Concerning the WTC attacks

robindch

> the ultimate paranoid conspiracy theory, whereby a bearded man
> in a robe has an army of terrorists in no less than 60 countries
> and he is the arch-enemy of the USA not unlike [...] Goldfinger.
> The story is comic book-like and right out of Hollywood.

At the risk of sounding unpleasant, I have suggested to you before in this thread that I am tired of hearing you rephase my ideas back to me, as though I were entirely unaware of them. Please see my posting of 02-04-2005, 02:36 where I've said as much as you have in this paragraph, and even recommended some interesting material you might care to review to support this.

Most of the posters here have been trying to move the discussion forward in some way -- this means that one poster raises a point, another either agrees with it, or raises an objection to it based upon evidence, relevant experience and opinion etc. You have not been doing this, instead simply resorting to repeating yourself, time after time after time:

> it is easier to simply believe whatever we are told, as
> long as it is "generally accepted" and popular.

...which sentiment you've stated about once a day for the last week or two.

If you wish to contribute to a discussion, either on the thread topic (low long lost in the mists of time), or on the WTC attacks, then please address the points at issue, and *please* stop delivering us embarassingly self-righteous homilies.

Finally, to answer your point:

> Have you seen any airliners landing at Red Square?

No, but once an aircraft is flying below radar, it doesn't much matter whether it's a passenger jet, or a light aircraft -- it's still invisible to most, if not all, radar. WRT the readiness of the US military, I am tempted to point out that much of the US Pacific fleet was caught asleep one heavy morning many years ago, and almost destroyed, by the japanese Navy + Air Force, but the tedious allegations of convoluted conspiracies around all of *that* are just too tiresome to rebut and consequently, I won't.

- robin.

KCF

Turley wrote:

Pardon me for asking but you have introduced the term AIM, I am thinking you mean the American Indian Movement? Is that right?

Whoops, you're right Confusing those injun names again!
The point is still the same though. There is a fair amount of evidence that Federal Authorities can and do frame people who are perceived to be dangerous extremists. There is no evidence that they can get away with covering up the killing of large numbers of the richest and most powerful people in the country. I also think that, in addition to the lack of comparable evidence, the idea is highly implausible.

Turley

KCF wrote:

Whoops, you're right Confusing those injun names again!
The point is still the same though. There is a fair amount of evidence that Federal Authorities can and do frame people who are perceived to be dangerous extremists.

If you think about what you are saying for a moment, Geronimo Pratt was not a dangerous extremist. He was an innocent man. At the time he was convicted of murder it was "generally accepted" that he was a dangerous extremist. The popular opinion was that he was guilty. The same may be true of these 19 men, the same FBI has told us they were "hijackers" and "dangerous terrorist extremists." Should't we be a little skeptical of the FBI when then tell us who is a "dangerous extremist?" Leonard Peltier from AIM is another example you have raised of the U.S. goverment wrongly telling us an innocent man was a dangerous extremist. What is wrong with demanding proof from the FBI that has a history of framing innocent men?

KCF wrote:

There is no evidence that they can get away with covering up the killing of large numbers of the richest and most powerful people in the country. I also think that, in addition to the lack of comparable evidence, the idea is highly implausible.

It is hard to think of examples where so many people are murdered at one time, regardless of their position in society, rich or poor. The U.S. authorities do cover-up the murders of the rich and powerful people. John F. Kennedy was the President of the U.S. Vincent W. Foster was a White House cousel to the President and James V. Forrestal was the Wall Street financier before he became the first U.S. Secretary of Defense. All three men were murdered and the truth is officially concealed. The official investigation of Forrestal's death was sealed from public view for 55 years until the secret documents were obtained from the Navy last year, but journalists don't report such things because it is not "generally acceptable."

Turley

robindch wrote:

> the ultimate paranoid conspiracy theory, whereby a bearded man
> in a robe has an army of terrorists in no less than 60 countries
> and he is the arch-enemy of the USA not unlike [...] Goldfinger.
> The story is comic book-like and right out of Hollywood.

At the risk of sounding unpleasant, I have suggested to you before in this thread that I am tired of hearing you rephase my ideas back to me,

I am sorry if it is unpleasant to have you position characterized as a "conspiracy theory" but imagine how other people feel when you dismiss their postions as "paranoid conspiracy theory." Like yourself, I am also tired of hearing everything that is not "generally acceptable" called a "conspiracy theory."

The official 9/11 story IS a conspiracy theory that 19 men, all identified by the authorities (some of them still ALIVE), consipired to commit mass murder and suicide with the help of Osama bin Laden and his vast network of terrorist wackos. That is your story not mine.

BTW Robin, did you read H.L. Mencken's, "A Neglected Anniversary?" I think you will like it and it is a good example of how something becomes, "generally accepted."

robindch wrote:

...resorting to repeating yourself, time after time after time:

> it is easier to simply believe whatever we are told, as
> long as it is "generally accepted" and popular.

...which sentiment you've stated about once a day for the last week or two.

I am sorry. I did not know anyone was listening. How many times have we been told "19 terrorist hijackers flew planes into builidings because they hate Americans?" That has been repeated a few times too, why aren't you complaining? Because THAT is "generally accepted?"

robindch wrote:

No, but once an aircraft is flying below radar, it doesn't much matter whether it's a passenger jet, or a light aircraft -- it's still invisible to most, if not all, radar. WRT the readiness of the US military, I am tempted to point out that much of the US Pacific fleet was caught asleep one heavy morning many years ago, and almost destroyed, by the japanese Navy ...

Have you read "At Dawn We Slept" by Gordon Prange and "Day of Deceit" by Robert Stinnett? Both opposing views of the same event and both by WW2 Navy pilots. Do you want to discuss Pearl Harbor? The Americans were so surprised they left their WWI scrap in the harbor and kept their aircraft carriers out of range.

Interesting how the film Pearl Harbor was released in all the U.S. theaters in the summer of 2001 just in time to educate the public for the 9/11 attacks, show of patriotism, and middle east war that followed the event. You might think they had a script.

robindch

Turley -

> 19 men [...] That is your story not mine.

I've had enough of this crud -- this is NOT my effing story. If you had the common decency to read anything that I took the time out to write here, or even if you bothered your arse to read the first paragraph of my last posting, you'd in fact see that we actually agree on this point.

> I did not know anyone was listening.

*I* was. However you don't appear to have returned the favour and since you clearly haven't read what I wrote and you clearly don't have time for any points of view which disagree with yours, or even have time for people who question anything that you believe, I can't really see that there's much point in me taking any further part in the WTC-specific part of this thread.

- robin.

robindch

KCF -

> There is no evidence that they can get away with covering
> up the killing of large numbers of the richest and most powerful
> people in the country.

If you're a conspiracy theorist, then something like the WTC attacks demonstrates quite well how much more powerful another (unknown, unspecified) cabal is, and also implies in general terms just *how* much we ought to be afraid of them ('very, very' is normal). The fact that the evidence might range from the scarce to the non-existent doesn't so much suggest that the notion might be flawed, but rather, that the cabal carrying it out are extraordinarily skilled at hiding their tracks, and only initiates to the conspiracy are sufficiently wise and foresightful enough to be able to see it for what it is -- this is particularly comforting to people who have neither wisdom, nor foresight. From this comes the total conviction that everybody else's opinions are simply so much crud, that they can be dispensed without so much as a thought, which is where, I suppose, the principal problem arises. Again, I have to recommend that the recent TV series 'The Power of Nightmares' is worth watching to demonstrate some of the practical workings of the paranoid mind in this respect.

Another fine example of this weird human preference for conspiracy occurs in any of the strange PCT's which concern the sinking of the Titanic (this one is really cool; it was the Jesuits, of all people, wot did it, and they then went on to start WWI! There are many more equally strange ideas about.)

In the end, the vast majority of these notions reflect far more light upon the cognitive and critical faculties of the believer, than anything or anyone else.

- robin.

Turley

robindch wrote:

Turley -

> 19 men [...] That is your story not mine.

I've had enough of this crud -- this is NOT my effing story. If you had the common decency to read anything that I took the time out to write here, or even if you bothered your arse to read the first paragraph of my last posting, you'd in fact see that we actually agree on this point.

If you think we agree then perhaps you have not been reading my posts. I do not support the suicide hijackers conspiracy theory. I do not agree with the link you recommended that stated:

"The events of September 11, 2001, have demonstrated the power of enmity. Nineteen suicidal terrorists willingly and knowingly gave up their lives and took away those of their enemies, for what they believed was a just cause. These events also illustrate how the global threat of nuclear war has shifted to include all out terrorism. They blasted Americans into the 21st century, shattering the entrenched myth that technology and safe borders can keep America, the last remaining super power, secure."

Am I missing something? Are you skeptical of the official 19 suicide hijackers conspiracy theory?

ISAW

To be fair I am not certain of the Bin Laden link (though bin Laden himself claimed the attack he did it AFTER it happened).

But I don't think the following people were not involved. http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,567648,00.html
The presentation is quite good. I think maybe our "skeptic" might start by stating which of these 19 he thinks were not involved and where in the links to Bin Laden his conspiracy enters.

Zombrex

Turley wrote:

The official 9/11 story IS a conspiracy theory that 19 men, all identified by the authorities (some of them still ALIVE), consipired to commit mass murder and suicide with the help of Osama bin Laden and his vast network of terrorist wackos. That is your story not mine.

That is what the evidence suggests. There is no evidence that the US government had anything to do with the hijacking

There is no evidence that the WTC was collapsed on purpose. The claim that a jet liner could not have melted the steel structure is true, but it is just conspircy nut deflection because the WTC buildings did not collapse because the steel frame melted, they collapsed because the heat foam on the internal trusses was worn away, the trusses that are not designed to take any type of heat or stress let alone from a fuel burning fire, broke and the steal structure of the buildings buckled and collapsed under its own weight. This has been the theory from the fire fighters who survived the destruction, to the initial assessment of the architect, right up to computer models done months later.

Secondly, the theory that a missle crashed into the Pentegon is based on a wrong reading of photos taken just after the crash. Firstly it is claimed that no lamp posts were knocked over. This isn't true. Secondly it is claimed that the damage doesn't go far enough into the pentegon. Again this isn't true as internal photos show the hole the nose cone of the plane punched through the side of the far external wall. All the wreakage at the Pentegon site is consistent with what we know about a plane crash, the missle theory is made by people with assumptions of what they think they will find at a plane crash site, assumptions that are wrong.

Thirdly, the break down in response time from the military and aviation authority is simply because the system they had in place didn't work. There is no evidence that they let it not work. Before 9/11 (1995 i think) test were carried out in O'Hare airport where a person was able to get a loaded gun on to a plane. Now if that actually happened of course conspiricy nuts are going to say that the security let that person on with a loaded gun, because he would have been stopped otherwise. But in fact he got on the plane due to a break down of the security system. Likewise 9/11 was such a devistating success because the security system set up to deal with it did not work properly. Simple as that.

Turley

ISAW wrote:

But I don't think the following people were not involved. http://www.guardian.co.uk/flash/0,5860,567648,00.html
The presentation is quite good.

One person linked to Bin Laden on the first plane that I clicked in your link above was Khalid al-Midhar. The Belfast News Letter, Ulster edition from 9/20/2001 offered one of the first reports that he was ALIVE! And the BBC followed in reporting he was ALIVE here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm

It is hard not to be somewhat skeptical that someone is a suicide hijacker when they are ALIVE, don't you agree?

Turley

Wicknight wrote:

That is what the evidence suggests.

What evidence suggests the 19 men called the "suicide hijackers" are actually guilty of the criime? Please be specific with evidence that would stand in court as proof and don't tell me "everyone agrees" or it is "generally accepted." Where is the evidence those people committed the crime of mass murder?

Wicknight wrote:

Thirdly, the break down in response time from the military and aviation authority is simply because the system they had in place didn't work...Likewise 9/11 was such a devistating success because the security system set up to deal with it did not work properly. Simple as that.

Please explain how the 19 hijackers with their elaborate planning, flying lessons, and conspiracy plot KNEW their plan would succeed because THEY KNEW the military response would break down, as you say. The entire success of the plan depended on the U.S. Air Force not responding and the air defense system braeaking down. How'd they plan for that?

Keep in mind the air defense response worked great in 1999, when an air craft emergency, caused by a plan flying off course, without radio contact, brought an immediate response from the US Air Force. See the official NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) Report of that incident in detail here
http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAB0001.htm

If the U.S. Air defense system worked fine in 1999 we should wonder WHY it failed to work in 2001 and enabled the mass murders to succeed.

I am not suggesting there is any relation but it is curious that General Meyers was in charge of the Air Defense System on September 11, 2001, Yes the same General Meyers that became the Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon. Meyers is at all those war pow wow press conferences with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. The guy that was in charge of the air defense that failed on 9/11 got promoted to head the entire U.S. military. Something is wrong here beyond the alleged "clever" hijackers.

Zombrex

Turley wrote:

What evidence suggests the 19 men called the "suicide hijackers" are actually guilty of the criime? Please be specific with evidence that would stand in court as proof and don't tell me "everyone agrees" or it is "generally accepted." Where is the evidence those people committed the crime of mass murder?

Men know to both the CIA, the Sudai Intelligence services, the British Intelligence service, who have links to Al Queda and who have been in the US training how to fly planes for apparently no reason, get on 4 planes. The 4 planes report they are being hijacked by men of middle eastern origin. The 4 planes crash.

Show me where in that string of logic there is any evidence that someone else was responsible. Someone on the plane hijacked them. There is no evidence or reason to believe that the 19 men named were not the ones who did it.

Turley wrote:

Please explain how the 19 hijackers with their elaborate planning, flying lessons, and conspiracy plot KNEW their plan would succeed because THEY KNEW the military response would break down, as you say.

Firstly they didn't "succeed". The 4th plane was supposed to crash into a nuclear power station, instead it crashed into a field, killing only those on board. Did the hijackers plan for that?

Secondly, it is rather ridiculous reasoning to suggest that the terrorist knew for certain they would succeed, that all 4 planes would reach their targets. Al Quedea have had a number of terrorist attempts that have not succeeded. This one did. They do it anyway, play the odds and hope that they cause as much damage as possible. Why do you think they hi-jacked 4 planes? If they KNEW their plan would succeed they only needed one. But they took 4 to increase the odds that at least one plane would hit its target, and to confuse US air defenses. They probably couldn't have hoped in their wildest dreams that 3 out of the 4 would actually manage to make it to the targets.

Thirdly, before 9/11 it would not be US Air Force policy to automatically shoot down a hi-jacked airplane. The terrorist knew that they could at least make it to the edge of New York or Washington air space before it was even considered that the plane would be brought down. Their targets where the WTC and Pentegon, but they might have been as happy to have the planes falling out of the sky in the suburbs.

Turley wrote:

Keep in mind the air defense response worked great in 1999, when an air craft emergency, caused by a plan flying off course, without radio contact, brought an immediate response from the US Air Force. See the official NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) Report of that incident in detail here
http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAB0001.htm

And was that plane shot down? Is there any reason to believe the terrorist thought they would be shot down before they had managed to already get at least 1 plane to its target?

Turley wrote:

If the U.S. Air defense system worked fine in 1999 we should wonder WHY it failed to work in 2001 and enabled the mass murders to succeed.

Oh of course, questions need to be asked about the serious short comings in the US air defenses. But there is absolutly no evidence at all that this was allowed to happen. How would that even work. Do you bribe the 200 air traffic controllers involved, then order the US Air Force not to respond, and then make sure no one reports this, even civilians?

Turley wrote:

I am not suggesting there is any relation but it is curious that General Meyers was in charge of the Air Defense System on September 11, 2001, Yes the same General Meyers that became the Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon. Meyers is at all those war pow wow press conferences with Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. The guy that was in charge of the air defense that failed on 9/11 got promoted to head the entire U.S. military. Something is wrong here beyond the alleged "clever" hijackers.

It sounds to me like you are just fishing for a conspiricy when there is no evidence to suggest it other than your feeling "something" is wrong.

It is like the JFK conspiricy. If you watch the movie JFK (based on the book by Garrison) there is all this talk about how did Oswald get to be such a good shot if he was a radio control in the army, and why did the USSR have such great interest in Oswald. The actual truth of it is that Oswald was a sharp shooter in the army before he joined the radio division, and the USSR didn't actually have any great interest in Oswald, he was the one that pestered them to let him into the country and the KGB files on him reported nothing out of the ordinary, Oswald was just another of the handful of Americans in Russia. But if you listen to the way the "evidence" is presented in JFK you begin thinking "ummm, something is wrong here" where in fact nothing is.

Turley

Wicknight wrote:

Men know to both the CIA, the Sudai Intelligence services, the British Intelligence service,

Agents of these same agencies are known to the CIA, Saudi and British Intelligence.

Wicknight wrote:

...who have links to Al Queda

How exactly does someone have links to Al Queda?? If I wanted to have links to AL Queda how is this done? Who is AL Queda's Internet Service Provider and Cell phone provider? They have links to Al Queda and where do these companies send the bill to AL Queda? Does Al Queda pay their cell phone bills by check or do they mail cash? How does someone join Al Queda? Or better still, how does AL Queda recruit members, and not accidently recruit CIA/Saudi intelligence infiltrators? Just curious, since you know about "links to Al Queda."

Wicknight wrote:

...and who have been in the US training how to fly planes for apparently no reason, get on 4 planes.

Waleed Al Shehri "one of the suicide hijackers" did take flying lessons in the U.S. and is currently a pilot with Saudi Airlines according to the BBC News. The man is ALIVE, yet you conclude his flying lessons "prove" him guilty of bing a suicidal hijacker. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm

Wicknight wrote:

The 4 planes report they are being hijacked by men of middle eastern origin. The 4 planes crash.

Please tell me the official source that the planes officially reported they were "hijacked by men of middle eastern origin?" Have you heard tower to cockpit voice recordings or cockpit blackbox recordings? These recordings have not been made public. If you are referring to alleged "cell phone calls" the records of the cell phone calls have also not been made public. Why is this evidence a secret? It has been almost four years and the public has yet to hear the last words of the pilots to the towers that should have been available immediately.

Wicknight wrote:

Show me where in that string of logic there is any evidence that someone else was responsible.

You have not provided evidence that the 19 men (some still ALIVE) were responsible for the mass murders.

Wicknight wrote:

Someone on the plane hijacked them.

And you have ruled out remote control because???

Wicknight wrote:

There is no evidence or reason to believe that the 19 men named were not the ones who did it.

Yes there is. The fact that some of the 19 men are still ALIVE (see the BBC link above) is evidence they are not the suicide pilots you claim they are.

Wicknight wrote:

The 4th plane was supposed to crash into a nuclear power station,

And the proof that this was the hijacers plan is ???

Wicknight wrote:

They do it anyway, play the odds and hope that they cause as much damage as possible. Why do you think they hi-jacked 4 planes?

I am sorry. I don't know that any hijackers hijacked 4 planes, that is the official conspiracy theory. I am waiting for the proof.

Wicknight wrote:

But they took 4 to increase the odds that at least one plane would hit its target, and to confuse US air defenses.

And you know for a fact that 4 planes were hijacked "to confuse US air defense" based on what evidence?

Wicknight wrote:

Thirdly, before 9/11 it would not be US Air Force policy to automatically shoot down a hi-jacked airplane.

IF you would please check the Payne Stewart incident of 1999 the USAF did plan to shoot down the plane that was flying off course IF it approached a populated area. It crashed before it reached a populated area so it was not shot down. You have assumed there was a policy not to shoot it down. Please check the record of the 1999 incident.

Wicknight wrote:

The terrorist knew that they could at least make it to the edge of New York or Washington air space before it was even considered that the plane would be brought down.

How do you know this? What evidenece do you have into the minds of these people you claim were terrorists? Do you have any proof that they knew they could make it to the edge of New York? What is your source?

Wicknight wrote:

But there is absolutly no evidence at all that this was allowed to happen.

How about the evidence that IT DID HAPPEN.

Wicknight wrote:

How would that even work. Do you bribe the 200 air traffic controllers involved, then order the US Air Force not to respond, and then make sure no one reports this, even civilians?

People do follow orders, if you believe the Nazi's murdered millions (not 3000) and exactly who would the German civilians, at that time, report atrocities to?

Wicknight wrote:

It sounds to me like you are just fishing for a conspiricy when there is no evidence to suggest it other than your feeling "something" is wrong.

You are the one with the conspiracy theory of 19 men (some still ALIVE) that are part of an international terrorist organization plotted to hijack 4 planes etc. etc.

Wicknight wrote:

It is like the JFK conspiricy. If you watch the movie JFK (based on the book by Garrison) there is all this talk about how did Oswald get to be such a good shot if he was a radio control in the army, and why did the USSR have such great interest in Oswald. The actual truth of it is that Oswald was a sharp shooter in the army before he joined the radio division, and the USSR didn't actually have any great interest in Oswald, he was the one that pestered them to let him into the country and the KGB files on him reported nothing out of the ordinary, Oswald was just another of the handful of Americans in Russia. But if you listen to the way the "evidence" is presented in JFK you begin thinking "ummm, something is wrong here" where in fact nothing is.

If you believe Oswald killed JFK then you must believe in the "magic bullet." Do you know what the "magic bullet" is? I have a copy of the Warren Commission Report. Have you ever read the Warren Commission Report?

Interstingly Oswald, like the 19 men, never had a trial with evidence presented. Neither Oswald or the 19 men ever had anyone defend their innocence in court. They were all found "guilty" by proclamation. Oswald, like the 19 men was declared "guilty" immediately by the authorities and the press. Over the years the evidence changes but the conclusion remains the same as it did from the beginning. The "generaly accepted" and popular "truth" is what people believe as if it were a religious dogma. Public Opinion is the Voice of God to the gullible masses.

Before you believe Oswald and 19 men are "guilty" you should remember the same people that have told us this, also told us Elmer "Geronimo" Pratt was "guilty." Pratt spent 27 years in prison for a crime he did not commit because he was framed by the FBI. How did the government prevent Pratt, his friends, family and others from reporting he was innocent? Think about it. Elmer Pratt had 27 years to think about it. The U.S. does frame innocent people for the crime of murder, so what else is new?

Poisonwood

Someone has to say it ... I have NEVER heard such unadulterted Sh**e in all my life!!! Turley, get a grip or get a life! You're not sceptical, you're cynical and more than a tad paranoid ... you're intelligence is the camouflage which stops you seeing this!!! Remote control planes ... more plausible??? Holy sweet mother of Buddha ... you're a bloody hoot ... really! Give us YOUR proof of your utterly implausible conspiracy theory and not a stream of unmitigated hogwash and paranoia about other accounts. Is your room rigged to explode at the knock of an unfamiliar fist? ... sometimes you just have to laugh at the Crapologists out there!!

Zombrex

Turley wrote:

Agents of these same agencies are known to the CIA, Saudi and British Intelligence.

Were there CIA agents on any of the planes? Is there any reason to believe that they were willing to die so Bush could start a war?

Turley wrote:

Just curious, since you know about "links to Al Queda."

There are many many "links"

The German citizen Mohammed Haydar Zammar (deported, probably illegally, by US forces, to a Syrian prision), who is a known recruiter for Al Queda and knows Bin Laden personally, has been recorded boasting that he recruited Mohammed Atta (the believed ring leader) into Al Queda in 1998.

Then there is the "farewell" video, filmed in March 2001 that has a number of the hijackers in it swearing to become martyrs for Al Queda.

A number of the hijackers were in Afganistan in 1999, believed to have meet Bin Laden and trained in Al Queda camps.

There are many many more, I suggest you read this page
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organizers_of_the_September_11%2C_2001_attacks

Turley wrote:

Waleed Al Shehri "one of the suicide hijackers" did take flying lessons in the U.S. and is currently a pilot with Saudi Airlines according to the BBC News. The man is ALIVE, yet you conclude his flying lessons "prove" him guilty of bing a suicidal hijacker. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm

That conspiricy theory has long been disproved. The Al Shehri who came forward after 9/11 was not the same man as was on the plane. It is like a man named John Murphy hijacking a plane in New York and a guy in Dublin with the same name saying hold on a minute, I didn't hijack nothing.

For a start they had different background, had grown up in different areas and came from completely different economic class. The Al Shehri on the plane was not one of the hi-jackers who had attented flight school.

Secondly they had different names, Waleed A. Al Shehri and Waleed M. Al Shehri.

Thirdly Waleed M. Al Shehri's sister and father both say that he is dead, and that he was "brainwashed" in the year leading up to the attacks.

Turley wrote:

It has been almost four years and the public has yet to hear the last words of the pilots to the towers that should have been available immediately.

It is normally not police procedure to release the last words of someone about to die just so conspircy nuts will believe them. It is also very hard to get pictures of people jumping from the WTC, do you think that means they didn't jump and everyone who saw them jump is lying?

But just think about what you are saying for a moment will you. The US government has managed to get all the reletives and family members of the people killed on the flight to make up stories about phone calls you suppose never happened. So now not only is the US Air Force, the flight crew of each plane, the civilian traffic controllers and the non-political, independent, investigators (who have heard the tapes) are lying but also the relatives of the passangers. Also so George Bush could invade Iraq?

Turley wrote:

You have not provided evidence that the 19 men (some still ALIVE) were responsible for the mass murders.

Some are not "still alive". Some people with the same names exist, but that is nothing spetacular and really shows our ignorance of Arab culture to suppose that everyone has a unqiue name.

And there is a ton of evidence they were responsible, you have just ignored it.

Maybe you want to put forward the "evidence" that the plane was remotely flown in the WTC, that all people involved (including the relatives) have been forced to lie about it.

Turley wrote:

And you have ruled out remote control because???

Is that a joke? I also ruled out aliens and gremlins on the wing. Or more specifically they were never ruled in to begin with.

Turley wrote:

Yes there is. The fact that some of the 19 men are still ALIVE (see the BBC link above) is evidence they are not the suicide pilots you claim they are.

As I have said, no they ain't.

Turley wrote:

And the proof that this was the hijacers plan is ???

The flight plane of the plane before it crashed.

Turley wrote:

I am sorry. I don't know that any hijackers hijacked 4 planes, that is the official conspiracy theory. I am waiting for the proof.

Read the independent non-partisan 9/11 commission report. BTW where exactly is your proof that a conspiricy to lie and mis lead the public took place.

Turley wrote:

And you know for a fact that 4 planes were hijacked "to confuse US air defense" based on what evidence?

Al Queda was actually planning to hi-jack 10 planes originally. They were playing the odds that at least one would make it.

Turley wrote:

You have assumed there was a policy not to shoot it down. Please check the record of the 1999 incident.

It was not the policy of the US Airforce to automatically shoot down hi-jacked passanger planes. For a start it would have been illegal.

From CNN

One such myth is the widely held belief that the military was ready to carry out orders to shoot down civilian aircraft if necessary.

"That is simply not true," said the commissioner. "They were not ready" for a number of reasons, suggesting, among other things, that there were legal issues and that properly armed aircraft were not ready

How do you know this? What evidenece do you have into the minds of these people you claim were terrorists? Do you have any proof that they knew they could make it to the edge of New York? What is your source?

You have just said that the air force would not shoot down a plane until it had reached a population centre. Even that isn't true, the is question over if they could shoot down a plane even over a city, but even if it was true they would still make it to a population centre. There is no reason to believe the hi-jackers believed they would be shot down. No hi-jacked plane has ever been shot down in US air space. That is the whole point of taking hostages in the first place, as human shields.

How about the evidence that IT DID HAPPEN.

Other than the links to Al Queda, the farewell tapes of the hi-jackers, the reports from the crew, black box, flight control, Bin Laden boasting privately that they did it (he at first publically denied it, while privately admitting they carried it out, but later admitted they did it) etc etc.

Now maybe you want to put forward the "evidence" the US government did it...

People do follow orders, if you believe the Nazi's murdered millions (not 3000) and exactly who would the German civilians, at that time, report atrocities to?

It would be illegal and treason for a US Airforce office to carry out that order. It would also be impossible to stop the person then reporting that they had been given that order in the first place. So everyone involved must have been willing to commit mass murder of American citizens. Ummm, is that likely?

If you believe Oswald killed JFK then you must believe in the "magic bullet." Do you know what the "magic bullet" is? I have a copy of the Warren Commission Report. Have you ever read the Warren Commission Report?

An (independent) computer model supports the single bullet theory.

But I really don't want to get dragged into the JFK thing .. read Case Closed if you still believe in the conspiricy :rolleyes:

Neither Oswald or the 19 men ever had anyone defend their innocence in court.

That is because they flew a plane into a building :rolleyes:

The U.S. does frame innocent people for the crime of murder, so what else is new?

And Al Queda likes to blow up things. QED :rolleyes:

Turley

Poisonwood wrote:

Someone has to say it ... I have NEVER heard such unadulterted Sh**e in all my life!!! Turley, get a grip or get a life! You're not sceptical, you're cynical and more than a tad paranoid ... you're intelligence is the camouflage which stops you seeing this!!! Remote control planes ... more plausible??? Holy sweet mother of Buddha ... you're a bloody hoot ... really! Give us YOUR proof of your utterly implausible conspiracy theory and not a stream of unmitigated hogwash and paranoia about other accounts. Is your room rigged to explode at the knock of an unfamiliar fist? ... sometimes you just have to laugh at the Crapologists out there!!

Really? I'm paranoid? Any kid can buy a remote control plane at a hobby shop and the professional models in Iraq fire machine guns. The point is the technology exists. I did not say this is how the crime was committed but how did the crime solvers rule it out immediately?

Tell me about your paranoid vast conspiracy theory where 19 guys are part of a gigantic terrorist network in 60 countries, with sleeper cells, and secret bank accounts, secret cell phones and laptops, and their leader is a bearded boogie man in a robe, who lives in a cave and is the arch enemy of the free world and somehow armed only with box cutters these clever fellows defeated the U.S. Air Force and these same "evil doers" have fought the entire U.S. military to a stalemate in Iraq and all this happened because they "hate Americans" for no reason whatsoever and they want the world to return to the 11th century. And the Americans were so super smart they solved the September 11th crime the same day AND at the same time Americans were so super stupid they could not prevent it. Holy sweet mother of Buddah to you too.

Zombrex

Turley wrote:

Really? I'm paranoid? Any kid can buy a remote control plane at a hobby shop and the professional models in Iraq fire machine guns. The point is the technology exists. I did not say this is how the crime was committed but how did the crime solvers rule it out immediately?

Umm .. yes it was funny that the FBI didn't consider that the US intelligence services had some how managed to find 200 air traffic controllers willing to conspire to kill thousands of Americans, over 10 family members willing to let their loved ones die in a plane crash and then lie about it when asked, completely re-engineer the entire auto-pilot system of 4 American Airlines planes without anyone noticing and then deliberatly fling these planes into the WTC (one of the most important ecomonic building in American) and the head of the fecking US military!!. Jesus Christ just typing it is ridiculous in extreme.

Turley wrote:

Tell me about your paranoid vast conspiracy theory where 19 guys are part of a gigantic terrorist network

Actually Al Queda was quite small at the time, compared to estimates of what it is now.

Turley wrote:

armed only with box cutters these clever fellows defeated the U.S. Air Force

They weren't armed only with box cutter (another 9/11 myth) and they didn't "defeat" the US Air Force, they over powered the civilian flight crew of a commercial plane, a flight crew which is trained to not resist hi-jackers.

Turley wrote:

And the Americans were so super smart they solved the September 11th crime the same day AND at the same time Americans were so super stupid they could not prevent it.

This is the thing that is really ridiculous. If the US government planned it all along, why didn't the keep ****ing up press releases all through September, releasing statements and then apologising saying they made mistake. In other words all the things you would expect in a normal investigation. If they had faked it all along you would think they would have bothered to get their story straight before they announced it :rolleyes:

Turley

Wicknight-
We could go back and forth day and night with me asking you to provide evidence and you saying there is evidence.

I do not think you know what official evidence is. Let me give you an sample. At the link below you will see a copy of a cover letter from the U.S. Department of Defense in response to a citizen request through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The pages attached to the cover letter include the autopsy list of the victims of the plane crash at the Pentagon (Flight #77). The DNA of the all of the crew and passengers except one, the toddler Dana Falkenberg, were miraculously identified by the U.S. Armed Forces pathology Intitute.
http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/02/article_tro.htm
This is an official document and it is officially the truth. Officially none of the hijackers DNA was found by the Department of Defense, which is not surprising because their names were also not on the official passenger list. This document is official EVIDENCE that the alleged hijackers were not at the crash site.

Can you produce some evidence, any evidence, in the form of an official document from an official source like the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology , FBI, FAA or some agency that PROVES the men you claim crashed the plane were actually onboard the airplane?

Please don't send me to sites like the one you referenced at wikipedia that said,

U.S. authorities believe that the hijackers were in two groups: six core organizers, who included the four pilots and two others; and the remaining thirteen who entered the United States later in pairs in the spring and…

"
I am not interested in what anonymous officials believe. Solving the crime of mass murder is not some religion that we accept on faith. I know you are a firm believer, but we don't share the same faith.

Turley

Wicknight wrote:

Umm .. yes it was funny that the FBI didn't consider that the US intelligence services had some how managed to find 200 air traffic controllers willing to conspire to kill thousands of Americans, :rolleyes:

Your logic seems to be if the hijackers didn't do it then the government did. And since we can't believe the government did then the hijackers did it.

I have not argued that the government was responsible nor have I ruled this out. Before we draw any conclusion about who was responsible we should examine the evidence. See my post above for an example of evidence.

We should look at all the evidence. Have you read the official 911 Report? Have you seen even one deposition or testimony under oath in the form of an official document to support the alleged cell phone calls from the planes? Can you find an official statement or bill from a cell phone service provider that documents the alleged calls from the airplanes? If you can find such an official document I am interested in seeing it. I would like to see this evidence that the alleged hijackers were on board the planes.

Poisonwood

Turley wrote:

Any kid can buy a remote control plane at a hobby shop and the professional models in Iraq fire machine guns.

Absolutely HILARIOUS!! Seriously, is that your argument. Kids have remote controlled planes...ergo...we should consider whether the 9/11 incident was also done by remote control. Wholly Crap!

Turley wrote:

Tell me about your paranoid vast conspiracy theory where 19 guys are part of a gigantic terrorist network in 60 countries, with sleeper cells, and secret bank accounts, secret cell phones and laptops, and their leader is a bearded boogie man in a robe, who lives in a cave and is the arch enemy of the free world and somehow armed only with box cutters these clever fellows defeated the U.S. Air Force and these same "evil doers" have fought the entire U.S. military to a stalemate in Iraq and all this happened because they "hate Americans" for no reason whatsoever and they want the world to return to the 11th century. And the Americans were so super smart they solved the September 11th crime the same day AND at the same time Americans were so super stupid they could not prevent it. Holy sweet mother of Buddah to you too.

I swear I'd think you were an american schoolkid but I see that you can spell Iraq properly!!

What part of this is implausible? Indeed what part isn't entirely plausible? How feckin' difficult do you think it is to book flights on a plane anyway?????

Defeat the US Air Force? What the hell are you ranting on about? What do the air force have to do with anything? They bought tickets on a plane, hijacked it and flew it into a freaking building ... Believe it or not Turley, the logistics are NOT difficult ... you just have to have the balls or be brainwashed. Remote control.......................LMAO!!!!!!!

Yesterday or the day before here in Ireland (I really think you're from another planet ... or at least another continent) security scrutineers smuggled fake bombs etc on one of our planes. Really ... how hard do you think this was for chrissake??? The only reason someone didn't care to do it before is because they were presumably afraid of the backlash.

Zombrex

Turley wrote:

This is an official document and it is officially the truth. Officially none of the hijackers DNA was found by the Department of Defense, which is not surprising because their names were also not on the official passenger list. This document is official EVIDENCE that the alleged hijackers were not at the crash site.

Oh give me strength ...

THat entire article you posted to is based on the complete lie that the CNN passenger list was a complete list given to CNN from AA. It wasn't, CNN reported it wasn't along with everyone else who got the list from AP.

Firstly AA did not release any names of passengers that had families that wished the names not released. That is why there are "missing" names on the list.

Secondly, CNN did not publish the names of those believe to be the hijackers. They even say this.

It astonishes me that you believe web pages like this from crack pots who are perfectly willing to lie about the information they use, and yet we are supposed to not trust the offical independent commission. :rolleyes:

Turley

Poisonwood wrote:

Absolutely HILARIOUS!! Seriously, is that your argument. Kids have remote controlled planes...ergo...we should consider whether the 9/11 incident was also done by remote control. Wholly Crap!

The U.S. authorities and press have repeatedly said that the terrorists used planes as missiles. For example, this phrase was published by Knight Ridder News Service on January 16, 2002, "...following Sept. 11 when terrorists used planes as missiles..." If we accept that there may be some truth to the planes being used as missiles, why not consider how missiles are flown. Missiles do not have pilots. Global Positioning Sattellite technology is used to guide missiles to targets with precision. If the planes were truly used as missiles why must we believe the planes were guided to their targets by pilots? A proper homicide investigation should consider all possible solutions to the crime and not rule out anything without evidence.

I do not know if the planes were actually flown without pilots but I do not know why you say it is "Absolutely HILARIOUS!!" to consider this possibility.

Poisonwood wrote:

Defeat the US Air Force? What the hell are you ranting on about? What do the air force have to do with anything?

It was necessary that the U.S. Air Force respond to the aircraft emergency. When an airliner diverts from the approved course and breaks radio contact it is an aircraft emergency and it is the North American Aerospace Command's (NORAD) responsibility. USAF jets responded to a similar aircraft emergency when professional golfer Payne Stewart's jet flew off course and did not respond by radio. An investigation by the FAA later concluded that the crew of the plane was unconscious, but the Air Force followed proper procedure and intercepted the aircraft almost immediately. The incident is easily found with an internet search engine.

I do not understand why two years later, after two airliners crashed in NYC, the Air Force did not intercept the airliner heading toward Washington, D.C. all the way from Kentucky. Bolling Air Force base is in Washington and Andrews Air Force base is in the suburbs, why do these baes exist if not to defend the capital city?

Turley

Wicknight wrote:

Oh give me strength ...

THat entire article you posted to is based on the complete lie that the CNN passenger list was a complete list given to CNN from AA. It wasn't, CNN reported it wasn't along with everyone else who got the list from AP.

Firstly AA did not release any names of passengers that had families that wished the names not released. That is why there are "missing" names on the list.

Secondly, CNN did not publish the names of those believe to be the hijackers. They even say this.

It astonishes me that you believe web pages like this from crack pots who are perfectly willing to lie about the information they use, and yet we are supposed to not trust the offical independent commission. :rolleyes:

Please read what I wrote. I did not link to CNN . The link is to a Defense Department Document from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology.
http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/02/article_tro.htm

You have called this official document "a complete lie." Are you now saying the U.S. Department of Defense Armed Forces Institute of Pathology has issued a false document? What does this have to do with CNN?

Please examine the official document at the link.

Poisonwood

Turley wrote:

The U.S. authorities and press have repeatedly said that the terrorists used planes as missiles. For example, this phrase was published by Knight Ridder News Service on January 16, 2002, "...following Sept. 11 when terrorists used planes as missiles..." If we accept that there may be some truth to the planes being used as missiles, why not consider how missiles are flown. Missiles do not have pilots.

You just HAVE to be pulling the p**s Turley!!! Is this Candid Webcam??

You are saying that because of the common-or-garden descriptive analogies used, the truth must lie therein?? If someone had described the terrorists as using the planes like spears or bullets ... then we should consider whether the planes were thrown by tribal giants or shot from a big gun? Your position is HILARIOUS because it is HILARIOUS ... you are so far up your own conspiratorial derriere that you take everything you think seriously. Piece of advice Turley...that seems like an inordinately bad idea from where I'm typing!!!

Do you think it is impossible to buy tickets on a commercial aircraft? Do you think it is difficult to bring on weapons (at that time)? Do you think it is difficult to hijack a plane? Do you think it is possible that so doing a group of people may decide to crash the plane? I think all the above are not only possible but entirley probable. Your utterly ridiculous meanderings about remote control planes, government involvement etc demand us to take a perfectly simple account and twist it to reflect the world view of paranoid conspiracy theorists. Sad sad sad!!

Turley

Poisonwood wrote:

You just HAVE to be pulling the p**s Turley!!! Is this Candid Webcam??

You are saying that because of the common-or-garden descriptive analogies used, the truth must lie therein?? If someone had described the terrorists as using the planes like spears or bullets ... then we should consider whether the planes were thrown by tribal giants or shot from a big gun? Your position is HILARIOUS because it is HILARIOUS ... you are so far up your own conspiratorial derriere that you take everything you think seriously. Piece of advice Turley...that seems like an inordinately bad idea from where I'm typing!!!

Do you think it is impossible to buy tickets on a commercial aircraft? Do you think it is difficult to bring on weapons (at that time)? Do you think it is difficult to hijack a plane? Do you think it is possible that so doing a group of people may decide to crash the plane? I think all the above are not only possible but entirley probable. Your utterly ridiculous meanderings about remote control planes, government involvement etc demand us to take a perfectly simple account and twist it to reflect the world view of paranoid conspiracy theorists. Sad sad sad!!

I did not say the truth must lust lie therein. There is not much to say. You believe what you have been told. Your mind is made up and closed.

The Lies
(Poe Meets Orwell)

Hear the wooer's lies,
Glossy, silken lies,
Keeping steady focus on the erubescent prize,
A salesman ever smiling,
The charmer stalks his prey,
With petty praises piling,
Beseeching and beguiling,
He has his sordid way,
Taking, taking, taking,
His brute rapacity slaking,
With his squalid enterprise
Full of lies, lies, lies, lies,
Lies, lies, lies,
The slipping and the sliding,
The real intentions hiding,
The conscience overrriding,
Lusty lies.

Hear the daily lies,
The comforting, comfortable lies
Of every conceivable size,
Digestible pabulum for the incurably bland,
For the small of mind and the glad of hand,
Hopelessly smug and indisposed
To look into the light,
With minds made up and closed,
They turn from truth exposed,
And seek the shelter of the night,
Avoiding with averted eyes
All they wish were otherwise,
Confused by the thinnest disguise,
They hesitate and temporize,
Then cast about and choose the lies,
The cozy lies,
The rosy lies,
The lies, lies, lies, lies,
Lies, lies, lies.
The smoothing and the soothing easy lies.

Hear the serpents' lies,
The concealed community's lucifugous lies
That eviscerate the social compromise,
Arrogantly thinking they needn't obey
The rules by which the rest of us play,
By word and by deed they chip away
At the country's very foundation,
At the base of our civilization,
Where, pray tell, is there room,
In a decent, law-abiding nation
For inveterate practicioners of intimidation,
Disinformation, assassination,
Covert opinion manipulation,
Agents' provocation,
And human experimentation?
Why must we simply assume
The national need for an occupation
That lives on equivocation,
On lies, lies, lies,
Black loathsome lies,
White, gauzy lies
That stupefy and paralyze,
While we meekly tolerate
Subversion of the Fourth Estate,
And those who send up warning cries
They slather with their unctuous lies,
Paranoia feeding,
Suspicion breeding,
Justice impeding,
Lies, lies, lies, lies,
Lies, lies, lies,
Clumsy, corrupting,
Ugly, disgusting,
Impudent, putrid lies.

Hear the despot's lies,
Enormous, encompassing, outrageous lies,
Essential tools to tyrannize,
Overawe, and terrorize,
Helpmeets of the bloody "isms,"
Generating needless schisms
In the world.
See them hurled
At the opposition,
See the flags of hate unfurled,
Hear the leader's admoniton:
"To the wall."
See the hatred mobilized
And everything politicized,
Turning simple wounded pride
Into massive fratricide,
Casting over one and all
A spell,
With bullying and bragging
And propaganda never flagging,
Taking, taking, taking,
Principled resistance breaking,
Making life a hell
For the chosen sacrificial goats
While the tyrant struts and gloats
On the stage
Of his own making,
Turning all the land into a cage
With no escape or privacy,
No individuality,
Just fear and coercion
And total immersion
In the lies,
The lies, lies, lies, lies,
Lies, lies, lies,
The ruthless, truthless, megalomaniacal lies.

David Martin
http://www.dcdave.com/

Zombrex

Turley wrote:

Please read what I wrote. I did not link to CNN . The link is to a Defense Department Document from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology.
http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/02/article_tro.htm

The link is to an article written by Thomas Olmsted in which he gives his personal assessment of a AFIP document, that it shows no Arabs were on Flight 77. You repeat this assessment above

This document is official EVIDENCE that the alleged hijackers were not at the crash site.

This assessment that is completely unfounded and ignores (either on purpose or due to lack of proper research) large amounts of other evidence that shows his assessment is flawed.

Turley wrote:

You have called this official document "a complete lie." Are you now saying the U.S. Department of Defense Armed Forces Institute of Pathology has issued a false document? What does this have to do with CNN?

Please examine the official document at the link.

I have not called this document a complete lie (the document doesn't actually say anything), I have called Olmsted's conclusion that this document is evidence Arabs were not on Flight 77, or that no Arabs were at the crash site, a complete lie.

The document doesn't say anything except list 58 names. The covering letter that came with the document says that these are "the names of the 58 victims of AA Flight 77 that were identified here at the Armed Forces Instituite of Pathology. That is all it says. There was another victim who we know was on the flight who was not identifed in this report. Do you claim she (a baby) jumped out of the airplane over Boston?? :rolleyes:

Now we go into cookoo land, not based on what this document actually says (very little), but based on the assessment and assumptions derived by Olmsted based on this document.

Firstly he claims this document shows that the government (or someone) has added names to the offical flight list. This is based on the idea that the CNN report contains a complete list of the passangers. This is a lie the CNN list, that was got from AP, is from a list released by AA where they specifically state the list does not contain the hi-jackers or victims who family did not want the names released.

Secondly he claims that the AFIP list is a complete list of those on the flight. This is also a complete lie. The list is of the 'victims' that were identified by the AFIP using DNA.

Olmsted's conclusion from this (that it proves there were no Arabs on the plane) is at worst ill-informed and at worst a balantent lie, depending on if we you believe Olmsted knew he was lying or was just an idiot who couldn't be bothered doing proper research.

Turley I have already tried to explain to you the difference between a source of historical information and an assessment based on the source.

Here the source is the AFIP document, which actually says very little, and certainly does not state anywhere that is a complete list of AA F77 passengers.

The assessment of this source by Olmsted is that there were no Arabs on Flight 77. This assessment is flawed in the extreme, and if it had been made by a professional historian, rather than some crack pot on the internet, it would have probably seriously damaged that historians credability for being so stupid.

It is just amazing that you berate people such as myself for putting faith in the assessment of professional independent bodies such as the 9/11 commission, and yet you seem to be perfectly willing to put your faith in the assessment of complete crack pots on obscure Internet sites.

Ridiculous :rolleyes:

Zombrex

Turley wrote:

If we accept that there may be some truth to the planes being used as missiles, why not consider how missiles are flown. Missiles do not have pilots.

That is a joke right?

Missles don't have pilots because very few airforce pilots want to die by flying there plane into a building. You might remember though that the Japanise pilots did use there planes as missles in WWII and fligh them into US battleships and aircraft carriers.

Turley wrote:

Global Positioning Sattellite technology is used to guide missiles to targets with precision. If the planes were truly used as missiles why must we believe the planes were guided to their targets by pilots?

Because the alternative, that someone managed to upgrade 4 AA planes with a remote control system that no one noticed and then managed to remove the pilots without anyone noticing and then managed to fake the pilots without anyone noticing and then managed to fake a hi-jacking on the plane without anyone noticing and then managed to fly the plane remotely with anyone noticing into 4 targets is, without any evidence at all to suggest that is what happened, ridiculous. You might as well say Santa was flying the plane.

Turley wrote:

A proper homicide investigation should consider all possible solutions to the crime and not rule out anything without evidence.

No a proper homicide investigation should follow the evidence presented by the crime. There is absolutly no evidence that the planes were remote controlled, and overwhelming strong evidence that the planes were hi-jacked.

Turley wrote:

I do not know if the planes were actually flown without pilots but I do not know why you say it is "Absolutely HILARIOUS!!" to consider this possibility.

It is absolutely hilarious to suggest it because it is completely ridiculous. The entire control system of 4 commersal planes would have to have been, in secret, "upgraded" to allow for the planes to fly remotely. Then you would have to kill the pilots and yet still manage to fake there voices turing take off and flight. You would also have to convince the flight attendents, the flight crew, everyone in the airport and in air traffic control etc that the pilots did actually get on the plane and were flying it. And there is no evidence any of that happened :rolleyes:

Turley wrote:

I do not understand why two years later, after two airliners crashed in NYC, the Air Force did not intercept the airliner heading toward Washington, D.C. all the way from Kentucky. Bolling Air Force base is in Washington and Andrews Air Force base is in the suburbs, why do these baes exist if not to defend the capital city?

And because you don't understand it it must be a lie :rolleyes: Do you understand quantum physics or advanced economics :rolleyes:

And you do not understand how the US Air Force managed to **** something up, but you do understand that it would be possible to remotely fly 4 commersial planes into buildings without anyone knowing you were doing it?

To you it is completely improbabe that the US internal air defense system would fail (it only takes one person, not even military to not know how to, or simply to do, his job properly, don't forget someone got a bomb through Dublin Airport this week) but yet it is probable that the US intelligence service could and would want to kill thousands of people without anyone knowing. Seriously??

Turley

Wicknight wrote:

...you do understand that it would be possible to remotely fly 4 commersial planes into buildings without anyone knowing you were doing it?

The same way you understand the 19 guys hijacked planes without anyone knowing they were doing it.

The instructors of one of your "pilot's" had this to say from The Prince George's Journal (Maryland), September 18, 2001:

Marcel Bernard, the chief flight instructor at the airport, said the man named Hani Hanjour went into the air in a Cessna 172 with instructors from the airport three times beginning the second week of August and had hoped to rent a plane from the airport.

According to published reports, law enforcement sources say Hanjour, in his mid-twenties, is suspected of crashing the American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon. . . .

Hanjour had his pilot's license, said Bernard, but needed what is called a 'check-out' done by the airport to gauge a pilot's skills before he or she is able to rent a plane at Freeway Airport which runs parallel to Route 50.

Instructors at the school told Bernard that after three times in the air, they still felt he was unable to fly solo and that Hanjour seemed disappointed ...

... Published reports said Hanjour obtained his pilot's license in April of 1999, but it expired six months later because he did not complete a required medical exam. He also was trained for a few months at a private school in Scottsdale, Ariz., in 1996, but did not finish the course because instructors felt he was not capable.

Hanjour had 600 hours listed in his log book, Bernard said, and instructors were surprised he was not able to fly better with the amount of experience. Pete Goulatta, a special agent and spokesman for the FBI, said it is an on-going criminal investigation and he could not comment. (pg. 1.)

Who was paying for Hanjour's lessons, and why? These are questions I expect investigator's to answer with evidence. The money came from somewhere.

You believe this guy flew Flight 77 into the Pentagon yet he couldn't fly a single engine propeller craft.

Have you read the 911 Report? It is online. Give me some evidence that proves Hani hanjour was flying flight 77. Look over the official document and give me the best evidence that convinces you. What page of this exhaustive report has the proof? Is there some testimony of the airline staff that saw him at the boarding gate, a security video of him boarding the plane, an official passenger list, was his voice heard in the cockpit recorded on the blackbox recovered? was their a suicide note left by Mr. Hanjour? was Hanjour's DNA found at the crash Pentagon crash site? anything? something? Who paid for his hotel in Laurel, Maryland, his meals, and flying lessons? Do you have any official proof that he flew that plane? Look at the 911 Report and tell me what page the proof is on.

Solving the crime of murder is not a guessing game whereby we say, "I don't believe that could have happened so this must have happened." Crimes are solved with evidence. What evidence do you or the offcial investigators have? Without evidence you only have faith, and 9/11 becomes a religious dogma for the gullible masses.

Turley

Wicknight wrote:

The link is to an article written by Thomas Olmsted in which he gives his personal assessment of a AFIP document, that it shows no Arabs were on Flight 77. You repeat this assessment above

I am not interested in the assessment of Mr. Olmsted at http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/02/article_tro.htm

The only thing of importance at the web page is the official letter he received from the U.S. government with the final list of DNA identified at the Pentagon crash site. That official letter is an example of something I would consider to be official evidence. This is the kind of thing we look for when we examine a crime scene. It is an official document from an official source with evidence of the DNA identified at the crime scene.

You seem more interested in debating Mr. Olmsted's assessment. Sorry. His assessment is not evidence. I am not interested in his assessment.

The remains identified did not include any hijackers. We might wonder why? While the DNA of a toddler was not identified. I would not find that remarkable because no one has claimed the toddler hijacked the plane.

OTOH if we suspect the plane was hijacked finding a DNA match of the hijackers at the crash site would be evidence that these hijackers were present. I don't see any evidence of the hijackers DNA.

If you find any evidence the hijackers were there. Let me know. I am interested in evidence.

Poisonwood

Turley wrote:

There is not much to say. You believe what you have been told. Your mind is made up and closed.

Not much to say? You coulda fooled me ... you love the sound of your own keyboard it seems to me!!

Anyhow, I didn't say I believed what I had been told. I just don't believe the utter rubbish you're polluting the forum with. If you have real substantial evidence that something different happened let's have it and stop sh***ing around. Don't be telling us that so-and-so wrote this or so-and-so thinks that or point to the utterly banal fact that governments can lie. If you're interested in evidence SHOW US THE EVIDENCE. All we've got is conspiratorial insinuation which is tiresome in the extreme...we could make that crap up about every single incident in history withour exception.

The Lies
(Poe Meets Orwell)

Hear the wooer's lies,
Glossy, silken lies, etc etc

ad nauseum.....

Your point? That there are cynical poets too? Fair enough. It sounds like a Credo for your life to me.