9/11 conspiracy theories won't stop

[Scott G]

what started my questioning was the impossibility of the passport, and then the anthrax attacks targetting reporters and the media. the realisation through discussion with qualified friends that anthrax was not a general biological disease but an assassin's weapon. then the non appearance of the blair/powell "proof" that that was promised, then scott ritter's reports that iraq could not have had wmd, then the PNAC document Rebuilding America's Defences, then a whole lot of reading books and research, so a gradual process.

if I recall correctly it was mainly the anthrax attacks and the PNAC document.

Admittedly, I believed in large scale conspiracies before 9/11, in large part due to the fact that my mother was for a time deeply involved in learning about the hazards of depleted uranium munitions and armor. But I initially believed in the official story regarding 9/11. I did so even after my brother, who's not all that keen on reading, nevertheless picked up a book regarding secret societies titled "Rule by Secrecy", by a well known author of things that go beyond the pale of official stories in general. From there, I believe I picked up his book "The War on Freedom" which deals directly with 9/11 and was a treasure trove of information on the subject; that's when my view definitely changed regarding 9/11.

His first book concerned the JFK Assassination and it was one of the 2 books that Oliver Stone used for his movie "JFK" starring Kevin Costner. His second book is "Alien Agenda" and I think that -that- book might be more up skyeagle's alley. Skyeagle, maybe you might want to pick that one up. And if you like it, free free to read any of his other books; you may be surprised at what you learn from them.

Edited November 7, 2011 by Scott G

[skyeagle409]

His first book concerned the JFK Assassination and it was one of the 2 books that Oliver Stone used for his movie "JFK" starring Kevin Costner. His second book is "Alien Agenda" and I think that -that- book might be more up skyeagle's alley. Skyeagle, maybe you might want to pick that one up. And if you like it, free free to read any of his other books; you may be surprised at what you learn from them.

Thanks.

I went to Amazon.com and reviewed the book. In the Bentwaters case, page 242, some of my compatriots were involved and they confirmed to me that UFOs were involved and I expect we will hear more about the Bentwater case in the future.

[Scott G]

Thanks.

I went to Amazon.com and reviewed the book. In the Bentwaters case, page 242, some of my compatriots were involved and they confirmed to me that UFOs were involved and I expect we will hear more about the Bentwater case in the future.

Awesome :-). You don't suppose you might want to read one of his other books.. on 9/11, say ;-)?

Edited November 7, 2011 by Scott G

[skyeagle409]

Awesome :-). You don't suppose you might want to read one of his other books.. on 9/11, say ;-)?

I will take a look there as well.

[Just Dave]

Again US gov. is not to be trusted, every piece of evidence THEY give out can be forged or redesigned. Remember this isn't a small company overseas, this most powerfull force on the world and they can do whatever they want. And it is even more funnier,weird,strange,whatever that THEY presented evidence after 10 years... oh come on..

Anyways this topic can go on to oblivion, there is nothing to prove or not to... What is done is done, Americans have invaded Afganistan and that's it.

[Scott G]

I will take a look there as well.

Awesome :-). To encourage you in that, here's the link to perhaps his best work on the subject:

http://www.amazon.com/War-Freedom-9-11-Conspiracies/dp/0972713115

Could be yours for about 7 bucks, plus shipping :-)

[Scott G]

Again US gov. is not to be trusted, every piece of evidence THEY give out can be forged or redesigned. Remember this isn't a small company overseas, this most powerfull force on the world and they can do whatever they want. And it is even more funnier,weird,strange,whatever that THEY presented evidence after 10 years... oh come on..

Anyways this topic can go on to oblivion, there is nothing to prove or not to... What is done is done, Americans have invaded Afganistan and that's it.

Personally, I think that if most people in the U.S. understood that the official story regarding 9/11 was a whitewash that they'd be somewhat less trusting of those who hold power. In point of fact, they're not that trusting anyway, but something the size of 9/11 is a little different than whether the politicians seem to be just a bit too cozy with Wall Street.

[Mike 215]

I looked up 911 polls and they show that at least 36% of the public believe the government was behind the attacks. That means tht 100 million Amerians question the government story.

This debate on whether bombs were used to bring down the buildings reminds me of the Oklahoma City bombing. I happened to be home at the time and listening to the first radio reports. They said that the first firemen and others who entered the building found unexploded bombs all over the place. They were forced to leave the building until the bombs could be deactived. Those reports went on for less then five minutes and then they just disappeared along with the bombs.

IF you happen to be listening to the radio when these incidents take place you can hear the truth until the government censors get control. I was listenings to the radio when the first reports come in on the crash of the Dominican airliner over NYC a few months after 911. The first reports were interviews with eyewitness who claimed the plane exploded after taking off. Those interviews went on for a few minutes with three or more witnesses. The government claimed the plane crashed because the tail fell off.

I also remember the TWA plane that crashed near Long Island in 1996. The TV news immediately interviewed a coast guard helicopter pilot who saw sthe crash. He claimed a missile hit the plane before it crashed. As we know the government denied missile hit in spite hundreds of witnesses on Long Island who saw it hit by the missle.

and you wonder people do not trust the government.

[skyeagle409]

Awesome :-). To encourage you in that, here's the link to perhaps his best work on the subject:

http://www.amazon.co...s/dp/0972713115

Could be yours for about 7 bucks, plus shipping :-)

Thanks!

But, I will be heading for the book store on Wednesday to pick up an updated 2012, AIM/FAR, and I will look for the book there.

[skyeagle409]

I looked up 911 polls and they show that at least 36% of the public believe the government was behind the attacks. That means tht 100 million Amerians question the government story.

This debate on whether bombs were used to bring down the buildings reminds me of the Oklahoma City bombing. I happened to be home at the time and listening to the first radio reports. They said that the first firemen and others who entered the building found unexploded bombs all over the place. They were forced to leave the building until the bombs could be deactived. Those reports went on for less then five minutes and then they just disappeared along with the bombs.

IF you happen to be listening to the radio when these incidents take place you can hear the truth until the government censors get control. I was listenings to the radio when the first reports come in on the crash of the Dominican airliner over NYC a few months after 911. The first reports were interviews with eyewitness who claimed the plane exploded after taking off. Those interviews went on for a few minutes with three or more witnesses. The government claimed the plane crashed because the tail fell off.

I believe that was American Airlines Flight 587 that you are referring to. The vertical fin broke off shortly after takeoff.

I also remember the TWA plane that crashed near Long Island in 1996. The TV news immediately interviewed a coast guard helicopter pilot who saw sthe crash. He claimed a missile hit the plane before it crashed. As we know the government denied missile hit in spite hundreds of witnesses on Long Island who saw it hit by the missle.

They were mistaken. The missile they were referring to was incapable of striking the TWA jet at the altitude the aircraft was flying. The investigators found the problem in the center fuel tank, and I saw a similar incident at Travis AFB, CA., that involved one of our C-141's. That incident occurred on the ground before the aircraft was to be flown on a local training mission. The ground crews drained most of the fuel from one of the right fuel tanks to change a defective booster pump, but there was also a defective wire in the tank, which became exposed to the fumes and when a technician push in a circuit breaker, the tank exploded. I heard the explosion and ran outside and saw another explosion shortly afterward. The explosion in the fuel tank of the C-141 is similar to what occurred in the TWA jet.

No one was injured in the incident at Travis AFB.

Edited November 8, 2011 by skyeagle409

[Scott G]

Thanks!

But, I will be heading for the book store on Wednesday to pick up an updated 2012, AIM/FAR, and I will look for the book there.

Ok. This AIM/FAR, you talking about this?

http://www.amazon.com/FAR-AIM-2012-Regulations-Aeronautical/dp/1560278587

If that's the case, this suggests that you're still flying.. that right?

[booNyzarC]

I looked up 911 polls and they show that at least 36% of the public believe the government was behind the attacks.

You either pulled that number out of your hind end or completely misunderstood whatever poll you were looking at. Would you mind posting a link to this supposed poll?

[skyeagle409]

Again US gov. is not to be trusted, every piece of evidence THEY give out can be forged or redesigned. Remember this isn't a small company overseas, this most powerfull force on the world and they can do whatever they want. And it is even more funnier,weird,strange,whatever that THEY presented evidence after 10 years... oh come on..

Anyways this topic can go on to oblivion, there is nothing to prove or not to... What is done is done, Americans have invaded Afganistan and that's it.

I am on the side of the government in regards to 9/11 because the government is incapable of plotting such an operation and get away with it, especially with all of the nosy reporters around the country looking for a big story. You only have to look what happened during the Watergate scandal and how it brought down the presidency of Richard Nixon.

I don't think that it would be in our best interest to see many of our former government workers heading for death row.

Edited November 8, 2011 by skyeagle409

[Scott G]

I am to side of the government in regards to 9/11 because the government is incapable of plotting such an operation and get away with it, especially with all of the nosy reporters around the country looking for a big story.

They didn't get away with it. Atleast, not with the people who really took a good look at all the evidence. Some brave reporters -did- call the official story out for what it was; a sham. One was so harassed by some spooks that he decided to leave the country (if I remember his name, I'll let you know). I really hope you get that book from Jim Marrs. Or any of the books that David Ray Griffin has written on the subject of 9/11. You may come to realize how elements of the government pulled a fast one on many people.

[Scott G]

They were mistaken. The missile they were referring to was incapable of striking the TWA jet at the altitude the aircraft was flying. The investigators found the problem in the center fuel tank...

I responded to this point in a new thread dedicated to the TWA 800 crash, here:

TWA 800 Shot Down by a Military Missile?

Edited November 8, 2011 by Scott G

[skyeagle409]

FACT: No investigations were performed into the possibility of explosives being used. This, in Skyeagles mind = no explosives.[

Actually, there was an investigation and no evidence of any explosives were found.

FACT: Skyeagle believes for some strange reason that if this was a conspiracy, the registration numbers would not be retired. The public think that 175, 11, 77 and 93 have been destroyed, yet they would supposedly not retire the registration numbers because.... ????(inb4 Skyeagle avoids the answer to this question in favour of repeating that the numbers have been retired). This, in Skyeagles mind = evidence.

Facts are facts. Once those registration numbers are retired, that's it. End of story.

No one serious here has mentioned the possibility of a missile striking the Pentagon. Feel free to ignore asked questions and answer unasked ones though!! [/quoe]

I have been addressing those who did claim that a missile was involved in the Pentagon attack and I did so to make a point. Their claim was made in the face of total ignorance of the facts.

Edited November 8, 2011 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

First of all, half of what supports? Even the official story states that the planes only damaged a few floors. What of the rest of the building, that was perfectly intact, untouched by both plane and fire? Stundie really does have the gist of it; if it were so easy to bring down steel framed buildings, there would be no need to set up explosives throughout a building; take out a floor or 2 and presto, the building would pancake itself to oblivion, vanishing into its own footprint.

It doesn't work that way n the real world. You just can't take explosives and set them off in a building and expect it to come down in the manner we saw on video. No explosives were found nor used and there was no evidence of explosives within the wreckages. Remember, the collapses began where the aircraft struck.

[skyeagle409]

Perhaps the most notable observation from the Madrid building is that there was huge distortion of the steelwork prior to failure and collapse of the upper floors did not 'crush' the rest of the floors below - both points unlike the WTC collapses.

Taking all into account, it is beyond obvious that the WTC structures were demolished - nothing about a 'natural' collapse fits, it is a square peg in a round hole, and yet everything about demolition explains the observations A-Z.

Nope, never happened. In the case of Madrid, what aircraft struck the building and destroyed its supports?

Edited November 8, 2011 by skyeagle409

[Wandering]

(inb4 Skyeagle avoids the answer to this question in favour of repeating that the numbers have been retired)

Facts are facts. Once those registration numbers are retired, that's it. End of story.

I still await your answer as to why they would not retire the numbers if the planes were switched, yet they wanted the public to believe that those flights were the ones that hit the towers.

[skyeagle409]

Funny. That's exactly what happened with you in the Pentagon thread.

1. You ignored BTS database data proving the duplication

There was no duplication. United 175 was already airborned by 08:14 as per ATC/aircrew communications and radar data, which tracked the aircraft to impact. BTS is moot by that very fact.

2. You ignored 84 RADES radar data proving odd overlappings, mergings and splittings

3. You ignored ACARS data proving United 175 and United 93 were still airborne after their alleged crash.

There was no duplication. United 175 was already airborned by 08:14 as per ATC/aircrew communications and radar data, which tracked the aircraft to impact. BTS is moot by that very fact.

In addition to the radar data, the data recorded United 175 to impact and there were no duplications, and ACARS data did no such thing. As far as the 84 RADES, Hill AFB was where I was once stationed, and honorably discharged from the Air Force.

Edited November 8, 2011 by skyeagle409

[skyeagle409]

I still await your answer as to why they would not retire the numbers if the planes were switched, yet they wanted the public to believe that those flights were the ones that hit the towers.

There were no switch. There is no way to switch aircraft in the real world of aviation. Like trying to switch fingerprints.The only reason why 9/11 conspiracist come up of off-the-wall stuff is because they do not know how things work in the real world of aviation.

Now, how about explaining in DETAIL, how anyone can switch aircraft. Perhaps, I should bring in some of my aviation buddies to check out your response.

Edited November 8, 2011 by skyeagle409

[Wandering]

Like trying to switch fingerprints.The only reason why 9/11 conspiracist come up of off-the-wall stuff is because they do not know how things work in the real world of aviation

People with real world knowledge and experience of aviation have purported this theory to be possible. You are aware of this.

[skyeagle409]

People with real world knowledge and experience of aviation have purported this theory to be possible. You are aware of this.

LOL!! There is no way to switch aircraft and it would take me less than 30 minutes to detect a fraud.

[Wandering]

LOL!! There is no way to switch aircraft and it would take me less than 30 minutes to detect a fraud.

This possibility has been discussed at length in this thread & others with input from a variety of people, including people currently involved in the aviation industry. As far as I am aware you are the only person who refuses to acknowledge that it is a possibility. Ignore correlations, ignore input from other experienced aviation personnel, ignore data, ignore discussion.

You still have not answered why the registration numbers would not be retired if the public (perhaps also the company) are under the impression that flights 175, 93, 77 and 11 crashed and were destroyed.

[skyeagle409]

This possibility has been discussed at length in this thread & others with input from a variety of people, including people currently involved in the aviation industry. As far as I am aware you are the only person who refuses to acknowledge that it is a possibility. Ignore correlations, ignore input from other experienced aviation personnel, ignore data, ignore discussion.

Apparently, those other folks are not up-to-speed on reality. Those so-called experts should know that each aircraft, even those of the same model, have their own unique weight and balance signatures and maintenance histories that cannot be transferred between aircraft. I guess you might say that such records are a form of DNA identification for each aircraft. In other words, no two aircraft are alike. In addition, the FAA, the aircraft owner, airframe and engine manufacturers, have their own records for each aircraft as well, so if you try to switch an aircraft with mismatched airframe and engine maintenance records, and registrations numbers, there will be warning flags flying high from the State of Washington to Washington D.C..