9/11 Attacks

uprising2

humanji wrote: »

I only have a few minutes, so I'll have to watch the video later, but is ther theory actually:

1) A plane is hijacked by some sort of US agent(s)
2) They fly the plane at the Pentagon, near enought to the ground to knock over lampposts
3) Then manages to pull up at the last minute
4) Then disappears from view and secretly lands somewhere else, where the passengers are killed
5) Then a missile is fired from somewhere and hits the Pentagon
6) Then work crews who are in on the conspiracy, move fake wreckage and bodies into position
7) Then either the bodies of the passengers are moved to the crash site or to where the remains are kept, to fool any DNA comparison?

And all this to hit a specific part of an office building that was specifically reinforced for this particular event? Why were they so intent on keeping the Pentagon intact? They let skyscrapers fall in New York, but wanted to protect an office building in Washington?

I honestly can't see how this is even considered as an explanation. Does it not make more sense that a group took control of a plane and flew it into the building? Regardless of whether the group were Al Quaida, CIA or US military. It would be a hell of a lot easier to organise because only a handful of people would need to know as opposed to the hundreds, if not thousands, who would have to know the above plan.

TBH I didn't watch the video either, well not the one I posted, I saw the cops who I remembered saw the plane to the North, oul Llyod English the egypt loving taxi driver who was disorientated about the whole event and said thinking he was off camera he was only a little man, this was a big thing.

But I was disputing the direction of the plane, I know if I see a plane out my front window or my back window, so do you and so do the police officer's in the video, thats all I'm saying.

I have no theory for the lamp posts, only that they could not have been in the flight path if the cops are right and saw the plane where they said they say it, and others at the annex, can't all be mistaken about what side of what they saw the plane.

Maybe the lamp posts were propped somehow?, only a theory but possible, the plane makes a swoop everybody looks at it, and a missile is fired from somwhere close, obviously disguised and not on the back of a mobile launcher.

And dismissing that, WTF was a plane doing in Washington dc at that time, it's impossible, transponders off my bollox, some flight path and target to "not be noticed", then not a single picture to back up anything, all confiscated.




The 9/11 Commission estimated that the flight was hijacked between 08:51 and 08:54, just minutes after the first hijacked plane had struck the World Trade Center in Manhattan at 08:46

The aircraft crashed into the western side of the Pentagon at 09:37

That is the far out version of events.

Monty Burnz

uprising2 wrote: »

Maybe the lamp posts were propped somehow?, only a theory but possible, the plane makes a swoop everybody looks at it, and a missile is fired from somwhere close, obviously disguised and not on the back of a mobile launcher.

A missile would have to be pretty big to do that sort of damage - it wouldn't be something shoulder-launched, it would have to be mounted on something I think.

CiaranMT

uprising2 wrote: »

I have no theory for the lamp posts...

....Maybe the lamp posts were propped somehow?, only a theory but possible, the plane makes a swoop everybody looks at it, and a missile is fired from somwhere close, obviously disguised and not on the back of a mobile launcher.

3rd time posting this vid in CT, good explanation of argument from ignorance:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfAzaDyae-k

uprising2

WTF has a UFO got to do with anything?, and monty Andrews AFB maybe would be a good launch site as there wasn't anybody there that day.

EDIT:

And 3rd time not watching it.

Monty Burnz

uprising2 wrote: »

Andrews AFB maybe would be a good launch site as there wasn't anybody there that day.

But surely someone working in Andrews airforce base would have seen it, or someone living nearby? They would be taking a huge risk as if a single witness saw it, the whole plan would come tumbling down.

uprising2

Monty Burnz wrote: »

But surely someone working in Andrews airforce base would have seen it, or someone living nearby? They would be taking a huge risk as if a single witness saw it, the whole plan would come tumbling down.

Well I don't really know, I've an active imagination at the moment thanks to mirtazapine, really don't know when it's a dream and when it's real anymore;).

I'd like to pretend it's just how they say, but that niggling feeling just keeps on niggling, and the whole thing stinks, I don't believe it and no forum in the world, not even boards will convince me the truth is known.

CiaranMT

uprising2 wrote: »

WTF has a UFO got to do with anything?, and monty Andrews AFB maybe would be a good launch site as there wasn't anybody there that day.

EDIT:

And 3rd time not watching it.

Take the time to watch it then and all will be revealed

His point only stems from a rather inane question about UFO's from a member of the audience. He actually does not take about UFO's at all really, just about how people make erroneous assumptions based on a need to understand what they do not know.

EDIT: Should have explained this in the first post.

Monty Burnz

uprising2 wrote: »

Well I don't really know, I've an active imagination at the moment thanks to mirtazapine, really don't know when it's a dream and when it's real anymore;).

By the way, I'm not the best worker in the office, quite the opposite

uprising2

CiaranMT wrote: »

Take the time to watch it then and all will be revealed

His point only stems from a rather inane question about UFO's from a member of the audience. He actually does not take about UFO's at all really, just about how people make erroneous assumptions based on a need to understand what they do not know.

I'll pass on that so, I already know it all........and if anybody didn't get the sarcasm in Andrews not having anybody there that day........this forum is losing it's edge.

and monty I wouldn't say your the best worker in the office, spending all day argueing on a CT site can't be making your company millions.........unless.......:cool:

Happyman42

humanji wrote: »

They let skyscrapers fall in New York, but wanted to protect an office building in Washington?

But what if they never intended them to fall? What if that was as big a surprise to them as it was to us? What if they dramatically miscalculated and had been trying to limit damage?
How many would have died if the buildings hadn't collapsed?
And while I'm at it ...why pick the smallest weapon when a much bigger one with a bigger weight and fuel load would have been just as easy to take? Bit odd from a 'human decision making' point of view?

And something I hadn't known before watching that video...another 'mysterious stranger' materialising at a critical moment and then disappearing into thin air.

TheoBoone

I can't believe this thing has spanned 71 pages(so far). I'm going to presume that some poor b**tard who works for the CIA or NSA has had to read through the whole thing and then add all our names to some kind of top secret watch-list.

Monty Burnz

TheoBoone wrote: »

I'm going to presume that some poor b**tard who works for the CIA or NSA has had to read through the whole thing and then add all our names to some kind of top secret watch-list.

I kind of regret registering with my real name now...

TheoBoone

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I kind of regret registering with my real name now...

Me too!

Penn

This thread has been moved from the main CT forum and has been closed. Feel free to use it to start up new threads or make reference to it in existing discussion. However, please do not try to continue any arguments which arose in this thread and as many posters from the thread may no longer be here, refrain from referring to them personally. This thread is for reference only.