285 replies to this topic

[bee]

I have never thought that 9/11 was an Inside Job per se...
But until the end of August this year I hadn't researched it.

I travelled far and wide....(on the internet..lol)

And this is what I've come up with.

This isn't going to please supporters of the Official Account..
or the die-hard Conspiracy Theorists..

But never mind...I can't help that...


In a nut shell this is it....


Militant Islamic Jihadists  hijacked 4 airliners.

The day was chosen because Vigilant Guardian/ Global Guardian military exercises
were taking place...and the confusion would buy the terrorists time.


http://en.wikipedia....Global_Guardian






Flight 11 was crashed by terrorists into the World Trade Centre tower.

Flight 175 was crashed by terrorists into the other WTC tower.



The US military got on top of the situation and....


Flight 77 was taken by remote control over the Atlantic Ocean and shot down.

Flight 93 was taken by remote control to a rural part of Pennsylvania and shot down.



For political and propaganda reasons it was decided to cover up the fact that
the military were forced to shoot down the 2 planes.
(and bring down WTC 1,2 + 7)


It was decided to set up the Pentagon to make it look like flight 77 hit it.
Pentagon chosen because it is government property and there was an unoccupied section?

A helicopter fired a missile into the unoccupied area?
Or bombs (or similar) were set off to look like the building was hit?

Airliner wreckage was placed at the scene.



WTC 1,2 + 7....were brought down using Directed Energy Weapons,

Because they were badly damaged and for the safety of the area had to be dealt with
and brought down neatly into their own foot-print.



On that fateful and heartbreaking day...I think that 'war protocol' was quickly
applied and all the govt/military actions AFTER the Twin Towers were hit...
was DAMAGE LIMITATION.

To prevent more loss of life?

And more serious damage?


That's it.

Do these ideas make sense to anyone?

I think that they broadly cover all the discrepancies that concern people about that day.

[keithisco]

Interesting views Bee... but just how would "they" have got remote control over aircraft that were not equipped for FBW (Fly By Wire) technology?

[bee]

keithisco, on 08 October 2010 - 12:09 PM, said:

Interesting views Bee... but just how would "they" have got remote control over aircraft that were not equipped for FBW (Fly By Wire) technology?

Thanks for the feedback...


This is one of the links I looked at re. 'remote control over aircraft'....

It's the Pilots for 9/11 Truth Forum....(there's also an interview to listen to there
if you want to)


http://pilotsfor911t...opic=20048&st=0

[Obviousman]

Bee - you probably don't realise the reputation of PFT.

Take some advice: go talk to aviation professionals OUTSIDE those.... people. Go find an aviation college, go talk to professional airline pilots at an airport. Do NOT rely on the clowns from PFT.

[bee]

Obviousman, on 08 October 2010 - 12:55 PM, said:

Bee - you probably don't realise the reputation of PFT.

Take some advice: go talk to aviation professionals OUTSIDE those.... people. Go find an aviation college, go talk to professional airline pilots at an airport. Do NOT rely on the clowns from PFT.

I looked at so much stuff in a short space of time...that this is the only link about that, that
I can remember. But I will look for more.


They appear to be a fairly level-headed lot. But like so many people.. don't feel the
Official Account is satisfactory.

I'm talking about genuine 'researchers' here...not the over-the-top crowd or the Muslim Fifth Column lot.


I haven't, though, looked at any of their other stuff.


http://pilotsfor911t...opic=20048&st=0

Quote

Founded in August 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth is a growing organization of aviation professionals from around the globe. The organization has analyzed Data provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) for the Pentagon Attack, the events in Shanksville, PA and the World Trade Center attack. The data does not support the government story. The NTSB/FBI refuse to comment. Pilots For 9/11 Truth do not offer theory or point blame at this point in time. However, there is a growing mountain of conflicting information and data in which government agencies and officials along with Mainstream Media refuse to acknowledge.

As a matter of interest...

Do YOU think that (some?) airliners can be controlled remotely?

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

My personal theory, I think, is that it all happened as per the official explanation, except that the hijackers weren't Al Quaeda, but were trained and financed by some other government intelligence service from a country supposedly friendly with the US; this would be quite sufficient, if said supposedly friendly country was a bastion of support for the US and one with close political and intelligence (not to mention economic) links, to account for the Bush administration to be very keen to blame it on someone else.  Why would this supposedly friendly country have done this? Well, they all have their own agenda, don't they, and it may have been as part of their own ideological power games, or it may have been that they wanted to provoke the US into a military response that would ensure a US presence in the area {whichever area it may be} and so serve supposedly friendly country's purposes in shoring it up as a domninant power in the region. It's also, I think, not beyond possibility that the US intelligence may have had, perhaps quite specific, prior warning, but may have either allowed it to happen because they thought it would suit their purposes, i.e. they wanted a war or at least a military presence in the area for the foreseeable future, or that they never imagined that the threat would take the form it actually did; they may have been expecting a car bomb or something perhaps, but the scale of what actually happened took them completely by surprise.  The subsequent rushed investigation, eagerness to not reveal everything, and the planting of evidence to pin it on Al Qaeda (in particular the fatuous discovery of one of the hijackers' passports) could, I think, all be explained by official panic on the part of a not very efficient and not very scrupulous government.

[bee]

747400, on 08 October 2010 - 01:20 PM, said:

It's also, I think, not beyond possibility that the US intelligence may have had, perhaps quite specific, prior warning, but may have either allowed it to happen because they thought it would suit their purposes, i.e. they wanted a war or at least a military presence in the area for the foreseeable future, or that they never imagined that the threat would take the form it actually did; they may have been expecting a car bomb or something perhaps, but the scale of what actually happened took them completely by surprise.

This is a possibility...

I, personally think that it is more likely that the US Intelligence was lacking in some way...?

And also that the planners of the terrorist/war act...(in my view...definitely Militant Islamic Jihadists.)

....are most definitely NOT stupid...and would make sure there were lots of red-herring-operations talked about
and discussed over mobile-phones/internet etc.

To confuse and bury the ACTUAL plan?

[The Narcisse]

If they were able to take control of the Planes and fly them remotely why shoot them down? Why not just land them?

[keithisco]

bee, on 08 October 2010 - 12:35 PM, said:

Thanks for the feedback...


This is one of the links I looked at re. 'remote control over aircraft'....

It's the Pilots for 9/11 Truth Forum....(there's also an interview to listen to there
if you want to)


http://pilotsfor911t...opic=20048&st=0

Very interesting Bee, and I promise to look at the video at some point today (46 mins is a big chunk of time!!)  The flight engineer would of course be aware of any attempts to use the autopilot to take control of an aircraft, and within the avionics bay there is a "Kill-switch" to completely isolate the autopilot. I could do it myself by disconnecting the Flight Nav computer, but then i would have to think that there is malicious intent and so would be be somewhat reticent to do so. After consultation with the Pilot and Co-Pilot, also confirmation from Air traffic control, then I would have no problem in returning control to the flight deck. This of course, raises a whole can of worms eg who is doing this, is ATC under friendly control etc etc..

Finally, if, using my own judgment and having determined that the flight course was in any way dangerous then I would, without hesitation, disconnect the autopilot from the main control system. Pilots are extremely capable in flying without auto - comtrol so the safety consequences are irrelevant.

Will look at the video as said...

Saludos

Keith

[rashore]

Interesting views Bee and 747400.. I like them
Sounds as good as any theories floating around.
I'll kick in a bit too Got no proof in any way, but hey, it's a CT

I propose that a lot of the "proof" that 9/11 CT folks throw out there was "released" on purpose. Exactly for what it has done, made a fairly unreadable mess. What better way to make the public stupid about something then to appeal to their sense of CT? Some information has been held back for sure.. just plant in enough close information to start the process, sprinkle in some almost blatant hoaxing, and the public will take care of the rest after a year or two.

I'm just not sure if it would make more sense if the government was behind it- one hell of a smear campaign to cover tracks, or a juicier theory to propose a government undermining agency using hoaxes to rile up the public

[mrbusdriver]

keithisco, on 08 October 2010 - 03:00 PM, said:

Very interesting Bee, and I promise to look at the video at some point today (46 mins is a big chunk of time!!)  The flight engineer would of course be aware of any attempts to use the autopilot to take control of an aircraft, and within the avionics bay there is a "Kill-switch" to completely isolate the autopilot. I could do it myself by disconnecting the Flight Nav computer, but then i would have to think that there is malicious intent and so would be be somewhat reticent to do so. After consultation with the Pilot and Co-Pilot, also confirmation from Air traffic control, then I would have no problem in returning control to the flight deck. This of course, raises a whole can of worms eg who is doing this, is ATC under friendly control etc etc..

Finally, if, using my own judgment and having determined that the flight course was in any way dangerous then I would, without hesitation, disconnect the autopilot from the main control system. Pilots are extremely capable in flying without auto - comtrol so the safety consequences are irrelevant.

Will look at the video as said...

Saludos

Keith

The 757 and 767 are two-man crew...no FE. Just to clear that up. And the AP is a simple on/off switch, with several subfunction (alt, hdg, speed and such) switches under it. The hijackers disconnected the A/P pretty early on in each case.

[bee]

The Narcisse, on 08 October 2010 - 02:24 PM, said:

If they were able to take control of the Planes and fly them remotely why shoot them down? Why not just land them?

This is something I've thought about...and it does bother me..


But I'm thinking that in what rapidly became a National Emergency...decisions were made,
war protocol followed?


So much was going on, in a short space of time.
NOW we know it was 4 planes, but THEN they didn't know what was coming.

A lengthy/unpredictable hostage situation was not something that could be coped with
under the circumstances?


Just speculating on that point.


Also..details like the one you have brought up could explain why the
events of that day were/are classified.


Ie..Would the families understand?
What would the 'world' say...anti-American propaganda would have a field day?

And it would detract from the actual attack?

[bee]

rashore, on 08 October 2010 - 06:55 PM, said:

I propose that a lot of the "proof" that 9/11 CT folks throw out there was "released" on purpose. Exactly for what it has done, made a fairly unreadable mess. What better way to make the public stupid about something then to appeal to their sense of CT? Some information has been held back for sure.. just plant in enough close information to start the process, sprinkle in some almost blatant hoaxing, and the public will take care of the rest after a year or two.

I'm just not sure if it would make more sense if the government was behind it- one hell of a smear campaign to cover tracks, or a juicier theory to propose a government undermining agency using hoaxes to rile up the public

I agree with you...


What started me off researching it..was when the penny dropped that the 9/11
conspiracy was ITSELF conspiracy based...

Driven by maybe PSYOPs agents...and other politically interested parties.
Catching genuine 'truthseekers' in their net.  

A good way to create a fog around events of the day ..cause doubt and confusion...
And to neutralize many people....who get side-tracked by the never ending cascade of
in-your-face 9/11 conspiracy stuff.

[regeneratia]

bee, on 08 October 2010 - 01:18 PM, said:

I looked at so much stuff in a short space of time...that this is the only link about that, that
I can remember. But I will look for more.


They appear to be a fairly level-headed lot. But like so many people.. don't feel the
Official Account is satisfactory.

I'm talking about genuine 'researchers' here...not the over-the-top crowd or the Muslim Fifth Column lot.


I haven't, though, looked at any of their other stuff.


http://pilotsfor911t...opic=20048&st=0

As a matter of interest...

Do YOU think that (some?) airliners can be controlled remotely?

It is interesting to think about how this might apply to the deaths of Senator Wellstone, Senator Carnahan and Bush's White House webmaster.
Thank you for the link. I passed it on to my group of friends. I am sure they will pass it on to theirs, who will pass it on to theirs, who will pass it on to....

Always remember, things are seldom as they seem. And very seldom as we are told they are.

Edited by regeneratia, 09 October 2010 - 12:15 AM.

[SolarPlexus]

double post

Edited by SolarPlexus, 09 October 2010 - 02:44 AM.