Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

9/11 TV fakery - No planes


  • Please log in to reply
431 replies to this topic

#121    StrayCat

StrayCat

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 20 posts
  • Joined:06 Mar 2009

Posted 07 May 2010 - 03:55 PM

View Postflyingswan, on 06 May 2010 - 06:42 PM, said:

There is an enormous difference in difficulty between the Northwoods idea of flying an airline-type take-off, climb and cruise (no landing required) and the precision guidance required for a 9/11 attack.  As mrbusdriver has correctly stated, a one-off remotely controlled crash-landing was attempted in 1984 with limited success.  This is not something you would want to try for real without a lot of prior testing.
http://www.nasa.gov/...S-003-dfrc.html

Yes but don't forget the advances in technology- GPS most importantly. We have cruise missiles that travel very long distances and can hit a target the size of a car. I don't doubt that the technology exists to steer a large plane into a building. They could have waited for the planes to take off, then took control while in the air and guided them to the targets. We'll never know. But I do think its pretty fishy that they classified those black boxes for "national security". Obviously they don't want anybody to know what was going on in those cockpits. I personally doubt it was a bunch of muslims shouting "praise allah!".

Edited by StrayCat, 07 May 2010 - 03:57 PM.


#122    flyingswan

flyingswan

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,830 posts
  • Joined:13 Sep 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:UK

Posted 07 May 2010 - 04:29 PM

View PostStrayCat, on 07 May 2010 - 03:55 PM, said:

Yes but don't forget the advances in technology- GPS most importantly. We have cruise missiles that travel very long distances and can hit a target the size of a car. I don't doubt that the technology exists to steer a large plane into a building. They could have waited for the planes to take off, then took control while in the air and guided them to the targets. We'll never know. But I do think its pretty fishy that they classified those black boxes for "national security". Obviously they don't want anybody to know what was going on in those cockpits. I personally doubt it was a bunch of muslims shouting "praise allah!".
You have two systems, GPS and the aircraft's autopilot, and you have to link them up in a reliable way.  This isn't a trivial task and it involves starting from scratch for each type of aircraft.  Just because it works for a cruise missile doesn't mean it works for an airliner, it's a major engineering task which requires a lot more people to be in on the conspiracy.

We do have the flight data recorders for the other aircraft, and they show a marked change in control capability corresponding to the hi-jacks, ie the quality of piloting changed from the smooth style you expect of a trained pilot, or an autopilot, to pretty much what you'd expect from someone with more limited piloting skills.

"Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true" - Francis Bacon (1561-1626)
In which case it is fortunate that:
"Science is the best defense against believing what we want to" - Ian Stewart (1945- )

#123    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 07 May 2010 - 06:32 PM

View PostDevilDogPratt, on 07 May 2010 - 02:08 AM, said:

thats funny, because you dont seem too willing to accept other people's point of view either, yet you make fun of him. why dont you stop getting brainwashed by all these truther losers and look at the facts. they are all layed out infront of you, just open your eyes and look at them
I’m making fun of your reliance on name-calling (which you continue to demonstrate  :lol: ), not on your point of view itself.

I asked a number of questions in my last post that remain unanswered.  Instead of calling people “dufus” and “loser” why don’t you provide the official answers that you claim are “all layed out” to those questions?  When you cannot do that, because there are in fact no official answers (because no real investigation was carried out), you could always come up with some speculation that suits your preferred view and pretend that it’s satisfactory.


View PostObviousman, on 07 May 2010 - 09:07 AM, said:

The questions may be baseless, far fetched or even idiotic.. but they question.

It is such a pity they never listen to the answers (unless the answer seems to give them the result they want).
Same as above regarding the questions to you, Obviousman.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#124    DevilDogPratt

DevilDogPratt

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 546 posts
  • Joined:02 Jun 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:People's Republic of America

  • One
    Big
    A$$
    Mistake
    America

Posted 07 May 2010 - 07:11 PM

View PostQ24, on 07 May 2010 - 06:32 PM, said:

I’m making fun of your reliance on name-calling (which you continue to demonstrate  :lol: ), not on your point of view itself.

I asked a number of questions in my last post that remain unanswered.  Instead of calling people “dufus” and “loser” why don’t you provide the official answers that you claim are “all layed out” to those questions?  When you cannot do that, because there are in fact no official answers (because no real investigation was carried out), you could always come up with some speculation that suits your preferred view and pretend that it’s satisfactory.



Same as above regarding the questions to you, Obviousman.
you have no hope, im giving up on you :tu:

enjoy

Posted Image
3-2 1-3 1-3 1-1 2-4 3-3

"THEY THAT GIVE UP ESSENTIAL LIBERTY TO OBTAIN A LITTLE TEMPORARY SAFETY, DESERVE NEITHER LIBERTY NOR SAFETY"
-BENJAMIN FRANKLIN 1759

#125    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 07 May 2010 - 07:33 PM

View PostDevilDogPratt, on 07 May 2010 - 07:11 PM, said:

you have no hope, im giving up on you :tu:

enjoy
You said, “… look at the facts. they are all layed out infront of you, just open your eyes…”

Then when I challenge you to answer a few basic questions you immediately “give up”.

I hope this explains why your view is very unconvincing.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#126    Obviousman

Obviousman

    Spaced out and plane crazy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,633 posts
  • Joined:27 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Coast, NSW, Australia

  • "Truth needs no defence. Nobody - NOBODY - can ever take the footsteps I made on the surface of the Moon away from me."
    Gene Cernan, Apollo 17

Posted 07 May 2010 - 09:26 PM

View PostQ24, on 07 May 2010 - 06:32 PM, said:

Same as above regarding the questions to you, Obviousman.

References, please, for all of your claims. Don't post a whole diatribe, just give a small quote backing up each of your points and a link to where that quote came from.


#127    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 08 May 2010 - 01:15 AM

View PostObviousman, on 07 May 2010 - 09:26 PM, said:

References, please, for all of your claims. Don't post a whole diatribe, just give a small quote backing up each of your points and a link to where that quote came from.
It’s funny - that approach usually ends up with accusations of ‘quote-mining’ or ‘cherry-picking’ but as it’s what you ask for I’ll try to keep it short…


Q24 said:

Why did the CIA allow known Al Qaeda affiliates into the United States?
“Based on this intelligence, the C.I.A. broke into a hotel room in Dubai where Mihdhar was staying, en route to Malaysia. The operatives photocopied Mihdhar’s passport and faxed it to Alec Station, the C.I.A. unit devoted to tracking bin Laden. Inside the passport was the critical information that Mihdhar had a U.S. visa. The agency did not alert the F.B.I. or the State Department so that Mihdhar’s name could be put on a terror watch list, which would have prevented him from entering the U.S.”

http://www.webcitation.org/5bRF1ZQEL


Q24 said:

Why were the FBI prevented from investigating bin Laden related cases?
“FBI and military intelligence officials in Washington say they were prevented for political reasons from carrying out full investigations into members of the Bin Laden family in the US before the terrorist attacks of September 11. U.S. intelligence agencies have come under criticism for their wholesale failure to predict the catastrophe at the World Trade Centre. But some are complaining that their hands were tied. … They said the restrictions became worse after the Bush administration took over this year. The intelligence agencies had been told to "back off" from investigations… ”

http://www.guardian....tan.september11


“It is obvious, from my firsthand knowledge of the events and the detailed documentation that exists, that the agents in Minneapolis who were closest to the action and in the best position to gauge the situation locally, did fully appreciate the terrorist risk/danger posed by Moussaoui and his possible co-conspirators even prior to September 11th. … the FBI Supervisory Special Agent (SSA) who was the one most involved in the Moussaoui matter and who, up to that point, seemed to have been consistently, almost deliberately thwarting the Minneapolis FBI agents' efforts.”

http://www.time.com/...20603/memo.html


Q24 said:

Why did the President not react to an intelligence briefing containing specific warnings?
Presidential Brief: Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US – 6 August 2001: -

  • “Bin Laden since 1997 has wanted to carry out terrorist attacks in the US”
  • “his followers would follow the example of World Trade Centre bomber Ramzi Yousef”
  • “Bin Laden told followers he wanted to retaliate in Washington”
  • “Bin Laden was planning to exploit the operative’s access to the US”
  • “Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft”
  • “FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings”
http://www.cnn.com/2.../whitehouse.pdf


Q24 said:

Why was it reported that the CIA met with bin Laden shortly prior to 9/11?
“Two months before September 11 Osama bin Laden flew to Dubai for 10 days for treatment at the American hospital, where he was visited by the local CIA agent, according to the French newspaper Le Figaro. The disclosures are known to come from French intelligence which is keen to reveal the ambiguous role of the CIA, and to restrain Washington from extending the war to Iraq and elsewhere.”

http://www.911myths....den_met_the_CIA

[Interestingly the 911myths article I’ve used as the source here ends up promoting their very own ‘conspiracy theory’ about French intelligence attempting to discredit the U.S.  I’m not so interested in this type of speculation so much as actual confirmed answers.]


Q24 said:

How many CIA agents were operating within Al Qaeda and in what capacity at the time of 9/11?
This question has no single direct source but is derived from a number of facts.

We know that via Pakistan’s ISI the CIA were funding the Mujahideen, from whence Al-Qaeda came, by $630m per year by 1987.  After this level of support had been committed, it would be unreasonable to expect that the CIA instantly cut all links they had built with the Mujahideen/Al Qaeda after the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan in 1989.  Indeed, due to the exposure of Operation Gladio in 1990, we know that the CIA/NATO were very proficient in setting up clandestine "stay-behind" army/terrorist organisations after their withdrawal from areas.

Fast-forward to 1999 and we have the operation, known only as “The Plan”, in which CIA agents were sent to infiltrate Al Qaeda and recruit agents close to Osama Bin Laden.  The head of the operation, Cofer Black (future Vice Chairman of Blackwater USA), wanted men who could blend into the region's Muslim populations. By Black’s own words that this was the “largest collection and disruption activity in the history of mankind”, it suggests that “The Plan” was successful.  Curiously, it was during this same period from 1999 onward that 15 of the 9/11 ‘hijackers’ were found to have aligned themselves with Al Qaeda.

In the years between the Soviet/Afghan war and “The Plan” there are known to have been Western intelligence/Al Qaeda double-agents such as Omar Sheikh (more about him later) and Ali Mohammed.

All of this amounts to justification for what I think is a very reasonable question.


Q24 said:

What are the chances the hijackers randomly chose to live with an FBI informant?
“Two of the Sept. 11 hijackers who lived in San Diego in 2000 rented a room from a man who reportedly worked as an undercover FBI informant, highlighting the lack of cooperation by the nation's law enforcement and intelligence agencies.”

http://www.cbsnews.c...ain521223.shtml


“The CIA did not act on either message, again did not watchlist al-Hazmi or al-Mihdhar, and, again, did not advise the FBI of their possible presence in the United States.  In 2000, these same two individuals had numerous contacts with an active FBI counterterrorism informant while they were living in San Diego, California.”

http://www.gpoaccess...port_errata.pdf


Q24 said:

What are the chances the hijackers would live right outside the gates of the NSA?
“In fact, one of the most bizarre ironies of all this is that five of the hijackers lived in a motel right outside the gates of the NSA.

Early on the morning of 11 September, when Hani Hanjour and his four accomplices left the Valencia Motel on US route 1 on their way to Washington's Dulles airport, they joined the stream of NSA employees heading to work.”

http://news.bbc.co.u...ent/2033791.stm


Q24 said:

Why have the FBI stated they have no evidence connecting bin Laden to 9/11?
“The Muckraker Report spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden’s Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

Surprised by the ease in which this FBI spokesman made such an astonishing statement, I asked, “How this was possible?” Tomb continued, “Bin Laden has not been formally charged in connection to 9/11.” I asked, “How does that work?” Tomb continued, “The FBI gathers evidence. Once evidence is gathered, it is turned over to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice than 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 connected Bin Laden to 9/11.”

It shouldn’t take long before the full meaning of these FBI statements start to prick your brain and raise your blood pressure.”

http://www.informati...rticle13664.htm


Q24 said:

Why did the FBI Director state there is no legal proof as to the identities of the hijackers?
“Robert Mueller, director of the FBI, has twice been forced to admit on CNN that there is “no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers" (CNN, September 20 and 27).”

http://www.911myths....cker_identities

[As there is apparently no original source for this quote and a couple of months later the FBI claimed issues surrounding the identities of the hijackers had been resolved, I am prepared to drop this question in the specific form I raised it.]


Q24 said:

Why were the attacks reported to be funded by Pakistan’s intelligence service?
“Significantly, Sheikh is also the man who, on the instructions of General Mahmoud Ahmed, the then head of Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), wired $100,000 before the 9/11 attacks to Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker. It is extraordinary that neither Ahmed nor Sheikh have been charged and brought to trial on this count. Why not?”

http://www.guardian....usa.september11

“To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks.  Ultimately the question is of little practical significance.”

~ 9/11 Commission Report

I can hardly believe they actually said that.   :wacko:


Q24 said:

What was the role of the Israeli intelligence agents arrested at the scene on 9/11?
Surely you have heard me talk about this one before: -

http://www.unexplain...dpost&p=3068762
http://www.unexplain...dpost&p=3212550

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#128    Obviousman

Obviousman

    Spaced out and plane crazy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,633 posts
  • Joined:27 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Coast, NSW, Australia

  • "Truth needs no defence. Nobody - NOBODY - can ever take the footsteps I made on the surface of the Moon away from me."
    Gene Cernan, Apollo 17

Posted 09 May 2010 - 01:55 AM

Thank you, Q24. It'll take me a while to read through all the references and reply to you. Please excuse the delay.


#129    Travelling Man

Travelling Man

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,148 posts
  • Joined:03 May 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:USA

  • And you are asking... Why?

Posted 09 May 2010 - 03:20 AM

Q, one of the things you consistently do is ignore the standard info given in a Risk Assessment.  I've hit on this before, and hopefully it will sink in this time.

Consider an item you want to protect.  Now, consider a particular threat to this item.  The equation is:

Risk = Likelihood x Value of Loss x Vulnerability

Let's look at your car.  The threat is, another car smashing it while your car is parked.

Asset? Your car.
Threat? Crunched whilst parked.
Likelihood it will happen?  Average.
Value of Loss?  Depending on your car, Low to High.
Vulnerability? This depends upon where you live, and where the car is parked.  A garage in the country means very low - on the street in downtown NYC, very high.

Got it?

Now let's look at September Eleventh.

Asset? WTC.
Threat? Planes being flown into them.
Likelihood? Extraordinarily low... it's unprecedented.
Value? Extremely high.
Vulnerability? Extremely low... security on aircraft would preclude any US airliner from being hijacked in this manner, meaning that a credible threat would be from international, and by the time they got here, the military would be advised and could stop them.  Besides, the buildings can allegedly handle the impact of a multiple 707's (owner's boasts), and no hi-rise has ever been hit by a big plane before.

The assessment would show this to be a non-factor.  Yes, the loss would be devastating - but the likelihood and vulnerability are so very low as to make it a non-starter... therefore, nothing was done to prevent it.  At the time, this would rank as just barely more of a threat than the WTC being struck by an ocean-going ship.

You keep going on and on like a Monday-morning quarterback, saying that we should have seen it.

The Minneapolis FBI office saw a part of it - and reported it.  They were soundly ignored because they were talking "crazy talk".  Since there was "no way" this would happen - why entertain the idea?

Why did we allow al Qaeda operatives in the country?  We have hundreds of alleged bad guys in our country at all times - because we are a country that believes that you can't be sentenced before you are charged and convicted... Using pre-September-Eleventh thinking - just because you support a terrorist organization doesn't mean you've done anything illegal.

Heck, back in the early 90's, I watched NYC firefighters and cops pass the hat on payday to collect money that was sent over to fund the IRA.

Regarding the FBI informant that lived with the two hijackers... so what?  What was he informing about?  If he was involved in drug trafficking cases, there would be no reason whatsoever for him to inform on his roommates.  The only time he would be expected to inform would be if it was pertinent to the case.  In this case, it obviously wasn't (yes, I am using conjecture here).

Edited by Malruhn, 09 May 2010 - 03:22 AM.

Superior firepower will win over superior numbers - every time!  G.A. Custer
Superior numbers will win over superior firepower - every time!  S. Bull

My credentials

#130    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 09 May 2010 - 10:46 PM

View PostObviousman, on 09 May 2010 - 01:55 AM, said:

Thank you, Q24. It'll take me a while to read through all the references and reply to you. Please excuse the delay.
No problem – I have a feeling the response will be one claiming lack of communications, administrative snafus, complacency, incompetence, irrelevance and so on.  I’m not sure how one ignores the fact that no legal case has ever been made against bin Laden and yet a war was still launched but I’m sure it will be overlooked somehow.  Just remember that for every separate claim that must be used to explain away the questions in the context of the official story, they can all be swiftly addressed with one single answer: false flag operation.


View PostMalruhn, on 09 May 2010 - 03:20 AM, said:

Got it?
Yes, I understand your view that the threat perception was low.

The fact remains that whilst the CIA were aware at least some of the hijackers were affiliated with Al Qaeda and yet allowed them into the United States where they had contact with an FBI informant, others lived in a motel outside the gates of the NSA and were funded by intelligence services, along with related investigations being deliberately blocked and intelligence warnings ignored, not forgetting those other intelligence services watching the attack and that there is no legal case against bin Laden… then it is reasonable to suggest collusion.

Geddit?   :D

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#131    Sakari

Sakari

    tohi

  • Member
  • 12,035 posts
  • Joined:16 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Safford, Arizona

  • Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Posted 09 May 2010 - 11:07 PM

Obviously , you have no friends or family that live in New York , and one step further , after hearing ( or seeing) the first attack , witnessed in PERSON the second plane ( and the first for some).....

This is what is so sad , I have a few friends in New York , one of them watched this un-fold in person with his wife and child....To this day , every person who lived there ( not to mention every person with a heart and brain )are still hurt by that day....

I truly wish I could arrange for people like you to actually meet , face to face  , with the people who were there to witness this first hand , I guarantee you would change your mind real fast by seeing the emotion , and just maybe feeling it also....

Our Wolf's Memorial Page

http://petsupports.com/a04/sakari.htm


#132    Czero 101

Czero 101

    Earthshattering Kaboom

  • Member
  • 5,159 posts
  • Joined:24 Dec 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Vancouver, BC

  • We are all made of thermonuclear waste material

Posted 09 May 2010 - 11:17 PM

I don't think that Q24 dismisses the fact that many people's lives were affected by 9/11 or that many people died on that day. I've read enough of his posts over the last few years to realize at least that much.

IMO, he has just looked at the available evidence and come to a different conclusion, one that is no doubt influenced by certain personal beliefs, and one that does not necessarily make for a "best case" match for the evidence.

Now, that all said, I have to admit that he does present a compelling case, and he does present it well, more so than most conspiracy theorists. However "compelling and well presented" it is, though, that does not make it true or change the fact that the case for controlled demolition that he presents is far, far from conclusive by any definition of the word.



Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 09 May 2010 - 11:17 PM.

"Thinking is critical, because sense is not common..." - GreaterSapien

"For it is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false." – H. L. Mencken

#133    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 10 May 2010 - 12:08 AM

View PostSakari, on 09 May 2010 - 11:07 PM, said:

I truly wish I could arrange for people like you to actually meet , face to face  , with the people who were there to witness this first hand , I guarantee you would change your mind real fast by seeing the emotion , and just maybe feeling it also....
Hi Sakari,

I think there’s a bit of confusion here as I’m actually completely against the opening post of this thread – TV fakery, hologram and ‘no plane’ theories are a nonsense for which there is no evidence whatsoever.  Of course airliners impacted the WTC buildings which then collapsed causing the deaths of thousands, not forgetting of course those at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania.  I include in my thoughts here the hundreds of thousands of soldiers and civilians of all nations that have been killed as a result of the ‘War on Terror’.

For the record I’ve watched enough footage to have a feel for the fear, shock and emotion of people on the scene in New York on 9/11.  It makes me cringe every time I see those planes impact the towers and a few things in particular (such as those jumping from the towers and a mans final phone call being cut short as the collapses initiate amongst numerous others) make me look away from the screen and hold my head in my hands – that’s really hard to view.

It may interest you to know that Bill Doyle, head of the Coalition of 9/11 Families (consisting of approximately 7,000 members who lost relatives in the attacks), estimated that half of those he represented held the view there was some form of cover-up and inside complicity in the event.  It is also worth noting that the 9/11 Commission, opposed by President Bush, was only eventually formed under pressure from four women known as the Jersey Girls who had all lost their husbands.

On top of this, a 2004 poll showed that 49 percent of New York residents believe individuals within the U.S. government knew in advance of the attacks and consciously failed to act.  One of the more recent polls in 2007 showed that 51 percent of Americans want Congress to probe Bush and Cheney regarding the attacks.

I find this all heartbreaking but none of it actually changes the facts prior to, resulting from and surrounding 9/11 which are strongly suggestive of a version of events further than what we have been told.


View PostCzero 101, on 09 May 2010 - 11:17 PM, said:

Now, that all said, I have to admit that he does present a compelling case, and he does present it well, more so than most conspiracy theorists. However "compelling and well presented" it is, though, that does not make it true or change the fact that the case for controlled demolition that he presents is far, far from conclusive by any definition of the word.
Ah thank you, I also find your posts on the Pentagon impact to be quite compelling.

I would just add that I don’t have blood on my hands regarding my case for controlled demolition.  What does it matter even if I were wrong?  If, on the other hand, the official story were wrong not to have proven its case……

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.

#134    Sakari

Sakari

    tohi

  • Member
  • 12,035 posts
  • Joined:16 Aug 2009
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Safford, Arizona

  • Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Posted 10 May 2010 - 12:20 AM

View PostQ24, on 10 May 2010 - 12:08 AM, said:

Hi Sakari,

I think there’s a bit of confusion here as I’m actually completely against the opening post of this thread – TV fakery, hologram and ‘no plane’ theories are a nonsense for which there is no evidence whatsoever.  Of course airliners impacted the WTC buildings which then collapsed causing the deaths of thousands, not forgetting of course those at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania.  I include in my thoughts here the hundreds of thousands of soldiers and civilians of all nations that have been killed as a result of the ‘War on Terror’.

For the record I’ve watched enough footage to have a feel for the fear, shock and emotion of people on the scene in New York on 9/11.  It makes me cringe every time I see those planes impact the towers and a few things in particular (such as those jumping from the towers and a mans final phone call being cut short as the collapses initiate amongst numerous others) make me look away from the screen and hold my head in my hands – that’s really hard to view.

It may interest you to know that Bill Doyle, head of the Coalition of 9/11 Families (consisting of approximately 7,000 members who lost relatives in the attacks), estimated that half of those he represented held the view there was some form of cover-up and inside complicity in the event.  It is also worth noting that the 9/11 Commission, opposed by President Bush, was only eventually formed under pressure from four women known as the Jersey Girls who had all lost their husbands.

On top of this, a 2004 poll showed that 49 percent of New York residents believe individuals within the U.S. government knew in advance of the attacks and consciously failed to act.  One of the more recent polls in 2007 showed that 51 percent of Americans want Congress to probe Bush and Cheney regarding the attacks.

I find this all heartbreaking but none of it actually changes the facts prior to, resulting from and surrounding 9/11 which are strongly suggestive of a version of events further than what we have been told.



Ah thank you, I also find your posts on the Pentagon impact to be quite compelling.

I would just add that I don’t have blood on my hands regarding my case for controlled demolition.  What does it matter even if I were wrong?  If, on the other hand, the official story were wrong not to have proven its case……

I apologise , I just get so dang frustrated on the conspiracy thing....Just seems the " pussification" of America grows stronger all the time....Anytime a bad thing happens , big or small , people have to go point the finger to find fault on why it was not avoided..LAWSUIT,LAWSUIT.....Not everything can be avoided , and things will happen....It is what we learn from them to avoid them again that matters...And , how we as people react to it...

Our Wolf's Memorial Page

http://petsupports.com/a04/sakari.htm


#135    Q24

Q24

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,921 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006

Posted 10 May 2010 - 12:41 AM

View PostSakari, on 10 May 2010 - 12:20 AM, said:

I apologise , I just get so dang frustrated on the conspiracy thing....Just seems the " pussification" of America grows stronger all the time....Anytime a bad thing happens , big or small , people have to go point the finger to find fault on why it was not avoided..LAWSUIT,LAWSUIT.....Not everything can be avoided , and things will happen....It is what we learn from them to avoid them again that matters...And , how we as people react to it...
Don’t apologise, I do see your point and understand how it can be frustrating.  I just thought it’d be worth trying to explain myself.  Even though I find that people don’t really learn from history’s lessons, your statements above, especially the last few, are very true.

Operation Northwoods was a 1962 plan by the US Department of Defense to cause acts of violence, blamed on Cuba, in order to generate U.S. public support for military action against the Cuban government. The plan called for various false flag actions, such as staged terrorist attacks and plane hijackings, on U.S. and Cuban soil.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users