9/11 Cruise Missile Theory

[merril]

Don't worry about it, Quinn. Many people were taken in by the false dilemma that Bush continually posed: -

"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists."

20 Sep 01

"You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."

6 Nov 01

"Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September 11th."

10 Nov 01

Here is another option: I am absolutely against terrorists but I am certainly not with your "War On Terror" pretext.

It's not just Bush. If Al Gore had been President, bin Laden, et al, still would have attacked the U.S. Remember all the attacks of the 1990s, during a Democratic Administration? Al Qaeda made no such distinction, and any President would defend the country with phrases denouncing attacks on the U.S.

The ultimate concern, one might think, is that WMD become commonplace in the Middle East, or that something go very wrong in Pakistan. The U.S. and its allies have some stake in preventing major problems in the foreseeable future.

There is a side to the War on Terror that is more along the lines of soft-presence with assistance- like areas of North Africa or the Philippines. If the violence would tone down where fanatics and secular divisions must be worked out, a soft-approach and normal relations would prevail.

9-11 was designed by bin Laden, et al. There is no other way around that.

It seems now that people with personal financial turf to protect are the ones behind the 9-11 false accusation movement. Now, that is just sick!

Edited July 10, 2009 by merril

[Agent X]

So if there were cruise missiles involved, why was there no wreckage of them found?

It's a well known fact that 911 Truthers went in and disguised themselves as pentagon personnel so they can remove the wreckage so they can hide it so they can have valid support of their theory so they can discredit the government.

It's an absolute fact that 911 Truthers actually work for a foreign government of some type and thuse wanted to use the disruption to plant a duplicate of the President so they can tuen America into a socialist state.

That's what the missing money is being used for, to create a clone army of important people and replace them.

Anything else is a government lie that is designed to oppress the true speakers of FREEDOM AND DISSENT!

http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18

[Obviousman]

When looking at any data there are different questions that can be asked and various information that can be extracted.

Are the 200+ statistically significant as a representation of pilot opinion? This information cannot be extracted in any worthwhile way as we do not know the total number of pilots who have looked into the 9/11 event.

Go to websites of non-9/11 aviation professionals and raise your 'facts' and tell them of Pft. You'll find they disagree with Pft, think they are a bunch of looneys, and have no problems with the so-called "official" story.

Are there experts in the aviation field who doubt the official story? Clearly, yes.

In any field there are idiots.

Is the number of professionals who doubt the official story growing? Again, yes.

I disagree, especially when it comes too so-called " xxxx for 9-11 truth" sites. They often have the same originators, and the actual numbers of people has been proven to be artificially inflated (e.g. AE911, when several non-A or Es were admitted with no verification of their claimed credentials; RG's claim that '... over 50 people joined this weekend...' but the membership numbers only increased by 2 or 3, etc)

[Obviousman]

Additionally, I don't think "truthers" would be swayed from their beliefs. You could have professional organisations of airline pilots come out and agree with the government and specifically repudiate groups like Pft and what would happen? Pft et al would claim they are "disinfo", or being forced to "tow the government line".

What happened when professional demolition engineers said "WTC was not a controlled demolition"?

CDI are just a front, they are in the pay of the NWO; hell, they probably organised the demo!

What happened when the BYU engineering and physics departments specifically repudiated Dr Jones claims and distance themselves from him?

"BYU sacked him to shut him up; they in on it or too frightened to speak up lest they lose their jobs too!"

So, no. No matter how much evidence is presented to dispel claims, no matter how many professional point out the flaws in a fringe claim, "truthers" will always cling to their beliefs.

[merril]

Here is another option: I am absolutely against terrorists but I am certainly not with your ‘War On Terror’ pretext.

I don't condone or accept what I think you are implying- that old ruse about PNAC. That innocent study used the term Pearl Harbor, which does not even relate to the circumstances of 9-11, as alleged.

A Pearl Harbor event was in reality, one military sneak attacking another, in order to wipe out resistance.

You know that, and so does every other mis-directionist who tried that ruse.

The U.S. is not better off militarily or economically because of 9-11. That is silly. Everything that has happened during these conflicts abroad is natural and explainable as part and parcel of a genuine attempt to box-in, and reduce the willingness of state-sponsored or state-enabled terror and WMD access.

The members of the Bush Administration are not benficiaries of 9-11.

One can argue about political efforts, but not that there are naked and obvious pretexts as you imply. That is just propaganda by people who want to assist al-Qaeda by further hurting innocent american citizens with trumped up terror-style trials.

Anyone can see through this empty abuse of PNAC.

[*Quinn*]

I don't condone or accept what I think you are implying- that old ruse about PNAC. That innocent study used the term Pearl Harbor, which does not even relate to the circumstances of 9-11, as alleged.

A Pearl Harbor event was in reality, one military sneak attacking another, in order to wipe out resistance.

A new Pearl Harbor, as in an unexpected attack on American soil. I think 9/11 qualifies as that. You're fooling yourself.

Think we'll ever catch Bin Laden?

[Space Commander Travis]

A new Pearl Harbor, as in an unexpected attack on American soil. I think 9/11 qualifies as that. You're fooling yourself.

Think we'll ever catch Bin Laden?

Hmmm, but, and i do think Merril has a point here, WWII did undeniably work out to the US's advantage: it came out of it, after less than five years, as undeniably the world's dominant power, and one which, with having defeated Nazism (and then leading straight into standing up against Communism) could think of itself, with some legitimacy, as a pillar of moral strength. None of those things, I don't think anyone could deny, have really happened after the Iraq fiasco, at least, (even if there be more of a moral case regarding Afghanistan). So did the whole 9/11 plot and the PNAC project just backfire hugely? It surely hasn't worked, has it.

[Agent X]

If there were cruise missiles involved where is the wreckage of the cruise missiles?

[Space Commander Travis]

Well, if there were missiles, then i don't suppose there'd be much wreckage left after one has exploded, would there?

[mrbusdriver]

If there were cruise missiles involved where is the wreckage of the cruise missiles?

Cruise missiles do NOT have landing gears, not large turbofan engines...both of which were found amongst the site wreckage.

[Obviousman]

If there were cruise missiles involved where is the wreckage of the cruise missiles?

Exactly!

The only explanation that fits all the sightings, all the damage, all the parts found, all the bodies recovered, is that of an airliner... one of which was last seen flying into the Pentagon!

[Quake]

My biggest problem with this is , why? Why would we do this to our own nation , were america , i dont believe that we needed an excuse to attack the terrorists , if we want to go attack some terrorists theres not to many people out there that would stop us , besides the terrorists who we'd be fighting anyway. Second , what happened to the people on the planes that supposedly crashed , slaughter chambers? I don't believe that would happen , find some fact based answers to these questions and i still wont believe you , but i might not think its as insane a theory as i do now

[KennyB]

According to the prevailing theory that a 757 jetliner could evaporate into nothing more than dust and then 'act as a liquid' , I don't see how those same rules wouldn't apply to a missle. Maybe what plowed through those walls was a shock wave pushing a cloud of fine dust, leaving no wreckage. KennyB

[Q24]

What I found out of bounds was when he said the USG made 9-11 happen. That is beyond what anyone might consider having good character.

I don’t find that discussion of facts and their implications reflects negatively on anyone’s character. The words you used (“out of bounds”) did prompt me to look into taboos in society. I found the best description to be the following in this case: “Taboos challenge one's free speech and individual rights to express a subject or issue in need to be addressed for the benefit, not to damage, any given society.”

It's not just Bush. If Al Gore had been President, bin Laden, et al, still would have attacked the U.S. Remember all the attacks of the 1990s, during a Democratic Administration?

There were no attacks on American soil by bin Laden during the ’90s. The only such attack with tenuous links to Al Qaeda would be the ’93 WTC bombing, though Ramzi Yousef appeared to be working of his own initiative and I won’t go into the FBI informant links there. Still, all the destructive intent of 9/11 was present in ’93 without Bill Clinton waging full-scale war and effecting regime change across the Middle East.

Anyway, would 9/11 have occurred if Al Gore had been President? Well Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and the rest of the PNAC contributors would not have been in such favourable positions to enact the plan, so the answer has to be “probably not”. There was no small fuss over the 2000 election count though, so perhaps fate (or whatever forces you believe in) had already decreed the winner. After all, the 9/11 plan must already have begun by 1999 and they couldn’t have a problem like public votes getting in the way.

To link this to the thread topic a little more - the man who represented Bush in that 2000 election court case, which ensured that Al Gore did not receive a vote recount, was Solicitor General Ted Olson. It is an interesting peculiarity that the only passenger alleged to have made a call from Flight 77 happened to be… his wife, Barbara Olson. It is from Ted Olson’s account on September 12th, 2001 that the first reports of hijackers armed with box-cutters came.

I disagree, especially when it comes too so-called " xxxx for 9-11 truth" sites. They often have the same originators, and the actual numbers of people has been proven to be artificially inflated (e.g. AE911, when several non-A or Es were admitted with no verification of their claimed credentials; RG's claim that '... over 50 people joined this weekend...' but the membership numbers only increased by 2 or 3, etc)

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth take their verification process very seriously and you are encouraged to contact them if you have any evidence of false identities in the membership – based on evidence they will actively cancel the membership of any such individuals.

I am unaware of Richard Gage’s comments. Please can you direct me to the quote you gave and the support for it being untrue?

What happened when professional demolition engineers said "WTC was not a controlled demolition"?

In a BBC documentary, the President of Controlled Demolition Inc (CDI), Mark Loizeaux, said something along the lines of, “well umm… durr… dere wuz no detcord or blasting caps found… so I fink it weren’t a controlled demolition… huh huh ha ha.” That’s not exact wording but in all seriousness it is close. Now if this man does not have the intelligence to understand the WTC demolition necessarily could not be through conventional methods then he is wasting all our times.

So did the whole 9/11 plot and the PNAC project just backfire hugely? It surely hasn't worked, has it.

How has 9/11 not gone a long way to helping the PNAC’s aims?

Okay, remind me on the weekend.

The weekend has come and gone aquatus, how are you getting on?

[Czero 101]

According to the prevailing theory that a 757 jetliner could evaporate into nothing more than dust and then 'act as a liquid'

Still operating under the same misconceptions, Kenny?

No one ever said that the aircraft would "evaporate" (i.e. "to turn from a solid or liquid state into a vapor"). That's your (incorrect) interpretation of what we've been trying to explain to you (so far unsuccessfully, apparently).

I don't see how those same rules wouldn't apply to a missle. Maybe what plowed through those walls was a shock wave pushing a cloud of fine dust,

And how exactly would a "shockwave" have created the damage to the building that has been conclusively shown to have been created by a Boeing 757-200 airliner plowing ibnto it? Did you even look at the very long post I put together several pages ago that details the damage to the first and second floors and shows how it could only have been caused by a large ariliner? Or did you just ignore that, too?

leaving no wreckage.

Except for

• the landing gear components shown to be that from a 757
• the engine components shown to be from the Rolls Royce RB211 engines used by Amaerican Airlines on their 757's
• the parts of the fusealage which have been shown to have been painted in American Airlines livery
• the bodies of the passengers from Amwerican Airlines flight 77

Btw... I see this really worked out well for you:

Sorry to say, I'm dropping out of the discussion.

Cz

[Space Commander Travis]

How has 9/11 not gone a long way to helping the PNAC’s aims?

Was it PNAC's aim to get bogged down in a commitment in Iraq for, well, however long it's likely to be yet? Surely the idea, if that was the idea, was for a clean and quick move in, oust Saddam and settle down in your nice safe base in the middle east and count the oil revenue coming in. And Afghanistan, while I suppose you could fit it into the plan somehow, (control of the drugs supply, say), surely that's turned into a much longer commitment than they would have hoped for? So if it has helped their aims, it doesn't seem to have worked all that well.

Unless that was all factored in, so that Bush's successor would be handed all the legacies of the half-baked plans when he came to office. Maybe that was it.

[KennyB]

Cz, I stayed out for awhile, but I couldn't pass up on that question of why there was no wreckage of a cruise missile. As to your list of 757 wreckage: Let's see, now, we've got a Federal conspiracy, on a Federal building, on Federal property, with Federal agents doing the investigating. Who's to say that any of that 'evidence' came from that crash? There may not have even been any wreckage, only pictures of some. With a cooperative media, anything is possible. You're wrong. Nobody has explained the official version to me. I asked for it but I was told I wouldn't believe it anyway. Do you want to give it a try? IMHO, KennyB

[Q24]

Was it PNAC's aim to get bogged down in a commitment in Iraq for, well, however long it's likely to be yet? Surely the idea, if that was the idea, was for a clean and quick move in, oust Saddam and settle down in your nice safe base in the middle east and count the oil revenue coming in.

Whilst the war planners would have liked to waltz into the country, defeat the Iraqi army, take out Saddam Hussein, install a pro-U.S. government, quell the uprising, train the new security force and build U.S. bases all within 12 months or whatever it is that you suggest… I find this unreasonable.

It is more likely that the planners simply made a commitment to get the job done however long it took and did not find getting ‘bogged down’ to actually be a negative as the aim would be for a long-term occupying force anyway. In the end, 6 years to achieve what they have done in Iraq is not so bad if you are planning 20, 30 years ahead.

And Afghanistan, while I suppose you could fit it into the plan somehow, (control of the drugs supply, say), surely that's turned into a much longer commitment than they would have hoped for? So if it has helped their aims, it doesn't seem to have worked all that well.

Most of the above regarding Iraq can be carried over to Afghanistan – a pro-U.S. government and long-term military presence. And remember a long commitment is not a bad thing if you want a reason to stay. Again the achievement of U.S. forces in Afghanistan has been impressive – certainly more so than the Soviet effort there. Also, although even one death is too many, the casualty rate (of coalition forces) has been low relative to other wars.

So let’s look at some of the aims spelt out by the PNAC in 2000 for the Middle East: -

• “… to play a more permanent role in Gulf…”
• “… need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf…”
• “… forward-based forces in the region…”
• “… seek to augment the forces already in the region…”

And the situation as of today due in large part to 9/11: -

• 138,500 U.S. troops in Iraq
• 27,400 U.S. contractors in Iraq (such as the mercenaries of Blackwater)
• 51,600 U.S. troops in Afghanistan
• At least 13 military bases in Iraq
• At least 7 military bases in Afghanistan
• Two pro-U.S. governments

And you are going to sit there and say those aims have not been achieved?

Unless that was all factored in, so that Bush's successor would be handed all the legacies of the half-baked plans when he came to office. Maybe that was it.

Here is where the plan appears to have gone slightly askew since the beginning of this year. The favoured candidate of the PNAC members would obviously have been the successor to carry on the Bush legacy - John McCain. In 2005, McCain spoke openly of his desire for permanent U.S. military bases in Afghanistan and there is no reason to suppose he thought differently of Iraq. McCain appeared to be on the same wavelength as Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al.

They didn’t bank on public support running out of steam off the back of 9/11 and such large swathes of opinion turning against the Middle East wars. They didn’t expect voters to so heavily demand the change that another candidate offered.

In contrast to McCain, President Obama has vowed to reduce troop levels and have completely removed the U.S. presence in Iraq by the end of 2011. Whether he can achieve this with the influences around him and before another Neocon gains the Presidency remains to be seen.

[Q24]

As to your list of 757 wreckage: Let's see, now, we've got a Federal conspiracy, on a Federal building, on Federal property, with Federal agents doing the investigating. Who's to say that any of that 'evidence' came from that crash? There may not have even been any wreckage, only pictures of some.

I quite agree with you about the debris - it appears very limited to what you would expect of an airliner crash. But then think about the WTC impacts where the airliners embedded themselves in the buildings with very little external debris visible. In fact I think the only debris that exited the Towers were small peices of fuselage, a landing gear and part of an engine - the same as seen at the Pentagon.

So if you don’t have any problem with the WTC debris, then you can’t really with that at the Pentagon either.

And the Pentagon fireball captured on security camera footage matched those at the WTC. And there are wing impact marks at the Pentagon. And there is damage where the engine impacted. And if your plan requires a plane then you use a plane. And there is no specific evidence for a missile.

Trust me, this isn’t something I blindly follow or concluded because the media told me.

[Czero 101]

We've been trying to explain it to you, Kenny, for over 20 pages.

Yet all you do is say things like:

"I don't believe it could have turned to liquid" - despite the fact that you're the only person here who has claimed the aircraft turned to a liquid.

"Ok, something could break up and behave like a fluid, but I don't believe that happened here" - proof that you have no willingness whatsoever to actually learn about what happens to an aircraft in a high speed impact.

"Maybe if it was traveling as fast as a comet" - which just shows the depths of your willful ignorance and the lengths you will go to in avoiding learning anything or admitting that you just don't know what happened or that you could be wrong.

"There's no way it could have been an aircraft" - despite the fact that there are at least 100 witnesses who say they saw an aircraft.

"The witnesses were probably just lying or were planted" - for which there is no evidence and is just an opinion based on paranoia and distrust of the government.

"There was no aircraft wreckage" - despite all the photographic proof.

"The wreckage in the photos was probably placed there by secret government agents" - again, something with not one shred of proof and quite possibly part of some self re-enforcing delusion that allows you to continue to believe in your conspiracy theories.

"There was only a 16-foot hole in the side of the building" despite being shown the full extent of the damage and a firmly held belief of yours, probably the result of watching "Loose Change" too many times. I have no idea if you've ever seen it, but most of the things you say sound like they were taken directly from it.

"There was no wreckage of a cruise missile either, so it must have been a cruise missile" - classic example of the "Argument from ignorance" fallacy

Et cetera, et cetera.

ALL your points have been addressed, yet you adamantly and continually refuse to accept anything but your preconceived notions or even admit the possibility that what was being explained to you was correct.

Why should I or anyone else waste any more of our time on you when you have proven it to be a fruitless endeavor?

It seems as though you aren't looking to have anything explained to you, Kenny. It seems like you are just looking to have your skewed beliefs and opinions validated.

Maybe you need to look elsewhere.

Cz

[KennyB]

Cz, You are correct. I saw 'loose change' and several others. In my opinion those boys at loose change have got the closest story to the truth than all the official versions put together. If you would clear your head of all the BS that the govt has said and look at the real evidence and see who has gained in this whole affair you might change your mind. Surely you don't believe that the govt has the best interests of the people at heart and does the best it can. I don't trust them 5 minutes. I automatically think that everything they say is a lie and a danger to the people. I think they will lie even when the truth would do better for them. The 9-11 operation was a govt plot against the people of the U.S. and every one of the leaders that carried it out should be tried for treason, convicted and hanged in public. IMHO, KennyB

[Czero 101]

Cz, You are correct. I saw 'loose change' and several others. In my opinion those boys at loose change have got the closest story to the truth than all the official versions put together. If you would clear your head of all the BS that the govt has said and look at the real evidence and see who has gained in this whole affair you might change your mind.

Have a look at this site:

http://emptv.com/research/loose-change

It addresses all the inaccuracies, misrepresentations, obfuscation and outright lies in "Loose Change".

Read it. You might change YOUR mind. Be warned though, it is a VERY lengthy site due to the number of issues with "Loose Change" (all versions of it) that it addresses.

Surely you don't believe that the govt has the best interests of the people at heart and does the best it can. I don't trust them 5 minutes. I automatically think that everything they say is a lie and a danger to the people. I think they will lie even when the truth would do better for them. The 9-11 operation was a govt plot against the people of the U.S. and every one of the leaders that carried it out should be tried for treason, convicted and hanged in public. IMHO, KennyB

This statement from you sums up exactly why it is a waste of time to try and explain anything to you. You only want validation of your theories and paranoia, not the truth.

In this regard, you do fit the profile of so-called "Truthers" to a tee.

Cz

[Obviousman]

Why should I or anyone else waste any more of our time on you when you have proven it to be a fruitless endeavor?

I won't bother anymore. They either have no real desire to learn, or have severe learning difficulties. Either way, I won't waste time on them.

[Obviousman]

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth take their verification process very seriously and you are encouraged to contact them if you have any evidence of false identities in the membership – based on evidence they will actively cancel the membership of any such individuals.

I am unaware of Richard Gage’s comments. Please can you direct me to the quote you gave and the support for it being untrue?

http://ae911truth.info/tiki-index.php

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=113506

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=105821

In a BBC documentary, the President of Controlled Demolition Inc (CDI), Mark Loizeaux, said something along the lines of, “well umm… durr… dere wuz no detcord or blasting caps found… so I fink it weren’t a controlled demolition… huh huh ha ha.” That’s not exact wording but in all seriousness it is close. Now if this man does not have the intelligence to understand the WTC demolition necessarily could not be through conventional methods then he is wasting all our times.

Sarcasm does not become you. Then again, maybe it does...

http://www.implosionworld.com/Article-WTC%...209-8-06%20.pdf

[*Quinn*]

I won't bother anymore. They either have no real desire to learn, or have severe learning difficulties. Either way, I won't waste time on them.

And just who is "them"?

There are plenty of worthwhile reasons to doubt 9/11 occurred in the manner the official story tells us it did. To state otherwise is to overlook a lot of things in regard to the event.

And I'll ask again - what evidence is there that proves Osama Bin Laden is responsible for 9/11?

I've asked this question in the past, and every time I ask it has been passed over.

And as I've also stated before, the government had zero interest in a legitimate investigastion into 9/11 taking place. They fought it every step of the way. Why is that?

They used 9/11 as a pretext for invading Iraq. They then flooded the airwaves with talk of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" that didn't exist. They wanted the people of America to begin believing that overnight there were suddenly terrorist all over the place that we needed to rid the world of. They went forth with that ridiculous "Terror Warning Level" crap that they displayed on our televisions to let us now just how much of a threat existed of us being being attacked (again).

It was a farce and nothing more than a fear tactic.

George W. Bush wanted to invade Iraq well before 9/11 occurred. All he needed was reason to do so and something to happen that would justify it amongst American citizens and the global population. 9/11 provided exactly that. In fact, PNAC states it rather blatantly.

Why intelligent people like you are so blind to realize this is beyond me. If you dig deeper than what is presented on the surface it's not hard to realize there was much more going on behind the scenes.

Look past the foolish debates about whether or not planes struck the buildings and whether or not explosives brought the buildings down. Educate yourself on the politics and connections that exist in regards to 9/11 instead and try to explain all of that away into thin air. That's where people should start if they truly want to decipher what was going on leading up to and after the event.