QUOTE
The building is pretty big, why did they hit the side of it?
try and maximise damage?
probably the same reason the pther twp jets banked into the towers
Full Version: What hit the Pentagon?
Unexplained Mysteries Discussion Forums > News, Media & World Events > Conspiracies & Secret Societies
try and maximise damage?
probably the same reason the pther twp jets banked into the towers
QUOTE(eckogangsta @ Jun 2 2005, 10:01 PM)
Stellar what do you think hit the Pentagon? (jw)(if u posted it somewhere in other pages I didnt read them)
[right][snapback]653601[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]653601[/snapback][/right]
Plane.
QUOTE
Also the hit was almost if not totaly oposite side of Rumsfeld's office. What are the odds of that one?
Too bad the guy who programmed the mystery object wasn't dyslexic!!
QUOTE(unknown @ Jun 2 2005, 06:13 PM)
QUOTE(Nightwatcher @ Jun 2 2005, 12:31 PM)
God, this gets better and better. LOL 
[right][snapback]652801[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]652801[/snapback][/right]
I am so grateful for this great contribution you have made to this thread
EDIT: nvm, i didnt realize that u made this thread. But what is your true opinion ot this information? Do you have anything else to add, did u see something else you like?
How do you explain the pentagon releasing only 5 stills from a camera? Can you plz find out who exactly released them?
Can anyone please explain why the only video footage released by the Pentagon was a handful of rather low quality stills, with the wrong date/time, and on the top of that anonymously. As the video in the initial post showed, there were multiple video cameras pointing directly at the area of impact and the flight path of the object. And how about the cameras in the building?
"I still like the fact that the "terrorists" crashed into the side that was closed for maintenance. What are the odds?"
Yes, by the way that part of the building was also being under maintenance to withstand stronger impacts. What bad luck the terrorists had. Their goal was to kill, but they managed to highjack planes that only had 20% occupancy when the average is 80%, hit the lest occupied part of the twin towers, And hit the least occupied And strongest part of the pentagon! Not to mention the fact that several of those same terrorists have been found alive and well.
[right][snapback]653056[/snapback][/right]
Well thank you for appreciating my "contribution" to this thread. It's nice to be in the background sometimes if you know what I mean.
Since I posted this clip, I've been gathering information to substantiate its authenticity most especially its source, but apparently we are faced by a brick wall due to the terms "need to know basis" and "classified information".
But don't you worry Unknown, my friend, I will pm you once I get some more credible info regarding this.
QUOTE(bathory @ Jun 2 2005, 11:39 PM)
try and maximise damage?
probably the same reason the pther twp jets banked into the towers
[right][snapback]653945[/snapback][/right]
probably the same reason the pther twp jets banked into the towers
[right][snapback]653945[/snapback][/right]
I was thinking about this one... That's still under debate. If the plane hit the top of the pentagon, Oh lets say 45 degrees, the damage, i believe would be more spread out. And I believe that there would be more damage.
Again, this is still under debate. It would be nice to see some video of crashes directly on he ground, or runway or something....
QUOTE(Nightwatcher @ Jun 3 2005, 06:17 AM)
Since I posted this clip, I've been gathering information to substantiate its authenticity most especially its source, but apparently we are faced by a brick wall due to the terms "need to know basis" and "classified information".
But don't you worry Unknown, my friend, I will pm you once I get some more credible info regarding this.
[right][snapback]654131[/snapback][/right]
But don't you worry Unknown, my friend, I will pm you once I get some more credible info regarding this.
[right][snapback]654131[/snapback][/right]
Ye, sadly, when anyone is trying to investigate anything that has to do with 911, none of the information can be given out because it would hinder 'ongoing investigation'. Yet the official story hasn't changed. The 'official story' has so many holes now, that it's no longer a story but a bunch of incomplete sentences.
I will be looking forward for your PM.
RE: some of those terrorists still alive and well.
This might not be germain but I thought I should mention it. During WW2 the allies were having a hell of a lot of trouble from the wolf packs launched from St. Lezaire submarine pens of the coast of france. They tried carpet bombing, naval assault, and even tried to use TBD bombers to skip bombs into the hangar, but nothing worked because the pens had such good protection. The RAF in conjunction with the USAF developed a way for a bomber loaded with high explosives to be flown remote controlly into the pens. Soudns like this dance has been done before, no?
This might not be germain but I thought I should mention it. During WW2 the allies were having a hell of a lot of trouble from the wolf packs launched from St. Lezaire submarine pens of the coast of france. They tried carpet bombing, naval assault, and even tried to use TBD bombers to skip bombs into the hangar, but nothing worked because the pens had such good protection. The RAF in conjunction with the USAF developed a way for a bomber loaded with high explosives to be flown remote controlly into the pens. Soudns like this dance has been done before, no?
Jet liners today are only controlled manually at takeoff and landing. The rest of the time it's on autopilot. Many people believe that the 2 planes that hit the WTC were remote controlled from WTC 7. The flight path of both planes cross WTC7 on the flight path. One flies directly above it, the other hits the tower before it would have fly right above it. Building 7, also had a lot of FBI and other gov. offices. That's why it's believed it was demolished, to get rid of that evidence.
As to what hit the pentagon, I think it was either a missile or a smaller remote controlled plane.
As to what hit the pentagon, I think it was either a missile or a smaller remote controlled plane.
maybe it's just me, but isn't the area that was damaged just a WEE bit small for a 757 to have done it?
i would have thought that the better portion of that side of the Pentagon would have been blown away if it was a jetliner. instead, only a small portion of the building was damaged.
can someone explain this?
i would have thought that the better portion of that side of the Pentagon would have been blown away if it was a jetliner. instead, only a small portion of the building was damaged.
can someone explain this?
QUOTE(justcallmefox @ Jun 3 2005, 01:39 PM)
maybe it's just me, but isn't the area that was damaged just a WEE bit small for a 757 to have done it?
i would have thought that the better portion of that side of the Pentagon would have been blown away if it was a jetliner. instead, only a small portion of the building was damaged.
can someone explain this?
[right][snapback]654608[/snapback][/right]
i would have thought that the better portion of that side of the Pentagon would have been blown away if it was a jetliner. instead, only a small portion of the building was damaged.
can someone explain this?
[right][snapback]654608[/snapback][/right]
That was one of the main points of this thread, and what many have argued over. Some here say that it's because the plane is made out of light weight materials, etc. So i left that topic alone for a bit and concentrated on everything else. But for some reason noone can come up with any reasonable answers for the questions i mentioned.
QUOTE(unknown @ Jun 3 2005, 10:44 AM)
QUOTE(justcallmefox @ Jun 3 2005, 01:39 PM)
maybe it's just me, but isn't the area that was damaged just a WEE bit small for a 757 to have done it?
i would have thought that the better portion of that side of the Pentagon would have been blown away if it was a jetliner. instead, only a small portion of the building was damaged.
can someone explain this?
[right][snapback]654608[/snapback][/right]
i would have thought that the better portion of that side of the Pentagon would have been blown away if it was a jetliner. instead, only a small portion of the building was damaged.
can someone explain this?
[right][snapback]654608[/snapback][/right]
That was one of the main points of this thread, and what many have argued over. Some here say that it's because the plane is made out of light weight materials, etc. So i left that topic alone for a bit and concentrated on everything else. But for some reason noone can come up with any reasonable answers for the questions i mentioned.
[right][snapback]654615[/snapback][/right]
This WAS explained!!
Look, an airliner hits it's nose against a very hardened building. At that point, a great percentage of the kinetic momentum of the wings are transferred to the impact of the nose on the building. The wings slow down and buckle forward. This action causes multiple ruptures, severe heat generation and subsequent explosion of the fuel bladders contained in the wings BEFORE they are in contact with the building.
Bye-bye wings, in a million pieces from internal fuel explosion, many yards from the building walls. With blast-hardened walls, no wonder the wing's OFF-SET explosions had little effect.
QUOTE(pallidin @ Jun 3 2005, 07:04 PM)
This WAS explained!!
Look, an airliner hits it's nose against a very hardened building. At that point, a great percentage of the kinetic momentum of the wings are transferred to the impact of the nose on the building. The wings slow down and buckle forward. This action causes multiple ruptures, severe heat generation and subsequent explosion of the fuel bladders contained in the wings BEFORE they are in contact with the building.
Bye-bye wings, in a million pieces from internal fuel explosion, many yards from the building walls. With blast-hardened walls, no wonder the wing's OFF-SET explosions had little effect.
[right][snapback]655050[/snapback][/right]
Look, an airliner hits it's nose against a very hardened building. At that point, a great percentage of the kinetic momentum of the wings are transferred to the impact of the nose on the building. The wings slow down and buckle forward. This action causes multiple ruptures, severe heat generation and subsequent explosion of the fuel bladders contained in the wings BEFORE they are in contact with the building.
Bye-bye wings, in a million pieces from internal fuel explosion, many yards from the building walls. With blast-hardened walls, no wonder the wing's OFF-SET explosions had little effect.
[right][snapback]655050[/snapback][/right]
Why did the pentagon only release a few camera stills, that don't even show the object clearly? Why did they have the wrong time? Why was this released anonymously? Are you saying that that's all they had? The most protected city in the world(or at least this country)?Why didn't NORAD do anything to stop this attack in our Capitol? This has never happened before in history. Why were 4 planes successfully 'highjacked' at the same time?
no XSAS, I have read the theories that it was a missle or something else, but it doesnt matter to me cause My father knows Eyewittnesses that saw an airliner flying at illegal alltitude, and they saw it crash into the building.
and like I said earlier I doubt terrorists have the capabilities to launch missles that far, no way.
and like I said earlier I doubt terrorists have the capabilities to launch missles that far, no way.
QUOTE
Look, an airliner hits it's nose against a very hardened building. At that point, a great percentage of the kinetic momentum of the wings are transferred to the impact of the nose on the building. The wings slow down and buckle forward. This action causes multiple ruptures, severe heat generation and subsequent explosion of the fuel bladders contained in the wings BEFORE they are in contact with the building. Bye-bye wings, in a million pieces from internal fuel explosion, many yards from the building walls. With blast-hardened walls, no wonder the wing's OFF-SET explosions had little effect.
The physical evidence just does not match up to this theory. The huge engines (each weighing 7000 lbs.) would not smash into "a million pieces" whether they did or did not hit the Pentagon wall. They would have hit the wall if it had been a 757 though - the momentum of the plane would have ensured the wings and engines would go forward. There are 200,000 pounds of airplane that just cannot be accounted for at the crash site. Sorry, not a chance in hell a 757 crashed into the Pentagon!
QUOTE(PadawanOsswe @ Jun 3 2005, 08:20 PM)
no XSAS, I have read the theories that it was a missle or something else, but it doesnt matter to me cause My father knows Eyewittnesses that saw an airliner flying at illegal alltitude, and they saw it crash into the building.
and like I said earlier I doubt terrorists have the capabilities to launch missles that far, no way.
[right][snapback]655531[/snapback][/right]
and like I said earlier I doubt terrorists have the capabilities to launch missles that far, no way.
[right][snapback]655531[/snapback][/right]
There were two planes, that is a 757 and another plane/missile that were involved. The 757 was a cover for what REALLY hit the Pentagon, That is why two very different eyewitness statements were made by many people seeing one or the other.
For those who wonder why they would do this - consider that the target crash point could only be accurately hit this way. Hitting the re-constructed area serves to minimize big brass casualties (Rumsfeld on the other side of the building, for example). They could never pinpoint a damage zone with a 757 - not a chance. The physical evidence backs this up. Also, consider that maximum damage would be achieved by flying down into the building - not to mention how much easier this would be to navigate a 757 compared to the ridiculous "skimming four feet off the ground" flight path FAIRY TALE they are spouting off to the public!!
buddy, clean out your ears, and read again, They........saw........a........plane.......crash...into...the...pentagon
not...a...missle...a...plane
and actuallly parts of the plane were recovered, but a lot of it burned up
not...a...missle...a...plane
and actuallly parts of the plane were recovered, but a lot of it burned up
This was posted awhile back...if you are too lazy to do a search, then I am too lazy to provide a link to the already posted piece of crap....
QUOTE(PadawanOsswe @ Jun 4 2005, 04:20 AM)
no XSAS, I have read the theories that it was a missle or something else, but it doesnt matter to me cause My father knows Eyewittnesses that saw an airliner flying at illegal alltitude, and they saw it crash into the building.
and like I said earlier I doubt terrorists have the capabilities to launch missles that far, no way.
[right][snapback]655531[/snapback][/right]
and like I said earlier I doubt terrorists have the capabilities to launch missles that far, no way.
[right][snapback]655531[/snapback][/right]
Here we go again in another topic quoting my dad? and no one mentioned Terrorists using long distance misslies.. you need to get out more and start having your own opinions. If you have read the thoeries we all would love to hear your answers???
QUOTE(XSAS @ Jun 4 2005, 04:29 AM)
QUOTE(PadawanOsswe @ Jun 4 2005, 04:20 AM)
no XSAS, I have read the theories that it was a missle or something else, but it doesnt matter to me cause My father knows Eyewittnesses that saw an airliner flying at illegal alltitude, and they saw it crash into the building.
and like I said earlier I doubt terrorists have the capabilities to launch missles that far, no way.
[right][snapback]655531[/snapback][/right]
and like I said earlier I doubt terrorists have the capabilities to launch missles that far, no way.
[right][snapback]655531[/snapback][/right]
Here we go again in another topic quoting my dad? and no one mentioned Terrorists using long distance misslies.. you need to get out more and start having your own opinions. If you have read the thoeries we all would love to hear your answers???
[right][snapback]655882[/snapback][/right]
We who doubt the truth in the Government fairy tale "Osama And His 19 Magic Airplane Riders" (or ANY subject) are all wrong because the Supreme All Stuff Known Guy is Pad's Dad!!
Oh, I just realized - Hey Pad! - has your dad brought up anything about...um... Santa Claus yet? I'm just wondering, no special reason.........hey, if not, forget I even asked......
I see, so all the defence has to back them up is " i know a guy who saw the plane crash" 
This is the reason I stepped away from this and decided to explore other expects of the ordeal. How about doing some research and see if you can answer some of the questions I posted earlier.
This is the reason I stepped away from this and decided to explore other expects of the ordeal. How about doing some research and see if you can answer some of the questions I posted earlier.
I think you guys need to cheack out the snopes acrticle one more time; it was already posted by a mod.
QUOTE
I see, so all the defence has to back them up is " i know a guy who saw the plane crash"
we've posted many links debunking your claims (not yours personally, but the conspiracy people), if you are going to ignore them thats your own stupid fault
XSAS, would you mind telling me how in the hell terrorists would get a missle into the U.S. unnoticed?
I quote those friends of my fathers because they are people of their word, and they had a good arial view of the crash, are you calling them liars?
I quote those friends of my fathers because they are people of their word, and they had a good arial view of the crash, are you calling them liars?
There is one thing that all people seem to skip when asking questions like "why wasn't the plane shot down": The US at that time had almost no air defence, because they didn't need it. The Cold War is over, there is no nation that would attack The US. from the air, so no SAM-s or other means of defence were needed(Only the White House had a few guys ith Stingers nearby). The only duty of the air force at home was training, practiceing and helping astrayed small planes' pilots to get to a safe landing place, and sometimes helping the law enforcement forces in stopping airborne drug shipments. There were no planes waiting on the tramacs fully loaded with fuel and armamaent and a fighter takes quite a few minutes to get into the air in order to intercept something of a serious threat...
Are you saying that US military has the defence to stop/assist a small plane, but people can fly jets from all over and crash em into building? Whats NORAD for? They have state of the art techology for this kind of stuff.
NORAD does indeed have the latest and greatest in tech designed to detect incoming threats. So, where are the threats incoming from? From outside the U.S. The Reason NORAD didn't see them is because NORAD was doing its job: looking for threats coming into the U.S., not threats within the U.S.
i'm sure norad is beg enough to watch all air traffic coming into america,and those that are flying around with in it's borders too my friend.i want to think a big 747 crashed into the pentagon,but unless we saw it ourselves we can't be absolutley sure what it was.
QUOTE(aquatus1 @ Jun 4 2005, 02:45 PM)
NORAD does indeed have the latest and greatest in tech designed to detect incoming threats. So, where are the threats incoming from? From outside the U.S. The Reason NORAD didn't see them is because NORAD was doing its job: looking for threats coming into the U.S., not threats within the U.S.
[right][snapback]656462[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]656462[/snapback][/right]
"Aha! Here comes a missile from Cuba! We got that baby tracked! No worries, we'll just send up a couple interceptor.....um.......uh....oh crap, we lost track of it. We can't detect stuff INSIDE the country, gotta fix that someday..... 
NORAD is a binational United States and Canadian organization charged with warning of attack against North America whether by aircraft, missiles, or space vehicles, utilizing mutual support arrangements with other commands. Aerospace control includes providing surveillance and control of Canadian and United States airspace. The job of NORAD is to know every inch of the skies over North America. Before and after 9/11!
it would just make good sense to me that you would watch all incoming and outgoing aircraft with in our borders.but then again,we all know the government has a hard time at making sense at all do'nt we?
QUOTE(turbonium @ Jun 4 2005, 04:28 PM)
QUOTE(aquatus1 @ Jun 4 2005, 02:45 PM)
NORAD does indeed have the latest and greatest in tech designed to detect incoming threats. So, where are the threats incoming from? From outside the U.S. The Reason NORAD didn't see them is because NORAD was doing its job: looking for threats coming into the U.S., not threats within the U.S.
[right][snapback]656462[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]656462[/snapback][/right]
"Aha! Here comes a missile from Cuba! We got that baby tracked! No worries, we'll just send up a couple interceptor.....um.......uh....oh crap, we lost track of it. We can't detect stuff INSIDE the country, gotta fix that someday..... NORAD is a binational United States and Canadian organization charged with warning of attack against North America whether by aircraft, missiles, or space vehicles, utilizing mutual support arrangements with other commands. Aerospace control includes providing surveillance and control of Canadian and United States airspace. The job of NORAD is to know every inch of the skies over North America. Before and after 9/11!
[right][snapback]656521[/snapback][/right]
NORAD's original charter and scope of capability was in detection of aerospace threats incoming to the U.S. and peripheral coverage areas. It had nothing to do with "domestic" threats.
NORAD's charter has now changed. There has been since 9/11 an aggressive upgrade program to enable NORAD to deal with internal aerospace events. Perhaps late in coming, but a least it is.
I would like to know how many people here are pilots and know how ATC and FAA works.
I was an Aviation Officer in the U.S. Navy.
the simple fact is the FAA and NORAD had standard operating procedures that were NOT followed--as soon as contact was loss the faa should have contacted norad immediately--norad ,upon recieving the communication,should have immediately scrambled fighters to vector and investigate--the lies used to cover up their complicity are inadequate and obvious upon scutinization--the fact that something hit the pentagon "at all" was a symbolic message to anyone who knows the capabilities of our national defense--and it reads--"we're in on it"--they doubled up on the symbolic warnings by blatantly demonstrating that they knew they were in no danger by setting up a theatrical "act" where by their complicity was covertly communicated through their "inaction" in the "classroom goat story incident"--
A plane hit the pentagon.. 
Are you saying that they had the ability to prevent the attack, refused to prevent the attack because they were a part of it, then let the world know that they were a part of it because they did nothing to prevent it?
A conspiracy freely advertising its conspiracy?
The entire FAA (at least, several hundred members of it) in on the conspiracy?
None of that offends your sense of logic?
A conspiracy freely advertising its conspiracy?
The entire FAA (at least, several hundred members of it) in on the conspiracy?
None of that offends your sense of logic?
QUOTE
NORAD's original charter and scope of capability was in detection of aerospace threats incoming to the U.S. and peripheral coverage areas. It had nothing to do with "domestic" threats.
OK - link and proof time! From this link..
Archived Special Mil Ops we find this...
Chapter 7. ESCORT OF HIJACKED AIRCRAFT
The escort service will be requested by the FAA hijack coordinator by direct contact with the National Military Command Center (NMCC). Normally, NORAD escort aircraft will take the required action.
Exactly. People can silenced through the means of bribery/blackmail/threat. Also this event has been planed long before it happened. The right people were placed for the job, so it would be easier for this operation to occur. Wasn't there a big change in NORAD's command and policy RIGHT before 911? Very similar to Silverstein huh?
"the individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists" J. Edgar Hoover.
"the individual is handicapped by coming face to face with a conspiracy so monstrous he cannot believe it exists" J. Edgar Hoover.
QUOTE
XSAS, would you mind telling me how in the hell terrorists would get a missle into the U.S. unnoticed?
I will tell you....parts is parts....
You and I are for the most part clueless as to what goes on inside all of these small manufacturing facilities in the US....most are legitimate small businesses...some aren't...for all you know an atomic weapon is being assembled right in your city...under the noses of everyone....
QUOTE(aquatus1 @ Jun 4 2005, 05:58 PM)
Are you saying that they had the ability to prevent the attack, refused to prevent the attack because they were a part of it, then let the world know that they were a part of it because they did nothing to prevent it?
A conspiracy freely advertising its conspiracy?
The entire FAA (at least, several hundred members of it) in on the conspiracy?
None of that offends your sense of logic?
[right][snapback]656700[/snapback][/right]
A conspiracy freely advertising its conspiracy?
The entire FAA (at least, several hundred members of it) in on the conspiracy?
None of that offends your sense of logic?
[right][snapback]656700[/snapback][/right]
JFK assassination was a classic conspiracy, requiring only enough people involved to be placed in the key positions. Leaks and witnesses are "silenced" by threats or murder, as deemed necessary.
If you were an officer in the Navy then you should realize how the command structure works - compartmentalized, top down and "need to know" basis. It does NOT require "several hundred members" to conduct these operations.
QUOTE(aquatus1 @ Jun 4 2005, 06:58 PM)
Are you saying that they had the ability to prevent the attack, refused to prevent the attack because they were a part of it, then let the world know that they were a part of it because they did nothing to prevent it?
A conspiracy freely advertising its conspiracy?
The entire FAA (at least, several hundred members of it) in on the conspiracy?
None of that offends your sense of logic?
[right][snapback]656700[/snapback][/right]
A conspiracy freely advertising its conspiracy?
The entire FAA (at least, several hundred members of it) in on the conspiracy?
None of that offends your sense of logic?
[right][snapback]656700[/snapback][/right]
ok i dont know how you can even whisper the word logic after asking a double redundant ,run-on,lack-of-common-sense question like that but i believe i can answer it with a simple yes and and sum up the points you cloaked through double-talk--
again...yes they did it and yes they communicated their complicity
bldg 7 is an offense on the common "sense of logic"--questioning the sustained noncompliance of standard operating procedure is not
Double talk? That's what you call an attempt at clarification?
I'll ask one more question, then leave it alone, freely admitting that conspiracies are the one area in which I have little patience and am admittedly close-minded due to the methddology generaly employed by the active participants:
Why? What's to be gained that could not otherwise have been gained through more conventional means? What did the FAA have to gain by fooling NORAD?
I'll ask one more question, then leave it alone, freely admitting that conspiracies are the one area in which I have little patience and am admittedly close-minded due to the methddology generaly employed by the active participants:
Why? What's to be gained that could not otherwise have been gained through more conventional means? What did the FAA have to gain by fooling NORAD?
QUOTE(aquatus1 @ Jun 5 2005, 05:55 AM)
Double talk? That's what you call an attempt at clarification?
I'll ask one more question, then leave it alone, freely admitting that conspiracies are the one area in which I have little patience and am admittedly close-minded due to the methddology generaly employed by the active participants:
Why? What's to be gained that could not otherwise have been gained through more conventional means? What did the FAA have to gain by fooling NORAD?
[right][snapback]657101[/snapback][/right]
I'll ask one more question, then leave it alone, freely admitting that conspiracies are the one area in which I have little patience and am admittedly close-minded due to the methddology generaly employed by the active participants:
Why? What's to be gained that could not otherwise have been gained through more conventional means? What did the FAA have to gain by fooling NORAD?
[right][snapback]657101[/snapback][/right]
Don't have a clue what you mean by our 'methodology' - I just try and present the basic facts as much as possible..
To answer you, it goes back to the command structure again. It's the key to a succesful plan. The decision makers want to limit the chain of information as much as they can without endagering their plan. Think back to all the 'broken links' between the various departments that day. They have to lie and say there was confusion, no procedures existed for who does what, throw in a dash of incompetence......Then play the idiot and say "it won't happen again, boy, we sure learned us some lessons - that Osama won't pull any more fast ones on us, uh huh, nope uh huh!"
the faa controls all the domestic fligts with in the usa,but the military is another animal,they answer only to the president,or higher ranking members of the president's military cabnet.
after the faa shut the planes down all over america on 911,did the faa take complete control of aircraft in our country,or did they (since it was deemed a military attack)turn it over to the american military?
QUOTE(aquatus1 @ Jun 5 2005, 06:55 AM)
... freely admitting that conspiracies are the one area in which I have little patience and am admittedly close-minded due to the methddology generaly employed by the active participants:
sounds logic
QUOTE(aquatus1 @ Jun 5 2005, 06:55 AM)
Why? What's to be gained that could not otherwise have been gained through more conventional means? What did the FAA have to gain by fooling NORAD?
[right][snapback]657101[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]657101[/snapback][/right]
ok this has got to be "the" most pathetic attempt at diverting attention away from facts and putting words in peoples mouthes than i have ever seen--first off--it wasnt the faa that had anything to "gain" --for all we know they tried to stick to procedure but norad seems to have failed in protecting us--funny as they were funded with tax dollars--we'll never know the truth since the evidence has already been destroyed which makes both parties liable as well as traitorsQUOTE(Sunofone @ Jun 5 2005, 02:53 PM)
QUOTE(aquatus1 @ Jun 5 2005, 06:55 AM)
... freely admitting that conspiracies are the one area in which I have little patience and am admittedly close-minded due to the methddology generaly employed by the active participants:
sounds logic
QUOTE(aquatus1 @ Jun 5 2005, 06:55 AM)
Why? What's to be gained that could not otherwise have been gained through more conventional means? What did the FAA have to gain by fooling NORAD?
[right][snapback]657101[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]657101[/snapback][/right]
ok this has got to be "the" most pathetic attempt at diverting attention away from facts and putting words in peoples mouthes than i have ever seen--first off--it wasnt the faa that had anything to "gain" --for all we know they tried to stick to procedure but norad seems to have failed in protecting us--funny as they were funded with tax dollars--we'll never know the truth since the evidence has already been destroyed which makes both parties liable as well as traitors[right][snapback]657517[/snapback][/right]
Oh, I see, you speculate on "the evidence that has already been destroyed"
So you base your premise on factors which can never be proven, because as you said, they have been destroyed.
So why should ANYONE believe you? Because YOU said so? What evidence do YOU have? Or was that "destroyed" as well?
Your a piece of work, and a foul one at that.
QUOTE(pallidin @ Jun 5 2005, 03:13 PM)
Oh, I see, you speculate on "the evidence that has already been destroyed"
So you base your premise on factors which can never be proven, because as you said, they have been destroyed.
[right][snapback]657554[/snapback][/right]
So you base your premise on factors which can never be proven, because as you said, they have been destroyed.
[right][snapback]657554[/snapback][/right]
i know you have a hard time grasping the obvious so i'll help you out a little--the fact that they destroyed evidence "is" evidence in itself--they may be able to wash the blood off their hands but they cant hide all the meat in the smokehouse
QUOTE(Sunofone @ Jun 5 2005, 08:53 PM)
QUOTE(aquatus1 @ Jun 5 2005, 06:55 AM)
... freely admitting that conspiracies are the one area in which I have little patience and am admittedly close-minded due to the methddology generaly employed by the active participants:
sounds logic
It isn't logical at all, and I freely admit it. We all have our biases, and this is mine.
QUOTE
QUOTE(aquatus1 @ Jun 5 2005, 06:55 AM)
Why? What's to be gained that could not otherwise have been gained through more conventional means? What did the FAA have to gain by fooling NORAD?
[right][snapback]657101[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]657101[/snapback][/right]
ok this has got to be "the" most pathetic attempt at diverting attention away from facts and putting words in peoples mouthes than i have ever seen--first off--it wasnt the faa that had anything to "gain" --for all we know they tried to stick to procedure but norad seems to have failed in protecting us--funny as they were funded with tax dollars--we'll never know the truth since the evidence has already been destroyed which makes both parties liable as well as traitors[right][snapback]657517[/snapback][/right]
Okay then, as I do not wish to be thought of as making pathetic arguments (incidentally, these sorts of accusations are part of the methodology I was referring to earlier), then let modify my statement: What did NORAD have to gain? What did the unspecified anyone (another part of the methodology) who was responsible for this have to gain that couldn't have been achieved through more conventional manners?
What did NORAD stood to gain? For all we know is nothing.
Many of us may have heard of the Payne Stewart’s accident in 1999. Within 22 minutes since his plane went off course 4 f-16s were scrambled to it's side. This was a small private jet in comparison to a 747 or 757. As soon as his plane lost contact, it was normal procedure to scramble planes to it's side for obvious reasons. There were 4 large jet airliners that lost contact that morning. And nothing was ever done about it.
NORAD was running a training operation that morning. They were practicing to defend against an attack on the WTC. They did manage to get one plane down though, the one that went down over PA.
A lot of things happen for the first time in history on 9/11.
"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order." David Rockefeller
Many of us may have heard of the Payne Stewart’s accident in 1999. Within 22 minutes since his plane went off course 4 f-16s were scrambled to it's side. This was a small private jet in comparison to a 747 or 757. As soon as his plane lost contact, it was normal procedure to scramble planes to it's side for obvious reasons. There were 4 large jet airliners that lost contact that morning. And nothing was ever done about it.
NORAD was running a training operation that morning. They were practicing to defend against an attack on the WTC. They did manage to get one plane down though, the one that went down over PA.
A lot of things happen for the first time in history on 9/11.
"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order." David Rockefeller
QUOTE(aquatus1 @ Jun 6 2005, 05:51 AM)
What did NORAD have to gain? What did the unspecified anyone (another part of the methodology) who was responsible for this have to gain that couldn't have been achieved through more conventional manners?
[right][snapback]658440[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]658440[/snapback][/right]
it doesnt matter A1 -you have already stated you have an illogocal bias-how can i continue after a comment like that--even if i gave you name of the guy at the FAA who destroyed evidence and then show you how he was promoted or recieved some type of award you would ignore the irony,take bush's balls out of your mouth and start whistling dixie
QUOTE(unknown @ Jun 6 2005, 07:32 AM)
What did NORAD stood to gain? For all we know is nothing.
[right][snapback]658537[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]658537[/snapback][/right]
quite contrary to nothing NORAD has recieved millions of additional taxpayers funds-- all part of the "necessary" increased "homeland security"
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.