9/11 TV fakery - No planes

[Obviousman]

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.

[Q24]

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…

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

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.co.uk/world/2001/nov/07/afghanistan.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/time/covers/1101020603/memo.html

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/2004/images/04/10/whitehouse.pdf

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.com/index.php/Bin_Laden_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.]

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.

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.com/stories/2002/09/09/attack/main521223.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.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/fullreport_errata.pdf

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.uk/1/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/2033791.stm

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.informationclearinghouse.info/article13664.htm

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.com/index.php/FBI_doubts_over_hijacker_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.]

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.co.uk/world/2004/jul/22/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.

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.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=41625&view=findpost&p=3068762

http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=170737&view=findpost&p=3212550

[Obviousman]

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

[Travelling Man]

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 May 9, 2010 by Malruhn

[Q24]

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.

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?

[Sakari]

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....

[Czero 101]

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 May 9, 2010 by Czero 101

[Q24]

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.

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……

[Sakari]

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...

[Q24]

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.

[winsor302]

If those are 'just words', then so are yours. It's all 'just words'.

I hate to break it to you (actually, I love breaking it to people like you, but I must make a pretense of politeness), but you are making the extraordinary claim. You are the ones that need to provide the conclusive evidence. That is the way it is, be it in a court of law or in science.

Note the trick here is 'conclusive' evidence. Not supposition and cherry-picked 'facts' that back up those suppositions.

good for you these towers were build in record time and came down the same way the owner stuck a deal with the devil elite they were falling apart would have cost many millions to mantain that plus a high tec smoke and mirrors show and hello Bush goes for gold

[rashore]

I may have missed it somewhere in the pages.

All the other information and who didn't or did tell who what stuff aside.... But with the whole no planes thing in general...

If it wasn't planes, what smacked into the towers? Foreign missiles, government project flown wrong, aliens, firebirds, or what?

Is that the conspiracy point of proving no planes? That the government is covering up what really did blow up big ole buildings in the middle of places where thousands really did experience what happened?

That then poses a whole different question then. If something other than planes did this, what happened to the hijacked planes? Did the planes (which were having some air to ground contact) just vaporize, coincidentally at the exact same time that the buildings went ka-pow? Is that the conspiracy point, not knowing what happened to those planes?

Come on now... Ya gotta follow through with the rest of the conspiracy if you are going to open with no planes hitting buildings.. and then what? It's sort of like telling us the government is spiking the water, but not what with, how, or why. I guess I just don't get why there would be a theory like this out there. Whats the point?

[Myles]

I may have missed it somewhere in the pages.

All the other information and who didn't or did tell who what stuff aside.... But with the whole no planes thing in general...

If it wasn't planes, what smacked into the towers? Foreign missiles, government project flown wrong, aliens, firebirds, or what?

Is that the conspiracy point of proving no planes? That the government is covering up what really did blow up big ole buildings in the middle of places where thousands really did experience what happened?

That then poses a whole different question then. If something other than planes did this, what happened to the hijacked planes? Did the planes (which were having some air to ground contact) just vaporize, coincidentally at the exact same time that the buildings went ka-pow? Is that the conspiracy point, not knowing what happened to those planes?

Come on now... Ya gotta follow through with the rest of the conspiracy if you are going to open with no planes hitting buildings.. and then what? It's sort of like telling us the government is spiking the water, but not what with, how, or why. I guess I just don't get why there would be a theory like this out there. Whats the point?

They are just grasping for something that is not there. Kind of like getting a flat tire as you drive through a pile of nails, but not finding one in your tire. Hmmmmm.....maybe someone shot my tire out.

[rashore]

LMAO Myles, you rock!

[MID]

From all the available evidence it's quite clear to an open mind what really happened on 9/11.

Here's the REAL evidence, make up your own minds. No planes where used and the proof is in the videos below.

- 2001 a fake odyssey

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNU6xUuvgQc - 9/11 taboo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QiNt7YFKyvU - eyewitness see's no second plane

- 9/11 amateur

It's somwhat hard to believe that this nonsense just won't die...

[rambaldi]

It's somwhat hard to believe that this nonsense just won't die...

Just curious, who else is by now translating "open mind" to "just ignore the reality, believe OUR nonsense" whenever it comes up in a forum?

[Travelling Man]

Rambaldi, please consider that some peoples' minds are so open that small animals can crawl in and build nests... And when presented with a valid, scientific fact, the info just slips out the wide-open back door when another idea comes in through the front.

And something I've noticed over several decades of watching people is that the ones that scream loudest about having "open minds" are the ones who own the minds that are closed the tightest.

[ExpandMyMind]

the sad thing about 'theories' like this one, is they divert attention away from actual, credible discrepancies. as a result of idiots, whatever truth does exist will likely never be heard due to the fact that conspiracy theorists with legitimate claims will forever be tarred with the same brush as the fools of the trade. the OPer is clearly a perfect example of one of them fools i mentioned.

[StrayCat]

They are just grasping for something that is not there. Kind of like getting a flat tire as you drive through a pile of nails, but not finding one in your tire. Hmmmmm.....maybe someone shot my tire out.

Actually, there IS a lot there. Enough to prove that the official story is a lie. People just don't want to listen.

[rashore]

Actually, there IS a lot there. Enough to prove that the official story is a lie. People just don't want to listen.

Yeah, but there is a big difference between "the government is lying/covering about something about 9/11" and "No planes were used in 9/11"...

I'm all good with the notion that the government isn't telling me everything about it. I'm not that happy about it, but I can accept that it may be true. The notion that the absence of planes proves it is just absurd. One would have to get quite a bit more clever than some video clips (btw, all over dramatized to the point of obscurement) and a couple of random, solo discussions to prove planes weren't used to begin with.

Once again....

What blew up buildings on 9/11 if not planes?

What happened to make the hijacked planes of that day suddenly vanish into nothing since they didn't hit the buildings?

With no planes, why are there so many more bodies found than there should have been?

How did the positively identified remains of some of the people on those planes end up where the buildings blew up?

side note- Is the government killing us and using us in plots against us?

What did thousands of people experience and video record that was so plane-like and blew the snot out of some large structures?

[MID]

Actually, there IS a lot there. Enough to prove that the official story is a lie. People just don't want to listen.

That word, "proof", is one of those words that CTs tend to throw around without knowing a thing about what it actually means.

Edited May 13, 2010 by MID

[StrayCat]

That word, "proof", is one of those words that CTs tend to throw around without knowing a thing about what it actually means.

Don't get me started. How about at least 5 of the supposed hijackers on 9/11 are still alive, living in the middle east? Oh did you forget about that? How about the best air defense in the WORLD completely helpless against some hijacked commercial airplanes? They were in the air for HOURS while it was known they were hijacked, and still managed to fly right into Washington D.C. and hit the Pentagon. THE PENTAGON. Yeah, nothing out of the ordinary there. Oh but wait, the official excuse for that is...NORAD was running drills of hijacked airplanes crashing into the WTC and Pentagon on the morning of 9/11, at the exact same time of the real attacks. Thats why no jets were scrambled, they thought it was a drill! Nothing suspicious about that. Just a mere coincidence. Then we can get into building 7, which collapsed like a perfectly controlled demolition at freefall speed. What another huge coincidence. And then you have one of the biggest pieces of evidence no one ever talks about- leading up to 9/11 there were RECORD amounts of insider trading of stalks of the airline companies involved in the attacks. Hmmmmmm

Like I said, there is more than enough there. Trying to argue that there isn't just makes you look like a sheep.

[Sweetpumper]

How about at least 5 of the supposed hijackers on 9/11 are still alive, living in the middle east?

I know I'm about nine pages late, but how do we know this?

[Q24]

They were in the air for HOURS while it was known they were hijacked, and still managed to fly right into Washington D.C. and hit the Pentagon.

None of the aircraft were in the air for anywhere near an hour once they had been identified as hijacked. You can look this up for yourself – the times that civilian ATC became aware of the ‘hijackings’ are listed here to start you off. The air defense response to the WTC attacks was actually not bad at all, not so for the Pentagon threat. In the case of Flight 93 it looks like the response was good enough to have taken the aircraft down.

NORAD was running drills of hijacked airplanes crashing into the WTC and Pentagon on the morning of 9/11, at the exact same time of the real attacks. Thats why no jets were scrambled, they thought it was a drill!

There is no evidence that the NORAD exercise involved crashes into the WTC and Pentagon, just the simulation of airliner hijackings.

Also, there were five fighters scrambled in response to the actual ‘hijackings’ on 9/11.

And then you have one of the biggest pieces of evidence no one ever talks about- leading up to 9/11 there were RECORD amounts of insider trading of stalks of the airline companies involved in the attacks.

I can’t remember if there were “record” amounts of trading or not but the 9/11 Commission did admit that the patterns were suspicious. Fortunately we can all sleep sound because the report also assured us this trading was carried out by an individual with no conceivable ties to Al Qaeda.

[MID]

Don't get me started. How about at least 5 of the supposed hijackers on 9/11 are still alive, living in the middle east? Oh did you forget about that?

Oh no, I didn't forget about that.

No one's actually ever known that, nor can prove it.

In fact, that's a CT first, as far as I know.

How about the best air defense in the WORLD completely helpless against some hijacked commercial airplanes?

How about the fact that we don't "defend" against hijacked airplanes? Know anything about this matter?

They were in the air for HOURS while it was known they were hijacked,

You are either deliberately being ridiculous, or you have a problem.

The longest flight airborne that day stayed in that condition for 1 hour 21 minutes (AA93). Just over an hour for the last one. The rest were airborn for even shorter times.

Hours?

We're you around on that day?

and still managed to fly right into Washington D.C. and hit the Pentagon. THE PENTAGON. Yeah, nothing out of the ordinary there. Oh but wait, the official excuse for that is...NORAD was running drills of hijacked airplanes crashing into the WTC and Pentagon on the morning of 9/11, at the exact same time of the real attacks. Thats why no jets were scrambled, they thought it was a drill! Nothing suspicious about that. Just a mere coincidence. Then we can get into building 7, which collapsed like a perfectly controlled demolition at freefall speed. What another huge coincidence. And then you have one of the biggest pieces of evidence no one ever talks about- leading up to 9/11 there were RECORD amounts of insider trading of stalks of the airline companies involved in the attacks. Hmmmmmm

The imagination goes a long way toward creating mythology...

Like I said, there is more than enough there.

There is more than enough there to feed a rabid imagination, yes...