto google vids
type in the powers of nightmares its 3 parts.

flaps Posted on 04/01/2009 15:07
9/11 in plane sight

Yeah some of you need to learn how to use the 'link' feature this is an unreadable mess now. Well done.

ian_elliot Posted on 04/01/2009 15:45
9/11 in plane sight

I get the feeling that some of the people commenting on this thread are the kind of people who think Michael Moore is a serious and credible journalist.

jon_timmsmfc Posted on 04/01/2009 17:31
9/11 in plane sight

I get the feeling that some of the people commenting on this thread are the kind of people who think George W Bush is a serious and credible politician.

Senor_Chester Posted on 04/01/2009 17:55
9/11 in plane sight

I was hoping that BBC clip would get posted about the building having collapsed before it did but I didn't imagine anyone could be that thick as to think all the news organisations were briefed before hand.

The mentality of some people on here is quite staggering.

Mr_Black Posted on 04/01/2009 20:38
9/11 in plane sight

A nice quote concerning conspiracy theorists:

"They use the 'reverse scientific method'. They determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."

Could anyone tell me why the pentagon attack was such a S*** cover up? I mean the hole was too small, there was no debris and they couldn't even be bothered to use a proper plane. It's like they weren't even trying.
In my oppinion if the FBI/CIA/whoever was going to try and fake a plane flying into the pentagon they'd have done a better job. Do you know how easy it would be for one of those huge american organisations to fake some CCTV footage? that's what they'd have done if the conspiracy theories were true.

Rauko Posted on 04/01/2009 20:47
9/11 in plane sight

You mean this one Senor_Chester?


Link: WTC 7 has collapsed .. No it hasn't!

Senor_Chester Posted on 04/01/2009 20:50
9/11 in plane sight

Yep, thats the one. To think thats anything other than a mistake is incomprehendably stupid.

scooby Posted on 04/01/2009 20:50
9/11 in plane sight

That's the one and he also said that anyone who thought the BBC and all other news organisations were briefed beforehand were idiots.

Rauko Posted on 04/01/2009 21:09
9/11 in plane sight

As mentioned previously - Press Releases are handed out and media outlets, in a lot of cases, are told not to broadcast until such and such a time. If .. IF .. it was deliberately brought down but got delayed yet no-one told the BBC - then theres your mistake.

We have the greatest terrorist attack in the history of the world .. 100s of TV cameras are all over the area broadcasting live .. on the ground, in the air .. 1000s of reporters from radio, tv and newspaper who have just witnessed the fall of the Twin Towers .. you think someone might have noticed if another building had fell down or not? I can imagine it would be pretty loud and a lot of dust thrown up. You know .. a live shot of it falling perhaps like 30 minutes later that we got with cameras already in place waiting for it?


Senor_Chester Posted on 04/01/2009 21:20
9/11 in plane sight

Think about what your saying!

Senor_Chester Posted on 04/01/2009 21:23
9/11 in plane sight

Think about what your saying!

flaps Posted on 04/01/2009 22:23
9/11 in plane sight

Rauko I know this is a long thread but I've already posted a video showing the woman who made that report explaining what happened.

scooby Posted on 04/01/2009 22:26
9/11 in plane sight

So you think the bbc got a press release saying "Building 7 collapses! - not for release for 30 minutes" and yet there has never been any mention of this ever, anywhere in the world? You don't think the BBC would jump all over something like that if it was the ONLY news organisation in the world that had not gone along with the conspiracy.

PS, news is released on the PA wire and they can choose to report it as and when they want. No topical current news story is released a: as a press release and b: with a non-disclosure clause.

You are an utter idiot if you still think that is how things work. I'm utterly staggered by how naive you are. Seriously, it's time to stop this as you appear extremely simple-minded in your view of the world.

Rauko Posted on 05/01/2009 01:43
9/11 in plane sight

Once more your simplifying things to suit your cosy world view of the world and as usual in conversations like this the need to resort to insults as tho your trying to show people you have the biggest C**** comes to the fore .. "biggest C****" does come into it, I agree, but not in the fashion I've just used.

Flaps tried the ridiculous attempt at the race card earlier to try and discredit BrokenLance - now its "utter idiots" and the like. Both are typical repsonses designed to try brow beat people into submission. Ok lads, you've got the bigger C****s - happy with each other?

Anything else ever happens on this scale again - theres no need to investigate it or ask questions, hell no, just send the FMTTM boys in - they'll have it cleared up in time for tea - everything is so simple and is as clear as day and anything that crops up that we may not be comfy with - just take the easy option and pass it off as a "mistake" because thats what we'll get told it is.









women_are_dirty Posted on 05/01/2009 01:48
9/11 in plane sight

Sorry for hoofing this back up but having just read a lot of this thread...

Thank you flaps, big_shot ,scooby, ian_elliot and a few others for bringing some sense to the thread.

Dibzzz Posted on 05/01/2009 09:26
9/11 in plane sight

I must admit it has a whiff of tomfoolery about it.

BrokenLance Posted on 05/01/2009 09:27
9/11 in plane sight

I'd hardly say they've brought any sense into this thread. Some people just like playing Devil's Advocate.

Some people also prefer to keep their eyes closed, as the idea that they've believed a pack of lies, both horrifies and frightens them. Safer for some to swallow the government line, even if it doesn't add up.

Big_Shot Posted on 05/01/2009 09:39
9/11 in plane sight

Well thats up to you. I suspect the majority would agree with that posters sentiments. I know one thing, none of the people mentioned have actually made things up like you did. Resorting to telling lies simply makes everything you say worthless.

leedfc Posted on 05/01/2009 09:51
9/11 in plane sight

what lies have we told.
state them.

Big_Shot Posted on 05/01/2009 09:56
9/11 in plane sight

Look, you keep yourself amused googling 9/11 and posting any old S***e it returns. I couldn't care less what you have to say about any of it.

I was just hoping BrokenLance would at least have the decency to say, yes you we're right I made that up, and we could leave it at that. He can then get back to cutting and pasting articles and saying that people who don't agree with the S***e he's posting are all brainwashed. I'll continue to call him a liar until then though.

ian_elliot Posted on 05/01/2009 10:28
9/11 in plane sight

>"Some people just like playing Devil's Advocate."

The very, very frightening thing is that not only does BrokenLance believe the crackpot theories, he actually thinks he and his paranoid friends are actually in the majority!

This level of self-delusion is normally only found on Tyneside.

lakeoffire Posted on 05/01/2009 10:28
9/11 in plane sight

95% of conspiracy theories are complete bullS***, doesn't make things interesting and strange.

I'm sorry, but even if you believe everything the US has told the world about 9/11 you gotta find some things strange.

ONE P*** POOR CAMERA AT THE MOST IMPORTANT BUILDING IN THE WORLD???!!!!

terry_cochrane_on_the_wing Posted on 05/01/2009 11:18
9/11 in plane sight

"ONE P*** POOR CAMERA AT THE MOST IMPORTANT BUILDING IN THE WORLD???!!!!"


Exactly.

But some people can't see the contradtiction when they call others gullible fools for daring to ask the question why.

If a 757 crashed into Asda in South Bank there'd be 10 times more cctv coverage of the event from both inside and out... but no, not at the Pentagon. Ah well. The crackpots will continue to question everything, the sheeple will continue to accept everything they were sold and go back to watching gameshows instead.

C'est La Vie!

flaps Posted on 05/01/2009 11:27
9/11 in plane sight

"the sheeple"

Hahaha I was wondering how long it would take one of you losers to use that phrase.

Yes, you're right. You're a special snowflake with powers of insight beyond the reach of the plebs around you. You can see things others can't. Certainly you are an intellectual collosus, bestriding the globe with your ability to see through the lies of the global illuminati and worldwide zionist conspiracy.


terry_cochrane_on_the_wing Posted on 05/01/2009 11:47
9/11 in plane sight

Nope.

Not interested in demo charges, not interested in who the hijackers were, not interested in wt7 or dodgy interviews, don't care about the when's or how's... just interested in finding a logical answer to 1 single question that has never been answered, a question so blindingly obvious those who conviently ignore it, to me, are nothing but sheep.

But its only been 8 years, so I guess I could wait another 8.



oh and I almost forgot...

"baaa!"

terry_cochrane_on_the_wing Posted on 05/01/2009 11:57
9/11 in plane sight

*patiently waits for someone to dig up some reguritated govt pap*

flaps Posted on 05/01/2009 12:08
9/11 in plane sight

"Not interested in demo charges, not interested in who the hijackers were, not interested in wt7 or dodgy interviews, don't care about the when's or how's... just interested in finding a logical answer to 1 single question that has never been answered, a question so blindingly obvious those who conviently ignore it, to me, are nothing but sheep."

It's interesting in much the same way a good book is interesting. I like reading about conspiracy theories. The difference, terry, is that I'm able to separate reality from fantasy.

The logical answers are already known, they just don't suit your harry potter world-view.

terry_cochrane_on_the_wing Posted on 05/01/2009 13:43
9/11 in plane sight

"The logical answers are already known"


Are they? I must of missed the one I'm looking for then.

Care to elaborate on the clip from Pentagon toll booth camera then? Like as to why its the only footage released?, like as to why its so unclear to make it difficult for those who sit on the fence to decide either way?, as to why a place like the Pentagon would have no other footage available from the surviellance camera's surrounding it, and if they do have more footage, as to why they won't show it to the public so that it finally shuts the conspiracy crackpots up once and for all?

And since you KNOW the logical answers are already known you must be, how did you so elequently cut & paste it?, "a special snowflake with powers of insight beyond the reach of the plebs around you. You can see things others can't."

And with that in mind, please go ahead and finally answer my questions. But don't fob me off with lame excuses like look for them yourself, or look at the 9/11 commission report its in there, or tell me how I'd never be satisfied anyway no matter what you said, and please don't patronize me with statements like, "maybe its because of national security", or "there simply isn't any more to be shown".
Because remember, we're takling about the logical answer here, the one thats already known according to you - not something you'll find in a Harry Potter book.

flaps Posted on 05/01/2009 13:50
9/11 in plane sight

"And since you KNOW the logical answers are already known you must be, how did you so elequently cut & paste it?, "a special snowflake with powers of insight beyond the reach of the plebs around you. You can see things others can't.""

No, just an average guy who can weigh up evidence and decide for myself without engaging in hysterics.


"Like as to why its the only footage released?, like as to why its so unclear to make it difficult for those who sit on the fence to decide either way?"

How many CCTV cameras show that part of the pentagon? There's one pointing right at the incident and that's not good enough for you. Do you want super slow motion CCTVs designed to capture impact from an object traveling at hundreds of miles an hour? Do they exist?

I haven't decided upon the logical answers, they're just self evident. If you want to deviate from what is apparent, evidenced and accepted by majority the onus of proof is on you.

Try this for an exercise: give me something that casts doubt on the official version of events that isn't phrased as a question. Give me a fact, not the absence of something you expect - which is an ever changing goalpost.



Fearless_Fish Posted on 05/01/2009 14:00
9/11 in plane sight

Forgive me if this has been covered, it's a long thread, but...

Evidence for plane hitting pentagon:
* many eyewitness reports
* photographic evidence of plane debris outside of pentagon
* experts reports on the scene of the incident

Evidence for missile hitting pentagon:
* one "eyewitness report" that later turned out he said plane.

THESE are the reasons people believe a plane hit the pentagon, not falling "hook, line and sinker" for what the US government tell them.

BrokenLance Posted on 05/01/2009 14:25
9/11 in plane sight

Ian, and others on this board, when you have to resort to insults, you have lost your argument, and all credibility.

If you have points to make, make them. Don't just slag people off because you disagree with them, and cannot match with beliefs with credible arguments.

flaps Posted on 05/01/2009 14:28
9/11 in plane sight

lol get out lance you utter fool

leedfc Posted on 05/01/2009 14:36
9/11 in plane sight

there is 85 video surveillance cameras —footage been withheld by the US justice department.
ask your self why.
next time you out and look into the sky for a plane look at it and tell me if you can tell if its a plane or not.
if you go to a airport and watch one land can you still tell it a plane.
then think if you were walking alone the road and you heard a loud noise you turn round would you know if its a plane or not.
they are too big to make a mistake.
weather its 400 mph or a 100 mph you cant miss what a plane looks at.




terry_cochrane_on_the_wing Posted on 05/01/2009 14:39
9/11 in plane sight

"How many CCTV cameras show that part of the pentagon? There's one pointing right at the incident and that's not good enough for you."

When I'm supposed to take it on blind faith what that camera captured is exactly what they said it was, and subsequently accept all the consequences that came after it, then no its not good enough.


"Do you want super slow motion CCTVs designed to capture impact from an object travelling at hundreds of miles an hour? Do they exist?"

I want them to PROVE to me what they're saying. I want to see that incident from a different camera or camera angle so as to at least make it a little bit clearer and strengthen their claim. I don't believe it was the only image taken, you believe it was, or at least you don't question it. If they don't have any more imagery to backup their claim, then I want to know why no independent agency was allowed to inspect whatever wreckage remained to verify that claim.


"I haven't decided upon the logical answers, they're just self evident."

They're only self evident to you and those who took it on blind faith without question. There is absolutely nothing self-evident about that video clip other than "something" hit the pentagon.


"Try this for an exercise: give me something that casts doubt on the official version of events that isn't phrased as a question."

Ok. Exhibit A: The Pentagon toll-booth video clip.
Take a look at that image again. Now if you can tell me with hand on heart that what you SEE is without question a 757 jet aircraft hitting the building, I'll respect that answer and leave it at that. But unless you have bionic eyes that can descipher an image travelling at 500mph across 5 frames of poor quality footage taken through a fish-eye-lens camera 200m away, you will never see an aeroplane. You will see exactly what everyone else see's.... a fuzzy blur. You've only been TOLD its an aeroplane, that is all.

The people who are not blindly accepting what they've been TOLD and are actually going by what they can SEE are the one's asking the questions. Yet they get called conspiracy nutters and tarred with the same brush as the alex jones' and michael moore's when they dare broaden that question out from just talking about a particular image to asking the next logical question -

"why is that the only image they'll show us?, I need something more conclusive", or

"why won't they release footage from the other Pentagon surveillance camera's? it makes no sense that they won't?", or

"why did they consfiscate the footage from cctv cameras taken by the gas station and Sheraton Hotel?", or the common-sense question of

"why are they only showing us a short fuzzy clip taken from a toll booth camera - this is the Pentagon afterall, the most security-conscious building on earth".


Now again, we can argue back and forth forever about those questions and their answers as neither of us have the evidence, but if you condemn people as conspiracy crackpots for asking those questions then they have every right to call you a sheep for doing the exact opposite.

Not everyone is an Alex Jones who believes there's a massive conspiracy going on - some just want answers to the blatant inconsistancies that are staring them in the face.

flaps Posted on 05/01/2009 14:40
9/11 in plane sight

"next time you out and look into the sky for a plane look at it and tell me if you can tell if its a plane or not."

lmao

i've come up with this checklist just for this eventuality:

[] bird
[] plane
[] superman

flaps Posted on 05/01/2009 14:43
9/11 in plane sight

"I want them to PROVE to me what they're saying. I want to see that incident from a different camera or camera angle so as to at least make it a little bit clearer and strengthen their claim. "

yeah then youll want another angle, and a better picture, and a smoother video youll never be happy until you see a picture of a cruise missile half way inside a pentagon window which wont happen because that didnt happen

"Take a look at that image again. Now if you can tell me with hand on heart that what you SEE is without question a 757 jet aircraft hitting the building,"

Of course not, it's moving too quickly. No CCTV camera in the world would have got a good image of it.

Luckily, all the other evidence corroborates what happened - a plane hit the pentagon




I asked you earlier: "Try this for an exercise: give me something that casts doubt on the official version of events that isn't phrased as a question. Give me a fact, not the absence of something you expect - which is an ever changing goalpost."

You've singulularly failed, Terry. Stop F***ing around with the absence of fact (in your eyes) to prove the official version of events and give me your own facts to back up your claims. That's how proof works. Gimme it. Show me the evidence.

ian_elliot Posted on 05/01/2009 14:46
9/11 in plane sight

>"Ok. Exhibit A: The Pentagon toll-booth video clip.
Take a look at that image again. Now if you can tell me with hand on heart that what you SEE is without question a 757 jet aircraft hitting the building, I'll respect that answer and leave it at that. But unless you have bionic eyes that can descipher an image travelling at 500mph across 5 frames of poor quality footage taken through a fish-eye-lens camera 200m away, you will never see an aeroplane. You will see exactly what everyone else see's.... a fuzzy blur. You've only been TOLD its an aeroplane, that is all."

Absolutely bonkers! Yes you're right there's no high quality video to confirm 100% that it was a boeing 757 but when coupled with all of the very clear witness statements, and the complete lack of any evidence to the contrary other than someone describing the object as "like a cruise missile with wings" which is a fair analogy for a plane being used as a weapon, I'm prepared to take the leap of faith that it was a plane, and more specifically the plane that the world's media has reported it to be.

I would give up, but its just too much fun playing with the paranoids on here.


scooby Posted on 05/01/2009 14:50
9/11 in plane sight

"[] bird
[] plane
[] superman"

[:D]

terry_cochrane_on_the_wing Posted on 05/01/2009 14:51
9/11 in plane sight

"Show me the evidence."


Show me the evidence it was a 757!!!

You see how this game works? You either BELIEVE what you've been told since they HAVEN'T PROVIDED EVIDENCE, or you QUESTION what you've been told.

Has it sunk in yet?

leedfc Posted on 05/01/2009 14:51
9/11 in plane sight

as for the clip look at the time its wrong and the wrong date.
hold on thats ok it was mistake.


ian_elliot Posted on 05/01/2009 14:52
9/11 in plane sight

>"since they HAVEN'T PROVIDED EVIDENCE"

Apart from the dozens of eyewitness statements and the debris of the plane?

flaps Posted on 05/01/2009 14:54
9/11 in plane sight

Here is the evidence

You won't read it, because you don't like it.

There are oodles of photographs.

And a summary:

Review the facts
Size of 757 matches the initial size of hole in the building - somewhere between 13 and 16 feet (757 is 13 feet wide/high)
Rims found in building match those of a 757
Small turbine engine outside is an APU
Same engine has been clearly stated to not match a Global Hawk engine
Blue seats from 757 laying on ground in photos
Part of "American" fuselage logo visible in more than 1 photo
Engine parts photographed inside match a Rolls-Royce RB211
Structural components photographed in wreckage match Boeing paint primer schemes
Large deisel generator in front of building hit by a large heavy object
Large deisel engine outside is spun towards the building - could not be result of bomb blast or missile explosion
Multiple eye witnesses say they saw an airliner
Multiple eye witnesses say they saw an airliner hit the Pentagon
60+ bodies, matching the passenger list and flight crew roster identified and returned to families from Pentagon wreckage


Link: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thre

scooby Posted on 05/01/2009 14:58
9/11 in plane sight

Those bits of plane wreckage and the bodies of the passengers probably nailed it for me.

Is this where we talk about "front-line grunts" carrying a bit of the plane at a time to arrive at the Pentagon at the exact same instant to put it all down in a big burning hole?

terry_cochrane_on_the_wing Posted on 05/01/2009 15:01
9/11 in plane sight

"Apart from the dozens of eyewitness statements and the debris of the plane?"

*bangs head against wall*

Go and read the whole of this thread again. There have been plenty of people talking about the witnesses.

There were just as many witnesses that said it was a plane as there were those who said it wasn't. The only witnesses whose testimony was used in the 9/11 commission came from those that fitted the offical line.

There are plenty of live-on-air accounts from BOTH sides, but one version got media airtime and 8 years of constant repetative broadcast, the other version didn't.

Can you read between the lines?

lakeoffire Posted on 05/01/2009 15:04
9/11 in plane sight

haha some of them pictures are hilarious.

just an arrow to a really blurry pic "same wheel as 757" lol

scooby Posted on 05/01/2009 15:05
9/11 in plane sight

"Go and read the whole of this thread again. There have been plenty of people talking about the witnesses."

We have mate, it's been a laugh a minute.

"There were just as many witnesses that said it was a plane as there were those who said it wasn't. The only witnesses whose testimony was used in the 9/11 commission came from those that fitted the offical line."

WHAT A TOTAL LIE. There are not the same number of witnesses saying it was not a plane as those who said it was. How many people recovering burnt passengers from within the pentagon thought they were from anything other than a plane?

"There are plenty of live-on-air accounts from BOTH sides, but one version got media airtime and 8 years of constant repetative broadcast, the other version didn't."

There's a reason. One is totally unfounded in truth. You';ve spectacularly failed to acknowledge the other points flaps raised. I'll make it easy - it's the bit about a plane and it's entire contents being found in the burning hole in the Pentagon.

"Can you read between the lines?"

That's your problem.

leedfc Posted on 05/01/2009 15:07
9/11 in plane sight

PENTAGON ATTACK: WHERE IS THE PLANE???

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=lsWZHKIg3Cs
this is the best clip i have found just after the crash.

flaps Posted on 05/01/2009 15:09
9/11 in plane sight

"just an arrow to a really blurry pic "same wheel as 757" lol"

haha and this is you conceding defeat. took over 400 posts but finally one of these loons sees light

scooby Posted on 05/01/2009 15:10
9/11 in plane sight

Amazing how that cruise missile knocked down those lamposts as it cruised in.

flaps Posted on 05/01/2009 15:10
9/11 in plane sight

"PENTAGON ATTACK: WHERE IS THE PLANE???

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=lsWZHKIg3Cs
this is the best clip i have found just after the crash."

you complain about a 'blurry' image of a wheel (which isnt) then post this?

swordtrombonefish Posted on 05/01/2009 15:13
9/11 in plane sight

Will the real David Icke please stand up?

lakeoffire Posted on 05/01/2009 15:14
9/11 in plane sight

I'm not pro conspiracy, i want them to PROVE it was a plane.

they havent done a good job so far

"... it came straight over my head, fast as anything, thought it must have lost its wings and hence its nose dive" Lee Walsh, Newark Post September 13th 2001

ian_elliot Posted on 05/01/2009 15:17
9/11 in plane sight

Hey BrokenLance, Terry Cochrane etc... have you noticed that all of your posts have "IP: Logged" written next to them.

Must worry you a bit that eh?

flaps Posted on 05/01/2009 15:17
9/11 in plane sight

lol lakeoffire you pillock

im bored of proving these things to you so im just going to laugh at you instead

scooby Posted on 05/01/2009 15:19
9/11 in plane sight

lake, is the bodies of the passengers of that plane inside the pentagon not enough proof for you? How else did they get their?

And are the bits of wreckage all over of a plane not enough proof? How did they get there then?

Is the damage on the approach and fires from jet fuel not enough proof for you? How did the fuel get there and how were the cars and lamposts on approach damaged then?



Dibzzz Posted on 05/01/2009 15:21
9/11 in plane sight

It does defy logic that one of the most secure buildings on the planet can't come up with better cctv footage than this.

leedfc Posted on 05/01/2009 15:31
9/11 in plane sight

never seen this clip but it does show something hitting the building.
like i say am not a nut just want the truth.
must see this one.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8Vnu_yiUzls&feature=related

another thing why would someone been up there looking at Pentagon at the time it was hit at the right place

flaps Posted on 05/01/2009 15:32
9/11 in plane sight

"never seen this clip but it does show something hitting the building."

of course something hit the building - a big B****** jet plane you clown

lakeoffire Posted on 05/01/2009 15:32
9/11 in plane sight

were there no bodies inside the pentagon already?

wouldn't it be in interest to make a missile with plane like details?


ian_elliot Posted on 05/01/2009 15:35
9/11 in plane sight

>"Never seen this clip but it does show something hitting the building."

Thats CGI

flaps Posted on 05/01/2009 15:35
9/11 in plane sight

yes they dressed up a cruise missile like a jumbo jet then deposited the charred remains of people who had boarded the plane that allegedly hit without anyone else seeing then got rid of the real plane


what a load of F***ing balls

why not try suggesting something that could actually happen in the real world? how about 'the CIA paid and/or threatened a group of muslims to hijack a plane and smash it into the pentagon'?

flaps Posted on 05/01/2009 15:37
9/11 in plane sight

NEVAR SEEN BEFORE FOOTAGE OF AMERICAN AIRWAYS FLIGHT 77 CAN *YOU* SEE IT HIT THE PENTAGON?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=w0G4lE04-cU

scooby Posted on 05/01/2009 15:37
9/11 in plane sight

"were there no bodies inside the pentagon already?"

I actually said "bodies of the passengers" which confirms you only want to read what you want to see. So explain how those passengers got there then.

"wouldn't it be in interest to make a missile with plane like details?"

[:D] LMFAO!!!!!

What, they stuck real plane parts on a missile? I shan't be dignifying that with a response mate as that is just plain rank stupidity on your part.

Let's put it this way, a missile made out of plane parts with the passengers of that plane in it full of jet fuel is what we, the people with brains, call a plane.


leedfc Posted on 05/01/2009 15:40
9/11 in plane sight

flaps.
at least i know your age now or someone with a kids mind.

lakeoffire Posted on 05/01/2009 15:42
9/11 in plane sight

I know you couldn't stick your panini stickers in properly scooby but i reckon it wouldn't be too hard to put them on the side of big missile or military plane etc etc.

and you totally didn't answer my question. Could the bodies not have been people who were in the pentagon???

ian_elliot Posted on 05/01/2009 15:43
9/11 in plane sight

>"Could the bodies not have been people who were in the pentagon???"

Yeah they probably didn't bother id'ing the dead bodies did they? Its not like the families would be wondering or anything.

lakeoffire Posted on 05/01/2009 15:44
9/11 in plane sight

"why not try suggesting something that could actually happen in the real world? how about 'the CIA paid and/or threatened a group of muslims to hijack a plane and smash it into the pentagon'"

and there's plenty of evidence suggesting this.

Didn't bin laden's brother have an investment in Bush's texan business?

ian_elliot Posted on 05/01/2009 15:46
9/11 in plane sight

>"and there's plenty of evidence suggesting this"

Ooh goodie - lets hear it. We're running out of things to disprove now.

lakeoffire Posted on 05/01/2009 15:47
9/11 in plane sight

are these the families that want to know what really happened?

scooby Posted on 05/01/2009 15:50
9/11 in plane sight

Answering a question with a question I see.

So, in summary, they identified the dead bodies of those inside the pentagon as passengers and you can't explain how they got there.

Well the fact that they were surrounded by the plane they had boarded a few hours before would probably seem conclusive.

ian_elliot Posted on 05/01/2009 15:51
9/11 in plane sight

>"are these the families that want to know what really happened?"

Yeah they want to know why their loved ones died, not why they didn't die in a plane crash and why the bodies in their loved ones' graves are in fact those of people who worked in the Pentagon.

lakeoffire Posted on 05/01/2009 15:52
9/11 in plane sight

only took you 450 posts to put a link to anything significant.

you obviously missed some earlier posts. where i said i believe that what happened happened, but i like conspiracy theories, they're interesting and there's plenty of stuff that still needs addressing.

I think the watergate scandal and the oklahoma bombing shows the US can do what the hell they like when the hell they like

lakeoffire Posted on 05/01/2009 15:54
9/11 in plane sight

OMG even if its a plane and two planes hit the wtc there's still loads of things that are dodgy as fook is my point, how are you not getting this.

do you believe everything your told at face value?

flaps Posted on 05/01/2009 15:56
9/11 in plane sight

"big missile or military plane etc etc."

lol

scooby Posted on 05/01/2009 15:56
9/11 in plane sight

Oh so you believe it and are just playing devils advocate?

Funny how you ALL do that when your P***-weak arguments are exposed.

I'm glad you mentioned those two famous incidents where a crime was detected and punished as some sort of parallel with the 911 conspiracy theories in which no crime has been detected (from teh US side) and no conspirators prosecuted.



flaps Posted on 05/01/2009 15:56
9/11 in plane sight

"and there's plenty of evidence suggesting this."

So you have evidence that the CIA paid some muslims to ride a cruise missiles dressed up as a passenger jet into the pentagon? This should be good.


ian_elliot Posted on 05/01/2009 15:57
9/11 in plane sight

>"I think the watergate scandal and the oklahoma bombing shows the US can do what the hell they like when the hell they like"

Comparing a bit of money laundering, bribery and illegal wire-tapping to staging a deliberate attack aimed at causing the deaths of thousands of your own civilians says an awful lot about your powers of logic and reasoning lakeoffire.

flaps Posted on 05/01/2009 15:57
9/11 in plane sight

"do you believe everything your told at face value?"

lmao you swallow any old B******* conspiracy because youre an idiot

scooby Posted on 05/01/2009 15:58
9/11 in plane sight

"OMG even if its a plane and two planes hit the wtc there's still loads of things that are dodgy as fook is my point, how are you not getting this.

do you believe everything your told at face value?"

So you accept two planes hit the WTC towers and one hit the pentagon. Well, newsflash bozo, that's precisely what I have been saying ALL along. If there is anything else to add, be quick about it.

lakeoffire Posted on 05/01/2009 15:59
9/11 in plane sight

follow the gimp

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

flaps Posted on 05/01/2009 16:00
9/11 in plane sight

Wait - has somebody seriously used the Watergate affair as an example of the American government being able to carry out a conspiracy?

That was half a dozen crooks breaking into a building - and they couldnt get that right lmao

rivals_oldschool Posted on 05/01/2009 16:02
9/11 in plane sight

Tower 7 had been threatening to collapse quite a while after the twin towers came down.

I remember even on the day reports coming out of rescue workers having to continually flee on fears it was going to collapse.

So quite obviously when a reported stated the tower had collapsed before it had, the only possible explanation is a Govt conspiracy, not in any way a simple C**** up.

As for the Pentagon, it would seem reasonable to think why they would confiscate CCTV footage of a plane hitting the headquarters of the United States Department of Defense.

Muttley Posted on 05/01/2009 16:04
9/11 in plane sight

"follow the gimp"

sorry I thought this was the criminal mastermind who concocted a master plan to launch cruise missiles disguised as muslims into the Pentagon to precipitate the war on terror?

Make your mind up.

lakeoffire Posted on 05/01/2009 16:07
9/11 in plane sight

seriously, you don't even read my posts properly. just what you want to hear, bend stuff to what you want it to sound like

terry_cochrane_on_the_wing Posted on 05/01/2009 16:08
9/11 in plane sight

flaps - Interesting site you linked there, but did you conviently stop reading it halfway through when you came to the alternative "evidence" put forth a few pages later? Selective reading strikes again maybe.

scoob "WHAT A TOTAL LIE". So is she a total liar or just ....


Link: a figment of your tiny imagination?

flaps Posted on 05/01/2009 16:08
9/11 in plane sight

lol quick somebody take him seriously he's getting upset

terry_cochrane_on_the_wing Posted on 05/01/2009 16:09
9/11 in plane sight

Dibzzz Posted on 05/01/2009 15:21 Email this Message | Reply
9/11 in plane sight

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It does defy logic that one of the most secure buildings on the planet can't come up with better cctv footage than this.



Which is the question I originally posed way back up there somewhere, but its easy to get side-tracked and talk about specifics. Funny how no one could answer it though or explain their "logic" behind it. [:D]

ian_elliot Posted on 05/01/2009 16:13
9/11 in plane sight

"Funny how no one could answer it though or explain their "logic" behind it. [:D]"

I did - take a read above. An object travelling at 150-300mph across a field of view of something like 50 metres on a camera recording it around 50fps.

They are unlikely to have several cameras filming the same spot at the same time - if they did then I'd say that was suspicious - almost as if they were expecting something.

flaps Posted on 05/01/2009 16:17
9/11 in plane sight

"did you conviently stop reading it halfway through when you came to the alternative "evidence" put forth a few page later?"

I read the first couple of pages of a long thread. Why don't you post this alternative evidence?

terry_cochrane_on_the_wing Posted on 05/01/2009 16:18
9/11 in plane sight

"They are unlikely to have several cameras filming the same spot at the same time - if they did then I'd say that was suspicious - almost as if they were expecting something."



That made me laugh out loud.

Cheers! [:D]

leedfc Posted on 05/01/2009 16:27
9/11 in plane sight

http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.check-6.com/gallery/img/electronic/predator_drone_cslattery.jpg&imgrefurl=http://2164th.blogspot.com/2008/10/why-did-drone-snap.html&h=450&w=675&sz=109&tbnid=L_Qgq_VunE1nfM::&tbnh=92&tbnw=138&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dusa%2Bdrone%2Bpictures&hl=en&usg=__pt6um9vTg4j9zUNHlEInc7Dgw5o=&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=4&ct=image&cd=1

copy and paste sorry if it seems a long link but it does work.

wow its a plane and look at the size of it.

flaps Posted on 05/01/2009 16:31
9/11 in plane sight

sorry leedfc, whats your point?

scooby Posted on 05/01/2009 16:34
9/11 in plane sight

Why don't people put the fooking links in the 'link' box rather than totally F*** up the entire page?

And terry:

"WHAT A TOTAL LIE. There are not the same number of witnesses saying it was not a plane as those who said it was."

That was what I said. I didn't say no-one had claimed to see that, I simply stated that the statement that the number of people saying it was a plane was equal to the number of people saying it was a cruise missile. So that was a LIE.

Please try to take my sentences as a whole and not simply quote a couple of words that suit you.

leedfc Posted on 05/01/2009 16:48
9/11 in plane sight

sorry scooby
can you tell me how to do it and i wont do it again.
new to this kind of stuff

Muttley Posted on 05/01/2009 16:48
9/11 in plane sight

"wow its a plane and look at the size of it."

No, that is a predator drone, or UAV, it's not a plane and it's not a cruise missile and no-one (not even you, Lee) would mistake it for a Boeing 757.

Big_Shot Posted on 05/01/2009 16:50
9/11 in plane sight

Well for starters go back to the problem thread and delete the web address entirely. If you post ridiculously long web addresses as text it makes the thread unreadable. If you can't work out how to do it yourself don't bother posting web addresses at all.

scooby Posted on 05/01/2009 16:52
9/11 in plane sight

How the hell people can't post links is beyond me. Are you fooking dense?

leedfc Posted on 05/01/2009 16:54
9/11 in plane sight

thats what am been saying all along.
we have so many people say it was not a plane.
could this be the ans.

Muttley Posted on 05/01/2009 16:56
9/11 in plane sight

It's tiny, you eejit (those aren't giants stood next to it in the picture) if that had hit the Pentagon it might have broken a few windows. It's a reconnaissance drone used for taking live images of a battlefield.

scooby Posted on 05/01/2009 16:57
9/11 in plane sight

I think you need to go and read up on how heavy that is and how fast it can go because it simple doesn't resemble a jumbo to look at and it certainly move as fast as a jumbo can.

Here's the slamdunk:

You couldn't fit 60 passengers in it, or enough jet fuel to penetrate three layers of the pentagon. Back to the drawing board. Face it, it was a 757.

Rauko Posted on 05/01/2009 17:01
9/11 in plane sight

Again, I personally do believe a plane hit the pentagon .. if people who know more about aircraft than me claim it was a 757 - so be it, I don't have any reason to argue with that assesment.

Where I find the discrepency in regards to the Pentagon is the "how" .. We have one bunch of professionals claiming a bunch of terrorists flew it into the Pentagon .. we have another bunch of professionals claiming there are numerous discrepencies in the data and evidence that was provided in the official account which don't stack up - such as the flight data recording of events at the Pentagon which don't correlate to the official story.

Its maybe that if these discrepencies are answered sufficiently things will make sense in regards of the Pentagon - 7.5 years later, however, the issues have still not been addressed.

Now I know the some people don't need these issues addressed and will quite happilly assume, for instance, that the lack of CCTV coverage at one of the most secure buildings in the world is due to the fact that Barrys Security Firm (also painting and decorating when needed) was in charge of setting up the CCTV system with a few cameras he pulled out of a job he did in '88 .. Thats fine if you want to assume that .. But if there are descrepencies in one part of the official story that have been highlighted - isn't it therefore possible that there are descrepencies in other parts of the story?

Again, they could well be easily cleared up - so far, to a lot of people, they have not been cleared up sufficiently.

Is that a problem with the people asking the questions?

Or

Is that a problem with the actual investigation? Could it suggest a cover up? Or just something riddled with "mistakes"?

Or

Is that a problem with the actual events of 911 not being what we've been told?

Some people are perfectly happy with an answer of the "grass is green" when they ask the colour of grass .. thats fine .. however, some people then want to know why the grass is green .. If the answer given as to why the grass is green doesn't actually point to the grass being green on examination .. then people are going to keep asking.













scooby Posted on 05/01/2009 17:04
9/11 in plane sight

It's because of chlorophyll.

I'd love to discuss what went on behind the scenes about who organised it but I'm afraid we are rather sidetracked with the other issues you fellow idiots have brought up. One thing at a time, I'm getting a bit tired of your switching the goalposts ever ytime you lot get hammered.

lakeoffire Posted on 05/01/2009 17:07
9/11 in plane sight

Can someone answer me why they came off red alert the day before the attacks or whatever it was?

also, are we to presume that the wings followed the plane into the hole?
why would they not break off when they hit the lawn or the building?

lakeoffire Posted on 05/01/2009 17:12
9/11 in plane sight

thats bollox, we've asked plenty of legitimate 'questions' and musements of what people think went on and how it was done so don't backtrack scooby

Rauko Posted on 05/01/2009 17:15
9/11 in plane sight

Of course its chlorophyll - its been sufficiently proven its chlorophyll .. unfortunately, even the NTSBs official recreation of the aircrafts flight into the Pentagon based on the flight data recorder contradicts the official story - so therefore the official story has not sufficiently been proven .. there are errors in the official story.

Unless your suggesting a conspiracey where all flight data recorders are actually incorrect and provide incorrect data?

leedfc Posted on 05/01/2009 17:16
9/11 in plane sight

scooby.
I'm getting a bit tired of your switching the goalposts everytime you lot get hammered.
where have you hammered us.
please list and i will ans them for you the best i can.


scooby Posted on 05/01/2009 17:19
9/11 in plane sight

I'm not backtracking, I'm asking that we stick with the current topic in hand, namely that some are not convinced (including you it seems) that a plane hit the pentagon. No-one has answered how the passengers bodies got inside if it was a drone/missile so if anyone is backtracking, it is people trying to change the subject onto something else now they are not comfortable with the answers they are getting.

I presume the wings would not have just snapped off because a: I'm using the Newtonian physics model and not the Looney Tunes one and b: because they didn't do it on the two other occasions planes hit the world trade center.

I've answered yours, would you care to explain how those passenger's bodies got inside the pentagon? No-one has yet - it's like a conspiracy.

Or are you going to use the old "I think it was a plane, I'm just not blindly following the governmen" line?

scooby Posted on 05/01/2009 17:20
9/11 in plane sight

leeds, the bits where people claimed they were not planes and it has been proven that they were. Are you not keeping up?

jon_timmsmfc Posted on 05/01/2009 17:21
9/11 in plane sight

How the hell people can't post links is beyond me. Are you fooking dense?


ffs grow up



leedfc to post a link -

copy the website address and paste in to where its says : Link Address

(sometimes you have to delete the http:// bit if your link doesnt work)

then type in a name where it says : Link Name

(links won't appear if you don't give them a name in that box)

scooby Posted on 05/01/2009 17:26
9/11 in plane sight

Rauko, the flight data was fine but I suspect the pressure reading had not been set by the terrorists who I presume had little motivation to ensure that their reported position was calibrated correctly for the purposes of the investigation afterwards. Or perhaps the data was simply not recorded correctly.

I was lucky enough to sit in the co-pilot seat on a flight last year with work and I was asked to adjust the calibration for the altimeter with new pressure readings about every 20 minutes.

The article I read on that said that the plane must have been over 480 feet. The article also stated that it would have made the lamp posts that were knocked down need to be 480 feet tall!

So logic would suggest that, as they weren't that tall, the height reported was not 480 feet and readings in the C****pit were not adjusted correctly to account for pressure.

Or are you saying that the greatest conspirators of all time made a silly error when brilliantly faking the C****pit data recorder? Sorry, what was that? Just asking questions are you?

scooby Posted on 05/01/2009 17:30
9/11 in plane sight

jon_timmsmfc, you put the address in the bit marked address and the name in the bit marked name? I take it all back, it sounds very difficult.

Senor_Chester Posted on 05/01/2009 17:30
9/11 in plane sight

Terry your like a dog with a bone on this point over the video footage of a plane hitting the Pentagon. Can't you understand that if it was a conspiracy then they would be MORE likely to have been videos released of a dodgy plane hitting the building.

Why go into so much trouble and to the extents they would have had to go to to bringing the towers down and then do nothing at the pentagon than to shot a few bits of plane wreckage around the lawn.

The answer is because this is the way it just happened.

Rauko Posted on 05/01/2009 17:31
9/11 in plane sight

If that last line was aimed at me - I think you'll find I've said it was a plane right through this thread .. You making assumptions once more based on what you want to believe?

What this entire thread is proving - and your "jumping around" comment shows - is that 911 wasn't something that was as black and white or simple as what your trying to make out.

Terrorists or inside job aside - it shows there is a massive body of information concerning the events of that day (plus before and after) of which nobody - yes, not even your exalted good self - knows inside out and nor fully understands what happened.

You can offer a preference of what you believed happened .. and so can anybody else.




scooby Posted on 05/01/2009 17:35
9/11 in plane sight

Well all I've said all along is that planes were flown into those three buildings by the people who it was said flew them.

My proof is the bodies that were recovered and identified and the wreckage that was found.

If this thread wasn't full of people claiming otherwise, I wouldn't have posted.

I don't really care about proving or disproving who is behind it, I'm just here to laugh at the people who think it was a drone packed with 60 passengers!

As for the line about the C****pit recorder, it was aimed at you - you brought it up. You seem to be unable to believe that the C****pit data recorder was wrong but it would appear so.

leedfc Posted on 05/01/2009 17:57
9/11 in plane sight

well scooby.
I don't really care about proving or disproving who is behind it, I'm just here to laugh at the people who think it was a drone packed with 60 passengers!.
WELL I DO.

i only posted that a few post up to say if that flew past me at 400 mph i might of said it was a plane too.
i never said it was a drone or anything like that i was showing you that how big it was.

one thing can you ans why then was someone making a video in the air pointing the cam at the right spot the plane hit.
when everyone was grounded and noone was allowed to be in the air at that time.
please tell me


Senor_Chester Posted on 05/01/2009 18:01
9/11 in plane sight

Show me the video of the camera pointing to the exact point then?

If this was true anyway and they went to the trouble of doing it they would have also done it at the pentagon you loon.

leedfc Posted on 05/01/2009 18:07
9/11 in plane sight

sorry still cant do a link yet

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8Vnu_yiUzls&feature=related

24 sec clip its the first time i have seen this before.

ian_elliot Posted on 05/01/2009 18:13
9/11 in plane sight

>http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8Vnu_yiUzls&feature=related

Its still a fake, just like it was when you posted it earlier today.

leedfc Posted on 05/01/2009 18:22
9/11 in plane sight

why is it a fake

Senor_Chester Posted on 05/01/2009 18:26
9/11 in plane sight

I've seen a few of the conspiracy programs and never seen that before in any of them, proving how bad it is. 1/10 - very poor.

ian_elliot Posted on 05/01/2009 18:26
9/11 in plane sight

Why is it a fake?

Where do you want to start? Just watch it - for one thing the white object - which appears to be a paper airplane - bounces off the Pentagon before dissolving without damaging the building.

Read some of the 1,700 comments and see how many of them also agree with me that its a fake.

ian_elliot Posted on 05/01/2009 18:26
9/11 in plane sight


Rauko Posted on 05/01/2009 18:30
9/11 in plane sight

I see scooby ..so your asking us to put your couple of hours sitting on the captains knee in a C****pit above the 10000s of flight hours of pilots around the world who reasonably ask : "hang on a mo - this doesn't add up"? .. That makes sense.

Your doing exactly the same as what you accuse any conspiracey theorist of - your filling in the blanks and shuffling evidence to fit a preferred belief.

"A plane was hijacked and flown by terrorists into one of the most secure buildings in world exactly like the official story tells us."

Why no clear CCTV footage then?

Erm . Barrys Security Services fitted the CCTV and one of the most secure buildings in the world would only have a couple of grainy cameras like you or I have overlooking our garden sheds and not have access to the very best technology available.

The NTSB official flight path shows a discrepency in the actual flight path against that told us in the official story - how do you explain that?

Errm .. the flight recorder, which records the flight data of an aircraft and which every aircraft in the world flies contains and which is used in crash investigations every single time a crash happens, was wrong - just ANOTHER coincidence on that day where something just happened to be wrong on one of the most important flights in the history of aviation - and you can categorically state the flight data was obviously wrong because Little Scooby got allowed to sit on the captains knee in a C****pit once and god-knows how many professional pilot "paranoid mentalists" have failed to come to the same conclusion proposed here.



You're right about one thing scooby and I'm in full agreement with you - some of the posts on this thread are F***ing hilarious. :)







Senor_Chester Posted on 05/01/2009 18:35
9/11 in plane sight

"You're right about one thing scooby and I'm in full agreement with you - some of the posts on this thread are F***ing hilarious. :)"

Yeah, BrokenLance's are winning so far with leedfc in a close 2nd. Your just bringing up the rear Rauko.

If I was to agree with you on the points in your last post then why should we ignore hundreds of eyewitnesses who saw a plane?

flaps Posted on 05/01/2009 18:36
9/11 in plane sight

If the black box recordings proved that the plane didn't hit the pentagon why would they release this data? Why wouldn't they change it to match their story? Why do you expect CCTVs - even at the pentagon - to be able to capture images that take specialist slow-mo recording hardware to do? Why are you arguing that a plane didn't hit the pentagon when you believe a plane hit the pentagon? How can you argue that a plane didn't hit the pentagon when it plainly did - based on eye witness testimony, photographs immediately after the event, the fact that the passengers were found in the building? Why do you touch yourself at night? Why why why?

flaps Posted on 05/01/2009 18:40
9/11 in plane sight

lmao just shows the metalist of conspiracy makebelievers when they can't tell the difference between CGI and the real world lmao

hey leedfc - ever seen Antz? Bet you still wonder how the managed to train insects so well.

Rauko Posted on 05/01/2009 18:48
9/11 in plane sight

Senor .. Again - you stand accused of making incorrect assumptions - despite me saying numerous times that I believe a plane hit the pentagon you still insist I'm saying something different.

Are you once again over-simplifying something into a simple black & white divide to suit your perspective such as "rauko doesn't buy into the official story so he doesn't think a plane hit the pentagon"? ..

See how over-simplifying can bring you to incorrect conclusions?



scooby Posted on 05/01/2009 18:49
9/11 in plane sight

leed, I'm sorry but that looks embarrassingly fake. There's my answer right there.

Rauko, v funny about sitting on the pilots knee but you wouldn't even manage it in there - very cramped.

I was sat in the copilots seat for the duration of a journey from Teesside to Brighton I had to calibrate the altimeter about 15 times on our way down there as varying pressures meant that the height reported by the instrument was not our real height until we did calibrate it.

Now you might want to dismiss that but I've presented a very real example of why the recording of the instrument may have been wrong.

Still, and at risk of repeating myself (please read this this time), the fact that the aircraft hit lamp posts on the approach and the fact that the lamp posts are not 480 feet tall seems to suggest that the height of the plane was not 480 feet. Regardless of the reason for the incorrect recording on the flight recorder, the aircraft was low enough to hit them therefore was low enough to hit the pentagon. It even hit a transformer in the way in!

Do I think it is odd that the height reported was higher than the plane was actually at? Yes. Can you actually tell me what difference that makes? I don't think an incorrect reading on a device that was recovered partially damaged from an inferno is enough to convince me anything sinister was afoot, especially as we've established that the 757 that was reported to have crashed into the pentagon actually did crash into it.

Rauko Posted on 05/01/2009 18:53
9/11 in plane sight

To answer a specific question asked by flaps - "Why are you arguing that a plane didn't hit the pentagon when you believe a plane hit the pentagon?"

I believe a plane hit the pentagon .. I have seen no sufficient explantation of how a terrorist with a little training in a light aircraft could pull off the alledge manuevers in a commercial airliner as stated by the official story.

A simple " .. well a plane hit the pentagon so they obviously did" is not a sufficient explanation ..

Rauko Posted on 05/01/2009 18:57
9/11 in plane sight

I will agree Leedfc - that paper dart video hitting the pentagon does you no favours ..


flaps Posted on 05/01/2009 18:58
9/11 in plane sight

But why do you touch yourself at night?

flaps Posted on 05/01/2009 19:01
9/11 in plane sight

"I have seen no sufficient explantation of how a terrorist with a little training in a light aircraft could pull off the alledge manuevers"

So you think it was being...remotely controlled...perhaps by somebody with over 10,000 hours of military flight experience in NAM? Somebody who has continually expressed a preference for Microsoft Flight Simulator? Somebody with access to the best monitors and chairs money can buy? None other than



GEORDGE W BUSH

ian_elliot Posted on 05/01/2009 19:01
9/11 in plane sight

>"I have seen no sufficient explantation of how a terrorist with a little training in a light aircraft could pull off the alledge manuevers in a commercial airliner as stated by the official story."

Well perhaps you ought to focus the entire might of your intellect on uncovering the truth about what kind of training they had as it seems far more likely that they had better training than you realise than it is that the US Government attacked their own defence HQ killing their own staff and innocent civilians.

scooby Posted on 05/01/2009 19:09
9/11 in plane sight

Well those guys who hijacked the plane were on the plane so either they did it or the pilots did it.

Personally, I don't seem to have the mental block you do about crashing a plane. How can you fail at that? Execute a perfect landing by accident? How do you know they hit the exact point that they meant to? Maybe they went to hit the top of the building? Maybe they didn't hit it with as much pin-point accuracy as you think they did?

And to think people accused me of not having an open mind!

Seriously, it all comes down to people saying they hit a point so small with a jet at 500mph. All they had to do was hit the F***ing massive building anywhere!

flaps Posted on 05/01/2009 19:13
9/11 in plane sight

Well you say that Scooby yet the 'missile' hit the exact point where the newly built McDonalds franchise had just been put. Coincidence? I think not.

scooby Posted on 05/01/2009 19:20
9/11 in plane sight

I'd like to speak to the idiot who failed to have redundant cameras pointing at the same spot to ensure the window cleaners weren't slacking.

flaps Posted on 05/01/2009 19:22
9/11 in plane sight

hmm maybe the 'white streak' is a militant window cleaner running really fast?

Rauko Posted on 05/01/2009 19:22
9/11 in plane sight

Flaps - Ian ..

We can't have things both ways ... On the one hand we have a guy claiming to be a flight instructor who was teaching the guys to fly in a light aircraft saying he was giving them flying lessons ("LOOK! It must be them! They took flying lessons") and then going on to say he felt they were crap pilots ("lets conveniently forget that to try and get our argument across")

Now they were either crap pilots as stated by a witness who was teaching them to fly (and throughout this thread the witness is God remember) or they were excellently trained pilots (which you are suggesting as an assumption so that the story fits together) - so much so they could pull off manuevers that even professional commercial pilots have claimed even they would struggle to achieve.

Which is it? Or are you claiming their expertise or lack of, changes to suit the particular "nutjob" your debating with?

terry_cochrane_on_the_wing Posted on 05/01/2009 19:26
9/11 in plane sight

Senor_Chester Posted on 05/01/2009 17:30 Email this Message | Reply
9/11 in plane sight

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Terry your like a dog with a bone on this point over the video footage of a plane hitting the Pentagon. Can't you understand that if it was a conspiracy then they would be MORE likely to have been videos released of a dodgy plane hitting the building.

Why go into so much trouble and to the extents they would have had to go to to bringing the towers down and then do nothing at the pentagon than to shot a few bits of plane wreckage around the lawn.

The answer is because this is the way it just happened.



FINALLY!

Someone has put forth a reasoned query again without regurgitating the same old crap or resorting to insults, accusations of racism, or generally lowering everyone's IQ with the drivvle of the scooby/ian elliot variety. [:)]


"Can't you understand that if it was a conspiracy then they would be MORE likely to have been videos released of a dodgy plane hitting the building."

Did you know that that unedited clip we've all seen wasn't released until 2006? Yes it took 5 years after the event to get it, and it only got released in response to a Freedom of Information lawsuit filed by the legal watchdog group Judicial Watch. Up to that point all that was available were 5 stills from the same camera that were briefly aired in 2002. - thank god for those enquiring minds.
So who says there won't be more videos to come if people keep asking questions?


"Why go into so much trouble and to the extents they would have had to go to to bringing the towers down and then do nothing at the pentagon than to shot a few bits of plane wreckage around the lawn."

I don't know, thats why I'm asking!!! For me its not simply a matter of wether a 757 or a cruise missile hit the pentagon - they're BOTH shocking in the extreme. But the Pentagon represents America's national security and intelligence centre, a building that is in the heart of America's capital and is supposed to be a security fortress... with only 1 p!ss poor camera working????


I've tried to keep my question focused soley on that one issue oherwise we end up going round in circles (like some on here) so I think I'll leave this now with what Dibzz said "it defies logic that one of the most secure buildings on the planet can't come up with better cctv footage than this." - I believe they can.

Mr_Black Posted on 05/01/2009 19:28
9/11 in plane sight

i'd be interested in knowing what qualifications/jobs the people who believe the conspiracy theory have. It's not a personal attack but are any of them Mathemeticians/Scientists/Engineers? i.e. people with logical minds who can think rationally.

For instance, the fact that very little CCTV footage has been released of the pentagon is not proof that it was struck by a missile, nor is it proof that it was not hit by a plane. it's like someone walking into my house and asking what i had for tea, after i reply egg and chips they insist that it must have been lasagne. they ask for proof from my kitchen that i had egg and chips but i can't provide any as i have already tidied the kitchen. this reaffirms their belief that i MUST have eaten lasagne recently, they ask why i couldn't provide an eggshell from the bin or a half full bag of frozen chips, i respond that i don't feel it's any of their business and they run off screaming tales of victory and the great lasagne conspiracy.

so yeah, seriously, anyone ever heard of logic in this thread?

scooby Posted on 05/01/2009 19:32
9/11 in plane sight

Mr_Black, even if they cut you open and found egg and chips they'd be pointing at your clean-up operation in the kitchen as something sinister.

flaps Posted on 05/01/2009 19:45
9/11 in plane sight

"Which is it? Or are you claiming their expertise or lack of, changes to suit the particular "nutjob" your debating with?"

I think if you stick me in a jumbo jet I could manage to crash it.

Who else could have been flying the plane?

sheriff_john_bunnell Posted on 05/01/2009 19:45
9/11 in plane sight

blimey this is still going on. has anyone answered any of my questions at the start such as WHY they would slaughter their own people when the only pretext a country needs for war is say, some sabotaged railway lines, the unification of the german diaspora or some gadgies firing rockets that have so far injured a pot plant and given a dog shell shock.
or are we still going on about a tower being demolished because the BBC F***ed up a report as apparantly the FBI and CIA dont have paper shredders.

leedfc Posted on 05/01/2009 20:08
9/11 in plane sight

1 DAY BEFORE 911 WTC attack! DO u know what happened.
could this be the reason.
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=OlnQTcLHaMM


flaps Posted on 05/01/2009 20:09
9/11 in plane sight

how do i put this diplomatically, leedfc


are you a spastic?

ian_elliot Posted on 05/01/2009 20:10
9/11 in plane sight

>"Now they were either crap pilots as stated by a witness who was teaching them to fly... or they were excellently trained pilots "

I'm not saying either as to put it quite plainly I have no idea.

I'm saying that if the only thing in the Pentagon attack that doesn't fit the accepted (in the real world) view of events is that the hijackers weren't sufficiently well trained to pull off the piloting, then you don't need to invent missile theories or remote control drones or even crack "black-ops" suicide agents of the FBI.

The simplest explanations would be that either a) the pilots were indeed well enough trained to pull off the maneouvre or b) it wasn't as hard as you think. (or even "c" - they were guided by the hand of Allah in their bid to smite down the infidel)

As suggested above - who's to say that they were trying to hit the ground a few feet in front of the building - maybe they were trying to hit the middle? It is the worlds biggest office building you know.

are you sure that the one person who has come forward and admitted to training them on light aircraft was the only person (or the last person) to train them? (By the way I like the way you say he "claimed" to train them - nice touch)

My general principle is that if there is one facet of an answer that doesn't seem to fit its worth examining whether the assumption behind it is correct rather than coming up with a totally new theory.

For example if a speed camera clocks a Reliant Robin doing 95mph going uphill, the thing I would look at first is whether the speed camera was working properly, and then whether it was actually a Reliant Robin and not an Aston Martin, before jumping to the conclusion that it was a UFO flown by Sgt Pepper on the sole basis that the camera shot doesn't actually prove it wasn't.

onthemap Posted on 05/01/2009 20:20
9/11 in plane sight

This thread is funnier than Boeteng 7s "Lance Armstrong lands on the moon" thread.

Some fanatics crashed some planes into some buildings, sorry to ruin your life's work but Elvis wasn't flying them.

plazmuh Posted on 05/01/2009 20:21
9/11 in plane sight

BIG_SHOT
Eyes wide open Mind closed shut

craig-pancrack Posted on 05/01/2009 20:31
9/11 in plane sight

Will the truth out in our lifetime??? The official story vs other possibilities...both as credible/incredible as each other because we dont really know, we werent involved. But to believe that the Bush administration would only be telling the whole truth is surely as wierd as the day in question.

As i once posted on here before I stood on top of the South Tower in 93. Collosal. I don't know a thing about structural engineering but I can't believe that plane damage & heat from fires brought down the towers straight down into a pile of dust in an hour or so.

If you stood ten bricks end to end and holding the top brick pulled out the one beneath and then let go of the top one - can't imagine it would crush the nine beneath. You can try this at home kids with 10 units of anything! there's some law of nature thing going on everytime...


flaps Posted on 05/01/2009 20:37
9/11 in plane sight

I'm no architect but I'm fairly certain that the twin towers weren't made of solid bricks. Where would all the people go?

sheriff_john_bunnell Posted on 05/01/2009 20:38
9/11 in plane sight

1. it is not the official story, or the bush administrations story, or "the governments" story. It is a narrative put forward by mulitiple media outlets.

2. the twin towers were not made of 10 bricks.

flaps Posted on 05/01/2009 20:39
9/11 in plane sight

Alternatively, I did build my own replica twin towers out of blancmange and mathsticks. I threw an airfix spitfire into it which I had previously set alight with lighter fluid. What resulted was a puddle of charred dessert. Conclusive evidence? I'm not sure you decide.

flaps Posted on 05/01/2009 20:41
9/11 in plane sight

I'm pretty sure the 9/11 Commission Report is the official story.

Rauko Posted on 05/01/2009 20:45
9/11 in plane sight

Am I once more reading this correct?

Flaps - "I'm pretty much certain I could crash a plane"

I'm pretty much certain you can - but I'll debate until the end of the time itself that your first time of trying to crash that plane with all the emotions running through you that you are about to meet certain death - that you won't crash that plane anywhere near where you intended to crash it and certainly not at the speeds it was travelling.

Taking an untrained commercial airline pilot and even with a professional pilot doing all the required approach work 5 miles out for them to line it up with a runway and doing so at speeds much slower than the speeds of flight 77 when it hit the pentagon - the vast majority of people will take about half-a-dozen attempts to get within a mile of where they wanted to come down.

Crank that speed up to circa 350mph which has been estimated as the impact speed - add in the obvious human emotion and stress caused by the thought that - Allah or not - this "is gonna hurt" .. and you still reckon you'd have the reactions, the coolness of mind, the ability and the luck, with a high degree of certainty, that you'd hit any part of the Pentagon?

Your perfectly sure you wouldn't come down 500 meters short - which at those speeds - is about 2.5 seconds before impact? And certainly not come down short even though skimming low enough to take out lampposts?

Your skills as a pilot astound me - Hope I get you as a pilot next time I go to Malaga as I won't have to worry.

I accept they may of got lucky .. perhaps they were aiming for the Whitehouse instead??

(of course - I haven't even considered you keeping the aircraft on a straight course - maybe they tied the "steering wheel" up with rope like they used to do on old ships, huh?)









Senor_Chester Posted on 05/01/2009 20:45
9/11 in plane sight

A worthy retort flaps for a pathetic post!

flaps Posted on 05/01/2009 20:49
9/11 in plane sight

"Your skills as a pilot astound me"

Thanks but don't be too generous I'm pretty great at everything. But yeah, crashing a jet into a building is a piece of P*** even you could do it. I once crashed my bike into a wooden pillar about 4 inches across which is about the same size to a bike relatively as the pentagon is to a 757.

Of course I just got a cut lip and started to cry.

Rauko Posted on 05/01/2009 20:52
9/11 in plane sight

Nah .. I will be generous and also overlook your ridiculous attempts to divert attention from a "oh yeah - thats a point" retort.

flaps Posted on 05/01/2009 20:54
9/11 in plane sight

lmao you think your 'point' where you day-dream about the relative difficulty of bringing a full passenger jet to safe halt on a runway compared to smacking it into a huge building in a flaming ball of firey fanatical death is worth serious consideration?

jon_timmsmfc Posted on 05/01/2009 21:06
9/11 in plane sight

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I once more reading this correct?

Flaps - "I'm pretty much certain I could crash a plane"

I'm pretty much certain you can - but I'll debate until the end of the time itself that your first time of trying to crash that plane with all the emotions running through you that you are about to meet certain death - that you won't crash that plane anywhere near where you intended to crash it and certainly not at the speeds it was travelling.

Taking an untrained commercial airline pilot and even with a professional pilot doing all the required approach work 5 miles out for them to line it up with a runway and doing so at speeds much slower than the speeds of flight 77 when it hit the pentagon - the vast majority of people will take about half-a-dozen attempts to get within a mile of where they wanted to come down.

Crank that speed up to circa 350mph which has been estimated as the impact speed - add in the obvious human emotion and stress caused by the thought that - Allah or not - this "is gonna hurt" .. and you still reckon you'd have the reactions, the coolness of mind, the ability and the luck, with a high degree of certainty, that you'd hit any part of the Pentagon?

Your perfectly sure you wouldn't come down 500 meters short - which at those speeds - is about 2.5 seconds before impact? And certainly not come down short even though skimming low enough to take out lampposts?

Your skills as a pilot astound me - Hope I get you as a pilot next time I go to Malaga as I won't have to worry.

I accept they may of got lucky .. perhaps they were aiming for the Whitehouse instead??

(of course - I haven't even considered you keeping the aircraft on a straight course - maybe they tied the "steering wheel" up with rope like they used to do on old ships, huh?)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

i always wondered about that myself especially when you think the hijackers were said to be atrocious pilots by the flying school that taught them
fascinating reading by the way from both sides just a pity its degenerating in to a slagging match by one or two immature trolls .oh well it passes the time :)

ian_elliot Posted on 05/01/2009 21:14
9/11 in plane sight

Each of the twin towers were 208 feet wide - less than double the width of a commercial airliner, and in a built-up area in NYC.

The Pentagon is 921 feet on a side so from any angle you've got a front of around 1000 feet to hit - nearly 10 times the width of a commercial airliner, and from what I can see in fairly open terrain.

I know which one I reckon I could crash a plane into easier.

Rauko Posted on 05/01/2009 21:19
9/11 in plane sight

Flaps :

Yes it is, as you seem to think it would be easy to do ..

"but they did do it - I saw it on the telly and the nice man told me they did"

You make it sound just like Sunday drive in the countryside in your "everything is simple" world you exist in. Again tho, as the possibility maybe impacts on your world view you again pass it off as something not worth "serious consideration" ..

"How did an untrained commercial airline pilot manage to make complicated manuevers in a 115 tonne aircraft and then line up and hit a building whilst doing 350mph in the most secure airspace in the world and yet skimming low enough across the ground to able to take out lamp posts?"

"Its not worth serious consideration"

"ok"

My my .. what an open minded investigation you've carried out flaps.





flaps Posted on 05/01/2009 21:38
9/11 in plane sight

lol Rauko, if you're going to persist with this amusing attempt at being patronising it would help for you to be arguing from a stronger point than your fantasy world of conspiratorial make believe

It's like being patronised by a child for not understanding whatever crappy cartoons they watch these days.

"How did an untrained commercial airline pilot manage to make complicated manuevers in a 115 tonne aircraft and then line up and hit a building whilst doing 350mph in the most secure airspace in the world and yet skimming low enough across the ground to able to take out lamp posts?"

Impressive isn't it - and yet one did. How else could it be explained?


Senor_Chester Posted on 05/01/2009 21:40
9/11 in plane sight

"You make it sound just like Sunday drive in the countryside in your "everything is simple" world you exist in. Again tho, as the possibility maybe impacts on your world view you again pass it off as something not worth "serious consideration" "

It's getting quite tiresome this attitude by a few on here that a lot of us are just simpletons who beleive anything that we hear and are told. None of this impacts on my World view, I've just taken everything into account and came to the most sensible conclusion which the evidence clearly suggests.

Rauko Posted on 05/01/2009 21:44
9/11 in plane sight

Ian - unfortunately - you've forgotten to take into account a 350 mph descent from 7000 feet and the skimming less the 30 foot across ground making sure to not hit anything significant (like another building perhaps and not just lamp posts) - to hit your 1000 foot wide building and nor have you failed to consider you're doing it in a 115 ton lumbering jet airliner with the manueverabilty of Mark Viduka and not a small stunt plane that even professional airline pilots would struggle to pull off.

Its just a small point tho - not worth serious consideration.





leedfc Posted on 05/01/2009 21:45
9/11 in plane sight

explain this and why would it be there

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=yefncPyLSHo&feature=related

flaps Posted on 05/01/2009 21:46
9/11 in plane sight

Then who flew the plane, Rauko? D.A.R.Y.L.?

Bren_MFC Posted on 05/01/2009 21:46
9/11 in plane sight

the twin towers were hit by planes hijacked by terrorists, no conspiracy, no hidden secrets, none of the stuff seen on Spooks, this is real life, it happened, many people lost their lifes due to these terrorist attrocities, don't mock them by trying to create fictious happenings.

Senor_Chester Posted on 05/01/2009 21:50
9/11 in plane sight

lee ffs man your all over the place! What's this got to do with anything now?

ian_elliot Posted on 05/01/2009 21:50
9/11 in plane sight

>"Ian - unfortunately - you've forgotten to take into account a 350 mph descent from 7000 feet and the skimming less the 30 foot across ground making sure to not hit anything significant (like another building perhaps and not just lamp posts) - to hit your 1000 foot wide building and nor have you failed to consider you're doing it in a 115 ton lumbering jet airliner with the manueverabilty of Mark Viduka and not a small stunt plane that even professional airline pilots would struggle to pull off."

No I havent actually - the same applies (although perhaps not to the exact same degree) to avoiding the other skyscrapers in NYC in the same lumbering jet airliner.

flaps Posted on 05/01/2009 21:56
9/11 in plane sight

I've never seen this footage before

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=nsVx09Jzvhg

what else are they hiding from us

Rauko Posted on 05/01/2009 22:09
9/11 in plane sight

Flaps - D.A.R.Y.L. .. who knows, huh? Maybe Elvis .. thought I'd put that one in before you did. :)

Leedfc - Come on now - you know that plane isn't worth "serious consideration" ..

Ian - the TTs were two of the tallest buildings in New York or are you suggesting the the two planes flew like Luke Skywalkers X-Wing on the Deathstar in attempting to fly along city streets and between other buildings before hitting their target?

The TT planes could line up miles out and just maintain level flight - the Pentagon plane made a 350mph descent from 7000 feet before flying low enough to knock over 30 feet high (max) lamp posts situated 200 meters from the pentagon and then hitting its target and did so, according to witnesses and the flight data recorder (although the data recorded is different to the official story in both terms of altitude and actual position), in a smooth fashion with out any slight or jerky or "jesus - that guy flying that plane is all over the place" alterations to it flight path or descent.

Flaps could do it tho so its not something worth serious consideration.


two_banks_of_four Posted on 05/01/2009 22:51
9/11 in plane sight

Well it appears that the man in question Hani Hanjour had a commercial pilots licence. So maybe it wasn't that tricky for him? It would appear not.

Check out the link it has loads of what we like to call "evidence" on it and not just some talking head who may or may not have a spurios phd. It evens has some pictures of knocked over lamposts. wow


Link: link

two_banks_of_four Posted on 05/01/2009 23:07
9/11 in plane sight

this site is pretty good as well. It even has some more videos that the FBI seized and refused to release, and then released.

Don't show 'owt though.


Link: videos

Gillandi Posted on 05/01/2009 23:34
9/11 in plane sight

Nearly 600 posts and no-ones put Fred Dibnah's name in the frame for this precision piece of steeple-jacking yet. Still at large at the time with his traditional wooden prop and rolled up newspaper methods and surely known to the FBI as one of the few men alive who could fell the towers discretely and whats more, do it for £700. He died before we got to the bottom of it but Bolton will always be on my map of terror with the likes of Saudi Arabia and Oklahoma.

Rauko Posted on 06/01/2009 00:11
9/11 in plane sight

Hani Hanjour - the pilot who couldn't fly (as mentioned in an above post - keep up will ya!) :

Staff members characterized Mr. Hanjour as polite, meek and very quiet. But most of all, the former employee said, they considered him a very bad pilot.

''I'm still to this day amazed that he could have flown into the Pentagon,'' the former employee said. ''He could not fly at all.''


Link: Full Article - New York Times

Ponderosaheadboardbasher Posted on 06/01/2009 05:24
9/11 in plane sight

I have just lost 45 minutes of my life reading this thread so feel compelled to write something.

1.) Is it true that the US investigators identified one of the conspirators because his passport was found amongst the TT debris ??
2.) How can you get a cellphone to work at 10,000 feet ??
3.) Titanium melts at a temperature way above the burning temperature of aviation fuel but no engine parts in the Pentagon debris. Why ??

Also, in amongst all this, "Not_Smog" referred to the average board user as being stupid and proceeded to provide the worst ever spelling of coerce since man took quill to paper and yet nobody mentioned it.
Do not fool yourself that he/she/it did it on purpose. It is a conspiracy theory to cover his/her/its idiocy.

jon_timmsmfc Posted on 06/01/2009 08:44
9/11 in plane sight

Ponderosaheadboardbasher-------------------------------------------------
Also, in amongst all this, "Not_Smog" referred to the average board user as being stupid and proceeded to provide the worst ever spelling of coerce since man took quill to paper and yet nobody mentioned it.
-----------------------------------------------------------

probably not mentioned because no body reads his posts

i found it strange that one side of this debate -those who believe there is much more going on- at least managed to keep their posts civil, the other side -those who dont believe in conspiracies- at times resorted to name calling like calling people stupid, spastics, dense, or racists. there was a time when it'd be the other way around! :)

ian_elliot Posted on 06/01/2009 08:55
9/11 in plane sight

1) - no idea
2) - easy - the same way you get a cellphone to work 10,000 feet away from a mast when you are on the ground
3) - there were plenty of engine parts in the Pentagon debris - there are photographs of them on one of the sites linked above.

The_same_as_before Posted on 06/01/2009 09:03
9/11 in plane sight

600

Capybara Posted on 06/01/2009 09:34
9/11 in plane sight

[:D] Gillandi

BrokenLance Posted on 06/01/2009 10:07
9/11 in plane sight

Still going?

Yes flaps I did check out the link you posted. I try and keep an open mind.

There are two quite clear photos of the 16ft hole, first one with a firefighter stood in front, and the next just of the hole. Obviously an external shot, as the parking sign on the left side of the hole shows.

The article gives dimensions and profiles of a 757. The two rolls royce engines are the heaviest part of the aircraft, yet those two photos show the walls either side of that 16 ft hole as COMPLETELY UNDAMAGED. Explain that, please.

flaps Posted on 06/01/2009 10:15
9/11 in plane sight

Theses one?

"http://atsmedia.cachefly.net/images/ats/pentagon757/trou1moyenne.jpg"

"http://atsmedia.cachefly.net/images/ats/pentagon757/your-own-evidence.jpg"

These are - what - four levels deep into the pentagon? That's where the nose of the aircraft struck and came to rest.

principle_skinner Posted on 06/01/2009 10:18
9/11 in plane sight

the nose?

you do realise that the nose would crumble on impact?

BrokenLance Posted on 06/01/2009 10:21
9/11 in plane sight

http://atsmedia.cachefly.net/images/ats/pentagon757/your-own-evidence.jpg

That one. You only get parking signs on the external walls of a building.

Also, all this about bodies....if the plane vaporized, how come they found bodies? Flesh and blood is a lot less resilient than steel.

Rauko Posted on 06/01/2009 10:39
9/11 in plane sight

jon_timmsmfc :

"i found it strange that one side of this debate -those who believe there is much more going on- at least managed to keep their posts civil, the other side -those who dont believe in conspiracies- at times resorted to name calling like calling people stupid, spastics, dense, or racists. there was a time when it'd be the other way around! :)"

The usual faire .. the sceptic / debunker always relates to these methods these days .. psychological fascism .. when your target won't bow to your almighty knowledge - resort to insults, offensive remarks, incorrect and assumptive claims and ridicule in the hopes they shut up and go away. Its usually their way of admitting that perhaps they don't know as much as what they are claiming afterall.


flaps Posted on 06/01/2009 10:39
9/11 in plane sight

"you do realise that the nose would crumble on impact?"

Ok for 'nose' read 'the front of the twisted spear of metal that had been American Airways filght 77'. Just trying to be terse.

ian_elliot Posted on 06/01/2009 10:44
9/11 in plane sight

>"the sceptic / debunker ... resort to insults, offensive remarks, incorrect and assumptive claims and ridicule"

At least you're now admitting that you're the sceptical one.

Kind regards

"The Sheeple"

flaps Posted on 06/01/2009 10:55
9/11 in plane sight

"when your target won't bow to your almighty knowledge "

That, and you being a prick.

flaps Posted on 06/01/2009 11:01
9/11 in plane sight

"You only get parking signs on the external walls of a building."

They must have had something that wasn't allowed to park there (maybe planes?) as that wall is from within the structure. Remember it wasn't a 'solid' building - it's made up of concentric rings.

Compare the bricks and absence of windows compared to other external shots of the pentagon.

BrokenLance Posted on 06/01/2009 11:11
9/11 in plane sight

Even allowing for a no parking sign inside 5 concentric rings, none of the other photos have explained what happened to the engines either.

Also, despite the 'hijacker' being in the C****pit, the first part of the 'plane' that hit the building, and thus receive the most damage, the FBI still managed to produce his ID card etc. Amazing how that survived the carnage.

How did the bodies survive the 'plane' vaporising?

ian_elliot Posted on 06/01/2009 11:19
9/11 in plane sight

>"none of the other photos have explained what happened to the engines either."

What do you mean exactly? There are photos of the engines in the wreckage inside the Pentagon in the page linked about 100 or so posts above.

If you reckon that it was a cruise missile, when exactly did the conspirators within the govt spread the plane debris inside and outside of the Pentagon. The Pentagon is overlooked by public buildings like the Marriot hotel and so surely guys in broad daylight wandering around tipping bits of fake airplane wreckage in the field and knocking down lampposts would have drawn some attention to themselves.


BrokenLance Posted on 06/01/2009 11:28
9/11 in plane sight

Ian, the fuselage fits neatly through the 16 ft hole. The engines are mounted on the wings, OUTSIDE the 16ft diameter. How did they fit through that hole? Why no damage either side of the hole, where the engines would have been, and struck the wall?

I don't know how the small amount of wreckage got onto the front lawn, but we have a female pentagon employee on video (link posted earlier) stating that when she left the building immediately after the explosion, there was no wreckage there. Also an earlier link to CNN news coverage with a reporter, on scene, and shortly after the event, stating there was no sign that a plane had hit the Pentagon.

Does David Copperfield work for the FBI?

Muttley Posted on 06/01/2009 11:34
9/11 in plane sight

When an object travelling at high speed impacts an immoveable object, where would you expect the debris field to mostly lie?

If it wasn't a 757 which struck the building, what was it?

flaps Posted on 06/01/2009 11:39
9/11 in plane sight

"How did the bodies survive the 'plane' vaporising?"

Do you know what vaporising is? Who would claim the plane had 'vaporised' when there are bits of it strewn around and inside the pentagon?

"Why no damage either side of the hole, where the engines would have been, and struck the wall?"

There is damage to the wall look at the photos I have linked to.

How can you be so dense?

flaps Posted on 06/01/2009 11:41
9/11 in plane sight

"If it wasn't a 757 which struck the building, what was it?"

He won't answer.

zoec Posted on 06/01/2009 11:45
9/11 in plane sight

Nobody seems to have covered the more believable claim that George W. Bush is actually a shape changing lizard from outer space.

borotmt Posted on 06/01/2009 12:02
9/11 in plane sight

Why did God allow this to happen?

Unless of course he was in on it to.......................Ummmm

hewielewie Posted on 06/01/2009 12:07
9/11 in plane sight

Amazingly I am agreeing with onthemap here. 600 odd fecking replies going back and forth over the same details.

There was a camera
Oh no there wasn't
Oh yes there was

It was a plane
It was a missile
It was a hotdog

The Americans did it
Bin Laden did it
Saddam did it
Steve Gibson did it

Rob delete this thread now and put an end to all this nerdish behaviour



lakeoffire Posted on 06/01/2009 12:18
9/11 in plane sight

rather be a neard than a sheep

flaps Posted on 06/01/2009 12:24
9/11 in plane sight

I dont want to die a virgin :(

two_banks_of_four Posted on 06/01/2009 12:34
9/11 in plane sight

Lance the hole on the outside of the pentagon was bigger than 16ft as was proved by the picture about 300 posts ago. Plus there are pictures on the earlier links which show damage to the outside wall from the wings.

Oh and your thermate theory is laughable as well!

Rauko, you should resort to linked something that looks like evidence istead of making half-baked assertions. You can also stop with the teenage epistemology because you clearly don't really know what you are on about.

BrokenLance Posted on 06/01/2009 12:47
9/11 in plane sight

The thermate 'theory' isn't mine. Interview and sources quoted on the TerrorStorm documentary and others. Evidence of the WTC debris was collected and scientifically analysed, and found to contain traces. Melting point of steel = 1600C. Highest temperature created by the fire was 800C. Those are scientific facts.How then did the steel melt?

I haven't seen photos of damage to outer walls BEYOND the actual hole. 75ft damage was only caused AFTER the roof collapse. If you have a link to the photo, pls post it.

lakeoffire Posted on 06/01/2009 12:47
9/11 in plane sight

"Plus there are pictures on the earlier links which show damage to the outside wall from the wings."

I missed this can you point this out please!

flaps Posted on 06/01/2009 13:10
9/11 in plane sight

While steel melts at a higher temperature than fuel burns, the temperature would be more than enough to weaken the steel sufficiently to cause structural disintegrity.

two_banks_of_four Posted on 06/01/2009 13:26
9/11 in plane sight

the picture in question. Looks bigger than 16ft to me! Or at least it did I can't check it is the right one me been a work.


The problems of the Thermate theory are many, the samples analysed only contained sulphur and not any of the other indicators for thermate or even thermite, nobody has ever used thermate to demolish anything anywhere anytime, thermate only works by gravity ie the molten iron moves downwards through the steel it would not cut the beams as alledged.

Heres an idea for you do some other research on the claims in your low budget internet movies, because the claims do not stand up to any amount of scrutiny. You and others are very big on finding things out for yourselves and not believing anything in the media but seem in the thrall of any claim from loose change or terror-storm when 5 minutes with google will provide the evidence to refute the claims. Pratice what you preach!

lake, can't look through many links at work but the pictures are quite easy to find with a google search, as indeed are rational expalnations for many of the claims from Lance and his associates.



Link: the whole, hole

lakeoffire Posted on 06/01/2009 13:30
9/11 in plane sight

what an absolutely lovely looking fire truck

flaps Posted on 06/01/2009 13:32
9/11 in plane sight

That's not ordinary firetruck it's a CIA firetruck and instead of shooting foam or water it spits out plane wreckage and body parts.

scooby Posted on 06/01/2009 13:51
9/11 in plane sight

Hi guys, just checking in.

Has anyone explained how the bodies of the passengers of the hijacked plane and the wreckage of the hijacked plane got there yet?

Let me know when they do. I've got a mind-blowing explanation that involves a plane crash. The only problem is I understand it takes years and years of training to achieve the skills necessary to crash in a fooking fireball.

I'll check back in later. Ba-aaaaa!

maca88 Posted on 06/01/2009 13:58
9/11 in plane sight

so what about the london bombings?? I remember reading that a week before there was a 'drill' that was set up that almost exactly mirrored the bombings.

Never thought this thred would get this far! but its amazing how little respect people have for each others views.

Space_Face Posted on 06/01/2009 13:59
9/11 in plane sight

I don't know what's more frightening - the crackpot theories or the amount of crackpots that appear to believe them.

two_banks_of_four Posted on 06/01/2009 14:04
9/11 in plane sight

as i remember the hole is the large black void behind the fire truck. The fire truck and firefighters have been delibrately shrunk using secret CIA technology to make the hole appear bigger than it really is. The truck has sprayed foam everywhere to hide the again shruken people who are dispersing the aircraft debris and sprinkling body parts around the scene. Turn the beam of and everything returns to normal size.


scooby Posted on 06/01/2009 14:09
9/11 in plane sight

"but its amazing how little respect people have for each others views"

I have no respect for people who cling to idiot 'evidence' to support their views. F*** me, planes hit those buildings, it's not an opinion.

BrokenLance Posted on 06/01/2009 14:09
9/11 in plane sight

since when does 'disintegrity' equal 'melting' ?

BrokenLance Posted on 06/01/2009 14:12
9/11 in plane sight

That photo shows nothing other than a cloud of smoke which you cannot see through, so how you can claim it is a hole is beyond me.

BrokenLance Posted on 06/01/2009 14:14
9/11 in plane sight

and I'm still waiting for someone to explain how they found bodies of passengers and hijacker's ID despite the plane being 'vaporised'.

principle_skinner Posted on 06/01/2009 14:21
9/11 in plane sight

given aside this answer is stupid and your not allowed to say that, dispell the following theory with actual evidence for me scooby et al.

The government knew about 9/11 attacks and let them happen?

ian_elliot Posted on 06/01/2009 14:53
9/11 in plane sight

Hi Principle_Skinner.

I knew all about the 9/11 attacks and the 7/7 attacks at least a month before each of them but I let them happen.

Prove I didn't.

principle_skinner Posted on 06/01/2009 14:59
9/11 in plane sight

don't be a C**** all your life mate.

Lefty Posted on 06/01/2009 15:02
9/11 in plane sight

is it worth reading this thread?

I assumed with this number of posts it was like the last person to post thread.

Muttley Posted on 06/01/2009 15:06
9/11 in plane sight

Up to you mate, here's a brief synopsis. There are Geordie grade deluded posters on here who seem to believe that the US Government were responsible in some way for the 9/11 attacks. As evidence of this they have provided hearsay and selective quotations. When argued into a corner they shift ground to another area of uncertainty or point to examples of other conspiracy theories (my favourite ebing the murder of General Patton at the end of WW2) as evidence that western governments are up to this kind of thing all the time.

You're upto speed now, so feel free to poke the sleeping dogs/eeejits with any stick you fancy.

leedfc Posted on 06/01/2009 15:11
9/11 in plane sight

ian have you read anything that has been posted.
they knew something.
sorry to post it again but some people need to read through this and ask why they did not stop it.

Who Knew? The Unanswered Questions of 9/11
by Seth Ackerman


On July 24, Congress’ joint intelligence panel finally released a declassified version of its inquiry into the 9/11 attacks. Described variously in the next day’s press reports as “scathing,” “damning,” “harshly critical,” and an “indictment” of White House secrecy, the report detailed a stunning series of failures by the CIA and FBI that led to the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

No one in the early post-9/11 months, when the panel was born, could have predicted how damaging its findings would eventually prove. Although the committee was established in defiance of the White House—President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney each personally asked Tom Daschle to limit any investigation to the regular intelligence committees—its work got off to an uninspiring start. Its first staff director, Britt Snider, resigned in April 2002 as committee members squabbled over the scope of the investigation. Expectations for the probe were low.

But the investigation was transformed a month before its first hearings were set to begin. In May 2002, a string of explosive leaks ignited a public debate over the government’s handling of the 9/11 attacks and made the performance of the intelligence agencies a political issue. CBS reporter David Martin revealed that weeks before the attacks, the CIA had warned Bush personally of Osama Bin Laden’s intent to use hijacked planes as missiles. That followed the damaging exposure by The Associated Press’s John Solomon of a pre-9/11 FBI memo from an officer in Phoenix warning of suspicious Middle Eastern men training at flight schools—a warning that went unheeded.

The disclosures rocked the administration. “BUSH KNEW,” blared the May 16, 2002 cover of the Murdoch-owned New York Post. A front-page headline in the Washington Post warned, “An Image of Invincibility Is Shaken by Disclosures.” Even worse for Bush, the news set off an interagency war of press leaks over who was to blame for the mishaps, with each embarrassing leak from the CIA provoking a defensive counter-leak from the FBI. The result of the battle, which wore on through the summer, was political misery for the White House.

By September 2002, Bush was forced to accept the one thing he had been desperately hoping to avoid: an independent blue-ribbon commission into the 9/11 attacks. The commission, as Newsweek put it, may turn out to be “the most far-reaching and explosive government inquiry in decades.” Bush agreed to it only after a series of contentious White House meetings with families of 9/11 victims who were outraged over the summer’s disclosures. Faced with this powerful new political force, the administration saw no way out. “There was a freight train coming down the tracks,” one White House official said. The resulting National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, formally established in late 2002, will not release its final report until May 27, 2004.

In the meantime, the 858-page report of the congressional inquiry is the fullest official accounting to date of what went wrong with the government’s handling of the 9/11 plot. The picture that emerges from its pages (and from information that didn’t make it between its covers) entirely contradicts the administration’s initial portrayal of how 9/11 happened: that a group of quietly efficient attackers slipped unnoticed into the United States and blended into an anonymous, open society, leaving the authorities no chance to pick up their trail—what Seymour Hersh, citing a former FBI counterintelligence official, has labeled “the superman scenario.” Bush himself encapsulated this view two weeks after the attacks when he said: “These terrorists had burrowed in our country for over two years. They were well organized. They were well planned. They struck in a way that was unimaginable.”

In reality, Hersh quotes a top CIA official as saying, the plotters “violated a fundamental rule of clandestine operations.” Instead of “working independently and maintaining rigid communications security, the terrorists, as late as last summer, apparently mingled openly and had not yet decided which flights to target. The planning for September 11th appears to have been far more ad hoc than was at first assumed.”

Moreover, the hijackers did not fly under the radar of the intelligence agencies. The agencies, it turns out, did in fact manage to spot—and even monitor—several several of the 9/11 hijackers before they carried out the attacks, in some cases long before. Yet for reasons that so far remain a mystery, counterterrorism officials at FBI headquarters and the CIA consistently dropped the ball when it came to apprehending them—sometimes acting in ways that ran counter to standard practice, at times to the bafflement and anger of their colleagues.

It’s a point that was underlined during a revealing exchange that took place at a recent meeting between senior FBI agents and relatives of 9/11 victims. At the meeting, Kristen Breitweiser, a widow of one of the dead, posed a question: “How is it that a few hours after the attacks, the nation is brought to its knees, and miraculously FBI agents showed up at Embry-Riddle flight school in Florida where some of the terrorists trained?”

“We got lucky,” was the reply, according to an account of the meeting by Gail Sheehy in the New York Observer.

Breitweiser then asked how the FBI had known exactly which Portland, Maine ATM machine would turn up a videotape of Mohammed Atta, the terrorist ringleader. “The agent got some facts confused, then changed his story,” Sheehy reports. Finally, he asked Breitweiser: “What are you getting at?”

“I think you had open investigations before September 11 on some of the people responsible for the terrorist attacks,” she said.

“We did not,” insisted the agent.

Yet that is exactly what the evidence unearthed by the congressional investigators points to. If at one time it seemed as if catching the hijackers prior to the attacks would have been like finding a needle in a haystack—how could anyone have pinpointed 19 covert terrorists among 290 million Americans?—now the right question seems to be how the FBI and CIA failed to catch the terrorists when they were right under their noses.

Why Were Hijackers Left Off the Watchlist?

A key section of the congressional report tells the puzzling story of a pair of Saudi hijackers who settled in San Diego almost two years before the attacks. Khalid al-Mihdhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi were two of the terrorists aboard American Airlines Flight 77, which crashed into the Pentagon. In the report’s judgment, their story represents “perhaps the intelligence community’s best chance to unravel the September 11 plot.”

The tale begins in late 1999, when counterterrorism agents working round-the-clock in preparation for the Millennium celebrations got wind that al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi, who had been connected to the 1998 East Africa bombings, were planning a trip to Malaysia. According to a CIA officer who testified to the committee, “a kind of tuning fork buzzed” when he and his colleagues heard the news. The CIA arranged for Malaysian intelligence to monitor the pair once they landed in Kuala Lumpur on January 5, 2000. Their behavior, CIA Director George Tenet testified, “was consistent with clandestine activity.”

In Kuala Lumpur, the two men attended a high-level al-Qaeda meeting at the home of Yazid Sufaat, a Malaysian chemist with ties to the bin Laden network. Photographs of the gathering were taken secretly by Malaysian intelligence and transmitted back to CIA headquarters. By that time, the CIA had obtained a copy of al-Mihdhar’s Saudi passport, giving the agency his full name, passport number, birth date and other details. The passport showed that al-Mihdhar had a visa, issued at the U.S. consulate in Jiddah, Saudi Arabia, giving him the right to enter the United States at any time until the visa expired in April 2000.

Yet no action was taken to warn U.S. customs officials. According to Tenet, “We had at that point the level of detail needed to watchlist [al-Mihdhar]—that is, to nominate him to State Department for refusal of entry into the US or to deny him another visa. Our officers remained focused on the surveillance operation and did not do so.”

It got worse. In March, CIA headquarters received a cable from one of its own overseas stations informing them that shortly after attending the Malaysia meeting, al-Hazmi had boarded a plane and flown to Los Angeles, entering the United States on January 15, 2000. A message addressed to the CIA’s bin Laden unit from a different station noted “with interest” the fact that “a member of this group traveled to the U.S. following his visit to Kuala Lumpur.”

Despite the fact that al-Hazmi was already regarded as a “terrorist operative” by the intelligence agencies, again no action was taken—even though only three months earlier, CIA headquarters had sent a cable to all its bases reminding officers of the importance of watch-listing potential terrorists: Information on suspects need only “raise a reasonable suspicion that the individual is a possible terrorist,” the reminder said.

It was in January 2001, while investigating the USS Cole bombing, that the CIA managed to identify one of the Malaysian plotters captured on film as Khallad bin Attash, a mastermind behind the Cole attack. “This was the first time that CIA could definitively place al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar with a known al-Qaeda operative,” Tenet testified. In May, a CIA counterterrorism officer investigating the Cole case put in a request to dig up the year-old surveillance photos of the Malaysia meeting. He explained in an e-mail that he was interested “because Khalid al-Mihdhar’s two companions also were couriers of a sort, who traveled between [the Far East] and Los Angeles at the same time.” In other words, as the congressional report explains, “information about al-Hazmi’s travel to the United States began to attract attention at CIA at least as early as May 18, 2001”—four months before the World Trade Center attacks.

All along, al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi were living openly in the San Diego area, using their real names on their California driver’s licenses and rental agreements. Even more shocking, they had befriended and moved in with a prominent local Muslim leader, Abdussattar Shaikh, who, unbeknownst to them, was a long-time undercover FBI counterterrorism informant in regular contact with a terrorism case officer in the bureau’s San Diego office. According to Newsweek, it was such a close encounter that “on one occasion the [FBI] case agent called up the informant and was told he couldn’t talk because ‘Khalid’—a reference to al-Mihdhar—was in the room.”

The congressional investigators who prepared the report asked to talk to Shaikh, but, they explained, “the [Bush] Administration and the FBI have objected to the Joint Inquiry’s request to interview the informant and have refused to serve a Committee subpoena and notice of deposition.”

Another associate of the hijackers was Omar al-Bayoumi, a Saudi national living in San Diego. Al-Bayoumi, who fled the country shortly before 9/11, assisted al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi on various occasions. He co-signed their lease and paid their first month’s rent and security deposit. According to the congressional report, al-Bayoumi “had access to seemingly unlimited funding from Saudi Arabia.” In recent months, he has become the focus of intense scrutiny in Washington over his suspected links to Saudi intelligence.

On the day of his first meeting with the hijackers, at a Los Angeles restaurant, al-Bayoumi stopped by the Saudi consulate for a closed-door chat. Some law enforcement officials, according to Newsweek, believe he met there with Fahad al Thumairy, a member of the consulate’s Islamic and Culture Affairs Section, who was later expelled from the United States for suspected links to terrorism. The congressional report cites the FBI’s “best source” in San Diego as saying that al-Bayoumi “must be an intelligence officer for Saudi Arabia or another foreign power.” A senior FBI official went further, telling Newsweek: “We firmly believed that he had knowledge [of the 9/11 plot], and that his meeting with [the hijackers] that day was more than coincidence.”

It was only on August 23, 2001—three weeks before 9/11—that CIA officers reviewing their files on the year-and-a-half old Malaysia meeting made a decision to try to track down the Saudi militants. An alert was sent out to the FBI and other agencies to find the “bin Laden-related individuals” al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar. The search failed.

Who Was Watching? Who Was Stalling?

Allegations that another key hijacker, Mohammed Atta, was being watched by authorities before 9/11 went unaddressed by the congressional panel. On September 24, 2001, the German newsmagazine Focus reported that Atta, the suspected terrorist ringleader, was under FBI surveillance while he was living in Hamburg during the months before he moved to the United States. Sourced to German police investigators, Focus reported that from January to May 2000, “U.S. agents followed him around the greater Frankfurt area and noted that he made purchases at numerous different drugstores and apothecaries and amassed a substantial amount of chemicals that could be used to construct a bomb.” The German Staatschutz, or state security police, were not informed.

Like 9/11 widow Kristen Breitweiser, a German official quoted by Focus was struck by the FBI’s amazingly detailed knowledge of Atta’s history in the days immediately after 9/11: “Security experts are still dumbfounded, as they were at the time, by the speed with which the FBI was able to make a presentation to [German investigators] laying out the extremely conspiratorial connections between Atta and his alleged Hamburg accomplices. ‘It was like all they had to do was push a button,’ said one insider. ‘It was as if the Americans had already amassed scads of information long before in their database about the perpetrator.’”

Particularly strange is that Atta received approval for his visa from the U.S. Embassy in Berlin on May 18, 2000, exactly when, as Focus put it, “his designated agent from the US secret service was observing his suspicious chemical buying.” Focus quoted a Staatschutz official who declared: “It can no longer be ruled out that the Americans kept their eye on Atta after his entry into the United States.”

Perhaps that’s not so far-fetched. On June 6, 2002 Knight Ridder revealed that the National Security Agency (NSA) was monitoring Mohammed Atta’s phone calls while he was in the United States, and translated several conversations between Atta and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind behind the 9/11 attacks who was apprehended in Pakistan last March. Some U.S. officials said the NSA failed to share the information with other intelligence agencies, though one official told Knight Ridder it was “simply not true” that the information was collected and not shared.

Not only are these episodes staggering intelligence failures in their own right, they also illustrate how crucial the FBI’s mishandling of a third case turned out to be—that of Zacarias Moussaoui, the supposed “20th hijacker.” A French citizen of Moroccan descent, Moussaoui was arrested on immigration charges a month before 9/11 after a flight-school instructor in Minnesota, alarmed by his suspicious behavior and large cash payments, called the FBI. John Rosengren, the flight school’s director of operations, feared that Moussaoui “could have been a hijacker who could have tried to take an airplane filled with passengers,” according to the New York Times. “There was discussion of how much fuel was on board a 747-400 and how much damage that could cause if it hit anything.”

According to a now-famous whistle-blowing memo from FBI agent Coleen Rowley, the agent who responded to the call “identified [Moussaoui] as a terrorist threat from a very early point.” These suspicions, she wrote, “quickly ripened into probable cause, which, at the latest, occurred within days of Moussaoui’s arrest when the French Intelligence Service confirmed his affiliations with radical fundamentalist Islamic groups and activities connected to Osama bin Laden.”

The agents became “desperate” to search Moussaoui’s personal computer and other belongings. To do this, they needed permission from FBI headquarters to request a search warrant from a judge. Had they been granted a warrant before 9/11, they would have found a treasure trove of evidence. A notebook belonging to Moussaoui contained the phone number of Ramzi Bin al-Shibh, the former roommate of Mohammed Atta in Hamburg. Just two weeks before the arrest, Bin al-Shibh had wired money to Moussaoui and twice in the previous year he had wired money to yet another hijacker, Marwan al-Shehhi, in Florida. Agents also would have found a letter from bin Laden operative Yazid Sufaat, whose Kuala Lumpur apartment had been the venue for the January 2000 al-Qaeda meeting attended by al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar.

But the Minneapolis agents never got their search warrant. “Key FBI [headquarters] personnel,” according to Rowley, “continued to, almost inexplicably, throw up roadblocks and undermine Minneapolis’ by-now desperate efforts to obtain a FISA search warrant, long after the French intelligence service provided its information and probable cause became clear.”

One FBI supervisor in Washington, Rowley says, “seemed to have been consistently, almost deliberately thwarting the Minneapolis FBI agents’ efforts.” He and other officials “brought up almost ridiculous questions in their apparent efforts to undermine the probable cause.” And at one point the official “deliberately further undercut” the search warrant effort by omitting key intelligence information about Moussaoui from a warrant request while “making several changes in the wording of the information”—all of which made it unlikely that the warrant would be approved. One Minneapolis agent described Washington’s actions as “setting this up for failure.”

To obtain a warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the FBI must show, according to former Deputy Attorney General Eric Holder, that a suspect is “a member of or connected to a terrorist organization, that there was reason to believe that he was actively engaged in the aims of that terrorist organization.” In off-the-record interviews with reporters, FBI officials in Washington denied that the information from France linked Moussaoui to bin Laden. They claim the data connected Moussaoui only with Islamic rebels in Chechnya, who don’t figure on the official U.S. list of “terrorist” groups.

But in a pathbreaking investigative report, CBS reporter Scott Pelley traveled to Paris, where he spoke with “a number of sources inside French intelligence” who insisted that France “had reason to connect Moussaoui to the organization of Osama bin Laden.” French agents had monitored Moussaoui’ s trips to Afghanistan and Pakistan; they believed he met with Abu Jaffa, a top aide to Osama bin Laden; and Moussaoui’s name had been placed on a French terrorist watch list. In the words of top French terrorism judge Jean-Louis Bruguiere, “we gave [the FBI] everything we had.”

According to the Washington Post’s Bob Woodward, on the morning of 9/11, as aides rushed over to George Tenet’s table at the St. Regis Hotel restaurant to tell him the news of the World Trade Center strike, the CIA director was overheard to say: “I wonder if it has anything to do with this guy taking pilot training.”

Why Did We ‘Back Off’ Investigating the Saudis?

“Almost everyone’s first question was ‘Why? Why would an FBI agent(s) deliberately sabotage a case?’” Rowley wrote in a footnote to her memo. “Jokes were actually made,” she added in an eye-catching aside, “that that the key FBIHQ personnel had to be spies or moles, like Robert Hanssen, who were actually working for Osama bin Laden to have so undercut Minneapolis’ effort.”

Rowley assumed that careerism, timidity, and bureaucratic inertia at FBI headquarters had simply gotten the better of crime-fighting instincts. So far, that has also been the gist of most of the speculation in the press.

But some have alleged that other factors were at work. Several cases from recent years have come to light in which FBI agents complained of being held back by superiors from investigating Islamic extremist groups. In each instance, it was alleged that high-ranking officials acted out of concern that these inquiries could lead back to America’s closest Arab ally: Saudi Arabia.

“All the answers, everything needed to dismantle Osama bin Laden’s organization can be found in Saudi Arabia,” John O’Neill, the FBI’s former top bin Laden investigator, said shortly before his death in the World Trade Center. O’Neill explicitly referred to interference from US policymakers concerned about U.S.-Saudi relations. He “complained that the F.B.I. was not free to act in international terror investigations because the State Department kept interfering,” according to a New York Times account of O’ Neill’s interview with French journalist Jean-Charles Brisard shortly before his death. O’Neill “explains the failure in one word: oil.”

Last year, the Washington Times reported that in in the mid-’90s, the Clinton administration had “shut down” an investigation of Islamic charities operating in the United States, “concerned that a public probe would expose Saudi Arabia’s suspected ties to a global money-laundering operation.” Citing law enforcement authorities and others, the Times reported that “the State Department pressed federal officials to pull agents off the previously undisclosed probe after the charities were targeted in the diversion of cash to groups that fund terrorism.”

In October 2001, in The New Yorker, Seymour Hersh reported on the 1994 defection of a Saudi diplomat in the United States. “He brought with him, according to his New York lawyer, Michael J. Wildes, some fourteen thousand internal government documents” including “evidence that the Saudis had given financial and technical support to Hamas, the extremist Islamic group whose target is Israel.”

Wildes held a meeting at his office with two F.B.I. agents and an Assistant United States Attorney. “We gave them a sampling of the documents and put them on the table,” Wildes told Hersh. “But the agents refused to accept them.” In an interview on BBC’s Newsnight, Wildes said that the FBI agents wanted to accept the documents, but had been forbidden from doing so by higher-ups.

The BBC’s Greg Palast said that a “high-placed member of a U.S. intelligence agency” told him that “while there’s always been constraints on investigating Saudis, under George Bush it’s gotten much worse. After the elections, the agencies were told to ‘back off’ investigating the Bin Ladens and Saudi royals, and that angered agents.” The official added that “since September 11th the policy has been reversed.”

On orders of the Bush administration, a 28-page section dealing with suspected Saudi ties to the 9/11 plot was blacked out of the declassified version of the congressional report. Bush claimed that declassifying the information “would reveal sources and methods” and “help the enemy.” But Sen. Bob Graham, ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, decried the redactions. “In my judgment there is compelling evidence that a foreign government provided direct support through officials and agents of that government to some of the September 11 hijackers,” Graham said. Sen. Chuck Schumer went further: “There seems to be a systematic strategy of coddling and cover-up when it comes to the Saudis.”


fatharrywhite Posted on 06/01/2009 15:33
9/11 in plane sight

"and I'm still waiting for someone to explain how they found bodies of passengers and hijacker's ID despite the plane being 'vaporised'"

I know it's all relative and a light aircraft cant be compared to a airliner but steve fossets plane 'disintegrated' yet the reason they found out it was him initially was that his drivers licence was found...


Link: link

BrokenLance Posted on 06/01/2009 16:06
9/11 in plane sight

leedfc, very informative, but I'm sure, if the 'usual suspects' take the time to read and digest it, they're sure to claim 'it's all a pack of lies' ;-))

BrokenLance Posted on 06/01/2009 16:12
9/11 in plane sight

harry, yes relative. Much smaller plane and a lot less fuel.

Look at Flight 93, supposedly such a powerful explosion when it 'crashed' that it left no wreckage or bodies at all-as described by one news-crew on the scene, in one of the many links above. Did it really crash, or did someone just let off an explosion to give the scene the appearance of a crash-sight? A bit hard to do with no wreckage etc. Still, everyone believes it.

The_same_as_before Posted on 06/01/2009 16:14
9/11 in plane sight

Brokenlance, how can I prove to you that Gallilio was wrong and the earth is round?

Muttley Posted on 06/01/2009 16:21
9/11 in plane sight

Lee, I'm still laughing at you about the "Murder of General Patton" theory. You really need to go to primary sources instead of simply regurgitating another conspiracy entrepreneur.

Have you decided what it was that hit The Pentagon yet, if it wasn't a 757?

ian_elliot Posted on 06/01/2009 16:24
9/11 in plane sight

>"Have you decided what it was that hit The Pentagon yet, if it wasn't a 757"

It was a paper aeroplane - haven't you watched the video he linked (twice)

scooby Posted on 06/01/2009 16:32
9/11 in plane sight

Just doing my rounds:

No answer on the bodies in the pentagon or the plane wreckage and how it got there?

Or are we not allowed to talk about that and must move on to other things such as the crash in Pennsylvania with no wreckage when there was wreckage found almost 2 miles away?

flaps Posted on 06/01/2009 16:49
9/11 in plane sight

"since when does 'disintegrity' equal 'melting' ?"

Since when does a building have to turn to liquid in order for it to collapse?

"and I'm still waiting for someone to explain how they found bodies of passengers and hijacker's ID despite the plane being 'vaporised'."

Who has said that the plane vaporised? I'll ask again - do you know what vaporised means?

BrokenLance - you ask the dumbest F***ing questions. Be sceptical, but don't be a F***ing moron about it.

MARA5O Posted on 06/01/2009 17:01
9/11 in plane sight

Sorry for posting another link in this debate. But I thought it interesting enough to offer those who have an open mind to take some time and watch the following presentation. It’s a video that can at times be quite technical in detail (despite the disclaimer) and it lasts for 50 minutes so it’s obviously not for everybody, but if you have an open mind or remain skeptical on this issue and have enough curiosity and patience to see what all this fuss is about, then spare some time to watch it.

The video was made by an organization called Pilots for 9/11 Truth. The organization is made up many qualified commercial and private pilots from all over the world - many of which have years of experience flying airliners - including the type Boeing 757-223. All they want are answers to some of the inconsistencies regarding the damage Flight 77 caused to the Pentagon and clarification on the maneuvres the aircraft underwent on its approach to the Pentagon. Inconsistencies that have come to light since the release of the official 9-11 commission report and that contradict some of the evidence found in that report.


We should all have respect for each others views. Unfortunately judging by some of the latest postings, this debate has gone the way of so many before it. If you have to resort to obscenities and petty name-calling to express your point of view, your argument is already effectively lost.
MARA5O


"Pilots For 9/11 Truth brings you analysis never seen before regarding the Attack On The Pentagon. Highly technical analysis presented in a way that the layman will appreciate and understand.

A 757 reported to have caused the damage at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 is analyzed based on topography, obstacles, flight data, physics, and witness statements..."


Link: 9/11: ATTACK ON THE PENTAGON

flaps Posted on 06/01/2009 17:05
9/11 in plane sight

"your argument is already effectively lost"

No, the argument was won about 500 posts back.

See, somebody could tell me that 2+2=5, and i could call him a F***ing idiot, which would be true. Doesn't make 2+2=5.

And sorry but I won't be watching yout T***ty 50 F***ing minute video.

Also, don't sign your posts, then F*** up a link. Try harder.

MARA5O Posted on 06/01/2009 17:26
9/11 in plane sight

And sorry but I won't be watching yout T***ty 50 F***ing minute video.



Flaps there is no need to apologise. I fully understand and respect your view.
MARA5O

flaps Posted on 06/01/2009 17:29
9/11 in plane sight

Stop signing your posts.

And why on earth would you expect everyone to have respect for everyone else's opinions? What if somebody was suggesting that black people should be shot? Would you have respect for that opinion?

lakeoffire Posted on 06/01/2009 17:36
9/11 in plane sight

racist

flaps Posted on 06/01/2009 17:39
9/11 in plane sight

yes that would be racist, well done lakeoffire

two_banks_of_four Posted on 06/01/2009 17:41
9/11 in plane sight

Lancey baby, try this picture. It is still a bit smokey but then a plane had just flown into a building. Still considering those firefighters in the image are probably strapping 6 footers even the visible damage would comfortably exceed 16ft.

I think the 16ft, although it is widely quoted as 12ft hole that you keep relentlessly banging on about was in ring C of the pentagon


It is from this website which has more about the issue of the hole than you could possibly want and for the rationally minded reader leaves little doubt as to the size of the hole.
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/smallhole.html

Can you now admit that whatever hit the pentagon left a hole larger than 16ft in the exterior wall?


Link: smoke and mirrors

Senor_Chester Posted on 06/01/2009 17:53
9/11 in plane sight

I think every question that has been posted in this thread can now be answered within it yet they are still posters who are just jumping around onto completely random points.

BrokenLance Posted on 06/01/2009 18:21
9/11 in plane sight

MARA50, very interesting link (works fine for me). An informative report put together by REAL pilots, as opposed to the government report 'pilots' on two_banks' link further back...

'8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.'

Rather strange that all those people 'just happened' to be stood outside the pentagon to witness it all happening, don't you think? Assuming they were all in the traffic jam, what odd would you give me of all those people being in the same traffic jam, at the same time?

As for MARA50's link, 7 INDEPENDANT witnesses say they DID see a low flying plane, but on a heading which disagrees with the physical damage and the black box info.

Pointedly, NONE of them saw that plane actually hit the Pentagon, and one of them actually says he saw the plane STILL IN THE AIR, as he heard the explosion.

Stranger, and stranger, says Alice.........

Senor_Chester Posted on 06/01/2009 18:28
9/11 in plane sight

"Rather strange that all those people 'just happened' to be stood outside the pentagon to witness it all happening, don't you think? Assuming they were all in the traffic jam, what odd would you give me of all those people being in the same traffic jam, at the same time?"

The same odds I'd give you that if they'd fired a big missile into the side of the Pentagon then they'd have 'videos' of it coming out their arses.

two_banks_of_four Posted on 06/01/2009 19:09
9/11 in plane sight

Since you metion witnesses, blantant copy and past but

136 people saw the plane approach the Pentagon, and

104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact.

26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.

39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.

2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size.

7 said it was a Boeing 757.

8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.

2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.

4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.

10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).

16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.

42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.

2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.

15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel.

3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.

3 took photographs of the aftermath.


The question is lance what about the hole?

flaps Posted on 06/01/2009 19:27
9/11 in plane sight

"Rather strange that all those people 'just happened' to be stood outside the pentagon to witness it all happening,"

lol this is one of the funnier things you've come out with.

Do you find it strange that so many people saw the planes hit the twin towers as well?

twoshots Posted on 06/01/2009 19:34
9/11 in plane sight

"'8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.'

Rather strange that all those people 'just happened' to be stood outside the pentagon to witness it all happening, don't you think? Assuming they were all in the traffic jam, what odd would you give me of all those people being in the same traffic jam, at the same time?"

Brilliant! Absolutely priceless!

It's next to an airport!



Link: airport?

wokingmassive Posted on 06/01/2009 19:58
9/11 in plane sight

I am convinced that Tom Cruise and his thetan aliens were in some way connected to this.


Fact.

flaps Posted on 06/01/2009 20:01
9/11 in plane sight

John travolta is a fully qualified passenger jet pilot

scooby Posted on 06/01/2009 22:36
9/11 in plane sight

If those pilots said that, who are we - mere mortals - to disagree? They never make mistakes.

Well APART from those "pilot error" crashes.

Mr_Black Posted on 06/01/2009 23:32
9/11 in plane sight

"Rather strange that all those people 'just happened' to be stood outside the pentagon to witness it all happening, don't you think? Assuming they were all in the traffic jam, what odd would you give me of all those people being in the same traffic jam, at the same time?"

well if this was happening outside a butcher's, baker's or candle stick maker's i'd say you were onto something. but since it was outside the pentagon and washington airport i reckon you really don't have a clue what you're talking about.

so just in case anyone was in any doubt: arguement officially lost.

hewielewie Posted on 07/01/2009 08:33
9/11 in plane sight

I bet that half of the posters on here have not posted on this message board before. They sit in front of their PC's and a pop up appears saying "WARNING WARNING CONSPIRACY THEORY THREAD". They than rush straight to this board to post sh1te.

BrokenLance Posted on 07/01/2009 10:06
9/11 in plane sight

two_banks, that photo still shows mostly cloud, though does show damage to the external wall. Still not consistent with a rolls royce engine plowing into it.

BrokenLance Posted on 07/01/2009 10:18
9/11 in plane sight

twoshots,seems my comments were naive to the point of extreme, regarding this particular point. Sorry for that. Glad it gave you a laugh.

Not being a native of Virginia, and never having visited, I took the fact that the Pentagon has restricted air space above it to mean it could not normally be overflown, and yet, as your photo shows, not only is the place close to an airport, but it's main runway points directly over it.


ian_elliot Posted on 07/01/2009 18:49
9/11 in plane sight

Come on this is in danger of dropping off the radar (in a manner of speaking).

Whats up - have the CIA finally managed to track down Lee and Rauko via their IP addresses and whisked them off to Area 51 leaving BrokenLance to hold the fort on his own?

Senor_Chester Posted on 07/01/2009 19:02
9/11 in plane sight

Lance if your still interested in this thread then how many more times do you want to bring up the 'Rolls Royce' engines then ignore the evidence of what actually happened to them?

BrokenLance Posted on 07/01/2009 19:06
9/11 in plane sight

Ian, surprised it's lasted this long, to be honest.

After all this time, people have their minds made up. They either believe the government version, despite all the irregularities, or they believe there's a cover-up.

You're not going to believe in a conspiracy, and I'm not going to believe the government version.

If all the witnesses told identical stories, we'd have nothing to argue about.

Rauko Posted on 07/01/2009 19:15
9/11 in plane sight

Not at all - I can assure you I am safe and well with my tin-foil hat firmly in place.

I reckon people have just got bored .. In truth its an argument that has gone round and round for 7 years and will continue to do so for many more.

Whether we like it or not - There will always be people who take on board the official story of anything ... they will always be people who raise doubts over the official story.. and they will always be people who think 8ft lizards in league with Elvis were responsible. Thats the way of the world.

What we do know is that nobody really knows anything and more often that not what we state as fact is just what somebody else told us, what we saw on TV or what we read in The Sun. Doesn't always mean its wrong or a big smelly lie but it doesn't mean its the Gods-Honest truth either.

I can imagine the Palastinians in Gaza are being told one version concerning the events over there and the people in Israel being told another version about the events. The truth will be in the hazy place somewhere in the middle.

Ultimately, it completely depends on your perspective what you choose to believe - because if we weren't intimiately involved in whatever it is being talked about - which I assum nobody on this forum actually was - we simply, just don't and won't, ever know.



ian_elliot Posted on 07/01/2009 19:15
9/11 in plane sight

>"If all the witnesses told identical stories, we'd have nothing to argue about"

Apart from the melting point of steel and the amount of wreckage a 757 ought to leave behind when crashing into a building?

Ah well - its a shame the argument is over. Some really funny stuff came to light - particularly Lee's previously unseen footage of a CGI paper airplane bouncing off the Pentagon!

flaps Posted on 07/01/2009 19:17
9/11 in plane sight

"despite all the irregularities, or they believe there's a cover-up."

There are far more irregularities in the alternative theories.

BrokenLance Posted on 07/01/2009 19:22
9/11 in plane sight

chester, what evidence? the engines are the heaviest and densest part of a plane. They did not go through that hole. Walls either side do not show sufficient damage of collision by something that heavy/dense.

I have seen one photo purporting to show the remains of one engine, but I have also heard testimony from a Rolls Royce employee saying whatever it was, it wasn't one of their engines.

Please enlighten me, if you have further information.

flaps Posted on 07/01/2009 19:24
9/11 in plane sight

"the engines are the heaviest and densest part of a plane"

apart from when you're on your way to benidorm

BrokenLance Posted on 07/01/2009 19:30
9/11 in plane sight

In the Pilots for 9/11 video, those 7 independant witnesses said the flightpath of the plane approaching the Pentagon was north of the gas station. The 'wreckage' and government version of events indicated it flew south of the gas station. Two of those independant witnesses were Pentagon Security officers.

Black box info disagreed with the government version of events on flight path, altitude, and G-forces required to navigate the terrain, and still hit the target.

As for the molten steel, firefighters are on video stating that's what they found in the wreckage of the WTC. No aviation fire burns at 1600 C. So what melted the steel, in your opinion?

Senor_Chester Posted on 07/01/2009 19:33
9/11 in plane sight

"I have seen one photo purporting to show the remains of one engine, but I have also heard testimony from a Rolls Royce employee saying whatever it was, it wasn't one of their engines."

Just for you Lance I've linked a web page showing photo's of a missile attack with, strangely enough, a lot of plane wreckage and human body parts around it, but hey ho.


Link: Plane wreckage

flaps Posted on 07/01/2009 19:39
9/11 in plane sight

BrokenLance, would you like to explain what you thnk the order of events might have been, perhaps touching on the subjects of how so many people saw a plane, where the plane that disappeared went, where the people on that plane ended up, and how plane wreckage and bodies were found at the pentagon. Stop just asking questions and give your own theory.

Senor_Chester Posted on 07/01/2009 19:49
9/11 in plane sight

He doesn't have an opinion he's just 'asking questions' (and ignoring evidence) as he's obviously on a much higher enquisitive scale than us mere gullable mortals.

Senor_Chester Posted on 07/01/2009 19:51
9/11 in plane sight

Even more....


Link: ....evidence

Muttley Posted on 07/01/2009 19:54
9/11 in plane sight

Just for old time's sake.

Do you have any understanding of simple scientific principles?

What temperature does coke burn at? It burns at 700C yet it is used to make steel! I guess it must be some kind of CIA plot going on inside a blast furnace then? Well no, with an increased draft the temperature is increased inside the BLAST furnace until the required temperature is reached. Now I don't know but I suspect that when the fires were burning in the collapsed towers that the temperature became sufficiently high to melt some of the steel. Remember the iconic images of the smoke spreading across the clear blue sky in the days following the attack? It took weeks to put the fire out completely yet the aviation fuel surely would have all burned within a few hours or evaporated (kerosene evaporates at 275C), there was other combustible stuff inside there including the bodies of those who never made it and were never found (not even a scrap of DNA) indicating that the temperaure was high enough to completely cremate their remains!

That doesn't mean that melting of the steel structure caused the towers to collapse, far from it, as pointed out earlier steel loses it's structural integrity at a much lower temperature than it's melting point

swordtrombonefish Posted on 07/01/2009 20:01
9/11 in plane sight

It appears that once again there are two camps:

Anti-conspiracy......Ra-Ra's take your positions.

Pro-conspiracy.....Who prefer to be 'the open-minded ones' but in reality are the Boo-Boys in this particular altercation.

...carry on.




Rauko Posted on 07/01/2009 21:03
9/11 in plane sight

Nice analogy sword!

Funky_Tuncay Posted on 07/01/2009 21:38
9/11 in plane sight

All this conspiracy talk must be getting to me, I'm seeing them everywhere now.

scooby, ian_elliot, and flaps, do you all share the same computer by any chance? Its just that after following this thread with interest since it started I've noticed you three - no matter what time of the day it is - all seem to post within moments of each other with alarming regularity.


-----cue the music from x-files------


scooby Posted on 01/01/2009 20:00
ian_elliot Posted on 01/01/2009 20:02

ian_elliot Posted on 03/01/2009 14:37
flaps Posted on 03/01/2009 14:38

flaps Posted on 03/01/2009 14:47
ian_elliot Posted on 03/01/2009 14:49
scooby Posted on 03/01/2009 14:57
flaps Posted on 03/01/2009 15:17
ian_elliot Posted on 03/01/2009 15:28

flaps Posted on 03/01/2009 17:54
ian_elliot Posted on 03/01/2009 18:03
scooby Posted on 03/01/2009 18:07
flaps Posted on 03/01/2009 18:23

flaps Posted on 03/01/2009 18:35
ian_elliot Posted on 03/01/2009 18:39

ian_elliot Posted on 03/01/2009 21:30
flaps Posted on 03/01/2009 21:34

flaps Posted on 03/01/2009 21:39
scooby Posted on 03/01/2009 21:46

scooby Posted on 03/01/2009 21:58
flaps Posted on 03/01/2009 22:03

flaps Posted on 03/01/2009 22:32
scooby Posted on 03/01/2009 22:35
scooby Posted on 03/01/2009 22:40
flaps Posted on 03/01/2009 22:47

scooby Posted on 03/01/2009 22:50
flaps Posted on 03/01/2009 23:00
scooby Posted on 03/01/2009 23:04

flaps Posted on 04/01/2009 22:23
scooby Posted on 04/01/2009 22:26

flaps Posted on 05/01/2009 14:43
ian_elliot Posted on 05/01/2009 14:46
scooby Posted on 05/01/2009 14:50

ian_elliot Posted on 05/01/2009 14:52
flaps Posted on 05/01/2009 14:54
scooby Posted on 05/01/2009 14:58

scooby Posted on 05/01/2009 15:05
flaps Posted on 05/01/2009 15:09
scooby Posted on 05/01/2009 15:10

ian_elliot Posted on 05/01/2009 15:17
flaps Posted on 05/01/2009 15:17
scooby Posted on 05/01/2009 15:19

flaps Posted on 05/01/2009 15:32
ian_elliot Posted on 05/01/2009 15:35
flaps Posted on 05/01/2009 15:37
scooby Posted on 05/01/2009 15:37

ian_elliot Posted on 05/01/2009 15:46
scooby Posted on 05/01/2009 15:50
ian_elliot Posted on 05/01/2009 15:51

flaps Posted on 05/01/2009 15:56
scooby Posted on 05/01/2009 15:56
flaps Posted on 05/01/2009 15:56
ian_elliot Posted on 05/01/2009 15:57
flaps Posted on 05/01/2009 15:57

flaps Posted on 05/01/2009 16:08
ian_elliot Posted on 05/01/2009 16:13

flaps Posted on 05/01/2009 16:31
scooby Posted on 05/01/2009 16:34

flaps Posted on 05/01/2009 18:40
scooby Posted on 05/01/2009 18:49

flaps Posted on 05/01/2009 19:01
ian_elliot Posted on 05/01/2009 19:01
scooby Posted on 05/01/2009 19:09
flaps Posted on 05/01/2009 19:13
scooby Posted on 05/01/2009 19:20
flaps Posted on 05/01/2009 19:22

scooby Posted on 05/01/2009 19:32
flaps Posted on 05/01/2009 19:45

flaps Posted on 05/01/2009 20:09
ian_elliot Posted on 05/01/2009 20:10

flaps Posted on 05/01/2009 20:54
ian_elliot Posted on 05/01/2009 21:14

ian_elliot Posted on 05/01/2009 21:50
flaps Posted on 05/01/2009 21:56

flaps Posted on 06/01/2009 10:39
ian_elliot Posted on 06/01/2009 10:44
flaps Posted on 06/01/2009 10:55
ian_elliot Posted on 06/01/2009 11:19

flaps Posted on 06/01/2009 13:32
scooby Posted on 06/01/2009 13:51

ian_elliot Posted on 06/01/2009 16:24
scooby Posted on 06/01/2009 16:32
flaps Posted on 06/01/2009 16:49

ian_elliot Posted on 07/01/2009 19:15
flaps Posted on 07/01/2009 19:17


-----x-files music fades------


Sorry I couldn't resist throwing another conspiracy theory into the mix as this one has been so entertaining.

Don't take it personally we all have secrets, just havin' a larf lads [:)]

flaps Posted on 07/01/2009 21:41
9/11 in plane sight

We all live together in a thoroughly modern three way homosexual open relationship. Care to move in?

Funky_Tuncay Posted on 07/01/2009 21:46
9/11 in plane sight

No thanks. I don't think I could stand the arguments of who gets next turn on the keyboard [:)]

BrokenLance Posted on 07/01/2009 22:26
9/11 in plane sight

chester, those pictures of 'engine parts' are indeed the ones I have seen before, and debunked by a Rolls Royce employee as not resembling any parts used by Rolls Royce.

Were those bodies positively identified? There were a number of people killed inside the Pentagon by the explosion.

BrokenLance Posted on 07/01/2009 22:33
9/11 in plane sight

flaps, in the 7 years since these incidents occurred, I, like you, have had only reports and documentary evidence from all sides to base opinions on.

We have witnesses saying various versions of events, from a plane hitting the building, a plane overflying the building, flying different flight paths, to a bomb going off, to a missile.

We have no conclusive evidence either way.

Pilots for 9/11 debunks the black box data provided by the government, so we can't rely on that.

One bit of evidence which cannot be denied is that Cheney stood down NORAD, and no fighter jets were launched until after the attacks had took place. That alone is enough to convince me there is a conspiracy.

As for what actually happened, I have no idea. All the evidence out there is inconclusive for me to come up with any theory that is watertight, and answers all the questions.


flaps Posted on 07/01/2009 22:35
9/11 in plane sight

"and debunked by a Rolls Royce employee as not resembling any parts used by Rolls Royce."

Given the rather convincing evidence presented where photographs are shown of parts that look identical to schematics of the engines used on that plane I think you should provide a link to back this up.



flaps Posted on 07/01/2009 22:41
9/11 in plane sight

"We have no conclusive evidence either way."

Yes we do. There has been lots of evidence posted that backs up the accepted version of events. Your insistence that there is a coverup means that you will discount all of this.

What I've seen of 'pilots for 9/11' is a very poor video where some heavy breathing bloke plays with a 3D graphics package. I could do that to demonstrate that my penis is 12 inches long, but it wouldn't change the fact that in reality it's a tiny shrivelled lump.

"One bit of evidence which cannot be denied is that Cheney stood down NORAD,"

Provide a link to this evidence. A cursory google search indicates that there is an argument over whether this happened or not so I would argue that it can be denied. Fighter jets were in the air during the attacks. Just not enough and not in the right place (link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2222205.stm). This

"All the evidence out there is inconclusive for me to come up with any theory that is watertight, and answers all the questions."

But you don't think a plane hit the pentagon. What do you think did hit the pentagon? There is plane wreckage there - you don't think it belongs to the flight 77, what plane does it belong to? How did it get there? Where did the passengers go?

I would be staggered if you could invest this much time into this subject, disbelieving everything that is 'official' without coming up with any senarios at all.

leedfc Posted on 08/01/2009 01:47
9/11 in plane sight

am alive and well.
sometimes in life there is no helping people.
i dont care if you laugh at me take the mic call me a fool.
all we are saying is a few things are not right with what went on.
i posted terrorstrom and the endgame you need to watch it all with a open mind.
only take in the facts because i know thats what you like.FACTS
then you will be shocked at some of the things the usa gets upto.

its not just about 9/11 also its about the london bombings too.
please watch it and then post to take the mic.


BrokenLance Posted on 08/01/2009 08:31
9/11 in plane sight

flaps, your link mentions mainly jets being scrambled AFTER the 1st tower was hit, not as soon as they knew there were multiple hijacked planes in the air. It does mention two jets being scrambled before the 2nd tower was hit, but that 'flies in the face' of the reports of Norad being stood down, and Cheney directly refusing to allow them to take off.

Cheney/Norad, see Terrorstorm for latest ref. For others, don't ask for miracles. I've seen a lot of footage in the 7 years since 9/11, so asking me to remember an exact ref is asking too much. Ditto the Rolls Royce employee.

It could have been a plane of some sort, but a 757 supposedly could not have performed the maneouvres, and navigated the topography to hit such a relatively flat target. None of the so called pilots were capable of performing such maneouvres. See Pilots for 9/11 for technical details of such.

boroBuoy Posted on 08/01/2009 09:00
9/11 in plane sight

BrokenLance Posted on 07/01/2009 22:33 Email this Message | Reply
9/11 in plane sight

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
One bit of evidence which cannot be denied is that Cheney stood down NORAD, and no fighter jets were launched until after the attacks had took place. That alone is enough to convince me there is a conspiracy.



The standing down of NORAD by Cheney was brought up in the following testimony from Norman Mineta (the US Transportation Secretary) at the 9-11 commission hearings. Although its still subjective Mineta wondered why no shoot down order was given for F77 when it was on approach to the Pentagon.

Mineta's interview>>>>>>>>
Mineta and the secret orders of Cheney
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=mGI5BmNd7AE&feature=related

Tesitmony as it happened>>>>>>>>
Norman Mineta's (US Transportation Secretary) Testimony
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y&feature=related




BrokenLance Posted on 07/01/2009 22:26 Email this Message | Reply
9/11 in plane sight

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
chester, those pictures of 'engine parts' are indeed the ones I have seen before, and debunked by a Rolls Royce employee as not resembling any parts used by Rolls Royce.



The employee you mentioned may be John W. Brown who works for Rolls Royce and was interviewed by AFP.

"American Free Press contacted Pratt & Whitney and Rolls Royce, manufacturers of the 757’s turbofan jet engines to try and identify the piece.

“If the aircraft that struck the Pentagon was a Boeing 757-200 owned by American Airlines, then it would have to be a Rolls Royce engine,” Mark Sullivan, spokesman for Pratt & Whitney, told AFP.

John W. Brown, spokesman for Rolls Royce (Indianapolis), had previously told AFP: “It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I’m familiar with, and certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy.”


He was a spokesman for Rolls Royce not an engineer so his statement should be read with that in mind....


Industry Experts Can’t Explain Photo Evidence
http://www.americanfreepress.net/10_10_03/Controversy_Swirling/controversy_swirling.html

principle_skinner Posted on 08/01/2009 09:20
9/11 in plane sight

A spokesperson is told what to say.


boroBuoy Posted on 08/01/2009 09:31
9/11 in plane sight

Agreed. And that applies to governement spokesmen too.

So Brown was told to say something by his Rolls Royce peers that contradicted the 9-11 report. Very interesting.

ian_elliot Posted on 08/01/2009 10:06
9/11 in plane sight

>"scooby, ian_elliot, and flaps, do you all share the same computer by any chance? Its just that after following this thread with interest since it started I've noticed you three - no matter what time of the day it is - all seem to post within moments of each other with alarming regularity."

Wow - you have wayyyy too much time on your hands FunkyTuncay!

Should be an easy theory to disprove- just ask Rob if the IP addresses are all the same. Unless he's in on it as well of course.

flaps Posted on 08/01/2009 10:38
9/11 in plane sight

Pre 9/11 was it procedure to scramble military jets to intercept planes that were not following usual flight procedures?

"I've seen a lot of footage in the 7 years since 9/11, so asking me to remember an exact ref is asking too much. Ditto the Rolls Royce employee."

Considering your agenda of persuading us all that everything is a government conspiracy, forgive me for not taking at face value something you can sort-of remember but can't remember where you heard it. It's no better than you making things up - which I think you are half the time.

And you haven't given me your own version of events, despite being asked to a couple of times. You won't give your own version of events because you can't, because any other just doesn't work.


Not_Smog Posted on 08/01/2009 10:43
9/11 in plane sight

Wow is this thread still going? It's good that you loons are on here protecting us from the Zionist right wing fundementalists of the republican party.



BrokenLance Posted on 08/01/2009 13:45
9/11 in plane sight

boro-Buoy, thanks for the assist with those links.

flaps, pre-9/11, before Cheney changed those protocols, it was standard procedure to automatically launch fighters at the first warning of a hijack. It was then left to pilot discretion to shoot down the plane. Pilots did not require confirmation from anyone. It was entirely upto them, and their perception of the threat caused.

Three weeks before 9/11, Cheney changed those protocols to require no launch without HIS permission. He was asked for that permission while the hijacked planes were in the air, and he refused permission.

Protocol was changed back to first response on 9/12.

I've told you before, I don't have a theory that answers all the questions, but as you're insisting, here goes...

After the fall of the Soviet Union, the biggest military machine in the world, the US Army, no longer had a defined enemy. What would have happened if the US Government had disbanded most of it? Unemployment of the soldiers, further unemployment caused by defense contractors going bust. Bush Snr and Cheney and other members of the Carlysle Group, which has links to Bilderberg, had lots of shares in various defense contractors, and Cheney was even allowed to dictate where those contracts went-to companies of which he was a major shareholder.

They needed to create another enemy, to maintain the level of the US Military and ensure continued profits for the Defense Contractors. They already had the plans for Operation Northwoods, so it’s not much of a stretch of imagination to dust it off, change a few names, and they were good to go.

In 2000, a CNN news-crew managed to track down and interview Osama Bin Laden. Strange that the US intelligence services couldn’t find him, before or since, but hats off to CNN. He declared he was going to carry out operations in the US. The patsy was then put before the public.

Mohammad Atta was being run by CIA. Suppose CIA/FBI decided to run such a false flag operation (as they had done previously in Iran, Gulf of Tonkin, and the Mediterranean attempt to sink one of their own ships), and offer to assist, through Atta, an Al Qaeda attack on the US? Atta would pretend to be organizing things, but CIA/FBI would specify the targets.

WTC was no longer fully utilized, and would not pass the next building inspection. Bldg 7 was the FBI Evidence Repository which held all the embarrassing evidence against Enron, implicating various government officials.

Weeks before 9/11, workmen were in the WTC, ‘carrying out repairs’. NORAD protocols were changed to ‘slow response’ by Vice President Dick Cheney, requiring all fighter launches to be confirmed by Cheney.

On 9/11, there was a military plane flying above the White House. It is on video. No one will comment on what it was doing there.

Two planes hit the two towers, whether American Airlines or Military we don’t know. We have conflicting witness statements. Other statements tell of explosions in the basement, and throughout the buildings. Molten steel found in the wreckage would have required greater heat than the aviation fuel fire to melt it.

Something hit the Pentagon. Again, conflicting witness statements. Commercial airliner, military plane, drone, missile, bomb. Inconsistent black box data.Debunked by Pilots for 9/11, and I'll take a pilot's word on what a 757 is capable of, over a government version any day. Ditto the instructors on the capabilities of the alleged hijackers.

Flight 93 supposedly crashed. A news crew, first on the scene, said there was no wreckage or bodies at the crash sight. Just a big hole in the ground.

Cheney was contacted during the attack, and repeatedly asked for permission to launch jet fighters. He refused permission, and no fighter planes were launched until the attacks were over. 9/12, Norad protocols were returned to fast response status.

Bush was at a school, and was videoed being told about the attack on the 2nd tower. No emotion on his face, and he continued to sit there, as if waiting for further news, before his Secret Service people took him away. He was later interviewed on video as saying he SAW the footage of the first planestrike as it happened. That public footage was not broadcast live. Where had he seen this live?

What happened after 9/11? Bin Laden was blamed, and the US went into Afghanistan to find him. Failed miserably/perhaps deliberately so. Maybe they should have asked CNN to find him for them.

With public feeling still high, and unable to find Bin Laden, Bush looked for a soft target to bomb the crap out of, and Bliar helped him falsify evidence to persuade our two countries to go to war against Iraq. This of course helped destabilize the Middle East, gave the Americans control of Iraqi oil, and allowed them to build permanent military bases inside Iraq to make sure they hang onto the oil.

Back home in the USA, the Patriot Act was introduced, illegal phone-tapping was made legal, e-mails and cellphone conversations can now be tracked.

Whether this was implicitly directed by the US Government, or the US military did it themselves, we don't know. CIA/FBI already had plans for such false flag operations.

TRILLIONS of dollars have gone missing over the year before 9/11, earmarked for military funding, but the military 'couldn't trace the money'. The US military machine is the biggest drain on the American economy. Almost autonomous, I doubt it would look at plans to reduce it's numbers and it's budget favourably.

There you go. Doesn't answer all questions, but most of it is quite plausible.

flaps Posted on 08/01/2009 13:49
9/11 in plane sight

That's a lovely story Lance but you didn't give me what I asked for. I'm not interested in the context and motivations you ascribe to whoever carried this out, rather just basic practicalities which you only touch on.

What hit the pentagon
Where is the evidence for this
What happened to flight 77
What happened to the people on board
How did plane wreckage belonging to flight 77 end up at the Pentagon site
How did the bodies of people who were on flight 77 end up there



flaps Posted on 08/01/2009 13:51
9/11 in plane sight

"Molten steel found in the wreckage would have required greater heat than the aviation fuel fire to melt it."

Oh for F***s sake.

scooby Posted on 08/01/2009 13:59
9/11 in plane sight

My turn on the keyboard, flaps.

Why can't they answer those pretty important questions you just posted? All this talk of the size of the hole in the Pentagon but no acknowledgement of the massive hole in the conspiracy that the above questions allude to.

I know they'll now say they are moving on to some other details but why have they avoided the above questions like the plague?

flaps Posted on 08/01/2009 14:02
9/11 in plane sight

Did you remember to buy some milk, scooby?

principle_skinner Posted on 08/01/2009 14:04
9/11 in plane sight

While the threads still alive flaps, could you are your two alias', whichever one your logged in as. tell me what the explosion in the towers were when the 2nd plane hit?

Also, out of curiousity, can you show me a pick of a commercial plane with something attached to its underbelly?

scooby Posted on 08/01/2009 14:06
9/11 in plane sight

Yes, can you explain the 16 foot hole in the northern wall of our house?

principle_skinner Posted on 08/01/2009 14:07
9/11 in plane sight

awwww did you forget to log out?

Capybara Posted on 08/01/2009 14:07
9/11 in plane sight

I think it's perfectly clear from this thread that scooby/flaps/ian_elliott is in on the conspiracy.

scooby Posted on 08/01/2009 14:08
9/11 in plane sight

Principle, I can't speak for flaps (who is busy trying to convert units from 'feet' to 'firemen') but if you are confused by an explosion in a building that has just been hit by a fuel laden jet they you might as well stop now.

As for pictures of a jet with something attached to it's bottom, I can't give you any pictures of that either - neither can you. The latter point being the most important one.

scooby Posted on 08/01/2009 14:10
9/11 in plane sight

Principle, the "yes" answer was to flaps FFS. Why would I ask you about "our house". If you can read, look up for the reference that me, flaps and ian live in the same house.

I know you live for conspiracies, I'd say the many threads in which me and flaps have crossed swords on various topics in the past show that we are not the same person. However, while baiting each other is fun, rounding on dickheads who have an unhealthy opinion of their own intelligence is MUCH more fun.

principle_skinner Posted on 08/01/2009 14:11
9/11 in plane sight

well we've seen pictures of the jet, we've seen a video where theres an explosion before the collision

scooby Posted on 08/01/2009 14:13
9/11 in plane sight

Good for you skinner, I'd love to see them. While you are at it, please explain your answers to the points flaps raised above about bodies etc etc etc. Also, what do YOU think was on the bottom of the plane?

ian_elliot Posted on 08/01/2009 14:13
9/11 in plane sight

I can't give you a picture of an airliner with something attached to the bottom, but I can give you a picture of an airliner with something attached to the top... maybe this is what hit the two towers?


Link: Looks very fishy

principle_skinner Posted on 08/01/2009 14:15
9/11 in plane sight

we're dickheads for asking questions about a dodgy government?


scooby Posted on 08/01/2009 14:15
9/11 in plane sight

ian, maybe you are looking at this the wrong way.

Maybe a shuttle hit the towers with a jet attached to its bottom thus totally vindicating the conspiracy idiots theory?

ian_elliot Posted on 08/01/2009 14:16
9/11 in plane sight

So those B******s at NASA were in on it? Maybe - after all they faked the moon landing so they have "previous"

ian_elliot Posted on 08/01/2009 14:18
9/11 in plane sight

>"we're dickheads for asking questions about a dodgy government?"

Not really skinner - asking questions about any government is a good thing, but is probably better to ask sensible questions, and possibly to listen to the answers as well.

principle_skinner Posted on 08/01/2009 14:20
9/11 in plane sight

The point being is that we know America wanted to go to war for oil, we know they knew there was a high chance of attacks in sep on major cities yet security was on a low. That to me smells of P***

scooby Posted on 08/01/2009 14:21
9/11 in plane sight

Actually principal, when you ask stupid questions about governments you actually make it easier for them to get away with real stuff.

scooby Posted on 08/01/2009 14:23
9/11 in plane sight

principal, if they wanted to go to war over oil, why did they not make sure the hijackers at least came from the country they wanted to invade?

flaps Posted on 08/01/2009 14:24
9/11 in plane sight

"tell me what the explosion in the towers were when the 2nd plane hit?"

You don't understand why a jumbo jet travelling at hundreds of miles an hour colliding into a building would explode?



"Also, out of curiousity, can you show me a pick of a commercial plane with something attached to its underbelly?"

Can you show me a commercial plane involved in the 9/11 attacks with something attached to their 'underbelly'?

flaps Posted on 08/01/2009 14:26
9/11 in plane sight

"The point being is that we know America wanted to go to war for oil"

Which they did using a justification that had little to do with the attacks of 9/11.

principle_skinner Posted on 08/01/2009 14:27
9/11 in plane sight

because they're not the cleverst, hence the questions.

flaps, you haven't answered my revised question.

and to answer yours the link in the FIRST post.

BrokenLance Posted on 08/01/2009 14:29
9/11 in plane sight

http://911review.com/coverup/fantasy/melting.html (still haven't figured out how to paste a link)

That covers the ridiculous story about how the steel supposedly melted. Madrid tower, a couple of years after 9/11, withstood 20 hrs of continuous fire and it didn't collapse. No other skyscraper in the world has collapsed due to fire. Yet the WTC did. B*******. Explosions in the basement could not possibly have been caused by an aircraft hitting 100 floors up. No gas in the building.

Already said, I don't know what hit the Pentagon, just that evidence proves it wasn't a 757.

How was the wreckage positively identified as being from flight 77? We already have the testimony from Rolls Royce denying the 'engine' parts where from one of their engines.

One charred body looks very much like any other. The explosion killed quite a few people inside the Pentagon. Were the bodies found positively identified as passengers on flight 77, or did the FBI produced some miraculously preserved ID's like they did for the alleged hijacker?

scooby Posted on 08/01/2009 14:29
9/11 in plane sight

flaps, I asked to see them - he hasn't acquiesced. He also won't answer my question about the nationality of the hijackers so we might as well add it to the list of 'can't answer - won't answer'

It's a shame because them having banged on about them not being planes and that the people claimed to be on the flights were not really there, they now have another hole. The planes didn't exist, nor did the highjackers - the government had total freedom to frame any nation they wanted - why Saudi? They should have just filled it with Iranians.

principle_skinner Posted on 08/01/2009 14:32
9/11 in plane sight

i asked you a question first you tit

ian_elliot Posted on 08/01/2009 14:32
9/11 in plane sight

>"just that evidence proves it wasn't a 757."

Seriously?

Are you sure you don't mean that there is some evidence to contradict the explanation of it being a 757?

I really honestly don't see anyone outside of a loony bin claiming that evidence proves that it definitely wasn't a 757.

flaps Posted on 08/01/2009 14:32
9/11 in plane sight

"flaps, you haven't answered my revised question."

What is your revised question?

Good lord, juggling three separate accounts and babysitting conspiracy theorists is a bit complicated.

scooby Posted on 08/01/2009 14:32
9/11 in plane sight

"One charred body looks very much like any other. The explosion killed quite a few people inside the Pentagon. Were the bodies found positively identified as passengers on flight 77, or did the FBI produced some miraculously preserved ID's like they did for the alleged hijacker?"

Are you FOR REAL? Never heard of DNA or dental records? JESUS F***ING CHRIST.

flaps Posted on 08/01/2009 14:38
9/11 in plane sight

"Madrid tower, a couple of years after 9/11, withstood 20 hrs of continuous fire and it didn't collapse."

That tower was made of concrete.

ian_elliot Posted on 08/01/2009 16:44
9/11 in plane sight

Seriously though BrokenLance - hand on heart do you really believe that there is evidence that proves that a 757 didn't hit the Pentagon?

All joking and teasing aside - I'd say that there are some aspects of the incident that to the man in the street would say is odd, and appear to require some explanation (which may or may not be included in the links above), but do you honestly think that there is evidence that PROVES it wasn't flight 77?

Lefty Posted on 08/01/2009 16:53
9/11 in plane sight

The biggest mystery is how this got 730 replies.

BrokenLance Posted on 08/01/2009 17:07
9/11 in plane sight

Ian, if a pilot's association says a 757 couldn't perform those maneouvres (see the Pilots for 9/11 video) what greater experts could you ask for? Pentagon was not a whopping big target like wtc. It was relatively flat. Government data supplied on the approach path has been debunked, as was black box data.

Scooby, DNA info guaranteed to come from bodies found inside the Pentagon? Are you sure? Of course, it would be really difficult to just SAY that's where it came from, wouldn't it?

We have a government which has proven to be a serial liar, indulging in all sorts of false flag operations even against it's own assets, and now 'we're really telling the truth this time...' Not credible.

flaps, Madrid tower construction details I'll leave to you. Name me another skyscraper that collapsed as a result of fire. You can't, because none did. Just the wtc, according to the goverment. If you read the report on the link I mentioned, you'd realised just how ridiculous that claim is, but I wouldn't mind betting you couldn't be bothered.

Muttley Posted on 08/01/2009 17:26
9/11 in plane sight

Just assuming it wasn't a 757, what was it? We want to hear YOUR explanation of what happened not simply pointing at more perceived inconsistencies. What do YOU think hit The Pentagon? And explain how that fits in with the witnesses and the physical evidence.

BrokenLance Posted on 08/01/2009 17:31
9/11 in plane sight

I've repeatedly said, I don't know what hit the pentagon. Too many conflicting stories. If I had to guess, I would say some sort of military drone or cruise missile. Reports can be falsified, so I don't take official reports for granted. I'd want to examine the evidence myself, and obviously that's not possible.

Still waiting for answers on another skyscraper that collapsed from fire, or an explanation of the explosion in the basement of the wtc.

C'mon guys, don't be shy. It's not like you.......

Muttley Posted on 08/01/2009 17:42
9/11 in plane sight

"I would say some sort of military drone or cruise missile."

Then you need to do some research into the capabilities and likely damage patterns of those aircraft and also explain why so many people saw a "commercial airliner". Also how did DNA samples and human remains come to be found inside The Pentagon. Once you start to examine the way in which a possible attack with a guided weapon could have been mounted you will start to realise why that is so extremely improbable that I would take the suggestion of a Martian Attack more seriously.

1. The damage inflicted on the building is not consistent with an attack with a cruise missile

2. How did the cruise missile knock over several lampposts on it's attack profile?

3. How was a cruise missile launched?

4. How was the command chain required to fire a guided weapon made secure?

craig-pancrack Posted on 08/01/2009 17:57
9/11 in plane sight

April Gallup - pentagon employee survivor


Link: clip

flaps Posted on 08/01/2009 18:06
9/11 in plane sight

"what greater experts could you ask for?"

Opinion is not evidence. You don't even know what evidence is do you.

"Madrid tower construction details I'll leave to you"

Yeah who cares about facts, right?


As for sky scrapers collapsing? Show me another pair of towers that have survived being hit by jumbo jets. And building 7 suffered massive damage from debris from the twin towers. No building collapsed that day due to fire alone. Finally, show me another tower where the fire was left to its own devices for hours, as was the case with building 7.

And stop trotting out this 'explosion' as if it's fact. It isn't real just because you keep repeating it.


Link: further reading

Senor_Chester Posted on 08/01/2009 18:24
9/11 in plane sight

"chester, those pictures of 'engine parts' are indeed the ones I have seen before, and debunked by a Rolls Royce employee as not resembling any parts used by Rolls Royce."

So your saying they went to the trouble of flying 2 plane like objects into the twin towers having rigged them with explosives to bring them down, then flew a plane like object into the Pentagon, scattered bodies and plane debris about then didn't think to research into what engines the plane would use?

flaps Posted on 08/01/2009 18:36
9/11 in plane sight

Not quite Chester, the idea is that these buildings were rigged with explosives before the attacks, with nobody noticing.


Senor_Chester Posted on 08/01/2009 18:39
9/11 in plane sight

Edit!

boroBuoy Posted on 08/01/2009 18:40
9/11 in plane sight

BrokenLance Posted on 08/01/2009 14:29 Email this Message | Reply
9/11 in plane sight

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://911review.com/coverup/fantasy/melting.html (still haven't figured out how to paste a link)

That covers the ridiculous story about how the steel supposedly melted. Madrid tower, a couple of years after 9/11, withstood 20 hrs of continuous fire and it didn't collapse. No other skyscraper in the world has collapsed due to fire. Yet the WTC did. B*******. Explosions in the basement could not possibly have been caused by an aircraft hitting 100 floors up. No gas in the building.



You may find this interesting regarding the collapse of WT7.


"The National Institute for Standards and Technology has been forced to admit that the total free-fall collapse of the twin towers cannot be explained after an exhaustive scientific study, implicitly acknowledging that controlled demolition is the only means by which the buildings could have come down.

In a recent letter to 9/11 victim's family representatives Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, NIST states, "We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."


And these guys agree....


Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley, of Fremont, California, says: "Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition"

Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, of Novato California, writes: "Why would all 110 stories drop straight down to the ground in about 10 seconds, pulverizing the contents into dust and ash - twice. Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust."

Graham John Inman, structural engineer, of London, England, points out: "WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?"

Paul W. Mason, structural engineer, of Melbourne, Australia, argues: "In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation!"

"In my opinion WTC7 was with the utmost probability brought down by controlled demolition done by experts" -Hugo Bachmann, Professor emeritus for structural analysis and construction at ETH and former Chairman of the Department of Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology.


http://www.ae911truth.org/


And finally the smoking gun>>>>>



Link: NIST Finally Admits Freefall

flaps Posted on 08/01/2009 18:40
9/11 in plane sight

Here's a link to a video of a firefighter, having spent his day risking his life to put out a fire in an empty building obviously lying about the chances of it coming down from the damage it had suffered...

If 'opinions' are now 'evidence' I'll take this guy's over some mouthbreather playing with a 3D package.


Link: youtube

flaps Posted on 08/01/2009 18:45
9/11 in plane sight

"Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day?"

It didn't take 7 seconds it took over 13 seconds (see video of the collapse below). How can someone who doesn't even know the chronology events give an authoritative opinion?


That 'quote' is absurd - because a government department (who, remember, are supposed to be perpetrators of this conspiracy) won't declare that they know everything that happened, your 'source' concludes that they must agree it was demolished with explosives?






Link: WTC7 Collapse

boroBuoy Posted on 08/01/2009 19:11
9/11 in plane sight

flaps Posted on 08/01/2009 18:45
9/11 in plane sight

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It didn't take 7 seconds it took over 13 seconds.



You're talking about its total collapse which is impossible to determine since only the first 18 floors are visible - the rest is obscured by a building in the foreground.

The government report by NIST and the counter-arguments by ae911truth are only talking about the 18 floors they can see collapsing and not speculating on stuff they can't see once collapse becomes obscured by the foreground building (as the video in your link does).

Senor_Chester Posted on 08/01/2009 19:31
9/11 in plane sight

"it was standard procedure to automatically launch fighters at the first warning of a hijack. It was then left to pilot discretion to shoot down the plane. Pilots did not require confirmation from anyone. It was entirely upto them, and their perception of the threat caused."

Can you provide a link for this Lance? Frankly it should have been changed if that was the case. To think a fighter pilot could decide whether to take a plane full of holiday makers out just because they had lost radio contact and were slightly of course is scary.

flaps Posted on 08/01/2009 19:39
9/11 in plane sight

"You're talking about its total collapse which is impossible to determine since only the first 18 floors are visible - the rest is obscured by a building in the foreground."

The video I posted clearly shows the top half of the building.

ian_elliot Posted on 08/01/2009 19:41
9/11 in plane sight

>"Ian, if a pilot's association says a 757 couldn't perform those maneouvres (see the Pilots for 9/11 video) what greater experts could you ask for?"

Well I've heard lots of "experts" say things couldn't happen which then subsequently did. I seem to recall reading about some unsinkable ship way back in 1912.

What exactly are the credentials of this "Pilots for 9/11" group? Are there other pilots that believe that the maneouvres were possible but just didn't feel the need to make a documentary to prove what was already accepted as fact?

I was hoping that you'd have something concrete (so to speak) rather than just speculation.

If you honestly believe that the speculation of a self-appointed group of experts PROVES conclusively that it wasn't a 757 that hit that building, when stacked against a weight of actual eyewitnesses to the events (not hypothetical musings) plus physical evidence of the plane in the wreckage, then I'm afraid you really are a lost cause when it comes to logic.


flaps Posted on 08/01/2009 19:41
9/11 in plane sight

"Can you provide a link for this Lance?"

LOL no of course he can't he'll just be able to remember reading it somewhere once. Don't ask him to do something unreasonable like back up his claims with anything more than his memory.

ian_elliot Posted on 08/01/2009 19:50
9/11 in plane sight

Just doing a little digging on Lance's "expert" pilots.

They include John Lear, who in the course of his free time when not revealing the truth about 9/11, he made the following statement of why the US stopped the Apollo missions :

"Right! We were told to stay away - we were given that edict by the aliens - they said, "You will NOT come back here - and ... i'm not sure exactly which particular Apollo series it was and we said, "Look! We've got all these Saturn 5's - it will be hard to keep that from the public," and they said "Okay! - one or two more and 'that's it!" Apollo 17 was the lsat (sic)one and the NASA excuse was , "We don't have any more funding and we can't do it and they have - still had 3 remaining Saturn 5's fueled and ready to go and they were 18, 19, and 20."

Also from a new report (Dec 16th 2008) on the black box data :

"The P4T RO2 is the flight data recorder decoded, not a theory. The short of it, the distance from navigation aids (VOR's) has been confirmed as recorded in the RO2 (fdr). The positional data has been confirmed using multiple radar sites along the flight path to verify that data as well. There are no holes in the data, so contrary to some theories, the plane did not land in KY/Ohio/WV and get replaced by a drone of some kind. The radar and RO2 data ends at the Sheraton Hotel area (to the south). Projected forward, it corresponds to the downed light poles and impact area (south of the Citgo). There is no evidence of a "fly-over" or other such hypothetical outcome. The data ends at the Pentagon area."

boroBuoy Posted on 08/01/2009 19:51
9/11 in plane sight

flaps Posted on 08/01/2009 19:39
9/11 in plane sight

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The video I posted clearly shows the top half of the building.



The video you linked looks like it was put together by some emo kid in his back bedroom. It is visually very poor and speculates when collapse began. It offers no scientific evidence. It even shows a countdown clock that keeps going well after the point where those visible 18 floors have collapsed and been obscured, which is so inadmissible that even NIST discounted it.

The video I linked was put together by a science lecturer representing a body of professional Engineers and Architects seeking a few answers, and it includes statements right out of the mouths of NIST representatives.

flaps Posted on 08/01/2009 19:56
9/11 in plane sight

"It is visually very poor and speculates when collapse began"

What are you talking about you can see a part of the building dissappear.

And this post indicates that you believe floors of buildings are numbered from the top down.

ian_elliot Posted on 08/01/2009 19:57
9/11 in plane sight

Ahh.. it also turns out that John Lear is the crackpot who claimed that the moon's gravity is 66% of that of the earth according to someone on the "other" conspiracy thread.

BrokenLance Posted on 08/01/2009 19:58
9/11 in plane sight

chester, last place I heard it was on the TerrorStorm documentary. Would all you doubters actually check out the evidence we quote? Else why are we all bothering? You ask for evidence, links, and we quote the sources, but you are so sure of your own views, you can't be bothered.

flaps, what would your firefighter know about structural integrity of the wtc? The towers were designed to withstand impact by commercial airliners.

Ian, 'If you honestly believe that the speculation of a self-appointed group of experts...' Isn't that what you are doing yourself by accepting the government's version? They are hardly experts unless you consider them experts in lying, and running false flag ops. And in your last post, you also are making claims without anything to back them up, regarding one of those pilots. Links please? I can play this game, too.


Link: wtc design basis

flaps Posted on 08/01/2009 20:06
9/11 in plane sight

"Would all you doubters actually check out the evidence we quote?"

No, *you* are the doubter.

"flaps, what would your firefighter know about structural integrity of the wtc? The towers were designed to withstand impact by commercial airliners."

He was in WTC7. Keep up. And the towers were *not* designed to withstand impact from passenger jet planes. They were designed to cope with the impact of small planes, much like the one that hit the empire state building.

Personally, I'd trust the opinion of a firefighter who has just come out of a building and says it is about to collapse.


"chester, last place I heard it was on the TerrorStorm documentary. Would all you doubters actually check out the evidence we quote? Else why are we all bothering? You ask for evidence, links, and we quote the sources, but you are so sure of your own views, you can't be bothered."

No, in this thread you've usually used your own memory as a 'source'. Besides, a poorly produced hour long 'documentary' by people with an obvious agenda is not a source.

Do you compete with yourself for being as factually incorrect as possible in every post you make?

twoshots Posted on 08/01/2009 20:11
9/11 in plane sight

Broken Lance

Ian's right. This John Lear from your Pilot's for 911 group is a little strange. Not entirely reliable!

Just google his views on aliens and UFOs

Oh and a link for you!


Link: aliens?

boroBuoy Posted on 08/01/2009 20:11
9/11 in plane sight

flaps Posted on 08/01/2009 19:56
9/11 in plane sight

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"It is visually very poor and speculates when collapse began"

What are you talking about you can see a part of the building dissappear.

And this post indicates that you believe floors of buildings are numbered from the top down.



This post confirms that you have little knowledge of what the NIST representatives and ae911truth questionnaires are discussing, nor its implications. With that in mind I'll leave the matter for now and return once you've had time to digest the information presented, or at least come back with a worthy discussion to continue it further.

flaps Posted on 08/01/2009 20:12
9/11 in plane sight

"This post confirms that you have little knowledge of what the NIST representatives and ae911truth questionnaires are discussing, nor its implications. "

You think the top floor of a building is the first floor.

ian_elliot Posted on 08/01/2009 20:15
9/11 in plane sight

Lancy Boy... the link below features an interview with John Lear - I think its part of his biography. He has some wonderful theories. Definitely a credible expert witness!

Anyway you miss my point slightly - my belief in the official line is not just based on speculation by experts - it is backed up by physical evidence and eyewitness accounts.

As for the twin towers explosives theory check out http://www.representativepress.org/BowingDebunksExplosives.html


Link: Amazing dude.

flaps Posted on 08/01/2009 20:17
9/11 in plane sight

See, that's the thing these conspiracy theorists don't get. In their urge to condemn anything that's official as a lie, they rush to believe any evidence presented.

This leads them to see cropped photographs, cut video and out-of-context quotes, but because it supports a conspiracy they believe it without seeing the originals these hashes have been taken from.

There is far more evidence for a 'conspirators conspiracy' than anything else. These people have an agenda. Some are doing it to push their own theories, others to promote their website, others their video in the hope of being the next Micheal Moore. Still more hope to go on to write a book.

9/11 conspiracy theories are big business. There is no greater a 'sheeple' than those who swallow this tripe.

flaps Posted on 08/01/2009 20:20
9/11 in plane sight

lmao

"Since that time, John [Lear] has learned many incredible and interesting facts about the solar system and planets including the existence of huge structures, arches, bridges and domes on the moon, cities on Mars, huge extraterrestrial ships mining the rings of Saturn, the incredible but secret agenda of Apollo 17, to the huge rectangular opening in the south massif of the Taurus-Littrow Highlands called Nansen."

lol

ian_elliot Posted on 08/01/2009 20:23
9/11 in plane sight

An excerpt (J being John Lear, A being the interviewer) :

" J - Yes! Apollo 17 landed in the Taurus Litrow area, (see above at the beginning of this interview) which is extremely dangerous - um - there is mountain peaks that go 8 to 10 thousand feet - a round area - but what they were tasked to do on the second day was to go to Nansen and Nansen is a large, obvioiusly constructed opening inside the south masif and they wanted to take a look at it - so essentially its been covered up, but thereis a website where you can read the whole thing, see the pictures of Nansen - you get exact - what the astronauts said, which its very, very interesting what they said - uh - what I'll do at the end of ths broadcast - I'll going to e-mail you about 10 or 15 websites - that we are talking about - that you can pass them on if you wwnat - and maybe you can look at Apollo 17 and Project Redstar and all the rest of them.

A - All of this - uh - an Apollo mission - our space proram in genereal - How much of this would have to be hidden? Now - of course its worth mentioning - that we have not gone back to the moon ... not with men as one would have expected by now ... or Mars or anything else ... its like ... its kind of like ... I don't know - were' being kept home.

J - Right! We were told to stay away - we were given that edict by the aliens - they said, "You will NOT come back here - and ... i'm not sure exactly which particular Apollo series it was and we said, "Look! We've got all these Saturn 5's - it will be hard to keep that from the public," and they said "Okay! - one or two more and 'that's it!" Apollo 17 was the lsat one and the NASA excuse was , "We don't have any more funding and we can't do it and they have - still had 3 remaining Saturn 5's fueled and ready to go and they were 18, 19, and 20.

A - The threat - that stopped us - what was the 'or else' part?

J - It was just '"or else" and you know - I don't know exactly what was said, and I didn't talk to anybody who heard the threat - it was just enough threat - that "Don't come back here - you're not welcome." "

boroBuoy Posted on 08/01/2009 20:23
9/11 in plane sight

flaps Posted on 08/01/2009 20:12
9/11 in plane sight

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You think the top floor of a building is the first floor.


Let me spell it out to you.

When someone mentions the words "the first 18 floors seen collapsing" either on here or in the NIST discussion, they're referring to exactly that - not floor numbers 1 to 18 ffs! But you already knew that and simply decided to be pedantic since you can offer no intelligent counter argument.

Like I said, until you do, I'll lurk once in a while and amuse myself at your amateur rebuttals, but I won't waste my time responding unless I think you've got something worthy to reply to.

ian_elliot Posted on 08/01/2009 20:26
9/11 in plane sight

>"amature rebuttles"

Love the pseudo lawyer speak. Would carry more weight if you were talking about "amateur rebuttals" though.

flaps Posted on 08/01/2009 20:27
9/11 in plane sight

"When someone mentions the words "the first 18 floors" either on here or in the NIST video discussion, they're referring to the first 18 floors of collapse. But you already knew that but decided to be pedantic since you can offer no intelligent counter argument."

Sorry fella but I've never seen a building anywhere which is built from the top down. Maybe you should learn what a building is before commenting on their collapse.

"amature rebuttles"

lmao

boroBuoy Posted on 08/01/2009 20:30
9/11 in plane sight

- fixed for flaps' pedantic Alter ego -

And flaps I'll work on my spelling if you work on your reading comprehension.

ian_elliot Posted on 08/01/2009 20:34
9/11 in plane sight

>"Happier? :)"

I'm happy as larry thanks - having a good chortle at the testimony of "Pilots for 911 Truth" John Lear.

What's happened to BrokenLance? I would have thought he'd be on here defending his expert witness.

Interestingly in their "biogs" page, they link to John Lear's father's page on Wikipedia, not to his own entry (I wonder why):

"John Lear

In the late 1980s, John Lear became prominent in UFO circles. Citing "unnamed but well-connected sources" (Clark 1998, 157), Lear asserted that the U.S. government had in fact recovered dozens of UFOs over the decades. In exchange for advanced technology, the government allowed for a limited number of alien abductions.

This proceeded for some years, until in 1972 the government discovered that the aliens were kidnapping far more persons than their agreement had stipulated. This dispute culminated in a conflict between aliens and humans at a secret military base near Dulce, New Mexico. The aliens supposedly killed about 40 high-ranking military officials or scientists, and many more military personnel who tried to invade the base.

Following this conflict, Lear reports, the aliens have essentially gone about their schemes with no interference. Up to 10% of the U.S. population has been abducted, and the Strategic Defense Initiative was actually proposed to protect from alien invaders, not Soviet missiles.

Lear relied heavily on Bennewitz's stories, which Bennewitz claimed to have heard from officials at Kirtland AFB."

flaps Posted on 08/01/2009 20:38
9/11 in plane sight

"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the darkness at Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time like tears in rain." - John Lear, yesterday

twoshots Posted on 08/01/2009 20:41
9/11 in plane sight

I think Broken Lance has probably got the point by now!

sheriff_john_bunnell Posted on 08/01/2009 20:44
9/11 in plane sight

STOP!!!! STOP NOW!!!!!

ian_elliot Posted on 08/01/2009 20:45
9/11 in plane sight

Looking further at the membership list of Pilots for 911 truth, it appears only 3 of them have actually flown a 757 or a 767 and most of them have experience of light aircraft, jet fighters or WWII era airliners.

One of them... get this... is a flight attendant... a trolly dolly! :

"Greg Stone
Flight Attendant
American Airlines
LAX-I, 31-years"


Hardly the highest level of authority on the subject I think!

But no, Lance is probably right - their opinions are irrefutable proof that the physical evidence and eyewitness reports are wrong.

As an aside it is interesting that Boeing admit that it would be quite simple to reprogram the flight path on the autopilot of the 757 to perform the maneouvre involved in hitting the pentagon as well, so maybe you don't need to be a crack fighter pilot or air hostess like their "experts" to crash into the Pentagon after all?

twoshots Posted on 08/01/2009 20:56
9/11 in plane sight

Raise you:

Naomi Watson
Flight Attendant - Delta Airlines
Based Atlanta


boroBuoy Posted on 08/01/2009 21:04
9/11 in plane sight

Lets save some space and keep them in a single post, or is everyone trying to get this thread to a 1000 by the weekend???

Robert Balsamo
4000TT Commercial, Instrument, Multi, CFI II MEI
Corporate Chief Pilot
135 Capt
121 FO Independence Air/Atlantic Coast Airlines
King Air C-90/200, Dornier 328JET

Captain Russ Wittenberg (ret)
30,000+ Total Flight Time
707, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777
Pan Am, United
United States Air Force (ret)
Over 100 Combat Missions Flown
Has time in:
- N591UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 93)
- N612UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 175)

Captain Ross Aimer
UAL Ret.
CEO, Aviation Experts LLC
40 years and 30,000 hrs.
BS Aero
A&P Mech.
B-777/767/757/747/737/727/720/707, DC-10/-9/-8 Type ratings
Command time in:
- N591UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 93)
- N612UA (Aircraft dispatched as United 175)
www.AviationExperts.com


John Lear
Son of Bill Lear
(Founder, creator of the Lear Jet Corporation)
More than 40 years of Flying
19,000+ TT
23 Type ratings
Flight experience includes 707, DC-8, 727, L10-11

Jeff Latas
-Over 20 years in the USAF
--USAF Accident investigation Board President
--Flew the F-111, T38, and F-15E
--Combat experience in the F-15E includes Desert Storm and four tours of duty in Northern and Southern Watch
--Weapons Requirements Officer, USAF HQ, Pentagon
--Standard and Evaluations Flight Examiner, Command level
-Currently Captain for JetBlue Airways

Guy S. Razer, LtCol, USAF (Ret)
3,500+ Hours Total Flight Time
F-15E/C, F-111A/D/E/F/EF, F-16, F-18, B-1, Mig-29, SU-22, T-37/38, Various Cvilian Prop
Combat Time: Operation Northern Watch
USAF Fighter Weapons School Instructor
NATO Tactical Leadership Program Instructor/Mission Coordinator
USAF Material Command Weapons Development Test Pilot
Combat Support Coordination Team 2 Airpower Coordinator, South Korea
All Service Combat Identification Evaluation Team Operations Officer
Boeing F-22 Pilot Instructor
MS Aeronautical Studies, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

Field McConnell (Captain Sherlock?)
23,000+ hours
CV580,DC9,MD80,B727,A320,DC10
NCA,REP,NWA
A4,F4,F16 USN,USMC, ND ANG
www.captainsherlock.com
Forced to retire due 9/11 exposure
www.hawkscafe.com

Captain Paul A. Trood
B737-800/400 Captain
Qantas Airways
Australia
Experience: 18,000 flight hours

Jim Mustanich
ATP 20,000+ hours
Typed in CE-500, DHC-7, EMB-110, BA-3100
Aircraft flown include Boeing 727,737, Douglas DC-9, MD-80
United Air Lines, American International Airlines, Air Pacific Airlines, West Air Airlines
6-7 years corporate flying in Cessna Citations
Factory demo pilot for Cessna Citations

Ted Muga
Naval Aviator - Retired Commander, USNR
A/C experience - Grumman E-1 and E-2 ( Approx, 3800 hours )
Pan American World Airways - Retired Dec. 1991 ( that's when PanAM went bankrupt )
Flight Engineer/First Officer -- Boeing 707 & Boeing 727 ( approx. 7500 hours )

Col Robert Bowman
President of the Institute for Space and Security Studies
Executive Vice President of Millennium III Corporation
retired Presiding Archbishop of the United Catholic Church
101 combat missions in Vietnam
directed all the “Star Wars” programs under Presidents Ford and Carter
recipient of the Eisenhower Medal
George F. Kennan Peace Prize
President’s Medal of Veterans for Peace
Society of Military Engineers' ROTC Award of Merit (twice)
Six Air Medals
Ph.D. is in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering from Caltech
chaired 8 major international conferences
one of the country’s foremost experts on National Security
independent candidate for President of the US in 2000

John Panarelli
friend and fellow aviator of John Ogonowski - Capt. AA #11
ATP: L-300, B-737, DC-10, DC-8, FE, TT=approx. 11,000 hours
USAF-C141-IP, Eastern Metro, Braniff, Ryan International, Emery
Worldwide, Polar Air Cargo

Lt. Colonel Shelton F. Lankford
United States Marine Corps (ret)
A-4 Skyhawk, KC-130 (10,000+ hours)
S-2, T-1, F9F, F-11, OV-10, T–2J
303 Combat Missions

"DG"
10,000TT
Chief Pilot of Casino Express airlines
Director of Operations Training at Polar Air
Cargo, and Asst. Chief Pilot for Presidential Air
Manager of Flying for Eastern Airlines
Falcon 900 and a G-200
Check Captain
B737,A300, Da-50, G-200 and C-500
FE, A&P.

Dennis Spear
Army Aviator
20+ years - United States Army
7000 TT in a variety of fixed and rotary wing aircraft
C-23, C-7, U-21,U-8, T-39, EH-60, UH-60, UH-1, OH-58
Instrument Flight Examiner, Fixed Wing Instructor Pilot, H-60
Maintenance Test Pilot
Operations Officer, Aviation Safety Officer
FAA Commercial Pilot
- ASMEL, Rotorcraft Helicopter, Instrument Airplane/Helicopter

Scott Burley
747-400 First Officer
United Airlines
22 Years

Bill Credle
Aviation Maintenance Technician
American Airlines
17 Years

Tony Ryan
Warrant Officer RAAF (ret)
Former Royal Australian Air Force
Served between 18thFeb1958 and 21March1981
Flight Engineer on C130A, C130E, C130H and B707
Cathay Pacific Airways
L1011 Tristar Flight Engineer, B747-200, B747-300 and B747-200F
10000+ TT FE
Australian Private Pilot License
300 hours on C150, C152, C172, C172RG and Piper Archer aircraft

Alfons Olszewski
Veterans For Truth
Vietnam Veteran
Aircraft Maintenance Crew Chief
MOS: 67V20
qualified on Cobras, Hueys, and Loch Helicopters

George Nelson
Colonel USAF (Ret.)
30 year career managing aircraft maintenance activities
Licensed commercial pilot
Licensed airframe and powerplant mechanic
Aircraft accident investigator

Larry Patriarca
USN Aviation Structural Mechanic
VAQ 135, EA-6B Squadron, 1983-86
Coordinator for Central Mass 9/11 Truth Alliance
Member of Veterans for 9/11 Truth
Associate Member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth

Captain Steve Nieman
30 year Capt with Horizon Air
Q400

Joel Skousen
USMC Fighter/Attack Pilot (Vietnam Era)
1000+ TT, F-4, A-4, F-9, T-2C, various civilian planes
Commercial Pilot w/ Instrument, multi-engine ratings
EAA and AOPA member

Colonel Michael Harley USAF (ret)
Command pilot
~ 6000 Total Flight Time
T-38,T-33, T-37,T-39, C-47, U-6, Uh-1, C130A, B, E, &
prototype H, Kc-135 and B-52.
26 years commissioned. 34 Years total service USAF Accident Investigator
Instructor Accident Investigation, Embry-Riddle University
Management analyst and IG, simulator instructor,
Instructor Pilot, Standardization Evaluation Pilot,
Chief of Standardization of a Sac Wing equipped with B-52, RC-135 and Kc-135
Flew Cessna 177, Twin Bonanza, Cherokee-6
~200 hours as civilian private pilot
Newspaper columnist for 10 years, now a freelance writer

Mathias Frey
Switzerland
C340, C402
CPL/IR
ATPL “frozen”
500 hrs TT
3000+ hrs on ASTRAS, INTRAS and TOSIM, ATC Simulation
Assistant JAR OPS Transition Air Engiadina
Project Manager Air Alps Aviation

Jeff Dahlstrom
C-141 pilot in the early 70's during the Vietnam era:
2nd AF, 432nd MAWg, 18th Sq, MacGuire AFB, NJ.
Pilot training was class 70-06, at Laughlin AFB, Tx

Joe H. Ferguson
Retired Capt.
30,000TT
5,000 FE
USAF Ret.
T-6, T -28, B-25, B-29, KC-97
Frontier, Continental Airlines
DC - 3, CV 580, B737, MD80, DC10

Bill Reyes
Caravan Pilot for UPS Feeder
Commercial, Instrument,
Multi Engine, Flight Instructor
1500 TT
Ex Lieutenant USN Horn Of Africa/ Persian Gulf 02-03
Aboard USS Nassau (LHA-4)

Ralph “Rotten” Kolstad
23,000 hours
27 years in the airlines
B757/767 for 13 years mostly international captain
20 years US Navy flying fighters off aircraft carriers, TopGun twice
civilian pilot flying gliders, light airplanes and warbirds

Capt. Omar Pradhan
U.S. Air Force – AWACS command pilot
Flight Instructor U.S. Air Force Academy
Planes flown: Boeing E-3 Sentry AWACS (militarized Boeing 707-320B)
1,900+ hours flight time (350+ hours of combat air time over Afghanistan and Iraq)

Jared Eastley
5000 + TT
Airplane, Single & Multi-Engine Land, CFII, MEI, ATP
SWIV (Metroliner) - Single Pilot
Business Charter and Air Ambulance Pilot

Mike Aybar
Aircraft Maintenance Technician, Crew Chief
American Airlines

"Steven"
Canada ATC (in training)

James Edward Forst
First Officer EMB-145 Trans States Airlines
UND summa cum laude December 2006
Degree in Commercial Aviation and Aviation Management
CFI, CFII, and MEI 65% type CRJ

Hammish Brannan
Former United Kingdom air defense ground enviroment (UKADGE) RADAR technician
Primary and secondary ground radar systems
ATC & airborne systems (including radio) as an instructor for the Ministry of Defence (MOD)

Didier "Jay" Weenen
BAF retired
SIAI SF 260M, Potez Fouga Magister, BA/Do Alpha Jet,
F16A, C130H, C153, C172, C182, L45, various gliders

"Wes"
MD-88 American Airlines

Peter Rapp
Austria
PPL/IFR 950TT
Piper Turbo Arrow, PA32T Saratoga,
Cessna 172, Cessna 182T Garmin1000
Carry out business flights for clients and Co-Pi on Turbine Malibu and Beech90 Kingair.

Erin Myers
600TT
Private Pilot (single engine, land, VFR)
Cessna, Piper, Waco, Pitts, Citabria
R22s and a JetRanger.
Army Aviation 68G (maintenance and repair):
Blackhawk, Apache and OH58.
FAA A&P Mechanic
Experimental Aircraft Builder
1990 KitFox.Lanceair, Glassair, variety of Micro and Ultra lights.

Sean Dulac
Private Pilot
500TT

Christina Merrick
12,000+ TT ATP
A&P, CFIAIM, FE Turbojet
B-727, DC-9, SNJ-5, (T-6)
Navion and Bellanca Viking Current
Advanced Instructing
Consultant for AOPA Legal Attorneys
Eastern Airlines, ValuJet
Fellow Pilot and Friend of Captain Candi Chamberlain Kubeck
ValuJet flight 592, brought down in the Everglades May 1996

Dave Kisor
Former Aviation Electrician
USN / USNR Worked on A-4E/F, TA-4F/J
& A-7B/E ashore and afloat (CV-19, CV-43)
P-3B & C-9B. Back seat TA-4F/J & A-4F NWL
Flight & hangar deck fire fighting qualified
Jumped from UH-1N
BA & MA in Geography
Presently employed US Forest Service
Technician at the Riverside CA Fire Laboratory

Slawomir M. Kozak
Air Traffic Controller
Warsaw International Airport Tower Control Supervisor
On Job Training Unit Chief
Former President of Polish Air Traffic Controllers Association
Former member of Polish Airports State Enterprise Employee’s Council
Member of National Aviation Council
Member of International Aviation English Association
Journalist of aviation magazines
"National Geographic" aviation consultant
Author of Two Books related to 9/11. Currently working on third - Demons Of Extermination
Books Available here

Timothy Young
Comm, Inst, ME, Land & Sea, CFI
Airframe & Powerplant Mechanic
10,000+ Hrs. PIC
Aircraft Owner & Aviation Business Operator for 27 years

Greg Stone
Flight Attendant
American Airlines
LAX-I, 31-years

Michael Herzog
Private Pilot
Multi Engine Rated
1500TT
150, 152, 172, 210, Cherokee 140, Warrior, Twin Aerocommander
Profession : Talk Show Host
We The People Radio Network
'The American Awakening'


Rodger Herbst
777 and 787 Aeronautics
Flight Controls and Simulation Engineering

Jeff Beck
Commercial, Instrument

Craig Hill
Post Solo Student Pilot
Ran as 9/11 Truth candidate for US Senate for Vermont in 2004 and 2006.
Producer of "Treason Inc"
Founder of the Green Party of Vermont
Helped organize four 9/11 Truth candidates appearing on statewide ballot in Vermont in 2006
Appeared on many televised debates promoting 9/11awareness
Public Appearances -
-C-SPAN2, Called for the arrest and removal of Bush, Cheney and much of DC for treason
-Spoken on 9/11 panels and podiums in many venues around the country, from NYC on several occasions
-9/11 Boston Tea Party at historic Faneuil Hall
-The Alex Jones-organized 9/11 event in LA
-The 2006 event in Chicago
Currently organizing impeachment drives in Vt and around the country to
broaden 9/11 awareness and surreptitiously expose the perps in proposed
congressional hearings in 2007.

Fredrick W. Harvey
Pilot
Silver Star
Bronze Star
Three Purple Hearts
Two Tours in Vietnam

John W. Travis, MD, MPH
Preventive Medicine, (Johns Hopkins)
Founder, first wellness center in US
Retired Pilot

Joe Frascone
B.S. Aeronautical Science
M.B.A. Dowling College
CFI CFII ATP MEI AGI

Lisa Long
Private Pilot, Single Engine Land
1978
http://AngelsForTruth.com

Art Carran
Commercial Certificate
Instrument Rating
350 Hours TT
Piper, Beech, and Cessna single-engine aircraft
Professional Engineer, State of Ohio
Aerospace Engineer

Harold Saive
Private Pilot
Single Engine Land

Captain Keith West (ret)
Continental Airlines
20,000 + Total Flight Time
Lear Jet, MD80, 737

Daniel G. Martinez
Blackhawk and Turbine Engine Mech
18 year A&P
L-3 Vertex, Iraq

Pieter Lathuy
Capt A330/A340
Emirates Airline
Ex Belgian Air Force F-16

Adam Shaw
Wingman CAPTENS.fr Aerobatic Airshow team
Former UPI and Washington Post reporter
Author SOUND OF IMPACT "The Legacy of TWA # 514", Viking Press , N.Y(1977)
4500 hrs TT. Aerobatic, Mountain, Seaplane Instructor-Pilot

Gordon Price
36 Yrs Airline
B744 A340, A330, A320, L1011,DC-8, DC-9, Vanguard, Viscount
6 Yrs RCAF - CF-104 F-86


Jacob Moncrief
EMB-145 Captain
ExpressJet Airlines
3000TT


Naomi Watson
Flight Attendant - Delta Airlines
Based Atlanta

J. Elizabeth Sinclair
Airline Transport Pilot
G-1159 and G-IV type
Certified Flight Instructor - ASMEL
Instrument Instructor
35 years flying experience

James M. Craven
Commerical, Instrument
Ground Instructor (Advanced and Instrument)
Professor of Economics
Chairman Business Division
Clark College in Vancouver, WA.

R. Bruce Sinclair
Leduc , Alberta , Canada
42 years Flying
19,000 hours.
10 years on the Boeing 737
Captain on the Airbus A300-B4
Trained/Instructor in aircraft performance at Boeing
Beech King Air B200 on medevacs (air ambulance)

Mark Reynolds
7000 TT
Capt under FAR part 135/121
Typed LRJET, F-27, HS-125, CL-65, A320
Current Pilot: jetBlue

Ron Larsen
ASEL, Commercial, Instrument,
900 hrs TT
PhD in Applied Physics and Materials Science,
Cornell University, 1973.
First licensed in 1968 and fairly active through 1992,
flying Beechcraft, Mooney, Cessna and Piper A/C.
9/11 researcher for several years.
Publisher/Editor of LibertyCalling.com (www.libertycalling.com) since 2002.
Broadcaster since 1950.
Host of the Liberty Calling Beacon live radio program

Richard Rogers
Army Guard
Active duty Air Force in Nov 1982 with a honorable separation in Dec 1992.
70250 administration troop
Retrained into F-16/A-10 integrated avionics systems
Only troop to pass the 5 level upgrade testing (45155)
Shaw AFB, SC or RAF BenT***ers, England

Captain Donald D. Halpenny Retired
Ozark , TWA , and AA

J. Randall Reinhardt
Commercial, Multi, Instrument, CFI, ATP,
Commercial Glider, Advanced/ Instrument Ground Instructor,
Turbojet Type Rating - Learjet
Flying since 1961,
8,000+ hours in civil, military and Part 25 Transport category aircraft
J.D. degree in 1972 ,
30 years practicing trial law, with a concentration in aviation related litigation,
including FAA Part 91, 135, 121 and 141 accidents and FAA/NTSB matters
Forensic Director for U.S. Aviation Forensics with 30 years experience in aircraft accident investigation.
Former FAA Accident Prevention Specialist
Former member U.S. Unlimited Aerobatic Team with unrestricted aerobatic waiver.


Ted Williams
4200TT Commercial, Instrument, Multi, Glider
Corporate Pilot
121 FO Suburban Airlines
F-27, SD3, PA-31T

Richard Kleiner
ATP, 6800 hrs
BA-125, L-1329, B707, B717

RALPH C. (TED) BOHNE III
COMMERCIAL PILOT, ASMEL, ASMES RHEL
INSTRUMENT AIRPLANE
2000 HRS TT

Marianne MAIRE-SHAW
French, Commercial Pilot
Aerobatic Flight Instructor
4900 Total Flight Time
7 Times Aerobatic French Champion
15 Years member of the French Aerobatic Team
Leader of CAPTENS, a formation flight team of 2 Cap10
www.captens.fr

Shannon Sheridan
Private Pilot SEL (VFR)
Cessna 172
Former Flight Attendant:
Continental Airlines IAH, LAX
American Airlines JFK, DFW
Corporate Flight Attendant:
Fidelity National Title, Lockheed Jetstar - SNA
General airport bum

Michael Masters
Airline Transport Pilot Certificate (ATP)
CFI MEI
5,000 hours total time
3,600 hours multi-engine
1,200 turbine
King Airs (90, 100, and 200)
Air Taxi/Commercial Operations
FAR 135
Air Ambulance

Terry E. Phillips
18,900 hours flight time,
41 years as a professional pilot
ATPL, CE500, CE560, LrJet, NA265, DA10, B727, A320

Charles Dills
Former USAAF WWII
27th Fighter Bomber Group
94 Combat Missions
European Theater
P-40, P-47, P-51A
PhD Harvard
http://www.charlies-web.com

A. Erhard, Germany
Senior First Officer Boeing 747-400
Aerobatic Pilot and Flight Instructor
5200 h TT

Guido Fontana
F.A.A. Commercial
Instrument Rating
Single & Multiengine Land
Single Sea
Glider 1000 Hrs
Airplane 2000 Hrs
C337 P68 P44 PA30
Glider aero tow Stinson L5, Robin Dr400, Cessna L19

Greg Madden
Former Marine (non-pilot)
Radio Technician
Martin Co., Florida

Dennis Cimino
Electrical Engineer
Commercial Pilot Rating, since 1981
Navy Combat Systems Specialist: RADAR, ECM, cryptographic communications
Flight Data Recorder Engineer Smiths Aerospace
BA-609, IDARS, Military and Commercial
Millimeter wave RADAR and countermeasures expert since 1973
Two patents held for Doppler RADAR ( Kavouras ):
long pulsewidth RADAR droop compensation network,
and wave guide arc detection for high powered RADAR

James Beardsley
Airline Transport Pilot
CFI-Instrument and Airplane
SES
Started a flight school in Crystal Lake Illinois circa 1974
Opened a couple of FBO’s one in Kenosha, WI
Founded Alliance Airlines a Midwest commuter
Director of a non-profit adoption agency



Eyewitness Experts
Aldo Marquis
Craig Ranke
Domenick DiMaggio
ThePentaCon - Citizen Investigation Team

PR Contacts
Rob Balsamo
Co-Founder
pilots@pilotsfor911truth.org

Shelton Lankford
Core Member
shelton@pilotsfor911truth.org


Researchers

"UnderTow"
15 year Technology Expert
US Researcher
Source: NTSB FOIA .csv file & .fdr file

Calum Douglas
UK Researcher
Source: NTSB FOIA Animation

David Ray Griffin
Emeritus Professor of Philosophy of Religion & Theology
Claremont School of Theology & Claremont Graduate University
Author or editor of some 30 books
"The New Pearl Harbor"
"The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions"
"Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11"
"The American Empire and the Commonwealth of God"
"9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out"
"Debunking 9/11 Debunking:
An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory"
"9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press."
"The New Pearl Harbor - Revisted"


Steven E. Jones, Ph.D.
Physics Professor (retired)
Ph.D. in Physics from Vanderbilt University
Chairperson of several international physics conferences
Research conducted at major laboratories in USA, Canada, United Kingdom and Japan
Over fifty peer-reviewed publications, including Nature, Scientific American and Physical Review Letters

flaps Posted on 08/01/2009 21:06
9/11 in plane sight

Will you conspiracy loonies please stop F***ing up the thread with your huge copy-pastes.

ian_elliot Posted on 08/01/2009 21:09
9/11 in plane sight

Only "sheeple" use links flaps, surely you/me/scooby knows that.

BrokenLance Posted on 08/01/2009 21:31
9/11 in plane sight

flaps, you have just posted an outright LIE.

If you had bothered to check out the link I gave you, you would have seen that the towers were in fact designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707-320, a plane which develops more kinetic energy than a Boeing 767. But no, you couldn't be bothered. You steadfastly refuse to look at any evidence which may contradict your own views.

Well I 'can't be bothered' to respond to you any more. I'd get more response talking to a deaf person, with his hearing eadi switched off, and that's a good analogy of you. You won't listen.

ian_elliot Posted on 08/01/2009 21:44
9/11 in plane sight

What are your thoughts on your Pilot for 911 Truth's musings on moon landings and the space alien threats BrokenLance?

flaps Posted on 08/01/2009 21:47
9/11 in plane sight

"I'd get more response talking to a deaf person, with his hearing eadi switched off, and that's a good analogy of you. "

Why would you expect any difference in response from a deaf person on a message board?

"the towers were in fact designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707-320"

Which they did, long enough for most people to escape. Unfortunately for the rest the fires claimed them or prevented their escape. These, along with the impact, brought the towers down.


BrokenLance Posted on 08/01/2009 21:51
9/11 in plane sight

two_shots, according to the cv stated at the beginning of that interview, John Lear also worked for the CIA for a long time. I'd say he had more inside knowledge than the rest of us, particularly as to the disinformation CIA is capable of putting out.

As for killing Kennedy, and UFO's, he has his opinions, as do we all. Let's save that for a different thread. This one has gone on long enough.

What we are discussing here is his technical evaluation of the flight capabilities of flight 77, the incorrect data in the black box, capabilities of alleged pilots, and different witness statements as to the flight path on approach to the pentagon.

flaps Posted on 08/01/2009 21:54
9/11 in plane sight

"What we are discussing here is his technical evaluation"

"Since that time, John [Lear] has learned many incredible and interesting facts about the solar system and planets including the existence of huge structures, arches, bridges and domes on the moon, cities on Mars, huge extraterrestrial ships mining the rings of Saturn, the incredible but secret agenda of Apollo 17, to the huge rectangular opening in the south massif of the Taurus-Littrow Highlands called Nansen."

ian_elliot Posted on 08/01/2009 21:58
9/11 in plane sight

OK........ so you do think he is a credible authority.

What do you think are likely to be the technical merits of the two flight attendants on that august body of experts?

BrokenLance Posted on 08/01/2009 22:00
9/11 in plane sight

Ian, just checked out your link to the collapse of the buildings. Photos show me nothing (admittedly not an expert on structures). Article goes on to give recording bowing of colums... 'maximum inward bowing 10" East Face of WTC 9.53am' etc. Just how did they measure this?

Report is by NIST, who have already been discredited for falsifying data on WTC7 collapse to match the official line of events. It is no large stretch of the imagination to think they'd do the same falsification where the two towers are concerned.

flaps Posted on 08/01/2009 22:02
9/11 in plane sight

"Report is by NIST, who have already been discredited for falsifying data on WTC7 collapse to match the official line of events"

lol you're a fool of the highest order lancey boy

BrokenLance Posted on 08/01/2009 22:03
9/11 in plane sight

Ian, the reason I'm not on more frequently is I'm SICK OF WAITING FOR FANSONLINE.NET.

Rob, when is this server problem going to be resolved?

flaps Posted on 08/01/2009 22:05
9/11 in plane sight

Never. Their developer is an idiot and they've swallowed his excuse that throwing more money at the problem will make it go away.

BrokenLance Posted on 08/01/2009 22:08
9/11 in plane sight

Ian, you're quoting 'two flight attendants'. If you check the full list that boro_Buoy posted, you will see the majority were all qualified pilots.

ian_elliot Posted on 08/01/2009 22:20
9/11 in plane sight

>"If you check the full list that boro_Buoy posted"

I have - in fact it was me that referenced it.

You'll note as I said above most of them are either retired fighter pilots, light aircraft pilots, trolly dollys, instrument technicians, pilots of 1960s aircraft and then there are a couple of pilots of the type of plane in question, and one of the main voices in their group is a certifiable fruitloop that thinks we've been warned off exploring the moon by little green men. And this is the "core" list of members - you wonder what the fringe members must be like!

My point is you are sure that their theories and supposition PROVE beyond all doubt that a Boeing 757 was not what hit the pentagon, contrary to all the physical evidence and eyewitness reports.

I suspect you never even thought to examine the credentials of those making the claims, but rather assumed that because they give themself an honest and respectable sounding name, that they might actually know what they were talking about.



Muttley Posted on 08/01/2009 22:20
9/11 in plane sight

BL, you seem to have a very poor grasp of scientific principles. I will point again to your habit of avoiding logical evaluation of the attack on The Pentagon. As Conan Doyle put it "once you have eliminated the impossible, what remains however improbable is the truth"

An attack by cruise missile or drone is so unlikely as to be almost impossible. The destruction is not consistent with attack by a cruise missile, witnesses accurately describe a "commercial airliner" striking The Pentagon, to instigate such an attack would necessitate the use of a major US military asset, a military airplane (and associated infrastructure), a submarine or a missile cruiser the silence of all those involved would have to be guaranteed. You seem to think that "false flag" operations are some sort of accepted norm in the US military when in fact there is only one recorded occasion when this has taken place (1953 CIA/MI5 coup in Iran). Others have been mooted but none carried out. The only criticism I have read of the manoeuvres performed by whoever was flying Flight 77 in it's attack was that the pilot carried out "unsafe" manoeuvres (well let's face it it was a suicide mission - durrr)

In short, yes there are some discrepancies in the official report (incidentally, have you read the Official Report? It's actually quite readable, you should try it!) But, the alternative explanations of what happened are frankly implausible.

BrokenLance Posted on 09/01/2009 08:22
9/11 in plane sight

Muttley, no I haven't read the report for myself, only been told it's findings in a few documentaries. We have numerous witnesses, and not all of them tell the same story. One used the phrase 'like a cruise missile with wings.........' Why not just say 'an airliner'? As I've said, I don't know. One major discrepancy seems to be the approaching flight path disagreeing with the trail of damage. I can't explain this.

As for false flag ops, recently released documents prove the Americans staged the whole Gulf of Tonkin incident as an excuse to start the Vietnam War, and LB Johnson tried to get the Israelis to sink the USS Liberty and blame it on the Egyptians as a reason to invade the Middle East during the 6 Day War.


Link: USS Liberty

ian_elliot Posted on 09/01/2009 08:26
9/11 in plane sight

You dissaprove of simile's then Lance? Personally I think the world would be a duller place without them.

You still haven't commented on the that fact that your body of "experts" is not made up experienced commercial airline pilots (or at least with experience of modern commercial airliners) as you claimed, but instead by retired fighter pilots, light aircraft pilots, flight attendants and the clinically insane.

The bizarre beliefs of one of their main members tells me all I need to know about the claims of that particular group of crackpots.

PinkPonce Posted on 09/01/2009 08:27
9/11 in plane sight

Lads, I'll make this easy for you.

It was terrorists.

End of thread.

ian_elliot Posted on 09/01/2009 08:30
9/11 in plane sight

>"End of thread"

Whats up Ponce - jealous that a thread not involving you has generated so many responses? Aw... Diddums!

twoshots Posted on 09/01/2009 08:38
9/11 in plane sight

"One used the phrase 'like a cruise missile with wings.........' Why not just say 'an airliner'? As I've said, I don't know."

We have already settled this. The witness described an American Airlines jet flying over head and it hitting the Pentagon like a cruise missiles with wings. No ambiguity there.

There's a link way above but I can't be bothered to find it.

Muttley Posted on 09/01/2009 08:57
9/11 in plane sight

"Muttley, no I haven't read the report for myself, only been told it's findings in a few documentaries." Why does that not surprise me...

I HAVE read the official report, I suggest you do so too, reading it will give you a better sense of what happened, the sequence of events and the responses by NORAD and other organisations during the incidents, rather than watching a few documentaries that choose selective quotation to suggest something that is at best very unlikely.

"Gulf Of Tonkin" was not a "false flag" operation. Do some more reading.

ian_elliot Posted on 09/01/2009 08:57
9/11 in plane sight

>"As for false flag ops, recently released documents prove the Americans staged the whole Gulf of Tonkin incident as an excuse to start the Vietnam War"

No I am afraid you are making things up again as I already explained a few hundred posts back which you failed to acknowledge and now you're spouting it all again.

The "Gulf of Tonkin incident" refers to two reported attacks on a US warship the USS Maddox. There is no question that the first attack took place exactly as reported.

The second attack it emerges never took place and the USS Maddox were firing at shadows thrown up by misleading radar signals - it was initially reported by her Commander as a genuine attack and then as the night went on he admitted that there may not have been any vietnamese boats involved, and then that there definitely weren't any vietnamese boats there. His later reports were never publicised to cover up embarrassment at the C**** up.

To say that the Americans "staged the whole Gulf of Tonkin incident" is yet another example of you not researching things and/or plain making up lies.

ian_elliot Posted on 09/01/2009 11:09
9/11 in plane sight

Huth

fatharrywhite Posted on 09/01/2009 11:31
9/11 in plane sight

anyone care to give a brief summary of this, it's hard to keep up on who are for and who are against the conspiracy!!!

only thing i would say is FFS borobouy - learn how to put a link in rather than copying and pasting tonnes of text!!!!!!

scooby Posted on 09/01/2009 12:07
9/11 in plane sight

Summary:

pro-conspiracy brigade list up a load of regurgitated stuff from paranoid websites as fact while telling others they need to think for themselves and not just accept what they are told by others(!) Usually in the form of reams of text.

pro-logic brigade counter these with simple one or two line points such as "if it was a cruise missile, how did the bodies of the passengers on that plane end up in the pentagon?"

pro-conspiracy brigade come up with something ludicrous such as "how did they know they were the same passengers, did they 'find' their ID on them unburnt after the fire, eh?"

pro-logic brigade wet themselves laughing before realising they are serious.

pro-conspiracy brigade then move on to some other point and the process repeats until it goes full circle and someone jumps in and says that "there are still questions to be asked" and start back on with the cruise missile bullS***.

Note, these guardians of secret knowledge know more than you or I but not one of them seems to be able to even work out how to post a F***ing link properly.

ian_elliot Posted on 09/01/2009 12:13
9/11 in plane sight

Brief summary

Pentagon:
Not flight 77, not even a Boeing 757 despite multiple eyewitness accounts who had to duck to avoid said plane, bodies of passengers found, wreckage of plane found. This is proven by the fact that there isn't a cartoon-style plane shaped hole in the wall and because a guy (who claims the moon program stopped because little green men told NASA to F*** off and not come back) reckons its really hard to crash a plane, and is backed up by a coalition of trolly dollys.

Twin Towers
No commercial airliners involved unless they had missiles strapped to the bottom, and this was only an elaborate cover up to hide the fact that FBI demolition experts had been wiring the building up with explosives anyway. They cant have been brought down by the accepted version as some other building that was build using different materials acted differently under different circumstances, despite the fact that at least one of the towers was seen to be buckling before collapsing (not something that normally happens before a stick of dynamite goes off)

WTC7
Someone dropped a huge bollock - it was another controlled demolition aimed at destroying the evidence of US govt wrongdoing, but it all went tits up when the government handed out a press release to the world's press (on the strict understanding that it was to be read out AFTER they'd demolished the building) was accidentally read out BEFORE they'd set off their charges, making everyone looking silly quite frankly.

I think that kind of sums it up although no doubt Lance or Lee will fill in some of the details, probably backed up by Lee's infamous video footage of a CGI paper dart bouncing off the pentagon.

BrokenLance Posted on 09/01/2009 12:57
9/11 in plane sight

Muttley/Ian, call it an incorrect report/a mistake/c**kup/a false flag operation, whatever. The fact remains that the 2nd attack never happened, and this was used to start the Vietnam War based on a lie. Same thing happened with Iraq.

Stop trying to convince yourself the American government, and indeed our own, wouldn't lie to the public in this manner. They did!

No comments on the USS Liberty? They tried to have one of their own ships sunk, FFS.

wilkos_perm Posted on 09/01/2009 13:04
9/11 in plane sight

these type of conspiracy theories are utterly disrespectful to the people who died in the two planes hitting the towers. "They were actuallt military jets". FFS.

leedfc Posted on 09/01/2009 13:06
9/11 in plane sight

lol
got to say i did say i had not seen this clip before.
but hands up i was wrong.ha ha {to ian}
at least i look at things with a open mind and if am wrong i say iam.
what i find with some of you lot is you cant change your mind.

if you trust our leaders so much lets see what you are like in a few years time.

anyway on or around jan 22 2009 something something big going to happen.
watch for the date.
then if something does not then am a nut and need locking up.lol

scooby Posted on 09/01/2009 13:11
9/11 in plane sight

Leed, could you do us a favour and go back up to your post in the thread above where you posted a really long link (to google I think), it'll make the thread easier to read as it's pretty wide.

It's on 05/01 at about 4:30PM? Cheers!

"anyway on or around jan 22 2009 something something big going to happen. watch for the date."

A terrorist attack? Should you not contact the authorities?

nealg Posted on 09/01/2009 13:14
9/11 in plane sight

WTF? FFS? BTW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
FFS. Give it a rest.

ian_elliot Posted on 09/01/2009 13:24
9/11 in plane sight

>"If you trust our leaders so much lets see what you are like in a few years time."

Lee sadly what you seem to fail to understand is that I, and I would imagine my co-anti-conspirators, do believe that on occasions governments do mislead, cover up, lie etc etc.

Not a problem with that, however that doesn't mean that aliens told us to stop moon landings, or that the Pentagon was struck with by a cruise missile, or that factions within the US government deliberately killed thousands of their own people by flying military planes into civilian buildings while simultaneously dynamiting the F*** out of them.

Yes its healthy to question and examine the motives of all kinds of people, but doesn't mean people are always lying.

scooby Posted on 09/01/2009 13:27
9/11 in plane sight

nealg, you F***ing prick.

flaps Posted on 09/01/2009 13:35
9/11 in plane sight

"anyway on or around jan 22 2009 something something big going to happen.
watch for the date.
then if something does not then am a nut and need locking up.lol"

Well that's only a fortnight away, this thread will probably still be going.

BrokenLance Posted on 09/01/2009 13:59
9/11 in plane sight

Ian, I've never said they 'always' lie, but they have been caught out on more than one occasion. Now you are at least admitting they do lie, and that it's healthy to question what you are told.

Two wars were started on a lie (Vietnam and Iraq). Time will tell whether the War on Terror is technically a third. It's certainly been used to justify all sorts of civil liberty infringements, effectively replacing the Bill of Rights with the Patriot Act.

flaps Posted on 09/01/2009 14:04
9/11 in plane sight

That's something I will agree with you on Lance. The events of 9/11 have been a catalyst for alsorts of unwelcome personal liberty infringements over here.

scooby Posted on 09/01/2009 14:07
9/11 in plane sight

The latest is that the government wants ISPs to keep records for every email sent and received from the UK for a year. Not the content, just who it is from and to.

I don't think they've thought this through. Apparently this will be searchable by the police! I somehow can't see them doing a proper trace to ID the source and we all know how easy it is to spoof. If you get spam, chances are at some point they will send spam with your address on the from section. You would bound to come up as an emailer to a terrorist suspect somewhere!

flaps Posted on 09/01/2009 14:13
9/11 in plane sight

Apart from that they'll need the cooperation of webmail providers such as google and microsoft for it to be worthwhile - who arent based in the UK. Not saying the US wouldn't go for this but i'm sure before long webmail based in countries that don't monitor such communication would spring up.

Add a bit of encryption to it and once again you have ordinary people being spied on with those who are actually doing something naughty having an easy way round it.

The war on terror is just a cover for massively increased surveillance of ordinary people.

leedfc Posted on 09/01/2009 14:16
9/11 in plane sight

just found this am not that bad, but thought it was good.lol
also for some reason it wont let me change it so very sorry to everyone.
will try again but not having much luck.

1. New York City has 11 letters
2. Afghanistan has 11 letters.
3. Ramsin Yuseb (The terrorist who threatened to destroy the Twin Towers in 1993) has 11 letters.
4. George W Bush has 11 letters.
5. New York is the 11th state.
6. The first plane crashing against the TwinTowers was flight number 11.
7. Flight 11 was carrying 92 passengers. 9 + 2 = 11
8. Flight 77 which also hit TwinTowers, was carrying 65 passengers. 6+5 = 11
9. The tragedy was on September 11, or 9/11 as it is now known. 9 + 1+ 1 = 11
10. The date is equal to the US emergency services telephone number 911. 9 + 1 + 1 = 11.
11. The total number of victims inside all the hi-jacked planes was 254. 2 + 5 + 4 = 11.
12. September 11 is day number 254 of the calendar year. Again 2 + 5 + 4 = 11.
13. The Madrid bombing took place on 3/11/2004. 3 + 1 + 1 + 2 + 4 = 11.

1.Type in capitals Q33 NY. This is the flight number of the first
plane to hit one of the Twin Towers.
2. Highlight the Q33 NY.
3. Change the font size to 48.
4. Change the actual font to the WINGDINGS
5. You get something totally freaky

ian_elliot Posted on 09/01/2009 14:17
9/11 in plane sight

>"Now you are at least admitting they do lie"

Lance... can you point me in the direction of where I said that governments never lie?

You seem to have jumped to the conclusion that because your theory as anti-establishment and because I disagree with your theory that means that I am 100% smack behind the establishment.

The reason I disagree with the 9/11 conspiracy theories is because they are B******* not because of any particular affinity or allegiance.

If you think that my comments about governments and the truth are in some way me "coming round" to your side you are sadly mistaken.

I'm still interested in your views on how credible the Pilots for 9/11 Truth are given what we've seen of the "core membership".

flaps Posted on 09/01/2009 14:21
9/11 in plane sight

"1.Type in capitals Q33 NY. This is the flight number of the first
plane to hit one of the Twin Towers."

No it wasn't.

You're thick as F*** leedfc.

ian_elliot Posted on 09/01/2009 14:22
9/11 in plane sight

>"I don't think they've thought this through"

Not just webmail either - how about instant messenger traffic, and other sites that feature messaging like "FaceBook", "Myspace" etc.


DavidShayler Posted on 09/01/2009 14:23
9/11 in plane sight

Its not that the theories are about conspiracy, but that the
subject matter might actually be true. An interesting book is
"The War on Truth - 9/11, Disinformation and the anatomy of Terrorism" by Nafeez Ahmed. Arris Books. London. 2005.

Big_Shot Posted on 09/01/2009 14:31
9/11 in plane sight

'Ramsin Yuseb'

[:D]

leedfc Posted on 09/01/2009 14:31
9/11 in plane sight

flaps i said am not that bad and thought it was funny.
read again.

jimborored Posted on 09/01/2009 14:33
9/11 in plane sight

Take a look at this Leedfc


Link: Conspiracy my arse................

leedfc Posted on 09/01/2009 14:38
9/11 in plane sight

i found it thats why i posted it.
I SAID AM NOT THAT BAD BUT THOUGHT IS WAS GOOD.LOL

stop jumping on me and read what i said.

flaps Posted on 09/01/2009 14:40
9/11 in plane sight

"I SAID AM NOT THAT BAD BUT THOUGHT IS WAS GOOD.LOL"

This sentence makes no sense.

jimborored Posted on 09/01/2009 14:42
9/11 in plane sight

"i found it thats why i posted it.
I SAID AM NOT THAT BAD BUT THOUGHT IS WAS GOOD.LOL

stop jumping on me and read what i said."

I would of read what you had said if it had been in English.
WTF does "I SAID AM NOT THAT BAD BUT THOUGHT IS WAS GOOD.LOL" mean.

Big_Shot Posted on 09/01/2009 14:44
9/11 in plane sight

You've just found that? Thats whats funny. That did the rounds 7 years ago, and Ramsin Yuseb didn't exist back then and the person who created it still hasn't corrected it. And you've just found it. I thought your interest in this might have only started in the last week or so. It figures now.

flaps Posted on 09/01/2009 14:50
9/11 in plane sight

The best bit is how the first part gives you the two flight numbers of the planes that hit the twin towers, then contradicts itself in the second.

leedfc Posted on 09/01/2009 14:55
9/11 in plane sight

sorry i wish i could write like you but i cant because am dyslexic.
i have said that half way up.
i am trying to fix it and getting english lessons so please can you be more understanding with me.

i have enjoyed this thread because i have learnt alot from both sides.
well done lads.

Senor_Chester Posted on 09/01/2009 15:55
9/11 in plane sight

So at the end of the day the conspiracy theorists are just arguing about how certain logistics of the day where impossible to happen, this though would completely pale into significance if you looked at the logistics of this being a setup.

If your all so keen on asking your own questions then do you have any thoughts on these:

If the attacks were to be used as a catalyst to war in the middle east why did they then go to war for another reason? Why where the terrorists not from any country they/we are invading?

Why would they need to attack 3 seperate targets, surely one would have been enough, and easier, and which to pull off would be almost on an impossible scale? Why did they attack the Pentagon embarrasing themselves as the supposed worlds biggest super power with the pentagon being at the heart of it?

How did so many witnesses describe seeing a plane heading towards the pentagon and how did they plant plane parts and bodies in the minutes afterewards?

How did they manage to rig the twin towers without any single person noticing and anyone ever speaking out since about it?

I could go on.......

ian_elliot Posted on 09/01/2009 16:40
9/11 in plane sight

Now Senor_Chester you know perfectly well that conspiracy theories don't have to stand up to scrutiny, if there is one facet of an "official" explanation there is cart blanche to make up a different explanation - there's no requirement for that explanation to be any more logical than the original one.

So for example two reports are published - one by government or some national body of experts, another report contradicting that is published by another body of "experts". There is apparently no need to scrutinise the credentials of that second body of experts. The fact that they are opposing the official view is enough to back up their claims - they are clearly sticking up for the little guy against the oppressive government and thus have right on their side. Putting "for truth" or "for justice" in the group's name helps as well.

BrokenLance Posted on 09/01/2009 16:57
9/11 in plane sight

Chester, what other reason did they give for going to war in the Middle East? They blamed Bin Laden for 9/11, couldn't find him, and then trumped up non-existent links between Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, and wmd as the excuse to go into Iraq.

I didn't plan it, so no idea why more than one target.

Can't explain witness discrepancies regarding Pentagon. Or CNN news-crew saying 'there is no evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon' in a live broadcast, at the site, shortly after the explosion. (ref TerrorStorm documentary).Suggest you ask them yourself.

Lots of people witnessed workmen in the Two Towers. Areas were cordoned off, so no one saw what they were actually doing.

flaps Posted on 09/01/2009 17:27
9/11 in plane sight

shut the F*** up lance

ian_elliot Posted on 09/01/2009 17:36
9/11 in plane sight

>"Or CNN news-crew saying 'there is no evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon'"

Lance... have you heard that piece? If you have presumably you know that in his next sentence he goes on to say (in the same report)

"The only site, is the actual side of the building that's crashed in. And as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you pick up in your hand."

So no evidence of a plane hitting the Pentagon except at the place where the plane hit it, where there is debris. Sure he's expressing surprise at the size of the debris, but the fact is that is a very selective quote which totally changes the meaning of the report.

He also goes on to say (still in the same report)

"And I took a look at the huge gaping hole that's in the side of the Pentagon in an area of the Pentagon that has been recently renovated, part of a multibillion dollar renovation program here at the Pentagon. I could see parts of the airplane that crashed into the building, very small pieces of the plane on the heliport outside the building. The biggest piece I saw was about three feet long, it was silver and had been painted green and red, but I could not see any identifying markings on the plane. I also saw a large piece of shattered glass. It appeared to be a C****pit windshield or other window from the plane."


Whats more - later when asked about the transcripts that the crackpots keep dragging up he said

"The Web sites often take statements out of context, such as this exchange from CNN in which I -- myself -- appear to be questioning whether a plane really hit the building: From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. In fact, I was answering a question based on a eyewitness account who thought the American Airlines plane landed short of the Pentagon. I was indicated there was no crash site near the pentagon only at the Pentagon"

Of course the spooks probably got to him.

two_banks_of_four Posted on 09/01/2009 17:45
9/11 in plane sight

On the subject of credentials Lance I think you may want to do some research on who the producerdirector? of TerrorStorm is.

His name is Alex Jones and lets just say he would find a common spirit in the leader of 9/11 Pilots (or whatever the are called).
Mr Jones has been all over every conspiracy theory there has ever been, including a particularly memorable one regarding the Queen still been in charge of the USA. He is probably worth a bob or two now though. Still exploiting the simple minded is a bit cruel.

Senor_Chester Posted on 09/01/2009 17:45
9/11 in plane sight

"Lots of people witnessed workmen in the Two Towers. Areas were cordoned off, so no one saw what they were actually doing."

Think before you say anything! Could this really make sense? Where all all these workers now? Just sat at home keeping quiet about it all? And no, it can't have been thousands of different workers all doing small parts of jobs because I reckon those that fitted certain parts to the towers, including the explosives, might have cottoned on by now.

How old are you Lance by the way, because if I'm arguing with some know nothing 15 year old kid, which I suspect I am, theres no point in going on.

Lefty Posted on 09/01/2009 17:54
9/11 in plane sight

I'm astonished this is still going, but having only read the odd selective post am I right in thinking that people are suggesting that the US government carried out the attack themselves in order to further their own agenda which was the invasion of iraq?

HarryB_is_Sixty Posted on 09/01/2009 18:27
9/11 in plane sight

I think that was the gist of it Lefty. There were some interesting points raised earlier on unfortunately 2 or 3 immature kids have spammed it to death, and the same idiots taking the mick out of someone's dyslexia or calling people spastics is a new low for this board. Maybe rob can clean it up a bit.

ian_elliot Posted on 09/01/2009 18:35
9/11 in plane sight

>"immature kids have spammed it to death, and the same idiots taking the mick out of someone's dyslexia"

So lets get this straight - you're saying that LeeDFC isn't one of the spammers? I'd have thought he was the main culprit.

To be honest the one person that has taken the P*** out of Lee's English probably didn't realise that he was dyslexic.

Dyslexia generally cant be blamed for believing that badly done CGI is evidence, or for cutting and pasting 7 year old spoof e-mails.


flaps Posted on 09/01/2009 18:44
9/11 in plane sight

Leedfc is thick as F***. Dyslexia doesn't make you thick as F***.

ian_elliot Posted on 09/01/2009 18:47
9/11 in plane sight

To be fair I don't think Lance is dyslexic - gullible yes but not dyslexic.

Big_Shot Posted on 09/01/2009 18:48
9/11 in plane sight

I think people are taking the mick out of his stupidity rather than his almost certainly pretend dyslexia.

leedfc Posted on 09/01/2009 18:52
9/11 in plane sight

please ian show me where i have done that.
if you read my posts.
1.the paper dart. i did say i had not seen that one read it again.
2. New York City has 11 letters,read it again i said i thought it was funny.
3.the jan 22 around that date its two weeks away so not long to prove me wrong.

i have also put up some good info.its funny how me and brokenlance and a few others have not called anyone names.
but a few of yous thinks its fine to do it to us because we are asking question.



leedfc Posted on 09/01/2009 19:01
9/11 in plane sight

bigshot

if you only knew.
its takes me 10 mins just to do a small post i have to read it over and over again and still get it wrong sometimes.

not everyone is as good as you.
do you think i like been like this, unable to put my point across like everyone else.if you talk to me i have no problem with explaining things just cant do in writing.

sorry to take it off topic.

ian_elliot Posted on 09/01/2009 19:03
9/11 in plane sight

Where have you done what? spammed?

Well you could have watched the "paper dart" video before posting it, and then having watched it and even responded to me saying it was fake, you still posted it again 20 or so posts later. That for me is the definition of spamming.

Plus instead of linking, despite someone carefully explaining it to you, you insist on copying and past huge long tracts from web pages into the thread, making it very difficult to follow the flow of the discussion. That again is a form of spamming in my book.

Whether you thought that "11" thing was funny or not, its still spam that you could have easily discovered was nonsense with 5 minutes research.

As for Jan 22nd just because there's a presidential inauguration coming up there's bound to be loads of new crackpot theories, and I dare say one or two people are even plotting an assassination attempt - so what has that got to do with 9/11?

You see the thing is this is supposed to be a "thread", not just a repository for you to cut and paste anything you can find about conspiracies without even looking at them first to see if they are well known rubbish like the "11" myth or a badly made fake video.

BrokenLance Posted on 09/01/2009 19:45
9/11 in plane sight

Ian, I'm certainly not dyslexic (published author), and am a 58 yr old currently unemployed piping engineer.

Do you have a link to the full CNN interview? I admit, I took it on faith as it was in the Terrorstorm documentary. If I took the time to personally check out every detail it would be a fulltime job. I assume a published documentary would not long withstand a lawsuit or other legal action if it was found to be misrepresenting facts.

I know who Alex Jones is, same as I know who Michael Moore is. They have their agendas, but doesn't automatically mean they're telling porkies.

The government has their own agenda, also. They have been PROVED to tell porkies.

flaps Posted on 09/01/2009 19:48
9/11 in plane sight

"I took it on faith"

You're a gullible fool.

ian_elliot Posted on 09/01/2009 20:04
9/11 in plane sight

Lance - unfortunately a hasty edit from persons unnamed make that post appear misleading at first glance. I was pointing out that it was NOT you that claimed to be dyslexic.

As for McIntyre's comments - linked below for your enjoyment.

So now tell me again about how we should all question the stories fed by the state and the media, but how its OK to take such documentaries as Terrorstorm in good faith?

I hope you admit that now you know a little about who Pilots for 9/11 Truth are, theres a teensy tiny chance that they aren't antirely to be taken in good faith either?


Link: McIntyre

Lefty Posted on 09/01/2009 20:42
9/11 in plane sight

So people are saying that this was a put up job by the US government so that they could invade Iraq. Why do such a half assed job of the links to Saddam?

If it was to invade Afghanistan, why did they not carry this out with the same commitment as Iraq?

Surely it is much more logical that the arrogant, cunning yet not so intelligent administration simply took advantage of the event to push through the invasion of Iraq?

If people are saying that the WTC was blown up, why bother with the planes? And if you're using the planes, why blow the thing up? The imagery of the planes hitting the towers is the all important thing anyway.

If people are saying that it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon because there wasn't the footage, why would the US military want to show this?

Bin Laden's genius in this attack was in the imagery and the symbolism. Nothing could be done about the WTC pictures, but the US could do something about the Pentagon and it would want to surely? At least the images of the WTC had the drawback of being an attack on civilians. A successful attack on the heart of the US military machine sends a far more powerful message for those who wish to recruit by portraying it as a legitimate war on the US military.

If this was the US government, what do they acheive by attacking the Pentagon that crashing a plane into the WTC doesn't already acheive?


twoshots Posted on 09/01/2009 21:11
9/11 in plane sight

Seeing as some (to quote Scooby) "F***ing prick" has messed up this thread, can people post in shorter sentences so we can actually read the thing
- or is there a way to get round this wide page thing.

This has been a really good read over the past few days

loads of interesting conspiracy theories (generally shot down very successfully) and a load of linked stuff I never previously knew about e.g. John Lear.

Like I said - a good read!




ian_elliot Posted on 09/01/2009 21:45
9/11 in plane sight

>"generally shot down very successfully"

Ah but were they really shot down? Or were there explosives on board?

There are theories that the theories being debated on this thread
were put about by the US government to draw attention from what
really happened with stories that are so easy to discredit that
the whole "what really happened on 9/11" industry.

ian_elliot Posted on 09/01/2009 21:46
9/11 in plane sight

Double post

twoshots Posted on 09/01/2009 22:05
9/11 in plane sight

It was funny the first time [;)]

ian_elliot Posted on 09/01/2009 22:22
9/11 in plane sight

I should clarify I don't mean that BrokenLance and Leedfc are the
direct puppets of Bush and Cheney, rather that there are those who
say that 9/11 is the subject of a deeper conspiracy and that the US
government "sponsors" these arguments about pods on planes and
dodgy CCTV so that the critical public focusses on these theories
and easily debunks them and so assumes that the official line is
the truth as the conspiracy theories are so easy to disprove.

I don't believe it but the mole men who live at the centre of the
earth do have their fingers in a lot of pies. I have heard that
they even know the answer to "Where does the MySQL server actually go?"

Mavrick Posted on 10/01/2009 01:50
9/11 in plane sight

What a S*** post.

ian_elliot Posted on 10/01/2009 08:36
9/11 in plane sight

Thanks for that insightful contribution Mavrick.

Shouldn't be surprised mind you - its about the level of everything I've ever seen you post on this board.

BrokenLance Posted on 10/01/2009 09:53
9/11 in plane sight

Ian, checked out that link. The video link didn't work, but I listened to the audio link, which seems to bear out your theory, but was that audio the live broadcast or a later interview? It's not clear.

'As a senior veteran reporter for the network, McIntyre sets the standard for accurate reporting and the network depends on reporters of his stature to accurately relay information. McIntyre’s blatant reversal of reported “facts” now brings into question the integrity of not just his reporting, but the credibility of the entire CNN network'.

Most of the networks are 'owned' by bigger corporations in which Cheney has a controlling interest. Many broadcasts which initially cast doubt on the official story are simply never aired again, such as the claims about the flight 93 crash-site having now wreckage and no bodies. Therefore all you are inundated with, is the official story.

It gets harder to discern the truth, when you have no means of verifying what people tell you. I expect people to tell me the truth, and believe what I am told, until I have cause to doubt the integrity of the person giving out that information.

As for the Pilots for 9/11, most are pilots with many hours' experience. They certainly have more experience than me, and would know more about the characteristics of a 757 than I would, so I'd expect them to be honest in their statement. Has anyone from Boeing come out and refuted their claims? Only they would be expected to know more about a 757's capabilities.

BrokenLance Posted on 10/01/2009 10:02
9/11 in plane sight

Ian, I started this thread trying to debunk one conspiracy theory.

Now I'm defending most of them.

As you say, most can be debunked, but one or two certainly
should make you think.

When you have governments that lie to their own people, and with
a history of false flag operations, you cannot take them on trust.

LB Johnson tried to sink one of his own ships, and kill his own
servicemen, to fake an excuse to invade the middle east.

The stakes are high in today's world, and when you look at what's
happened after 9/11, and seeing it used to rewrite laws and take
away our civil liberties, there seems no end in sight.

Governments can and do get away with murder. All about control.

ian_elliot Posted on 10/01/2009 10:17
9/11 in plane sight

Lance - you'll have to try really hard to read and listen to what i've said. The quote you keep trotting out about no sign of a plane hitting the pentagon as a) a misquote (he said no signe of a plane hitting "near" the pentagon) and b) a selective quote which misses out the several bits where he said that a plane hit the pentagon and actually held bits of the wreckage in his hand.

Its not a retraction of an earlier story, its not him changing his mind, it is the actual live broadcast that you are (mis)quoting.

As for Pilots for 9/11 they may well have more expertise than you as you say - but then again you are an unemployed piping engineer, so to be honest thats not really surprising. That doesn't make them leading authorities though does it - the fact that only three of them have ever flown a Boeing 757 doesn't really make that a group of experts.

As for what Boeing have said about the ability of otherwise of a 757 and the maneouvre into the Pentagon - how do you know they've not said anything about it? Have you looked? I found a comment about Boeing admitting that the computer systems on the plane could easily be programmed to do the maneouvre.

The thing is the people who accept the official line don't need to make documentaries about it, because the vast majority of people don't need convincing so why bother?

You see people seem to think that the onus is on the government to prove what they say is true. It isn't. Why should the government spend millions of dollars trying to persuade a few crackpots that what the vast majority of the world accepts is true?

Tell me though - before this thread started did you realise that your authority on the handling of boeing 757s was made up of a certifiable loon (which you can't deny John Lear is), a couple of flight attendants, and only three people who have actually flown the plane in question? I'm guessing you didn't. In the light of this information are you honestly telling me you're not beginning to doubt their integrity?

Anyay - I'm setting off for the match now and won't be back til Sunday afternoon. I look forward to reading your reply when I get back.

Muttley Posted on 10/01/2009 11:36
9/11 in plane sight

"LB Johnson tried to sink one of his own ships, and kill his own
servicemen, to fake an excuse to invade the middle east."

I take it you are referring to the "blue on blue" incident in which
the USS Liberty was attacked by the Israeli defence forces
during the "Six Day War"? You are guilty once again of using one
wacko conspiracy theory to justify another!

The USS Liberty as a US Intelligence Gathering ship (a "Spy Ship, if you prefer), during the 6 day war it was ordered to
position itself close to the Israeli coast where it was attacked
in controversial circumstances by IDF airforce and naval units
resulting in the death of 34 US servicemen. At no point was any
mention ever made that the attack was made by Egyptian or other
Arab nations' armed forces. The controversy surrounds just how
"accidental" the strikes were, Admiral Kidd repeatedly referring
to the Israeli forces responsible for the attack as 'murderous
B******s.' Of course the conspiracy theorists claim this is a
fall back position adopted when the attacks failed to sink the
ship.

Senor_Chester Posted on 10/01/2009 12:07
9/11 in plane sight

"So now tell me again about how we should all question the stories fed by the state and the media, but how its OK to take such documentaries as Terrorstorm in good faith?"



Aaaaaahahahahahahahahahhahahahaha!!!!!

leedfc Posted on 10/01/2009 14:52
9/11 in plane sight

brokenlance dont know if you were asking me for this link i put it up a few days ago.
so here goes.

9/11 Video Clips Dan Rather Would Rather Not Show You

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=_0eC3uns3pA&feature=related

ian_elliot Posted on 11/01/2009 16:48
9/11 in plane sight

Hoof for Lance

BrokenLance Posted on 11/01/2009 17:30
9/11 in plane sight

leedfc, thanks for the link.

Ian, it shows the full tv broadcast, which I now accept was only partially broadcast in my earlier reference.

As for Pilot for 9/11, what would you consider a higher authority than qualified pilots? The witnesses?

Flight 93 again shown on that clip as having no wreckage and no bodies.

Muttley, can't find the exact report I was looking for on the USS Liberty, but this link is close enough. Whether promoted by Israel, Johnson certainly covered it up.


Link: USS Liberty

BrokenLance Posted on 11/01/2009 17:56
9/11 in plane sight

Ian, do you really think an arab terrorist, who could hardly fly a simulator, was capable of reprogramming a 757's computer to perform those maneuouvres? Theoretically possible, but very improbable, I'd say.

leedfc Posted on 11/01/2009 18:34
9/11 in plane sight

brokenlance dont know if this is a fake or not.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=-59kouBgO_s

to me it looks real.


Senor_Chester Posted on 11/01/2009 18:41
9/11 in plane sight

Are you suggesting they bombed a random area to fake a plane crash? Why would they do this? What relevance is any of that?

two_banks_of_four Posted on 11/01/2009 18:47
9/11 in plane sight

"an arab terrorist, who could hardly fly a simulator"

would this be the same arab terrrorist
who had a commercial pilots licence and
apparently had time in a 737 simulator
at the Pan Am International Flight Academy?

Is that the guy you mean?

"higher authority than qualified pilots? The witnesses?"

Would that be the 100 odd witnesses that saw a plane fly into the pentagon or a different set of witnesses?

BrokenLance Posted on 11/01/2009 19:20
9/11 in plane sight

two_banks, witnesses saw a plane. Did they positively identify it as a 757? Personally, I wouldn't know the difference between one airliner and another.

Not sure which arab terrorist you mean. Was he one of the ones that turned out to be still alive?

leedfc, thanks for the link, again. Smoking gun indeed.

Here's another good one, which covers bombs in the wtc, still alive hijackers, Pakistani links to hijackers, etc. All good fun.


Link: zeitgeist-wtc

two_banks_of_four Posted on 11/01/2009 19:42
9/11 in plane sight

It would appear that 7 of the 104 eye witnesses identified the plane as a 757.

I was on about Hani Hanjour, you know the bloke who flew the plane into the pentagon.



Link: witness list

leedfc Posted on 11/01/2009 19:56
9/11 in plane sight

brokenlance.

nice link very good.

Senor_Chester Posted on 11/01/2009 19:57
9/11 in plane sight

" I wouldn't know the difference between one airliner and another."

Yeah but I'd suspect you'd know the difference between an aircraft and a missile though?

Muttley Posted on 11/01/2009 20:01
9/11 in plane sight

"Muttley, can't find the exact report I was looking for on the
USS Liberty, but this link is close enough. Whether promoted by
Israel, Johnson certainly covered it up"

Are you really as dumb as you appear?

You are ONCE AGAIN simply linking to another conspiracy site.

Courtesy of that site I can reveal

1. The US has a dimension shifting black triangle plane.

2. Australian PM John Howard is a war criminal.

I'm sure there's lots of other "good stuff" on there but I
couldn't be arsed frankly. To try and clarify, simply linking one
set of lies and deception to another does not make the first set
of lies true. Au contraire my dear gullible chum.

boroBuoy Posted on 11/01/2009 20:28
9/11 in plane sight

BrokenLance, watch Blueprint for Truth the next time its on EDGE MEDIA, it'll answer some of your questions.

edit: link added (you can watch it online)


Link: Blueprint for Truth

leedfc Posted on 11/01/2009 20:32
9/11 in plane sight

brokenlance.

found this for you about the USS Liberty it might clear a few things up.

http://www.logogo.net/01quest.htm

ian_elliot Posted on 11/01/2009 20:40
9/11 in plane sight

>"what would you consider a higher authority than qualified pilots?"

Lets see if I can come up with an analogy.

I saw Afonso Alves score a goal on Saturday, but say I'd missed the game I'd have to rely on the media reports - all of which say that Alves scored a goal. Unfortunately the press often make football stories up, but luckily a lot of people who were at the game saw the goal scored. Some say his shot was "like a missile".

If a group called "Footballers for 10/01 Truth" released a report to the media saying "Afonso Alves" is rubbish and can't hit a cows arse with a banjo so therefore can't have scored a goal, I'd be extremely sceptical. If I looked into that "Footballers for 10/01 Truth" and it turned out it was made up of Paul Gascoigne (who reckons that the Pope and George Bush always consult him on policy and ofter come round his place for a kickabout), backed up by Bernie Slaven - a man with an agenda if ever there was one, some professional cricketers, and two of the ladies who used the clean the bogs at Ayresome Park, I'd really not be taking their word over the general accepted theory.

Come on Lance - you can be honest with us - we are all friends here. You've been honest that you made a mistake with the selective quote - fair play to you for that.

When you first told us all about this pilots group, did you think that they were a respected group of professionals, and did your belief not waver just a bit when I told you about Mr Lear, and the trolly dollies that are backing him up with their expert knowledge?


Lefty Posted on 12/01/2009 10:54
9/11 in plane sight

I knew this would never reach 1000.

BrokenLance Posted on 12/01/2009 11:58
9/11 in plane sight

chester, even I wouldn't describe an airliner 'like a cruise missile with wings......' as one supposedly reliable eye witness did.

Ian, yes I admit the news that some of the Pilots for 9/11 were not all pilots, did surprise me. As for making fun of their other beliefs, I think we're not in a position to do that. They just might be right, you never know. Some have had close links to the CIA, so may be aware of a lot more than is publicly acknowledged regarding the subject of aliens, UFO's etc.

I believe in UFO's, myself, also. Roswell, and Rendlesham Air base are well documented. Doesn't mean I think all the sightings are genuine, and some indeed MAY be weather balloons or swamp gas. Let's save that for another conspiracy theory debate.

Detracting one organisation, why not do the same where the government is concerned? Are they all qualified to do their job? No conflict of interests with government defense contractors, the Carlysle Group, the Bilderberg Group, Bush's links with the Bin Laden's?

Remember, the US government has been found to have told more lies than Pilots for 9/11.


leedfc Posted on 12/01/2009 12:15
9/11 in plane sight

brokenlance.

check this one out.

FABLED ENEMIES full movie google video.

http://video.google.co.uk/videosearch?q=fabled+enemies+full&hl=en&emb=0&aq=0&oq=fabled+enemies#

ian_elliot Posted on 12/01/2009 12:26
9/11 in plane sight

>"As for making fun of their other beliefs, I think we're not in a position to do that"

You really ought to read up a bit on John Lear - I've only given you a few examples.

Believing in UFOs is one thing - after all they are literally unidentified flying objects. If I understand you correctly, what crashed into the Pentagon was a UFO.

But lets not get into the existence of little green men before Leedfc comes on with a link to that documentary that Ant and Dec made.

flaps Posted on 12/01/2009 12:32
9/11 in plane sight

"As for making fun of their other beliefs, I think we're not in a position to do that."

The day I'm not able to make fun of people with stupid beliefs is the day the terrorists have won.

ian_elliot Posted on 13/01/2009 21:03
9/11 in plane sight

>"The day I'm not able to make fun of people with stupid beliefs is the day the terrorists have won."

Amen to that.

two_banks_of_four Posted on 13/01/2009 21:32
9/11 in plane sight

"chester, even I wouldn't describe an airliner 'like a cruise missile with wings......' as one supposedly reliable eye witness did".

Lance you are either stupid, lazy or just on the wind up. This 'cruise missile' quote, as was pointed out earlier in this thread, is taken out of context. The full text is as follows

"I looked out my window and I saw this plane, this jet, an American Airlines jet, coming. And I thought, 'This doesn't add up, it's really low'. I mean it was like a cruise missile with wings".

scooby Posted on 13/01/2009 21:51
9/11 in plane sight

It's amazing that the people on here telling us not to blindly trust things and to ask questions are still quoting that cruise missile with wings bit of the larger quote.

ian_elliot Posted on 14/01/2009 07:49
9/11 in plane sight

You would have thought that after I proved to him that the other misquote he trots out about "no sign of plane hitting the Pentagon" was just a deliberately misleading edit of a wider quote which actually was evidence for it being a plane that hit the Pentagon.

To keep deliberately misquoting people like that when its been proven to you that you are misquoting is a little disappointing.

I thought that Lance was just slightly misguided and gullible, but the fact the keeps on with this line suggests he has an agenda behind his conspiracy theories and he's not actually interested in whether what he's saying is true or not.

BrokenLance Posted on 14/01/2009 11:18
9/11 in plane sight

Ian, and others, eyewitness testimony outnumbers the people who said it was a bomb at the Pentagon, so on that evidence alone, I accept that a plane hit it. However, the type of plane is in question. Only about 20% of those witnesses said it was a 757, and we still have the 'cruise missile' quote. Out of context or not, the words used were 'cruise missile'. Not how I would in any way describe a plane.

Maneouvres 'theoretically possible if the flight computer was reprogrammed' according to Boeing/not according to Pilots for 9/11. Not very likely a failed trainee pilot hijacker could reprogram a flight computer.

leedfc, another informative link. I suggest some of you view it for yourselves. Lots of good stuff, about car bombs on the day, the mysterious suitcase that never made one of the hijacked flights, and just happened to contain full details of the plot, and all the names of the hijackers(very convenient), US Army anthrax attacks with Bush and White House on CIPRO 6 weeks before the attacks were carried out, Doomsday planes flying about Washington and NY on 9/11.

Some further news from a WTC7 survivor I hadn't heard previously about bombs going off INSIDE WTC7, on the 8th floor, before the 2nd wtc tower was struck.

Enron funding Bin Laden-WTC7 was the FBI repository. No wonder it got 'pulled'.

The israeli spy cell that was deported, claiming prior knowledge of the attack, and that they were in NY that day to film it. Silverstein certainly had prior knowledge, as he added 'terrorist attack' to his insurance policy.

Plans to invade Afghanistan already finalised 9/10.

'Keep telling the same lie long enough and people will start believing it'-Goebbels.

Point is, who is believing the lies? Us conspiracy 'nuts' or the people who believe the government's cover-up.

Big_Shot Posted on 14/01/2009 11:27
9/11 in plane sight

'like a cruise missile' obviously refers to the movement and impact of the plane not what it looked like. How you might refer to something has no relevance to that quote. At no point does he say it looked like a cruise missile. He says it was a plane. Its not even open to scrutiny. Bloody hell, it really is straightforward.

ian_elliot Posted on 16/01/2009 13:06
9/11 in plane sight

If you saw a report of a football match that you hadn't witnessed yourself, and it described a player as being "on fire" do you think that the reporter meant that a player was covered in flames or do you think he might mean that he's playing well.

If a shot was described as being "like a bullet" do you immediately assume that there was a small lead projectile involved?

If someone is described as being "like a brick S***house", do you immediately picture a small hut made of bricks?

Did you know that cruise missiles actually have wings? Leaving aside the fact that the person behind the quote said that it was an airliner in the preceding sentence, if he knew what a cruise missile looked like and had in fact witnessed one moments before do you not think he would just say it looked like a "cruise missile"? Maybe he'd never seen a cruise missile in his life.

Senor_Chester Posted on 16/01/2009 16:59
9/11 in plane sight

"and we still have the 'cruise missile' quote. Out of context or not, the words used were 'cruise missile'."

Theres no point in even replying to S***e like that.

row_7 Posted on 22/01/2009 19:42
9/11 in plane sight

Quote:
leedfc Posted on 09/01/2009 13:06
"anyway on or around jan 22 2009 something something big going to happen.
watch for the date.
then if something does not then am a nut and need locking up.lol"


Well nowt's happened so far - permission to send the men in white coats round?
Can we put the rest of the conspiracy nuts in the padded cell with you?

ian_elliot Posted on 22/01/2009 19:47
9/11 in plane sight

Ah but who's to say it is really 22nd January 2009?

You only say that because you blindly accept what you are spoon-fed by the government. Wake up man. Use your eyes!

row_7 Posted on 22/01/2009 20:15
9/11 in plane sight

Yeah true

He's probably going by the Mayan calendar
Doesn't that one run-out in 2012 and herald the end of the world?

Or more likely it'll start again at 0000

BrokenLance Posted on 22/01/2009 20:56
9/11 in plane sight

Well, we have signed Marlon King today. Isn't that big enough for you?