9/11 Conspiracy

angry_fox

Have a look here CMJ. Has some good info on the subject. Author could be a bit nuts

Call Me Jimmy

angry_fox wrote:

They used the techniques learnt from the CIA to carry out the 9/11 attacks.

What techniques exactly? Sorry but I'm still not sure what your referring to.

Healio

Call Me Jimmy wrote:

well healio, if it is in fact only 3 seconds (as im sure u have counted precisely how long it was) and assuming that the US knew there was going to be something big around that time then it could have easily been "the terrorists have attacked".... that could be said in 3 seconds.... and it's more plausible.

that is my point, he knew what was going to happen.

billy the squid

Call Me Jimmy wrote:

where in that payne stewart article does it say that it was in the middle of nowhere? like where are you getting that information from?

I quoted the article more to prove that the US air force were able to intercept his private jet, which they failed to do in 9-11.

but to answer your question, it says it in the first paragraph

Three-time Major winner Payne Stewart was among five people killed when his Learjet crashed in a remote area of the United States

.

Call Me Jimmy

Healio wrote:

that is my point, he knew what was going to happen.

No you didn't read my post. I said that they knew something big was going to happen, as in a terrorist attack. I believe also they knew something big was going to happen but that they didn't know when (exactly), where, how. And in a country as large as the US, it would be impossible for them to stop "something big". So what's your point? That they knew that the twin towers was gonna be attacked when it was, and that the guy came in and said it's done and that bush knew he was talkin bout the twin towers being attacked?

Healio

Call Me Jimmy wrote:

That they knew that the twin towers was gonna be attacked when it was, and that the guy came in and said it's done and that bush knew he was talkin bout the twin towers being attacked?

Thats it in a nut shell, Uncle Sam took out the twin towers.

angry_fox

Call Me Jimmy wrote:

What techniques exactly? Sorry but I'm still not sure what your referring to.

They were trained in guerrilla warfare techniques, espically to attack a larger enemy using minimal resources and causing maximum amount of damage to a target by what ever means possible. Dragging me way off topic here.

Call Me Jimmy

well billy it's just that it says in the article you linked that the learjet CRASHED in a remote area of the united states. it says in the next sentence that the dallas bound plane flew uncontrolled for several HOURS. The plane took off from orlando florida (not a remote part of US) and according to the link angry fox posted the plane veered of course "shortly after take off" which basically disproves your point about the F-16s managing to get to it even though it was in a remote part of the US.

billy the squid

Call Me Jimmy wrote:

well billy it's just that it says in the article you linked that the learjet CRASHED in a remote area of the united states. it says in the next sentence that the dallas bound plane flew uncontrolled for several HOURS. The plane took off from orlando florida (not a remote part of US) and according to the link angry fox posted the plane veered of course "shortly after take off" which basically disproves your point about the F-16s managing to get to it even though it was in a remote part of the US.

yes, the aircraft flew in a straight line on autopilot until it ran out of fuel. the USAF followed the plane until it crashed, it was observed that the people onboard were already dead.

Call Me Jimmy

angry i didn't mean to drag you off topic i just wanted to be sure because what you were saying was quite vague. So the US taught them in guerrilla warfare? They didn't teach them exactly how to hijack and fly a plane into the twin towers. And it's not like the inocent extremists had never heard of guerrila warfare before, so the states didn't teach them anything new, or anything of relevence to the attacks, so you still don't have a point in your statement about the americans teaching them how to fight geurrilla warfare against russian tanks and soldiers

Call Me Jimmy

billy the squid wrote:

yes, the aircraft flew in a straight line on autopilot until it ran out of fuel.

yes, thank you.

angry_fox

Call Me Jimmy wrote:

where in that payne stewart article does it say that it was in the middle of nowhere? like where are you getting that information from?

Heres the CNN report on the crash. Mind you they could never find out why the plane lost pressure. Maybe its a conspiracy:rolleyes:

Healio

9/11 was planned and carried by the us government, to turn america (and possibly the world) against Islam. What better way to do such a thing. Attack a world renowned building, kill 3,000 people, and blame 19 Arab men.

billy the squid

Call Me Jimmy wrote:

angry i didn't mean to drag you off topic i just wanted to be sure because what you were saying was quite vague. So the US taught them in guerrilla warfare? They didn't teach them exactly how to hijack and fly a plane into the twin towers. And it's not like the inocent extremists had ever heard of guerrila warfare before, so the states didn't teach them anything new, or anything of relevence to the attacks, so you still don't have a point in your statement about the americans teaching them how to fight geurrilla warfare against russian tanks and soldiers

flying planes into a designated target is not a new thing. the japanese did it during world war II.

Call Me Jimmy

angry yer a bit late i knew where he was getting his information from, but knew he was wrong, that's why i asked to be sure what line he was reading it from.

Call Me Jimmy

billy i never said that flying planes into targets was anything new. I said that the americans didn't teach them how to do that, and in a different sentence I said the americans didn't teach them anything new. In fact your statement that flying airplanes into targets isn't anything new further enforces my previous statement that the extremists weren't introduced by american training to the idea of geurrilla warfare

billy the squid

Call Me Jimmy wrote:

angry yer a bit late i knew where he was getting his information from, but knew he was wrong, that's why i asked to be sure what line he was reading it from.

i am assuming that that was directed at me. my point in referring to the payne stewart crash is that the USAF were able to intercept this plane. and they followed it and were able to send reports back for several hours before it ran out of fuel, whereas they were unable to intercept an aircraft in the most populated portion of the US

Healio

Dare i ask the question:

Does Osama Bin laden actually exist?

Call Me Jimmy

billy the squid wrote:

i am assuming that that was directed at me. my point in referring to the payne stewart crash is that the USAF were able to intercept this plane. and they followed it and were able to send reports back for several hours before it ran out of fuel, whereas they were unable to intercept an aircraft in the most populated portion of the US

Yes and part of your point was that the F-16s were able to intercept a plane that was in the middle of nowhere and that they should have been able to intercept the 9/11 planes which were not in the middle of nowhere.

I said that the plane was only in the middle of nowhere when it crashed a few hours after the planes intercepted it shortly after take off.

what im sayin is his plane was in a populated portion of the us when the problem arose, whereas the 9/11 planes would have left the populated area (new york or whichever one) and had their transponder signal lost while they were out there and a good bit out (further than payne stewarts plane) and then they did a complete U-turn, making them much harder to locate than payne's.

billy the squid

Call Me Jimmy wrote:

billy i never said that flying planes into targets was anything new. I said that the americans didn't teach them how to do that, and in a different sentence I said the americans didn't teach them anything new. In fact your statement that flying airplanes into targets isn't anything new further enforces my previous statement that the extremists weren't introduced by american training to the idea of geurrilla warfare

well considering that they received flying lessons in florida, you could say that it was americans that thought them how to fly I do believe that they would have also used flight sim programs as part of their preparations for the attacks.

The american support of the afghani mujahadine (sp) being mentioned in this thread is a bit of a distraction considering that the hijackers were mostly saudis, and given the way al queda operates with each cell being independent of other cells etc.

to re-iterate my views, I would disagree with healio and some of the others in that while the US did not know what was exactly going to happen, once they realised on the morning of 9-11 that it was happening, they decided to let the series of events run its course rather than prevent it from happening. thus giving them their excuse to invade the arab nations.

angry_fox

Call Me Jimmy wrote:

angry i didn't mean to drag you off topic i just wanted to be sure because what you were saying was quite vague. So the US taught them in guerrilla warfare? They didn't teach them exactly how to hijack and fly a plane into the twin towers. And it's not like the inocent extremists had ever heard of guerrila warfare before, so the states didn't teach them anything new, or anything of relevence to the attacks, so you still don't have a point in your statement about the americans teaching them how to fight geurrilla warfare against russian tanks and soldiers

They received funding and training from america. Of course they knew about guerrila warfare, but the americans made them better at it. The 9/11 attacks were well planned and well executed. This thread is never going to end.

What are your thoughts on 9/11attacks CMJ?

Call Me Jimmy

my view on the 9/11 is simple. Muslim extremists attacked the US and the US government had absolutely nothing to do with it in any way. I would be almost certain that they knew that osama and his band of merry men were planning "something big" but that they did not know when, where and how exactly it was going to happen. Thus they could not have prevented such a thing despite claims to the contrary by other posters.

billy the squid

Call Me Jimmy wrote:

my view on the 9/11 is simple. Muslim extremists attacked the US and the US government had absolutely nothing to do with it in any way. I would be almost certain that they knew that osama and his band of merry men were planning "something big" but that they did not know when, where and how exactly it was going to happen. Thus they could not have prevented such a thing despite claims to the contrary by other posters.

why do you believe they could not have prevented the attacks. they had several opportunities to do so, namely sending out air force jets when they discovered the transponder signals being de-activated.

Call Me Jimmy

When i said they could not have prevented the attacks I was referring to the threat in general of "something big" happening, no matter what, the terrorists would be able to attack. But in reference to the 9/11 planes, i don't know if the f-16s actually located the ones headed for the twin towers (like had a visual) and they probably saw through the windows that there were live civilians or at least that the windows had not frosted over and were reluctant to shoot it down because of that and that it could have been just a normal plane tryin to fly back for an emergency landing (losing the transponder could have meant their radio could have been out to)

Basically i think if f-16s did catch up with the airplanes, they didn't shoot it down because they suspected no foul play. I don't know all the facts in the situation however

billy the squid

they didnt take off until it was too late, even though they knew that there were planes deviating from their flight plan.

Call Me Jimmy

and im not sure if i remember correctly but you said you believe it was extremists who did it and that's all legitimate but the government let it happen because of it's interest in war?

If so you think that say, president bush (or some1 with the authority) ordered the f-16s not to go up into the air when the problem first arose?

The amount of people that would have to have been on this plan would have been huge, and I just can't even begin to imagine that it was the case. When the airline told the military or whatever of the deviating planes there would have to have been an order to tell the base not to send up pilots as would normally be the case, and wouldn't you think the people in the base would question (while not aloud) the reasoning behind this. And I have not heard of any such people coming out telling that story.

Healio

Call Me Jimmy wrote:

and im not sure if i remember correctly but you said you believe it was extremists who did it and that's all legitimate but the government let it happen because of it's interest in war?

If so you think that say, president bush (or some1 with the authority) ordered the f-16s not to go up into the air when the problem first arose?

The amount of people that would have to have been on this plan would have been huge, and I just can't even begin to imagine that it was the case. When the airline told the military or whatever of the deviating planes there would have to have been an order to tell the base not to send up pilots as would normally be the case, and wouldn't you think the people in the base would question (while not aloud) the reasoning behind this. And I have not heard of any such people coming out telling that story.

You should take a look at this:
Scroll down to Bush's Confused Recollection and read down

billy the squid

Call Me Jimmy wrote:

and im not sure if i remember correctly but you said you believe it was extremists who did it and that's all legitimate but the government let it happen because of it's interest in war?

If so you think that say, president bush (or some1 with the authority) ordered the f-16s not to go up into the air when the problem first arose?

all it would have taken would have been for NORAD to do nothing, which they did.

The amount of people that would have to have been on this plan would have been huge, and I just can't even begin to imagine that it was the case. When the airline told the military or whatever of the deviating planes there would have to have been an order to tell the base not to send up pilots as would normally be the case, and wouldn't you think the people in the base would question (while not aloud) the reasoning behind this. And I have not heard of any such people coming out telling that story.[/QUOTE]

The FAA would not be party to decisions made by NORAD. once they had passed any relevent information onto NORAD, then their job would have been done. NORAD, for some reason, decided not to mobilise aircraft to intercept the jets in time. they didnt make the vital phone call at the right time.

Healio

.

So what did the Commander in Chief do with the knowledge that the United States was under attack?

He did nothing.

Bush did not say one word. He did not ask Card any questions. He did not give any orders. He did not know who (or which country) was attacking, whether there would be more attacks, what military plans had been taken, what military actions should be taken - indeed, he knew virtually nothing about what was going on outside the room. He just sat there. Bush later recalled: "There was no time for discussion or anything." [Fighting Back: The War on Terrorism - From Inside the Bush White House, by Bill Sammon, 10/02, pp. 83-84] Even stranger, as one newspaper put it, although the nation was under terrorist attack, "for some reason, Secret Service agents [did] not bustle him away." [Globe and Mail, 9/12/01]

Military pilots must have "permission from the White House because only the president has the authority to order a civilian aircraft shot down." [CNN, 10/26/99] But if retaliatory strikes needed to the authorized, Bush was not available. If one of the planes had to be shot down to save more lives on the ground, Bush was not available. Although several fighters had been dispatched to defend New York City, the pilot of one of the planes flying to catch Flight 175 later noted that it wouldn't have mattered if he caught up with it, because only Bush could order a shootdown, and Bush could not be reached in the classroom. [Cape Cod Times, 8/21/02]

Call Me Jimmy

and did the f-16s actually get up into the air? I'de like to know where you got your information (you may have known it for a long time and not remember in which case nm, but if ye have a link that is non-bias i would be interested in reading it) about this NORAD doing nothing, like where it says that the f-16s were just not ordered to leave until it was too late, rather than them leaving and not locating the aircraft until it was too late.

And even if it is true that the aircraft were not ordered to go until it was too late, i believe it was incompetence as opposed to evil that prompted the inaction.

Call Me Jimmy

and in the event of another shoot down like in your quote abouve H-man, they could have summoned bush out of the room had there been another threat that needed his attention

Healio

Did you read the link i posted?

billy the squid

every link posted on these boards will be biassed in some way, people will call irish independent links posted in the ireland offline board biassed because the irish independent is owned by the same guy that owns eircom, fox news links posted in politics will be called biassed because the station is pro-bush,

I have tried to find the link where i read NORAD decided to do nothing, but it is too late right now and I am tired, i promise i will root it out tomorrow morning.

iregk

All the questions about fighter pilots getting up in the air etc... the largest air base on the east coast is in Albany, upstate NY. The hijacked plane flew straight past it. Albany for the purpose of being the largest on the east coast at any time has a minimum of 6 fighter jets ready to get airborne within 10mins. The plane from Boston, no idea where it was heading to, would have been off course very early as air space around albany is severly restricted. They could have had that plane down long before they even seen the twin towers.

angry_fox

Heres the full report carried out by Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligenceinto into the activities of the U.S. Intelligence Community in connection with 9/11 attacks, its 858 pages long and is a 5.51mb download.

iregk

858, ill read it on the bog later!

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

tolosenc

daveirl wrote:

This post has been deleted.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

tolosenc

the American defense budget this year was in excess of $400 billion. If you were to use even that money(never mind the trillions of other dollars) paying the up to 5,000(ballpark) people involved $2m per annum would ammount to less than 2.5% of defense spending.

steviec

There are so many things wrong with that notion. Everyone involved. Everyone who knows anyone involved. People can't suddenly get $2 million richer without explaining it to their friends/families. The paper trail would be huge. And all it takes is for one person out of the thousands involved in the big conspiracy to actually have a conscience and tell somebody about it at any point before or after the event. They could call a newspaper anonymously.

I know the general concensus is that once someone puts in enough work and earns enough respect to be democratically elected they are no longer a human being and have no value on human life or anything other than money, but it still seems crazily far fetched to me. Considering the complete and total lack of evidence, and the mountains of evidence pointing to what is common knowledge.

Fallschirmjager

Healio wrote:

If you look at the footage of Bush being told, the guy takes about 3 seconds to explain that the towers have been hit. What would he have said in 3 seconds.................. two words come to mind "it's done".

actually i timed that...

its done takes less then 1 second

however.. sir , the twin towers have been attacked with planes...is around 3 seconds...

Fallschirmjager

billy the squid wrote:

I quoted the article more to prove that the US air force were able to intercept his private jet, which they failed to do in 9-11.

but to answer your question, it says it in the first paragraph

.

http://edition.cnn.com/US/9910/26/shootdown/


i would recommend all read this regarding the ability in pre 9/11 times on the requirements for shooting down a jetliner...

this was written in 1999...unless of course the CIA 'modified it' in which case i recommend the tin foil hat...

miju

judging by the amount of views of this thread i thought it might be benficial to add a poll to get the paser by's opinion. if i've left any options out on the poll lemme know

Fallschirmjager

_raptor_ wrote:

judging by the amount of views of this thread i thought it might be benficial to add a poll to get the paser by's opinion. if i've left any options out on the poll lemme know

ahhh cant pick more then one and we all know that its ATARI...that supoer secret organisation...LOL good poll


and i might add...nothing on aliens....whats wrong with you...all conspiracy sites have aliens...

iregk

A lot of talk about people being in on it etc... and they could always go to the news papers annon. Well there is one huge problem here. CNN, MSNBC and CBS are all owned by the same people. These are the people that are involved in it. The paper is not allowed to print anything or say anything that these people do not want them to.

A lot of people have spoke out and said what happened, but immediately the great word Conspiracy is thrown straight back. Have you ever once considered that the conspiracy may be right? For years anything any event that has happened as soon as someone questioned the official line they were branded conspiracy theorist. So many years of this and no its an automatic reaction to brand something or someone a conspiracy. Once your branded with this the general public will not believe a word you say, regardless of weather that word is true or not.

Neutral papers in america have published a lot of confessions and stories from people regarding 911 but then the likes of CNN and USA Today mention the world conspiracy 99% of the country turned against these papers and tv networks.

I remember seeing a fascinating program over in Italy last year and it was about publication and what get hidden. One of the papers owned by Berlusconi, all the staff were given memos before 9/11 saying that as and from 9/11 if the following words appear in any article your fired. The staff who were all working for different papers now were saying they had to get approval for everything and everything they said was censored. One guy wrote about money and business deals before 9/11 that looked suspicious and he was fired on the spot before it was published.

Thats what your fighthing with.

miju

Fallschirmjager wrote:

ahhh cant pick more then one and we all know that its ATARI...that supoer secret organisation...LOL good poll


and i might add...nothing on aliens....whats wrong with you...all conspiracy sites have aliens...

multiple choice would distort the results somewhat and your NOT getting your aliens and thats it :-D anyways back to the topic at hand

iregk you raise a very good observation about censorship

angry_fox

Maybe Al-Queda & some rogue agents of the CIA should be an option????

angry_fox

Wasint bush determined there should be no enquiry into 9/11 and then didnt he try and appoint Henry Kissenger to head a limited inquiry.

The blask box recorders for the two planes that crashed into the twin towers were never found but they found lead hijacker Mohammed Atta's passport in the wreckage.....

miju

got any links to verify that info about the black boxes angry?