Did anyone see the videoconference of Bushs and the troops? It was staged!!

[mesue]

Apparently they are so concerned that the troops might say something other than what they want us to hear so they handpicked troops and staged it.

I don't know how familiar you all are with satellite feeds but when we had one of the big ones we used to pick up the linking up and practicing broadcasts all the time, really boring stuff but the funniest one was where a well know host was picking his nose so hard I thought the finger was going to come out beside his eyeball, poor guy. Anyway before someone says this is one more lie they got it all being practiced via satellite and it is on film.

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/14/1351232
Bush Videoconference With Troops Staged
It has emerged that President Bush's nationally televised videoconference with US troops in Tikrit, Iraq on Thursday was scripted beforehand. The White House had painted the event as an impromptu conversation with the troops, but video from the satellite feed before the event gave lie to those claims. The ten US soldiers and one Iraqi were coached in their answers before the event by Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary Allison Barber. She stood at the White House podium where Bush would later stand, she read part of his opening remarks and then proceeded to outline the questions Bush would ask. At times, she suggested phrasing for the soldiers' responses. With the referendum on Iraq's constitution just days away and President Bush's popularity plummeting, the White House clearly wanted this event to give the impression that the US plan in Iraq was moving forward.

President Bush, "You defeat a backwards dark philosophy with one that is hopeful. And that hopeful philosophy is one that is based on universal freedom. I'm very impressed at the Iraqi government to have a constitution that attracts Sunnis, Shias and Kurds. They worked hard to get a constitution and now the people of Iraq are going to get to vote again, on a constitution."
During the brief videoconference, the handpicked soldiers appeared to fawn over the president. At one point, one told him,"We began our fight against terrorism in the wake of 9/11, and we're proud to continue it here." But a telling moment came when Bush asked the soldiers to comment about their interactions with Iraqi civilians and Captain David Williams could only cite a second hand account:


Capt. David Williams, "Sir, I was with my Iraqi counterpart in the city of Tikrit last week, and he was going around talking to the locals. And from what he told me that the locals told him, the Iraqi people are ready and eager to vote in this referendum."
The videoconference was set in Saddam Hussein's hometown of Tikrit, which Bush lightly acknowledged he could not safely visit. Interestingly, Tikrit was the backdrop for many of Saddam Hussein's propaganda videos. There was one Iraqi present for the videoconference, Sergeant major Akeel, whose only role was to tell President Bush "I like you."

When it emerged that the event was staged, reporters grilled White House spokesperson Scott McClellan, asking him directly about the coaching:


MR. MCCLELLAN: I'm sorry, are you suggesting that what our troops were saying was not sincere, or what they said was not their own thoughts?
Q: Nothing at all. I'm just asking why it was necessary to coach them.

MR. MCCLELLAN: Well, in terms of the event earlier today, the event was set up to highlight an important milestone in Iraq's history, and to give the President an opportunity to, once again, express our appreciation for all that our troops are doing when it comes to defending freedom, and their courage and their sacrifice.

[3lilpigs]

I saw it but wasnt surprised. I seriously doubt Bush is the only one who has ever done that.....just the only one who got caught. ;)

[tngirl]

Ooh, Ooh, Big Breaking News!!! I think Bush took a crap and we didn't smell it!!! Call all the news channels!

[nightrider127]

Like most things preidential is not staged. They all do it, be it democrat, republican or indenpendent.

I have even read in many books that presidents will manage to just have to make an annnouncement right when the evening news is on. That way, they get to the biggest audience.

[JKATHERINE]

I'm not surprised. Just before election time, Bush was in Bangor and purposely had non-supporters banned and removed from the premises...even if they were not known to be 'troublemakers.' Why on Earth would he want nay-sayers there? Or troops who will tell the other side of the story of whats going on? (note sarcasm) ;)

[TexasGal]

Why is it that the conservatives say the media is run by liberals who report the news according to their own political bias and therefore refuse to acknowledge any truth in it, but when the President gets caught doing it, it's no big deal because "all the presidents do it"? :confused:

[mesue]

Why is it that the conservatives say the media is run by liberals who report the news according to their own political bias and therefore refuse to acknowledge any truth in it, but when the President gets caught doing it, it's no big deal because "all the presidents do it"? :confused:


So true! I seldom watch mainstream news anymore since I have found free speech tv but was just wondering if anyone has seen any reports of this on mainstream news.

[tngirl]

Why is it that the conservatives say the media is run by liberals who report the news according to their own political bias and therefore refuse to acknowledge any truth in it, but when the President gets caught doing it, it's no big deal because "all the presidents do it"? :confused:

It all has to do with the subject. This subject is ridiculous because it is standard practice. Someone mentioned having protesters and such "removed" in Bangor. I'm sorry, how many presidents have you seen giving speeches while banners are waving and people are heckling? The reason is because they have been removed. This is for several reasons, first, because these people are the most likely to create a "imminent" danger to the president and so it is a matter of security. Second, the president who is giving the speech or doing the visit is wanting to get their point across and with someone heckling or protesting, it diverts from the agenda.

And this goes for present and past president and polititicians. You can't seriously believe that the present president is the only one that practices this.

[YankeeMary]

This reminds me of the movie "Wag the Dog"...

[moe265]

I agree.....he's not the first and surely won't be the last.

[Katt]

So true! I seldom watch mainstream news anymore since I have found free speech tv but was just wondering if anyone has seen any reports of this on mainstream news.

It was on our local news. Then, they had open night on the "rant" and there were a few that spoke about it in their emails that the station published.

I'm sure they all do it too, but leave it to Dubya to get caught.

[YNKYH8R]

Well, when was the last time President spoke with Soldiers directly in this form? I didn't watch it (why would I?) but it would have been considered a more credable thing if they were allowed to speak candidly.

Who wants to watch scripted schlock from Govener Bush when we have movies in the theater?

So what happened did the soldiers say everything is rainbows and lollypops?

[tigger4]

Well, when was the last time President spoke with Soldiers directly in this form? I didn't watch it (why would I?) but it would have been considered a more credable thing if they were allowed to speak candidly.

Who wants to watch scripted schlock from Govener Bush when we have movies in the theater?

So what happened did the soldiers say everything is rainbows and lollypops?


Of course they said everything was rainbows and lollipops. They even trotted out an Iraqi soldier to tell Bush how much he liked him. I have never seen anything quite like it in my entire life. And I would say that no matter who the President was.

Didn't he make people sign a loyalty pledge to come to his campaign rallies? I thought I read something about that during the election. I had never heard of a President doing anything like that before. Heaven forbid someone ask him a question he doesn't already know the answer too or even worse say something bad to him.

[tngirl]

Of course they said everything was rainbows and lollipops. They even trotted out an Iraqi soldier to tell Bush how much he liked him. I have never seen anything quite like it in my entire life. And I would say that no matter who the President was.

Didn't he make people sign a loyalty pledge to come to his campaign rallies? I thought I read something about that during the election. I had never heard of a President doing anything like that before. Heaven forbid someone ask him a question he doesn't already know the answer too or even worse say something bad to him.

I never heard of such....my brother went to a couple of his "rallies". As for wanting to know the questions before hand....Lord forbid he uses the wrong word to answer a question...the media would be all over it, and this includes past presidents not just Bush...because that is the way the media is.

[delSol]

staging - I posted this on 08/03/04 because the Edwards made such a big deal about "eating every annniversary at wendy's" (awww, how touching...)

"we're just like all of you, we eat at wendy's" - NOT

http://www.bigbigforums.com/showthread.php3?t=420521

[hblueeyes]

Town hall meetings are staged. Questions are given in advance so those answering have prepared answers. Nothing new but for those youngens out there this may be new to them. Nothing is as it seems. I feel bad for our country and economy. I'd like to know how outsourcing jobs oversees helps our economy?

Me :p

[tigger4]

Actually not all town hall meetings are staged. My cousin has been mayor of the town I grew up in for about 20 years now and town hall meetings there are not staged. I also know the town hall meetings where my mom, grandma, and aunts and uncles live are not staged; but they all live in Ohio so maybe we all do things different there.

Oh and I live in Washington state and I don't believe the town hall meetings in Tacoma are staged. But I know in Yelm you aren't allowed to say Walmart at town meetings. :eek:

[Freebeemom]

Sorry, but this has happened since the beginning of the presidency in our country. I would hope that people will view the news with some sort of bias....ANY news coverage has a spin. EVERYTHING is a set up...If you believe that we actually landed on the moon in the 50's, well, there is another "Staged" event that happened right before your eyes!

[YNKYH8R]

Sorry, but this has happened since the beginning of the presidency in our country. I would hope that people will view the news with some sort of bias....ANY news coverage has a spin. EVERYTHING is a set up...If you believe that we actually landed on the moon in the 50's, well, there is another "Staged" event that happened right before your eyes!
You don't believe we landed on the moon?

[tngirl]

You don't believe we landed on the moon?

Well, you know, we didn't land on the moon in the 50's. I do believe that came like in the 60's

[YNKYH8R]

Well, you know, we didn't land on the moon in the 50's. I do believe that came like in the 60's
Right....you're scaring me now.

[Vee030473]

It was 20 July 1969 wasn't it??? :confused:

[TexasGal]

Yep! :)

[mesue]

Being a conspiracy theorist I actually believed we landed on the moon for years, it is such an accepted thing that I never doubted it, it was when reading people's arguments of how we could not have landed on the moon that I finally saw that logic outweighs accepted beliefs. Here is a very good website that gives some really good sensible arguments based on knowledge and scientific data against our landing on the moon.

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm

[tngirl]

Being a conspiracy theorist I actually believed we landed on the moon for years, it is such an accepted thing that I never doubted it, it was when reading people's arguments of how we could not have landed on the moon that I finally saw that logic outweighs accepted beliefs. Here is a very good website that gives some really good sensible arguments based on knowledge and scientific data against our landing on the moon.

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm

Ok...so why does this not surprise me?

[Njean31]

Being a conspiracy theorist I actually believed we landed on the moon for years, it is such an accepted thing that I never doubted it, it was when reading people's arguments of how we could not have landed on the moon that I finally saw that logic outweighs accepted beliefs. Here is a very good website that gives some really good sensible arguments based on knowledge and scientific data against our landing on the moon.

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm

do you also believe that an airliner didn't hit the pentagon on 9/11?

[tngirl]

Ooh, Ooh, Ooh...I know a good one! How about the conspiracy theory connection between "The Catcher in the Rye" and assassins?!? Hehe...guess my daughter is going to become an assassin!

[mesue]

Ok...so why does this not surprise me?

Oh I'm sure it would surprise you that someone would use logic over what their told to believe.
Ever heard of the Van Allen Belt?
Tell me how our astronauts got outside of this belt in a spaceship practically made of reynolds wrap and survived. In 1969 Nasa computers though large were not equal to what you are using to cruise the internet with right now but yet you believe with that small amount of technology we managed to get past all this radiation and survive a trip to the moon. By all scientific data available then and now our astronauts should have been fried. I was in the 7th grade in 1969 and a calculator was a big deal thats how advanced we were back then.
Please give me your scientific explanation?

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm
Outer space is awash with deadly radiation that emanates from solar flares firing out from the sun. Standard astronauts orbiting earth in near space, like those who recently fixed the Hubble telescope, are protected by the earth's Van Allen belt. But the Moon is to 240,000 miles distant, way outside this safe band. And, during the Apollo flights, astronomical data shows there were no less than 1,485 such flares.

[mesue]

Ooh, Ooh, Ooh...I know a good one! How about the conspiracy theory connection between "The Catcher in the Rye" and assassins?!? Hehe...guess my daughter is going to become an assassin!

Its a great piece of literature. Actually most everyone has read that book usually in high school since it is required in some curriculums, no conspiracy there, just one of those weird coincidences that many assassins all have a copy. Probably they all had read tv guide or a newspaper too, big deal!

[mesue]

do you also believe that an airliner didn't hit the pentagon on 9/11?

Evidence does point to it being a smaller plane since one of the engines found and photographed at the scene immediately after the crash does not seem to be one that is used in larger planes. Eyewitnesses did say they saw a plane hit but many say it was a small plane. http://www.americanfreepress.net/10_10_03/Controversy_Swirling/controversy_swirling.html

I will tell you this I find it really funny how so many here accept the government's word of what happened and believe that these large planes were enough to bring down the 110 story towers to nothing but concrete dust practically but yet the same type of large plane and impact did so little damage to the pentagon.

[tngirl]

Please give me your scientific explanation?

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm
Outer space is awash with deadly radiation that emanates from solar flares firing out from the sun. Standard astronauts orbiting earth in near space, like those who recently fixed the Hubble telescope, are protected by the earth's Van Allen belt. But the Moon is to 240,000 miles distant, way outside this safe band. And, during the Apollo flights, astronomical data shows there were no less than 1,485 such flares.

The Van Allen Belt's impact on space travel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt

Solar cells, integrated circuits, and sensors can be damaged by radiation. In 1962, the Van Allen belts were temporarily amplified by a high-altitude nuclear explosion (the Starfish Prime test) and several satellites ceased operation. Magnetic storms occasionally damage electronic components on spacecraft. Miniaturization and digitization of electronics and logic circuits have made satellites more vulnerable to radiation, as incoming ions may be as large as the circuit's charge. Electronics on satellites must be hardened against radiation to operate reliably. The Hubble Space Telescope, among other satellites, often has its sensors turned off when passing through regions of intense radiation.

An object satellite shielded by 3 mm of aluminum will receive about 2500 rem (3) (25 Sv) per year.

Proponents of the Apollo Moon Landing Hoax have argued that space travel to the moon is impossible because the Van Allen radiation would kill or incapacitate an astronaut who made the trip. In practice, Apollo astronauts who travelled to the moon spent very little time in the belts and received a harmless dose. [1]. Nevertheless NASA deliberately timed Apollo launches, and used lunar transfer orbits that only skirted the edge of the belt over the equator to minimise the radiation. Astronauts who visited the moon probably have a slightly higher risk of cancer during their lifetimes, but still remain unlikely to become ill because of it.

[tngirl]

Its a great piece of literature. Actually most everyone has read that book usually in high school since it is required in some curriculums, no conspiracy there, just one of those weird coincidences that many assassins all have a copy. Probably they all had read tv guide or a newspaper too, big deal!

Actually I know of no one that was "required" to read the book in school. My daughter decided to read the book after watching Conspiracy Theory. Besides, I think it is hogwash myself.

[tngirl]

Oh I'm sure it would surprise you that someone would use logic over what their told to believe.
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm

Ha Ha Ha...you slay me!! Was that suppose to imply that I am a thoughtless moron? I can gaurantee you that I do not believe EVERYTHING that I am told, but it appears that you seem to believe that the above website knows everything and YOU chose to believe them. So, I guess that makes us the same doesn't it? We both believe what we chose to believe?

Also, don't assume that your "logic", as you put it, means that you know everything and that you are the only one that is right. We are ALL wrong at some point or the other. Now, that said, if you want to get into a battle of wits with me.....I would be glad to go toe to toe with you. I am not as impressed with your "logic" as you are.

[tngirl]

Evidence does point to it being a smaller plane since one of the engines found and photographed at the scene immediately after the crash does not seem to be one that is used in larger planes. Eyewitnesses did say they saw a plane hit but many say it was a small plane. http://www.americanfreepress.net/10_10_03/Controversy_Swirling/controversy_swirling.html

I will tell you this I find it really funny how so many here accept the government's word of what happened and believe that these large planes were enough to bring down the 110 story towers to nothing but concrete dust practically but yet the same type of large plane and impact did so little damage to the pentagon.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

Claim: The damage to the Pentagon on September 11 was caused by something other than a hijacked Boeing 757's being crashed into its side.
Status: False.

Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2002]


As everyone knows, on 11 September, less than an hour after the attack on the World Trade Centre, an airplane collided with the Pentagon. The Associated Press first reported that a booby-trapped truck had caused the explosion. The Pentagon quickly denied this. The official US government version of events still holds. Here's a little game for you: Take a look at these photographs and try to find evidence to corroborate the official version. It's up to you to Hunt the Boeing!

I will let you read the rest for yourselves....it is pretty long and with pictures.

[tngirl]

Oh I'm sure it would surprise you that someone would use logic over what their told to believe.
Ever heard of the Van Allen Belt?
Tell me how our astronauts got outside of this belt in a spaceship practically made of reynolds wrap and survived. In 1969 Nasa computers though large were not equal to what you are using to cruise the internet with right now but yet you believe with that small amount of technology we managed to get past all this radiation and survive a trip to the moon. By all scientific data available then and now our astronauts should have been fried. I was in the 7th grade in 1969 and a calculator was a big deal thats how advanced we were back then.
Please give me your scientific explanation?

Oh, by the way, you know what SCIENTIST did before computers? They figured everything with their heads...this is because THEY are so smart and have the jobs they have and we are sitting here bickering back and forth on an online forum....duh!

[mesue]

Not a moron just someone who believes whatever the government says. Someone who does not question it at all and thinks that if the government is keeping something from you its for your own good. I think you want to believe the 1950s version of our government is always the good guys. I can understand that I used to want to believe that too.
But if you really want to go toe to toe on an issue, choose it. I'm always up for a challenge.

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm
But the Moon is to 240,000 miles distant, way outside this safe band. And, during the Apollo flights, astronomical data shows there were no less than 1,485 such flares

As I said a calculator was a big deal in the 60's and computers took up rooms the size of a warehouse and still did not have the capablility that your computer has now. I actually saw one of the guys who worked for Nasa say this when talking about what an extraordinary mission the moon landing was; that a 486 computer was more than what they had. There is no way we had the technology to prevent this craft that far out in space from being burned to a crisp no matter what wiki says. From what wiki says we actually could predict the sun flares and their distance and location so far ahead of time that we could decide where and when to put our spaceship to where it would receive no damage. Its says it skirted the equator of the belt yet the moon is 240,000 miles past the belt, I would think it would be hard to skirt the equator of the belt and go out 240,000 feet beyond it, darn near impossible. They said we sent our spaceship up during a time there were few flares, did you not read there were a total 1485 such flares during the time the ship was supposedly in route to the moon? We did not have the capabilities to land on the moon back then and I seriously doubt we do now either. But if someone wants to try and go again I nominate George W. Bush.

[tngirl]

http://www.clavius.org/envrad.html

Here is another one for you....it is long so you will have to read it for yourself

[tngirl]

Not a moron just someone who believes whatever the government says. Someone who does not question it at all and thinks that if the government is keeping something from you its for your own good. I think you want to believe the 1950s version of our government is always the good guys. I can understand that I used to want to believe that too.
But if you really want to go toe to toe on an issue, choose it. I'm always up for a challenge.

No sweetie, I make up my OWN mind as to what to believe. I also look at all the options and I look at ALL the information and then DECIDE what I believe. By saying that I "believe what the government says" is bunk and is the same thing as saying that I am a thoughtless moron.

[mesue]

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

Claim: The damage to the Pentagon on September 11 was caused by something other than a hijacked Boeing 757's being crashed into its side.
Status: False.

Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2002]


As everyone knows, on 11 September, less than an hour after the attack on the World Trade Centre, an airplane collided with the Pentagon. The Associated Press first reported that a booby-trapped truck had caused the explosion. The Pentagon quickly denied this. The official US government version of events still holds. Here's a little game for you: Take a look at these photographs and try to find evidence to corroborate the official version. It's up to you to Hunt the Boeing!

I will let you read the rest for yourselves....it is pretty long and with pictures.

Right the towers were just a big old 110 story tall building built with steel and concrete and so of course they fell easily into smithereens and the pentagon stood like a rock from the same type of impact. You know the FBI could end all of this dispute on whether it was a large plane or a missile or a small plane by just releasing the footage taken by surveilance cameras of nearby businesses, they got them immediately after the pentagon was impacted by something, if their not hiding something, why have they not been released? When someone refuses to give you all of the information thats available I have to ask, why not, thats just my nature? I mean seriously are they hiding something and why, we all know the pentagon was impacted by something on 911, so why are the films top secret and not being shown?

[mesue]

No sweetie, I make up my OWN mind as to what to believe. I also look at all the options and I look at ALL the information and then DECIDE what I believe. By saying that I "believe what the government says" is bunk and is the same thing as saying that I am a thoughtless moron.


I'm not going to argue with you over whether you think, I think, you are a moron. If you want to believe thats what I think, then fine, believe it, I have already said that is not the case.

[tngirl]

Right the towers were just a big old 110 story tall building built with steel and concrete and so of course they fell easily into smithereens and the pentagon stood like a rock from the same type of impact. You know the FBI could end all of this dispute on whether it was a large plane or a missile or a small plane by just releasing the footage taken by surveilance cameras of nearby businesses, they got them immediately after the pentagon was impacted by something, if their not hiding something, why have they not been released? When someone refuses to give you all of the information thats available I have to ask, why not, thats just my nature? I mean seriously are they hiding something and why, we all know the pentagon was impacted by something on 911, so why are the films top secret and not being shown?

Maybe because it is still an ongoing investigation? As for the WTC collasping from the impact? It was from the heat of the fire that was caused by the fuel. The heat caused the metal / steel structure to weaken and collapse. All the weight falling upon itself destroyed what was below it. It doesn't take a physics major to figure that one out. As for the Pentagon, I think the story is rather self explanatory.

Once again we are back to the fact that you believe what you chose and I believe the facts.

[tngirl]

Oh, and by the way, since it is so easy for you to believe the conspiracy theories because of their simplistic ways of explaining things, consider this if you can....

It is theoritically impossible for a bumble bee to fly....so with your reasoning of logic.....a bumble bee can't fly.

[mesue]

Maybe because it is still an ongoing investigation? As for the WTC collasping from the impact? It was from the heat of the fire that was caused by the fuel. The heat caused the metal / steel structure to weaken and collapse. All the weight falling upon itself destroyed what was below it. It doesn't take a physics major to figure that one out. As for the Pentagon, I think the story is rather self explanatory.

Once again we are back to the fact that you believe what you chose and I believe the facts.

Ah yes the facts the government is telling you to believe, their facts because the government has said so, the so called facts from the official story. There are many scientists saying otherwise. They got facts too.

[tngirl]

Ah yes the facts the government is telling you to believe, their facts because the government has said so, the so called facts from the official story. There are many scientists saying otherwise. They got facts too.

What scientist? Dang! I listened to the designers of the buildings explain it. Are you saying they are just pawns of the government? Geez....get real! You post a link that has no pictures of the "engine" that supposedly supports their theory....and I am suppose to just believe them? Anything and everything can be exlained to sound true or false.

Sounds like you have watched too much X-Files...lol. Well, this conversation is over...kind of hard to talk to a brick wall. I can be proven wrong, but obviously you can't. I think that was the whole point to this debate. How can you see when your are closed minded?

[Njean31]

this is hard to understand even for people who understand physics....




"The recent Fox TV show, which I saw, is an ingenious and entertaining assemblage of nonsense. The claim that radiation exposure during the Apollo missions would have been fatal to the astronauts is only one example of such nonsense." -- Dr. James Van Allen

There is too much radiation in outer space for manned space travel.

This general charge is usually made by people who don't understand very much at all about radiation. After witnessing the horrors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the tragedy of Chernobyl it is not surprising that the idea of radiation should elicit an intuitively fearful reaction. But when you understand the different types of radiation and what can be done about them, it becomes a manageable problem to avoid radiation exposure.
It doesn't matter how difficult or expensive it might have been to falsify the lunar landings.

Since it was absolutely impossible to solve the radiation problem, the landings had to have been faked.

This is a common method of argument that attempts to prove something that can't be proven, by disproving something else. In this case the reader is compelled to accept the conspiracy theory and all its attendant problems and improbabilities, simply on the basis that no matter how difficult, absurd, or far-fetched a particular proposition may be, if it's the only alternative to something clearly impossible then it must -- somehow -- have come to pass. This false dilemma is aimed at pushing the reader past healthy skepticism and into a frame of mind where the absurd seems plausible.

The false dilemma is only convincing if the supposedly impossible alternative is made to seem truly impossible. And so conspiracists argue very strenuously that the radiation from various sources spelled absolute doom for the Apollo missions. They quote frightening statistics and cite various highly technical sources to try to establish to the reader that the radiation poses a deadly threat.

But in fact most conspiracists know only slightly more about radiation than the average reader. This means only a very few people in the world can dispute their allegations, and the conspiracists can simply dismiss them as part of the conspiracy.


The Van Allen belts are full of deadly radiation, and anyone passing through them would be fried.

Needless to say this is a very simplistic statement. Yes, there is deadly radiation in the Van Allen belts, but the nature of that radiation was known to the Apollo engineers and they were able to make suitable preparations. The principle danger of the Van Allen belts is high-energy protons, which are not that difficult to shield against. And the Apollo navigators plotted a course through the thinnest parts of the belts and arranged for the spacecraft to pass through them quickly, limiting the exposure.

The Van Allen belts span only about forty degrees of earth's latitude -- twenty degrees above and below the magnetic equator. The diagrams of Apollo's translunar trajectory printed in various press releases are not entirely accurate. They tend to show only a two-dimensional version of the actual trajectory. The actual trajectory was three-dimensional. The highly technical reports of Apollo, accessible to but not generally understood by the public, give the three-dimensional details of the translunar trajectory.

Each mission flew a slightly different trajectory in order to access its landing site, but the orbital inclination of the translunar coast trajectory was always in the neighborhood of 30°. Stated another way, the geometric plane containing the translunar trajectory was inclined to the earth's equator by about 30°. A spacecraft following that trajectory would bypass all but the edges of the Van Allen belts.

This is not to dispute that passage through the Van Allen belts would be dangerous. But NASA conducted a series of experiments designed to investigate the nature of the Van Allen belts, culminating in the repeated traversal of the Southern Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly (an intense, low-hanging patch of Van Allen belt) by the Gemini 10 astronauts.
NASA defenders make a big deal about the Southern Atlantic Magnetic Anomaly, but the Apollo spacecraft ventured into the more intense parts of the belts.

http://www.clavius.org/index.html

[Freebeemom]

Being a conspiracy theorist I actually believed we landed on the moon for years, it is such an accepted thing that I never doubted it, it was when reading people's arguments of how we could not have landed on the moon that I finally saw that logic outweighs accepted beliefs. Here is a very good website that gives some really good sensible arguments based on knowledge and scientific data against our landing on the moon.

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/moon.htm


Mesue, let me shake your hand....I think this is the first time we agree!

THERE IS NO WIND ON THE MOON PEOPLE!!

"If Persey is right and the pictures are fake, then we've only NASA's word that man ever went to the Moon."

[Freebeemom]

Right the towers were just a big old 110 story tall building built with steel and concrete and so of course they fell easily into smithereens and the pentagon stood like a rock from the same type of impact. You know the FBI could end all of this dispute on whether it was a large plane or a missile or a small plane by just releasing the footage taken by surveilance cameras of nearby businesses, they got them immediately after the pentagon was impacted by something, if their not hiding something, why have they not been released? When someone refuses to give you all of the information thats available I have to ask, why not, thats just my nature? I mean seriously are they hiding something and why, we all know the pentagon was impacted by something on 911, so why are the films top secret and not being shown?
http://users.adelphia.net/~earthwatch/

Check it out. This is an EXCELLENT Site....

[tngirl]

Mesue, let me shake your hand....I think this is the first time we agree!

THERE IS NO WIND ON THE MOON PEOPLE!!

"If Persey is right and the pictures are fake, then we've only NASA's word that man ever went to the Moon."

I remember in school watching the space launches, landings and the walk on the moon. The Flag as you know was NOT blowing in the wind....There was a wire they pulled to make the Flag appear to be "waving".....I know this because I saw them actually do it.

[tngirl]

http://users.adelphia.net/~earthwatch/

Check it out. This is an EXCELLENT Site....

OMG!! First Bush blows up the WTC, now the levees in NO!! What will he do next?!?

[Freebeemom]

There was a wire they pulled to make the Flag appear to be "waving".....I know this because I saw them actually do it.


Did you "See" it or did you SEE it?

Sorry, but the moon landing never happened. They were in too much of a hurry in their race against the Russians. I know several history teachers that were fired in the 70s due to their teachings. Revisionist history was beginning then. They were accused of being "Communist' and were done for. Sorry, but the gov. does have full control over what you believe is the truth.



I don't believe bush blew up the levees...I believe that whoever planned to bulid a city in a "Bowl" was very stupid.

[mesue]

What scientist? Dang! I listened to the designers of the buildings explain it. Are you saying they are just pawns of the government? Geez....get real! You post a link that has no pictures of the "engine" that supposedly supports their theory....and I am suppose to just believe them? Anything and everything can be exlained to sound true or false.

Sounds like you have watched too much X-Files...lol. Well, this conversation is over...kind of hard to talk to a brick wall. I can be proven wrong, but obviously you can't. I think that was the whole point to this debate. How can you see when your are closed minded?

Your right I do watch the X-Files but mostly because there is something about Fox Mulder I like, ok the truth is he is cute (thats right just like Jimmy Carter I lust) even if he is a bit on the skinny side. Saying a conspiracy theorist is not open minded is funny. LOL As to the moon thing, think about this Bonanza was one of the very first shows to be aired entirely in color and it started in 1959. And then we were so advanced technology wise just 10 short years later we walked on the moon, yeah right.

As to the engine from the pentagon, look here for pics of the engine. http://www.rense.com/general63/ident.htm

As to the scinetists I mentioned here is their website, you will have to go there to see the list of names and titles and specialites.
http://www.physics911.net/spine.htm

S.P.I.N.E. : The Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven
Members of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-eleven come from a variety of professional backgrounds. Some investigate aspects of the 9/11 attacks, others search the web for useful information, and some write up new material. We have tried to maintain professional standards in both the analysis and presentation of the evidence we have assembled, as well as in the scenarios we have constructed.

General Statement by the Panel:

"We have found solid scientific grounds on which to question the interpretation put upon the events of September 11, 2001 by the Office of the President of the United States of America and subsequently propagated by the major media of western nations. Our analysis of the detailed evidence implies a staged attack employing a variety of deceptive arrangements. Indeed, every element of the September 11 attacks, including cellphone calls from fast-moving aircraft, has an alternate means of creation."

Panel members are scientists, engineers, and other professionals. All contribute through search and research. Members of S.P.I.N.E. may be contacted by clicking here and entering the name of the member you'd like to contact, along with a brief message

[justme23]

That is the most absurd website I have ever seen... and true to a conspiracists way, fuzzy videos that are "unaltered but cropped (altered)".

[tngirl]

Next thing you guys will be telling me is that there is no Santa Clause!! :eek:

[YankeeMary]

I never put much thought into us actually landing on the moon. I had never heard that there are people that doubted it. With my mind, landing/walking on the moon is a lot for me to fathom, Ijust always accepted the fact that we did. But I would not be surprised if it wasn't true. Then again, I am not surprised that we did.

[tngirl]

I never put much thought into us actually landing on the moon. I had never heard that there are people that doubted it. With my mind, landing/walking on the moon is a lot for me to fathom, Ijust always accepted the fact that we did. But I would not be surprised if it wasn't true. Then again, I am not surprised that we did.

Thank you Mary. I believe what I believe until there is doubting PROOF that it isn't true. I will agree with the possibilities that the moon landing is not true, but I do not believe it because there is PROOF that it did and the proof that it didn't, doesn't hold water in my book.

[Freebeemom]

Thank you Mary. I believe what I believe until there is doubting PROOF that it isn't true. I will agree with the possibilities that the moon landing is not true, but I do not believe it because there is PROOF that it did and the proof that it didn't, doesn't hold water in my book.


No way, tngirl? How can you "agree with the possiblilities" but be so adement and even sarcastic in your remarks? THat doesn't sound very open minded now does it?

Generally, there are arguments on both sides for any historical event/fact. To me, the fact that we were in the middle of a cold war adds much proof to the pudding. The US Was behind and they are never happy admitting that! (look at what they are doing to 3rd graders these days in Math! We admitted we were behind other countries and now the 3rd grade is learning algebra!). Anyhow, I find it all amusing. I believe that everything you read in the media (Which is what the original thread is), is all smoke and mirrors, designed to keep the peace in a very large nation. So, whatever you believe, you believe, I will continte to look beyond the funhouse-type atmosphere and some day, others will follow suit.

[tigger4]

Actually I know of no one that was "required" to read the book in school. My daughter decided to read the book after watching Conspiracy Theory. Besides, I think it is hogwash myself.


Actually I was required to read it my Junior year for Novel Interpretation in High School and my son is required to read it for Advanced Placement Humanities this year in 7th grade. Two different school districts, two different states obviously many years apart. And the school district I attended still requires it Junior year since my little sister had to read it last year.

[Freebeemom]

Actually I was required to read it my Junior year for Novel Interpretation in High School and my son is required to read it for Advanced Placement Humanities this year in 7th grade. Two different school districts, two different states obviously many years apart. And the school district I attended still requires it Junior year since my little sister had to read it last year.


I did as well, and I am glad that I did.

[Njean31]

That is the most absurd website I have ever seen... and true to a conspiracists way, fuzzy videos that are "unaltered but cropped (altered)".


true......

i tell you what we need to be concerned about and that is the fact that I've heard/read/learned that Al-Quaida has nuclear weapons ALREADY IN POSITION in multiple LARGE U.S CITIES that they plan to detonate all at once. they even have a name for it.....AMERICAN HIROSHIMA. now, if you survive the explosions and blasts..........we ALL will still be affected.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45203

[mesue]

That is the most absurd website I have ever seen... and true to a conspiracists way, fuzzy videos that are "unaltered but cropped (altered)".

Well I put three down which one are you referring to?

[mesue]

true......

i tell you what we need to be concerned about and that is the fact that I've heard/read/learned that Al-Quaida has nuclear weapons ALREADY IN POSITION in multiple LARGE U.S CITIES that they plan to detonate all at once. they even have a name for it.....AMERICAN HIROSHIMA. now, if you survive the explosions and blasts..........we ALL will still be affected.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45203

Oh now you know better Bush is the president and has those tough policies and while he is President they would never sneak nukes over the border just because he has not secured them, didn't anyone tell them we now have a Dept. of Homeland Security? I mean after all Robin Hood is in the white house, true he is a bit confused he takes from the poor to give to the rich but didn't those bad Al-Qaida people see him in that jet and then he stepped out of the plane and said Mission Accomplished, they had to be scared of that, right? :D :D :D

[justme23]

Well I put three down which one are you referring to?

Not yours. Honestly, I quit reading webbies you provide a long time ago. I usually know by the base addy whether I will agree or not.

[Njean31]

Oh now you know better Bush is the president and has those tough policies and while he is President they would never sneak nukes over the border just because he has not secured them, didn't anyone tell them we now have a Dept. of Homeland Security? I mean after all Robin Hood is in the white house, true he is a bit confused he takes from the poor to give to the rich but didn't those bad Al-Qaida people see him in that jet and then he stepped out of the plane and said Mission Accomplished, they had to be scared of that, right? :D :D :D


i don't think ANY president could stop them from getting in. and IF it ever happens, it won't matter who was/is the president anymore.

[mesue]

Not yours. Honestly, I quit reading webbies you provide a long time ago. I usually know by the base addy whether I will agree or not.

Good, since I usually try and make sure the ones I choose are clear and full of facts to back up what I say. Apparently the ones I post challenge your beliefs and you just don't like reading facts that might do that.

[mesue]

i don't think ANY president could stop them from getting in. and IF it ever happens, it won't matter who was/is the president anymore.

Why not, we are supposed to have secure borders and God knows we spend enough on security. Heres is the problem Bush has gotten us into a war, squandered billions and our nation's respectability in the world searching for WMD's.

When if he wanted to keep us safe he should have spent that money protecting our borders, for years none of our leaders have bothered securing the border to Mexico, and the reason is that many of the wealthier depend on these workers to work their farms and be cheap domestic workers and child care providers. We rip these people off big time while complaining about them being here and its done because even though we rip them off by our money standards their still making more money than they would in their own country and supposedly doing jobs Americans don't want. It sounds like a win win situation until you consider that by leaving these borders open we all have no real security. Its really crazy we should have spent more on securing our country and helping bring Mexico up to a higher standard of living so that they could purchase our goods and become more able economically, their our neighbor it makes economic sense for us.

[girlwithsoul]

Why not, we are supposed to have secure borders and God knows we spend enough on security. Heres is the problem Bush has gotten us into a war, squandered billions and our nation's respectability in the world searching for WMD's.

When if he wanted to keep us safe he should have spent that money protecting our borders, for years none of our leaders have bothered securing the border to Mexico, and the reason is that many of the wealthier depend on these workers to work their farms and be cheap domestic workers and child care providers. We rip these people off big time while complaining about them being here and its done because even though we rip them off by our money standards their still making more money than they would in their own country and supposedly doing jobs Americans don't want. It sounds like a win win situation until you consider that by leaving these borders open we all have no real security. Its really crazy we should have spent more on securing our country and helping bring Mexico up to a higher standard of living so that they could purchase our goods and become more able economically, their our neighbor it makes economic sense for us.


I totally agree! :D

[Shann]

Ugh.. this thread makes my head hurt *backing out slowly* ;) :p

[tngirl]

Not yours. Honestly, I quit reading webbies you provide a long time ago. I usually know by the base addy whether I will agree or not.

ROFLMFAO~~~ :D

[tngirl]

Good, since I usually try and make sure the ones I choose are clear and full of facts to back up what I say. Apparently the ones I post challenge your beliefs and you just don't like reading facts that might do that.

Oh my!!! :eek: You have figured us out!!! Now what shall we do? :confused:

I am surprised at you mesue....claiming to be such a logical person, but you can't even allow yourself to open your mind to the possibilities. You prefer to frequent the same website over and over again, and you BELIEVE everything THEY say. Now, tell me, why is it ok for you to believe them and it is not ok for me to believe my sources (and don't try to use the "they are governmental sources...because they aren't). If you chose to believe your "sources", that is your perogative. But DO NOT throw the innuendos around that those of us who do not believe them are mindless robots controlled by the government.

[tngirl]

No way, tngirl? How can you "agree with the possiblilities" but be so adement and even sarcastic in your remarks? THat doesn't sound very open minded now does it?

Generally, there are arguments on both sides for any historical event/fact. To me, the fact that we were in the middle of a cold war adds much proof to the pudding. The US Was behind and they are never happy admitting that! (look at what they are doing to 3rd graders these days in Math! We admitted we were behind other countries and now the 3rd grade is learning algebra!). Anyhow, I find it all amusing. I believe that everything you read in the media (Which is what the original thread is), is all smoke and mirrors, designed to keep the peace in a very large nation. So, whatever you believe, you believe, I will continte to look beyond the funhouse-type atmosphere and some day, others will follow suit.

What remarks do you consider to be sarcastic? As for being so "adement", what is wrong with firmly believing what I believe is truth? If you show me PROOF POSITIVE, and by that I mean proof that holds water, then I will reconsider my beliefs. That my friend, is not being close minded because I am open to the possibilities. But as I said, there has not been any PROOF supplied that would even begin to change my mind in what I believe.

Mesue wants to say she uses logic, so what, I use logic too. But logic doesn't always prove true. Just as I mentioned in another post in this thread...

It has been theorectically proven that a bumble bee cannot fly. So, where is the logic there? As we all know, a bumble bee can fly even though it has been proven that it cannot.

[tngirl]

Oh, and something else for you to consider....If the "video" shown on the website you provided is/was "TOP SECRET", how is it that it is actually playing on this website? I mean....don't you think the government would have already pulled it?

[mesue]

Oh my!!! :eek: You have figured us out!!! Now what shall we do? :confused:

I am surprised at you mesue....claiming to be such a logical person, but you can't even allow yourself to open your mind to the possibilities. You prefer to frequent the same website over and over again, and you BELIEVE everything THEY say. Now, tell me, why is it ok for you to believe them and it is not ok for me to believe my sources (and don't try to use the "they are governmental sources...because they aren't). If you chose to believe your "sources", that is your perogative. But DO NOT throw the innuendos around that those of us who do not believe them are mindless robots controlled by the government.

Its really funny when someone calls a conspiracy theorist close minded. At any rate believe whatever you choose to believe if you want to believe that only 10 years after color tv we made it to the moon, fine believe it. If you want to believe that somehow miraculously we made it past the Van Allen belt 240,000 miles past it with a computer program that was a joke compared to your computer that you are using right now, go ahead. And since you are so convinced I thought perhaps you might want to buy an acre of moon all your own, heres where you can purchase it. LOL
http://www.lunarregistry.com/

[tngirl]

Its really funny when someone calls a conspiracy theorist close minded. At any rate believe whatever you choose to believe if you want to believe that only 10 years after color tv we made it to the moon, fine believe it. If you want to believe that somehow miraculously we made it past the Van Allen belt 240,000 miles past it with a computer program that was a joke compared to your computer that you are using right now, go ahead. And since you are so convinced I thought perhaps you might want to buy an acre of moon all your own, heres where you can purchase it. LOL
http://www.lunarregistry.com/

What is funny is the fact that you cannot respond to any of my statements with your own words. You have to use a fanatical website to tell me what you believe.

[mesue]

What is funny is the fact that you cannot respond to any of my statements with your own words. You have to use a fanatical website to tell me what you believe.

Make up your mind what you want, first you criticise because I did not provide a website that has the scientists explanations about 911, I did that. Now you are criticizing saying I am constantly use websites words and not my own.

I have responded over and over, I tore apart the wiki explanation with my own words, I have pointed out the idea over and over using my own words that we could not have had the technology in 1969 to have made it to the moon please show me what it is your talking about.

[justme23]

Good, since I usually try and make sure the ones I choose are clear and full of facts to back up what I say. Apparently the ones I post challenge your beliefs and you just don't like reading facts that might do that.

I guess that depends on whether you believe they are actually facts. Yours are clear but I wouldn't call them "full of facts" to back anything up.

However, in all fairness, I do not usually click on any of the links provided here... both sides of every debate have their "facts" to back stuff up and I typically don't put stock in either side.

[tngirl]

Make up your mind what you want, first you criticise because I did not provide a website that has the scientists explanations about 911, I did that. Now you are criticizing saying I am constantly use websites words and not my own.

I have responded over and over, I tore apart the wiki explanation with my own words, I have pointed out the idea over and over using my own words that we could not have had the technology in 1969 to have made it to the moon please show me what it is your talking about.

Oh, I must have missed that amongst all the gibberish that you were repeating off the conspiracy site. And you know, because someone says the moon is made of cheese does not make it so. As I previously stated....I have seen, nor heard any evidence to convince me that we did not land on the moon.

[mesue]

Oh, I must have missed that amongst all the gibberish that you were repeating off the conspiracy site. And you know, because someone says the moon is made of cheese does not make it so. As I previously stated....I have seen, nor heard any evidence to convince me that we did not land on the moon.

As I said point it out. Don't just accuse me of repeating a website and not show me what you are talking about. As I said already if you want to believe the moon landing took place, fine. I've asked you over and over to give me some scientific proof we did make it there but you don't. And your right just because someone says the moon is made of cheese does not make it so; nor does someone saying that we made it to the moon make it so as well.

[tngirl]

As I said point it out. Don't just accuse me of repeating a website and not show me what you are talking about. As I said already if you want to believe the moon landing took place, fine. I've asked you over and over to give me some scientific proof we did make it there but you don't. And your right just because someone says the moon is made of cheese does not make it so; nor does someone saying that we made it to the moon make it so as well.

Go back and check my previous post concerning the Van Allen Belt, since this is your reasoning as to why we could not have gone to the moon. I am not going to trouble myself to search for the URL again if you did not check it out earlier....I think you may have mentioned something about not caring what wiki had to say or something on those lines. Everything that I have posted I have referred back to yours or someone else's post. I am too lazy to c&p something everytime that I make a new post, besides, there wouldn't be enough room..lol. You should be able to remember off hand what you said, since this is your beliefs.

Someone mentioned something about moonrocks being fabricated. While attending the University of Tennessee and working in the geology department, my sister was able to observe some of the moonrocks that the geologist at the University were studying. I guess they must have been in on this big conspiracy of yours about them being fake.

As for this subject, it has become very boring. I think I will take myself off somewhere and find an intelligent conversation. So here is your opportunity to have the last word on the subject.

[stresseater]

ROTFLMAO :rolleyes: ;) :D

[delSol]

watching this thread is reminding me of "Pee Wee's Big Adventure"

I keep waiting to see someone say "I know you are, but what am I?"

very entertaining to say the least...

[mesue]

Go back and check my previous post concerning the Van Allen Belt, since this is your reasoning as to why we could not have gone to the moon. I am not going to trouble myself to search for the URL again if you did not check it out earlier....I think you may have mentioned something about not caring what wiki had to say or something on those lines. Everything that I have posted I have referred back to yours or someone else's post. I am too lazy to c&p something everytime that I make a new post, besides, there wouldn't be enough room..lol. You should be able to remember off hand what you said, since this is your beliefs.

Someone mentioned something about moonrocks being fabricated. While attending the University of Tennessee and working in the geology department, my sister was able to observe some of the moonrocks that the geologist at the University were studying. I guess they must have been in on this big conspiracy of yours about them being fake.

As for this subject, it has become very boring. I think I will take myself off somewhere and find an intelligent conversation. So here is your opportunity to have the last word on the subject.

I have no problem with remembering what I said, never said I did. The only thing I used from the website was about the Van Allen Belt all the other arguments were entirely my own, I was alive and watching it on my B&W tv in 1969 as it supposedly happened.
Maybe if you get real lucky your sister will show you those moonrocks after all I am sure someone took the time to label them as such and therefore they got to be moonrocks. LOL

[Freebeemom]

OMG!! First Bush blows up the WTC, now the levees in NO!! What will he do next?!?


Want your proof:

TNgirl...this isnt sarcastic?

[Freebeemom]

Next thing you guys will be telling me is that there is no Santa Clause!! :eek:

Either is this!

[jdfan]

originally posted by mesue: I have no problem with remembering what I said, never said I did. The only thing I used from the website was about the Van Allen Belt all the other arguments were entirely my own, I was alive and watching it on my B&W tv in 1969 as it supposedly happened.
Maybe if you get real lucky your sister will show you those moonrocks after all I am sure someone took the time to label them as such and therefore they got to be moonrocks. LOL

Okay, How far is this going to go? I am tngirl's sister. I have been watching this debate regarding conspiracy. I am a microbiologist and believe I know a bit about scientific data. One of the lacking details in all the consipiracy theories is that of logic. Logic=if this, then that. When doing research I found alot of material produced by left-wing, right-wing and moderates in research. The key to finding the truth is critical thinking and objective research. Please try to find the key to deductive reasoning....

[mesue]

originally posted by mesue: I have no problem with remembering what I said, never said I did. The only thing I used from the website was about the Van Allen Belt all the other arguments were entirely my own, I was alive and watching it on my B&W tv in 1969 as it supposedly happened.
Maybe if you get real lucky your sister will show you those moonrocks after all I am sure someone took the time to label them as such and therefore they got to be moonrocks. LOL

Okay, How far is this going to go? I am tngirl's sister. I have been watching this debate regarding conspiracy. I am a microbiologist and believe I know a bit about scientific data. One of the lacking details in all the consipiracy theories is that of logic. Logic=if this, then that. When doing research I found alot of material produced by left-wing, right-wing and moderates in research. The key to finding the truth is critical thinking and objective research. Please try to find the key to deductive reasoning....

Oh and you and your sister hold the market on that, not from what I've heard. Am I supposed to be intimidated because you are a microbiologist? OOhhh Is that supposed to make you smarter than everyone else?

Like I told your sister, if you want to believe that we blasted off to the moon in a reynolds wrapped tin can in 1969 when we barely had a computer and were still amazed at a calculator and they had barely gotten past making most tv shows in B&W, wow what technology, but hey keep up with that deductive reasoning and keep playing with the moonrocks. LOL

[Njean31]

do you deny that they went to outer space in the first place (considering how we we marveling at a calculator and only had black and white t.v).......that sure would take alot more technology would it not? that arguement of yours falls apart because JUST GETTING OUTSIDE OF THE EARTH ALONE REQUIRES MUCH MORE TECHNOLOGY THAN YOU ARE SAYING WE EVEN HAD AT THE TIME. i don't see how much more difficult it would be to get to the moon?

about the pentagon crash..........do you think that the government paid all of those civilians on the interstate (who SAW A BOEING or whatever plane it was... A HUGH JET GO WHIRLING OVER HEAD AND SLAM INTO the pentagon) to lie?

[jdfan]

Oh and you and your sister hold the market on that, not from what I've heard. Am I supposed to be intimidated because you are a microbiologist? OOhhh Is that supposed to make you smarter than everyone else?

Like I told your sister, if you want to believe that we blasted off to the moon in a reynolds wrapped tin can in 1969 when we barely had a computer and were still amazed at a calculator and they had barely gotten past making most tv shows in B&W, wow what technology, but hey keep up with that deductive reasoning and keep playing with the moonrocks. LOL

Your reply here sounds like maybe you are "intimidated". You are the one that was making the derogatory remarks before she even posted a reply. She would not have even posted in this thread if you did not deliver the first insult. She mentioned her degree/profession because you are the one that has been spouting off about scientific evidence...blah blah blah. She has a degree to back up what she says. If every thing you have said is true, then the science that she has learned is all bogus.....So tell me, if everything we believe to be true is wrong, then how can anyone learn and develop new ideas? Wouldn't those ideas be defective? And if they are defective, how has present day technology come to be?

[jdfan]

OOPS! SORRY, JDFAN DIDN'T LOG OUT.....THIS RESPONSE IS ACTUALLY FROM TNGIRL....HEY, GIVE CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE...LOL


Want your proof:

TNgirl...this isnt sarcastic?

So, Freebeemom, let me see if I have this correct? You can be a smarta**, but I can't?....That is really rich!! As what you quoted as proof, that was a joke, but obviously you do not have a since of humor so I can't expect for you to catch that.

[jdfan]

mesue, you want to use the arguement that we did not have color tv until 1959 as part of your arguement, actually we had color tv a lot sooner than that...

http://www.tvhistory.tv/advertising3.htm

First Commercial Color Broadcast -- was by CBS, on June 25, 1951 at 4:35PM EST, over station WCBS, New York, for the Ed Sullivan show. This one-hour gala color premier could only be received by about two dozen sets like the one shown above. The final color broadcast using this mechanical spinning wheel system was on October 20, 1951, with the North Carolina-Maryland football game. There were other color shows listed in the TV Guide for that week, but they were never broadcast. The reason given for the demise of the CBS system was the request by the US Defense Department to stop manufacturing the sets to save critical materials for the impending Korean conflict.

Here are a few more sites you might want to check out in order to correct your misunderstanding of some "facts" that you have used in your arguements....

HISTORY OF TELEVISION

http://www.tvhistory.tv/pre-1935.htm

http://www.fcc.gov/omd/history/tv/1930-1959.html



HISTORY OF THE INTERNET

http://www.fcc.gov/omd/history/internet/something2share.html

http://www.fcc.gov/omd/history/internet/common-standards.html

http://www.fcc.gov/omd/history/internet/making-connections.html

[tngirl]

And you know what? I haven't gotten an answer to a couple of questions that I asked...

1 - How can a bumble bee fly if it has been proven that it CANNOT?

2 - How can that video still be on the website you posted if it is so TOP SECRET? I would imagine the government would have already pulled it if that was the fact, and yes, you can guarantee that they do know about these sites and the video.

[mesue]

do you deny that they went to outer space in the first place (considering how we we marveling at a calculator and didn't have black and white t.v).......that sure would take alot more technology would it not? that arguement of yours falls apart because JUST GETTING OUTSIDE OF THE EARTH ALONE REQUIRES MUCH MORE TECHNOLOGY THAN YOU ARE SAYING WE EVEN HAD AT THE TIME. i don't see how much more difficult it would be to get to the moon?

about the pentagon crash..........do you think that the government paid all of those civilians on the interstate (who SAW A BOEING or whatever plane it was... A HUGH JET GO WHIRLING OVER HEAD AND SLAM INTO the pentagon) to lie?

Your first question, I do not believe we had the technology then, and I really don't think we even have it now, if we did we would have set up camp on the moon a long time ago. After all its been 36 years since we first set foot on the moon, if we could go from a B&W tv to walking on the moon in just 10 years then why in 36 years have we not went from landing on the moon to setting up a base there?

As to the pentagon, no I do not believe the government paid anyone to say they saw a large plane, I said they saw a plane just not the huge 757. If you see a plane most people can't tell you what kind of plane it is, you may be an expert who knows but most people aren't so someone sees a plane fly into a building they have no idea what kind it is, the government identifies it and being no expert most people take their word for it. Even if the plane is substantially smaller, the witness would assume that maybe it just looked like that from the angle they saw it or the sun was blocking out part of the plane. Some people there did say it was not a 757 and was a much smaller plane. Someone here has already provided this website http://www.apfn.org/apfn/flight77.htm (I think its the same one justme23 was not overly impressed with)
that has the video footage of the plane hitting the pentagon, it does take a while of staring at it to see it because it goes through the sequences so fast but you can see a small plane hitting the ground seconds before the impact, look to right of the video just after the end of the explosion when the video starts over again and you can see almost the entire body of a small plane clearly not the 757 that is said to have hit the pentagon.

This is clear proof no large plane hit the pentagon also given the fact that the engine found in FEMA photos clearly shows an engine not found in a 757 but one identified as one being in smaller planes would lead many to believe that it was not a 757 that hit the pentagon.

[tngirl]

Your first question, I do not believe we had the technology then, and I really don't think we even have it now, if we did we would have set up camp on the moon a long time ago. After all its been 36 years since we first set foot on the moon, if we could go from a B&W tv to walking on the moon in just 10 years then why in 36 years have we not went from landing on the moon to setting up a base there?

The main reason is because the moon has nothing to offer us. Mainly because we need water to survive and there isn't any on the moon....the moon is basically just a rock.

[Njean31]

Your first question, I do not believe we had the technology then, and I really don't think we even have it now, if we did we would have set up camp on the moon a long time ago. After all its been 36 years since we first set foot on the moon, if we could go from a B&W tv to walking on the moon in just 10 years then why in 36 years have we not went from landing on the moon to setting up a base there?

As to the pentagon, no I do not believe the government paid anyone to say they saw a large plane, I said they saw a plane just not the huge 757. If you see a plane most people can't tell you what kind of plane it is, you may be an expert who knows but most people aren't so someone sees a plane fly into a building they have no idea what kind it is, the government identifies it and being no expert most people take their word for it. Even if the plane is substantially smaller, the witness would assume that maybe it just looked like that from the angle they saw it or the sun was blocking out part of the plane. Some people there did say it was not a 757 and was a much smaller plane. Someone here has already provided this website http://www.apfn.org/apfn/flight77.htm (I think its the same one justme23 was not overly impressed with)
that has the video footage of the plane hitting the pentagon, it does take a while of staring at it to see it because it goes through the sequences so fast but you can see a small plane hitting the ground seconds before the impact, look to right of the video just after the end of the explosion when the video starts over again and you can see almost the entire body of a small plane clearly not the 757 that is said to have hit the pentagon.

This is clear proof no large plane hit the pentagon also given the fact that the engine found in FEMA photos clearly shows an engine not found in a 757 but one identified as one being in smaller planes would lead many to believe that it was not a 757 that hit the pentagon.

they didn't set up shop on the moon cause there aint nothing there.

and what did the government do with the plane and the people they claim hit the pentagon?

[mesue]

mesue, you want to use the arguement that we did not have color tv until 1959 as part of your arguement, actually we had color tv a lot sooner than that...

http://www.tvhistory.tv/advertising3.htm

First Commercial Color Broadcast -- was by CBS, on June 25, 1951 at 4:35PM EST, over station WCBS, New York, for the Ed Sullivan show. This one-hour gala color premier could only be received by about two dozen sets like the one shown above. The final color broadcast using this mechanical spinning wheel system was on October 20, 1951, with the North Carolina-Maryland football game. There were other color shows listed in the TV Guide for that week, but they were never broadcast. The reason given for the demise of the CBS system was the request by the US Defense Department to stop manufacturing the sets to save critical materials for the impending Korean conflict.

Here are a few more sites you might want to check out in order to correct your misunderstanding of some "facts" that you have used in your arguements....

HISTORY OF TELEVISION

http://www.tvhistory.tv/pre-1935.htm

http://www.fcc.gov/omd/history/tv/1930-1959.html



HISTORY OF THE INTERNET

http://www.fcc.gov/omd/history/internet/something2share.html

http://www.fcc.gov/omd/history/internet/common-standards.html

http://www.fcc.gov/omd/history/internet/making-connections.html

I have not one time said when color tv was invented I said that they had only begun to broadcast in color in 1959, Bonanza was the first western shot entirely in color, not once did I say it was invented in 1959. My point was that we as a nation had B&W tvs and calculators, Nasa had a computer not even equal to an old 486 and since we were so advanced with that technology we managed to build a spaceship capable of making it to the moon, going through the Van Allen Belt and keep astronauts alive, in outer space and get them to the moon over 240,000 miles away, let them walk on the moon and broadcast back to earth from the moon, and then return them safely to earth. Like I said, you all believe whatever you want to believe but it just does not make sense to have been able to have done all that with the technology we had back then.

[mesue]

Your reply here sounds like maybe you are "intimidated". You are the one that was making the derogatory remarks before she even posted a reply. She would not have even posted in this thread if you did not deliver the first insult. She mentioned her degree/profession because you are the one that has been spouting off about scientific evidence...blah blah blah. She has a degree to back up what she says. If every thing you have said is true, then the science that she has learned is all bogus.....So tell me, if everything we believe to be true is wrong, then how can anyone learn and develop new ideas? Wouldn't those ideas be defective? And if they are defective, how has present day technology come to be?

I did not say all of science is bogus. I said the moon landing was faked.

[tngirl]

I did not say all of science is bogus. I said the moon landing was faked.

You said we did not have the technology....same thing. If we did not have the technology then...we don't have it now. Which means the shuttles have never been in orbit and we don't have 2 rovers on mars.

[mesue]

they didn't set up shop on the moon cause there aint nothing there.

and what did the government do with the plane and the people they claim hit the pentagon?

Your 1st question: Having a base to study space and do experiments 240,000 miles beyond earth would be a great addition to the scientific community.

Your second question: I have no idea, there are many theories. But as I said if you look at that video and study it you will see that is not a 757 plane and the engine clearly pictured has been identified as one not found in a 757 plane. So let me ask you how do you explain the video showing a small plane crashing into the pentagon? How do you explain the engine that does not belong to a 757, there clearly showing in the pictures?

[tngirl]

Your 1st question: Having a base to study space and do experiments 240,000 miles beyond earth would be a great addition to the scientific community.

Your second question: I have no idea, there are many theories. But as I said if you look at that video and study it you will see that is not a 757 plane and the engine clearly pictured has been identified as one not found in a 757 plane. So let me ask you how do you explain the video showing a small plane crashing into the pentagon? How do you explain the engine that does not belong to a 757, there clearly showing in the pictures?

I have not seen a video of a plane hitting the pentagon and I have still not seen the picture of the engine you are talking about. All I saw was a bunch of gibberish and it totally bored me.

[mesue]

I have not seen a video of a plane hitting the pentagon and I have still not seen the picture of the engine you are talking about. All I saw was a bunch of gibberish and it totally bored me.

Well I listed websites for both, you do have to scroll halfway down and there is the same picture at the bottom of the page, (the engine has a yellow box around it, put there to point it out).

Freebiemom I think originally listed the one showing the small plane in the video and yes you do have to take a little time to watch the sequence of the video and catch the plane just at the begining of the sequence but its there. As for being bored, why are you still here in this thread if it is so boring?

[mesue]

You said we did not have the technology....same thing. If we did not have the technology then...we don't have it now. Which means the shuttles have never been in orbit and we don't have 2 rovers on mars.

There has not been a manned space mission since the flights to the moon, so since the great hoax we have not sent one manned flight out past the Van Allen Belt, why not if it is so easy to do?

That leads me ot believe that we have never sent a manned flight past the Van Allen Belt. All flights past the Van Allen Belt have been unmanned. That's because we do not have capability to send someone past the Van Allen Belt and bring them back alive not in 1969 and not now either.

[Willow]

I have always wondered why they never attempted to go to the moon again. If it was so fascinating the first time then why not do it again. :confused:

[Freebeemom]

OOPS! SORRY, JDFAN DIDN'T LOG OUT.....THIS RESPONSE IS ACTUALLY FROM TNGIRL....HEY, GIVE CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE...LOL



So, Freebeemom, let me see if I have this correct? You can be a smarta**, but I can't?....That is really rich!! As what you quoted as proof, that was a joke, but obviously you do not have a since of humor so I can't expect for you to catch that.


Nope, not the name you called me. You were the one to resort. I was just providing you and your sister some proof.

[Freebeemom]

I have always wondered why they never attempted to go to the moon again. If it was so fascinating the first time then why not do it again. :confused:

I totally agree with you on this. I believe those poor men on appolo 8 were terriffied and they did actually orbit. They were supposed to land, but didin't becuase they had problems with the space craft. THen, miraculously, SIX MONTHS goes by, and we get up there without a hitch and bring moon rocks back...Sorry, the "Logic" is that even in TODAY's Standards, we don't just rush back to space when there are problems. It takes years.

This is like kicking a dead horse. Those that wish to believe, will believe, and those that don't will continue. I think this is going nowhere....and FYI, deductive reasoning is occuring at this point. Facts from different sources are being explained and discussed. Just because it isn't what you believe, doesnt' make it wrong.

Geeze.....people....settle down.

[YNKYH8R]

I have always wondered why they never attempted to go to the moon again. If it was so fascinating the first time then why not do it again. :confused:
Because it was pointless. There is nothing left to be learned from the moon. That is why there is the growing facination with going to Mars.

The moon is an orbiting hulk with no value, except to us because of our tides.

[Njean31]

Facts from different sources are being explained and discussed.

.

i tend to get my facts from legitimate sources such as textbooks, the history channel, Museums (especially the Smithsonian), Nasa, National Geographic, Noaa, the Bible in certain instances..... reputable resources. i read other resources for entertainment only like websites discussing ghosts, ufo's, chemtrails, hollow earth, Knights of Templar stuff, Davinchi's code, Nostradums, the $ bill and world trade center simularities and the like ALSO.... Star magazine and the Globe (you know the one at the supermarket checkout that says "Ape baby born to Man").......i pretty much group all those together.


i know the difference between fantasy and reality........although sometimes it's fun to think that people live inside the earth.

[Freebeemom]

i tend to get my facts from legitimate sources such as textbooks, the history channel, Museums (especially the Smithsonian), Nasa, National Geographic, Noaa, the Bible in certain instances..... reputable resources. i read other resources for entertainment only like websites discussing ghosts, ufo's, chemtrails, hollow earth, Knights of Templar stuff, Davinchi's code, Nostradums, the $ bill and world trade center simularities and the like ALSO.... Star magazine and the Globe (you know the one at the supermarket checkout that says "Ape baby born to Man").......i pretty much group all those together.


i know the difference between fantasy and reality........although sometimes it's fun to think that people live inside the earth.


As I am in History Research, there are other reputable sources other than NASA (federally funded), History Channel (Programs funded on GRANTS FROM THE GOV and SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS),the Bible (Hm, how many translations do we have now?), the Smithsonian (HM, yet another GOVERNMENT AGENCY), NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC( Liberal-left wing organizations).

As you are in science, you may not realize that every decade, history is being revised, otherwise known as "Revisionist history". Things that happend are being erased every day! Yes, believe it or not, it happens. President's that have biographies written about themselves are TRULY the best example of suggestive or revisionist history.

So, I agree, the Star is full of crap, as are other tabloid type magazines.

I guess I just feel sorry for you because you will forever be believing in what your government feeds you. No wonder why our taxes are so high!

[mesue]

i tend to get my facts from legitimate sources such as textbooks, the history channel, Museums (especially the Smithsonian), Nasa, National Geographic, Noaa, the Bible in certain instances..... reputable resources. i read other resources for entertainment only like websites discussing ghosts, ufo's, chemtrails, hollow earth, Knights of Templar stuff, Davinchi's code, Nostradums, the $ bill and world trade center simularities and the like ALSO.... Star magazine and the Globe (you know the one at the supermarket checkout that says "Ape baby born to Man").......i pretty much group all those together.


i know the difference between fantasy and reality........although sometimes it's fun to think that people live inside the earth.

Good, then you might want to note that the picture taken of the engine that does not belong to a 757, at the impact site, at the pentagon was taken by a government agency, FEMA.

As to the video it came from a department of defense security camera. If you bother to look at the website http://www.apfn.org/apfn/flight77.htm you can read how originally the gov. said that the security cameras did not record anything, that there was no recorded footage of the impact. Why did they lie? There is a still shot of the plane hitting the ground at the bottom of the page if you can't see it in the video.

[Njean31]

As I am in History Research, there are other reputable sources other than NASA (federally funded), History Channel (Programs funded on GRANTS FROM THE GOV and SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS),the Bible (Hm, how many translations do we have now?), the Smithsonian (HM, yet another GOVERNMENT AGENCY), NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC( Liberal-left wing organizations).

As you are in science, you may not realize that every decade, history is being revised, otherwise known as "Revisionist history". Things that happend are being erased every day! Yes, believe it or not, it happens. President's that have biographies written about themselves are TRULY the best example of suggestive or revisionist history.

So, I agree, the Star is full of crap, as are other tabloid type magazines.

I guess I just feel sorry for you because you will forever be believing in what your government feeds you. No wonder why our taxes are so high!


don't feel sorry me........i don't feel sorry for you (to each his own). since you say that you are in history research may I ask your academic credentials? what type of degree do you hold? also a biography about a person is SUBJECTIVE depending on who is writing it and so yes, i understand after time new things can be brought to light regarding an individual.

[Njean31]

Good, then you might want to note that the picture taken of the engine that does not belong to a 757, at the impact site, at the pentagon was taken by a government agency, FEMA.

As to the video it came from a department of defense security camera. If you bother to look at the website http://www.apfn.org/apfn/flight77.htm you can read how originally the gov. said that the security cameras did not record anything, that there was no recorded footage of the impact. Why did they lie? There is a still shot of the plane hitting the ground at the bottom of the page if you can't see it in the video.

i looked at it and it is intruiging to think about but it was also intruiging to fold the dollar bill and see the wtc and the like........i just don't believe it but thanks anyways. if it were true and i believed it..........i know this much.......i'd be moving to another country because i would never feel safe knowing that our government killed over 3000 AMERICAN'S that day and for what? to have justification to go after the taliban or saddam.........if they were that vile i think they'd just have went ahead without all of that and wouldn't have cared what anyone thought. i also don't know many AMERICAN'S who would turn suicide bomber just for the heck of it.........those Muslim extremist atleast think that they are dying to get to heaven to get some virgins...

[Tasha405]

Ok, I haven't read all of this but just from reading the last few posts it seems some of you believe the government was behind the pentagon crash. Did I read that right?

I for one do not believe that. It was a terrorist attack and nothing more. Why does everything have to be the governments or Presidents fault? These people can't control everyone and everything. Thats just my honest opinion though. :)

[delSol]

I read this and think -

http://img.epinions.com/images/opti/3b/21/219787-resized200.jpg

[Freebeemom]

don't feel sorry me........i don't feel sorry for you (to each his own). since you say that you are in history research may I ask your academic credentials? what type of degree do you hold? also a biography about a person is SUBJECTIVE depending on who is writing it and so yes, i understand after time new things can be brought to light regarding an individual.


I have a masters in History....and currently working at a museum....trying to preserve the history we have now. Degree is in History/Education and minor in african American Studies...specializing in industrial history and urban history. I am also going back to school for grant writing and historic preservation. I would like to be a curator or an appraiser. I am not sure which one yet. I also have a music minor...anything else?

[Njean31]

I have a masters in History....and currently working at a museum....trying to preserve the history we have now. Degree is in History/Education and minor in african American Studies...specializing in industrial history and urban history. I am also going back to school for grant writing and historic preservation. I would like to be a curator or an appraiser. I am not sure which one yet. I also have a music minor...anything else?

wow.........a masters degree in history and you believe that the government was behind 9/11 and the moon landing was faked? ok then

[tngirl]

wow.........a masters degree in history and you believe that the government was behind 9/11 and the moon landing was faked? ok then

roflmao :D

I came back to clarify my above statement. What is funny is that a History degree appears to hold more credence than a science degree.

Thank you all! But I am out of here!!

[UROCgirl]

Have any of you seen the MOVIE/Documentay :confused: What the bleep do we know? No is does not curse, the title is "What the bleep do we know?" :confused: It is great. Amazing! You should all watch it. It does and maybe does not have anything to do with this thread topic of conversation. It explains a lot of things and leaves you to wonder, does anyone really know what they are talking about.

I found it in the new release section of my video store.

I found it VERY interesting and informative. Some interesting theories for sure. I watched it and found some parts so mind boggling I had to rewind and listen and watch again to wrap my mind around the fasinating things they were saying.

I would watch it again again. My whole mind has been opend up to new ideas, what if's, and just WOW.

Wonder endlessly, question everything, but believe in something good.
Look at yourself in the mirror and write "I love you" on yourself.

[stresseater]

I read this and think -

http://img.epinions.com/images/opti/3b/21/219787-resized200.jpg
I think that a lot when I read these things hahahahaha. :) :rolleyes: :D

[Njean31]

Have any of you seen the MOVIE/Documentay :confused: [SIZE=6]
My whole mind has been opend up to new ideas, what if's, and just WOW.

Wonder endlessly, question everything, but believe in something good.


that is the key to learning, advancement, and technology. it's GREAT to be open minded and explore the what if's.......as long as your grounded in reality (somethings though we may never learn or be allowed to know for the GREATER OF HUMANITY or national security) and don't get brainwashed or tricked into nonsense.
the government don't tell everything to everybody (area 51) and not because they are part of the Knights Templar or some secret sect.

[Freebeemom]

wow.........a masters degree in history and you believe that the government was behind 9/11 and the moon landing was faked? ok then


Never "Said" I Believed the government was behind 9/ 11...You are putting words in my mouth. I just posted a link.

The point is, I have an open mind....I am reviewing both sides...do I trust our government, No, I used to work for it. It is a complete, untrustable joke.

keep fishing......

[Freebeemom]

roflmao :D

I came back to clarify my above statement. What is funny is that a History degree appears to hold more credence than a science degree.

Thank you all! But I am out of here!!


Never said that either...You did....and again, glad you all have open minds here.....and again, it is sad you resort to name calling instead of going throug the process of a good debate.

It isn't about credibility, it's about maturity.

[tngirl]

Never said that either...You did....and again, glad you all have open minds here.....and again, it is sad you resort to name calling instead of going throug the process of a good debate.

It isn't about credibility, it's about maturity.

Me resort to name calling? I haven't gone through the process of debate? Excuse me, I do believe if you bothered to read what I have posted you could not honestly say this. As for the name calling? I never called anyone a name. You are the one that said I was being sarcastic and I just asked why I couldn't be a smart:**.

And I certainly did not say that your degree holds anymore credence, now that post was TOTALLY SARCASTIC. So, when you guys can stop insulting me, then I will stop posting in this thread. Your opinion of me doesn't really matter because the only way that you know how to discredit my opinions and beliefs is by belittling me.

I have not seen you add one bit of evidence or credibility to this thread, so I truly do not think you should be putting anyone down or mocking anyone in this thread, especially since you are the one that has made it personal.

JMHI :D

[Njean31]

Never "Said" I Believed the government was behind 9/ 11...You are putting words in my mouth. I just posted a link.

The point is, I have an open mind....I am reviewing both sides...do I trust our government, No, I used to work for it. It is a complete, untrustable joke.

keep fishing......


i am not putting words in your mouth........hence the question mark at the end of my comment to which you are referring to. i'm glad you don't believe it....

[Freebeemom]

Me resort to name calling? I haven't gone through the process of debate? Excuse me, I do believe if you bothered to read what I have posted you could not honestly say this. As for the name calling? I never called anyone a name. You are the one that said I was being sarcastic and I just asked why I couldn't be a smart:**.

And I certainly did not say that your degree holds anymore credence, now that post was TOTALLY SARCASTIC. So, when you guys can stop insulting me, then I will stop posting in this thread. Your opinion of me doesn't really matter because the only way that you know how to discredit my opinions and beliefs is by belittling me.

I have not seen you add one bit of evidence or credibility to this thread, so I truly do not think you should be putting anyone down or mocking anyone in this thread, especially since you are the one that has made it personal.

JMHI :D



So, here, let's make it all better....you are right...the world is not flat and everything that is scientific MUST be true. There is no such thing as ghosts, smoke and mirrors and I don't believe that there is any possiblilities that we, as humans, could be duped into anything. I don't see it being made personal. I am not kept up by our disagreement. I just can't see discussing something with someone being that "Scarcastic" so....whatever you say, dear...will be my final answer.

[mesue]

Well I believe the official story is an outright lie and there are many reasons so many people do think that. Wiki lists the reasons and inconsistencies in the official story for anyone here who would want to know why so many believe that 911 did not happen the way we were told. I will just post a small amount of some of the inconsistencies. For anyone brave enough to look outside the box and actually read what I posted there is even more on the website.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories

After the attacks, David Schippers, the chief prosecutor for the impeachment of Bill Clinton, declared that he had received warnings from FBI agents six weeks earlier which included the dates and targets of the attacks. Schippers claims the FBI agents came to him because FBI headquarters had blocked their investigations and threatened them with prosecution if they went public with their information. Schippers reports that he tried to contact Attorney General John Ashcroft about this matter but Ashcroft repeatedly refused to return his calls.
In the article "Did We Know What Was Coming?" by William Norman Grigg, published in The New American, (published by the John Birch Society) Grigg states that according to three FBI agents he interviewed, "the information provided to Schippers was widely known within the FBI before September 11."
Attorney General John Ashcroft stopped flying on commercial airlines on July 26, 2001 because of a "threat assessment" by the FBI. (Sen. Bob Graham, Intelligence Matters, Random House Publishing Group, 2004)
Two of the 9/11 hijackers were living with an FBI asset for almost 4 months prior to September, 2001. The FBI did not give this information to the joint congressional committee investigating 9/11, then, it refused to serve a subpoena on the asset to appear before the joint committee. In a letter to the committee chairmen, a senior member of the FBI's congressional affairs staff explained that the Bush administration had not allowed the FBI to serve the subpoena on the asset. (Sen. Bob Graham, Intelligence Matters, Random House Publishing Group, 2004)
An unusually high volume of put options were purchased in the three days before 9/11 for only two airlines, American and United. Put options were also purchased for Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, which occupied 22 stories of the World Trade Center. Although no evidence has yet been provided that there was anything sinister in these transactions, US intelligence agencies are known to monitor markets for signs of imminent, untoward events.
Rep Curt Weldon has asserted that over a year before the 9/11 attacks, a classified US intelligence unit known as "Able Danger" identified Mohammed Atta and three other future 9/11 hijackers as likely members of an Al Qaeda cell operating in the US. The team recommended that the information be shared with the FBI but the military's Special Operations Command rejected the recommendation. (New York Times, Four in 9/11 Plot Are Called Tied to Qaeda in '00, 8/9/2005)
Pentagon officials said they have found three more individuals who recall an intelligence chart identifying Mohamed Atta as a terrorist one year prior to the attacks. (MSNBC, More remember Atta ID’d as terrorist pre-9/11, 9/1/2005)
[edit]
The World Trade Center
See also: Collapse of the World Trade Center

Madrid's Windsor Tower burned for days and partially collapsed. It did not completely collapse. Windsor Tower's fire happened under different circumstances.The government has not produced voice (CVR) or flight data recorders (FDR) in the New York attack, so-called black boxes, a fact unprecedented in the aviation history of major domestic crashes. It is unknown if any FDR were recovered from the wreckage.
The WTC 1, 2, and 7 buildings are the only steel frame buildings in history to collapse due to fire.
Seconds before both towers collapsed, people in and around the towers reported small earth tremors, this is also shown where cameras mounted on tripods positioned directly towards the towers also shook shortly before the towers collapsed.
Smoke was reported coming from the street level and basement around the North Tower seconds before it collapsed.
The WTC 7 building was not struck by any airliner nor were the fires inside caused or sustained by jet fuel. The official explanation for the collapse of the twin towers relies primarily on these two details. Building 7 is said to have collapsed due to having been pelted by debris from the twin towers. This building showed no signs of instability until the moment it suddenly collapsed into its own footprint approximately 6 hours after the attacks. The owner of WTC7 said on a PBS documentary that "the decision was made to pull it" for public safety reasons. "Pull" is demolition industry lingo for demolish.
The rubble of the Twin Towers smoldered for months after their collapse. Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y, reported seeing pools of "literally molten steel" at the WTC. This was also confirmed by Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI). The melting point of un-fireproofed steel is around 3000 °F (1650 °C) while the highest speculation regarding temperatures inside the twin towers is 2000 °F (1100 °C). (American Free Press, New Seismic Data Refutes Official Explanation, April 12, 2004)
The Twin Towers collapsed straight down, at close to free-fall speed. This is a characteristic of, but not necessarily indicative of, a controlled demolition.
Most of the columns came down in sections about 30 ft. (9.1 m) long. Soon after the attacks, most of the steel columns were loaded onto trucks and shipped to Asia. This may have no relevance, as some of the largest users of scrap metal reside in the Pacific Rim. Some, however, point out that the area was considered a crime scene and that the WTC materials should have been preserved for an extensive forensic criminal investigation. The quick removal of debris is often cited as evidence of a governmental cover up. See images of the debris sorting for more information.
[edit]
Viewpoints surrounding the collapses
In a letter to Frank Gayle of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories, wrote "This story just does not add up. If steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in those towers. That fact should be of great concern to all Americans. Alternatively, the contention that this steel did fail at temperatures around 250 °C suggests that the majority of deaths on 9/11 were due to a safety-related failure." Underwriters Laboratories is the company that certified the steel components used in the construction of the World Trade Center towers.
Van Romero, Vice President for Research and Economic Development at New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology and a major authority on the effects of explosions on buildings, has said "My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." Romero has since retracted this statement, saying "Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail." ("Explosives Planted in Towers, New Mexico Tech Expert Says", Albuquerque Journal, September, 2001)
A June 13, 2005 article in the Washington Times, reported that former chief economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term, Morgan Reynolds, said the official story about the collapse of the WTC is "bogus" and that it is more likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the Twin Towers and adjacent Building No. 7.
Former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under President Reagan, Paul Craig Roberts, expressed his doubt about the official 9/11 story in the following statement: "I know many qualified engineers and scientists have said the WTC collapsed from explosives. In fact, if you look at the manner in which it fell, you have to give their conclusions credibility."
In The New Pearl Harbor, author David Ray Griffin argues that the fact that WTC 2 collapsed first, when it is apparent most of the jet fuel was ignited on impact, and burnt outside the tower (after the first impact on WTC 1 earlier, where more fuel appears to have burnt within the building for a longer period of time) makes the collapse extremely questionable. Additionally, he argues that the impact of the second aircraft was not as precise as the first, so less fuel would have been burning in the central support area as well, further eroding the government's notion that the central support system failed due to melting.
Minoru Yamasaki, architect and designer of the WTC, had been reported saying "We designed the towers to take multiple 707 jet strikes." Some have falsely stated that this statement was made after (and in reference to) the collapse of the towers. This is clearly not true though, because Minoru Yamasaki died on February 6, 1986, but his statements about the buildings' structural integrity could still be considered sound evidence. At the time the initial designing of the Twin Towers took place, the Boeing 707 was the predominant large commercial aircraft, being slowly displaced by the Boeing 727, a smaller but more efficient aircraft. Jumbo Jets did not exist when Yamasaki developed the plans for the towers. However, numerous experts have expressed doubt that the two aircraft alone could cause both towers to collapse in almost precisely the same fashion.
[edit]

[mesue]

The Pentagon
Flight 77 was able to fly toward the Pentagon for 40 minutes and was not intercepted despite sophisticated radar technology, anti-missile batteries surrounding the Pentagon, and the building's close proximity to Andrews Air Force Base.
At the time of the attacks, the west wing (which was the area of the crash site) of the Pentagon was under construction, and therefore nearly empty. The renovations were specifically for the structural reinforcement of the architecture. If Flight 77 was indeed flown into the Pentagon, then the hijackers did a 360 degree fly-over around the pentagon to attack it in the opposite direction to their original direction. Note: if the Pentagon had been attacked from the direction that Flight 77 was supposedly coming, it would have hit Donald Rumsfeld's office.
The hole in the outer wall of the Pentagon is said to be too small to have been created by a Boeing 757.
Many consider photographic evidence of plane wreckage lying on the grounds of the Pentagon to be ambiguous and unconvincing due to the lack of burnt metal and human remains, or any of the passenger's luggage, seating, chunky articles that you would expect to find; that are absent. There is no photo evidence of 757 plane wreckage, at all. No photos of passenger jet wreckage of any kind. There is however photographs of very small engine parts, identifiable as those of a Global Hawk military aircraft.
Pentagon surveillance cameras captured 5 frames from before, during, and after the impact, but none show exactly what hit the building. This has lead some people to speculate that some kind of missile or bomb may have hit the Pentagon instead of an airplane.
The FBI confiscated videos, which might have captured the attack, from a nearby gas station immediately after the attacks. These videos are classified and have not yet been released. ("Three Months On, Tension Lingers Near the Pentagon", Bill McKelway, Richmond Times-Dispatch, December 11, 2001)
Military personnel were photographed removing from the crash site a large light-weight object shrouded by a blue tarp. Some conjecture that this was to hide its contents from the public.
CNN Initial coverage of the Pentagon strike. http://thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/index.html
[edit]
War Games on the Morning of 9/11
Several researchers have cited the multiple war games and disaster preparation drills that took place on the morning of 9/11 as a likely cover for the actual attacks that day, including Rep. Cynthia McKinney, economist Michel Chossudovsky and Michael Ruppert of From the Wilderness. On the morning of 9/11, the following war games and training exercises were being run by USAF, NORAD, CIA, NRO, FAA and FEMA.[1], [2]:

Operation Northern Vigilance, a yearly Air Force drill simulating a Russian attack, in which defense aircraft normally patrolling the Northeast are re-deployed to Canada and Alaska;
Operations Vigilant Warrior and Vigilant Guardian, a pair of exercises (as attacker and defender) that simulated airplane hijackings and projected false aircraft images on radar screens;
Operation Northern Guardian;
National Reconnaissance Office emergency response drill of an aircraft crashing into its own headquarters.
In addition, Tripod II, a FEMA drill for the event of a biowarfare attack in New York City, was to take place on September 12th. FEMA set up a command post for this exercise at Pier 29 on September 10th.
With five or more hijacking scenarios playing out during these war games, NORAD and FAA radars would have shown multiple "hijacked" aircraft, thus confusing and delaying the response to any real threat. McKinney has twice questioned Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld about these 9/11 war games during his testimony before Congress [3].

[edit]
The President's Behavior
The President's location at Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida on the morning of the attacks was highly publicized in the local press. However, after the second plane struck the World Trade Center, the Secret Service permitted the President to remain in a classroom for 10 minutes and then to give a speech to the nation from the same school. The fact that the president's schedule for that day was public knowledge would in itself be more than adequate reason to rush the president from the school to protect not only the commander-in-chief and his staff, but to further secure the safety of the students and teachers at the school itself. The Secret Service had no way of knowing if any of the hundreds of commercial aircraft in the immediate vicinity of the school were potential "missiles" aimed at Booker Elementary - yet they allowed the president to remain at the school for quite a period of time before rushing him to Air Force One.

This theory uses these facts to support the idea that the Bush administration knew of the attacks and somehow was convinced there was no imminent threat to the President of the United States.[4] One could think that as standard operating procedure as outlined in Secret Service press releases, the Secret Service in protecting such an important person would act immediately to remove the President to a secure location. Guests and the White House press corps reported that they were hurried onto Air Force One and that the plane made an aggressive, highly unusual, takeoff - some stating that the plane was climbing at an angle in excess of 55 degrees ("near vertical"). [Note: this is not possible as the angle at which the wing would stall (lose upward lift force) is about 13 degrees] Others note that, unlike guests at the White House, Bush was hundreds of miles away from any likely national target and that he was hundreds of miles away from the two actual targets in Washington, DC and New York City. However critics of the president's behavior that day argue that this still does not explain a lack of concern for the president's immediate security since his appearance at the school was public information made available days, if not weeks before September 11th, 2001.

Some have deduced the Secret Service knew that the president was not in danger of imminent attack that particular day because normal procedures were apparently not followed. Some defenders of the president have argued that he avoided a rapid departure so as "not to scare the school children," but critics respond that a much more expedient departure could be made without causing alarm.

[mesue]

Inconsistent Explanations
The explanation for the military's failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks has changed over time:

Initially, the military reported that, on 9/11, no fighters were sent up to intercept the hijacked planes until after the Pentagon was hit.
Later the same week, the military put out a second story, saying that it had sent up fighters but because the FAA had been late in notifying it about the hijackings, the fighters arrived too late.
The 9/11 Commission reported a third version that the FAA gave the military insufficient warning of the first hijacked airline and no warning of the other hijackings until after they had crashed.
Many government officials have said that, prior to the 9/11 attacks, no one could have imagined that planes could be hijacked and used as weapons. In reality, intelligence officials had found information outlining a terrorist desire to use planes as weapons on at least 12 occasions prior to September 11, 2001. (9/11 Congressional Inquiry, 7/24/03)
The Military now states that it had only two fighters on standby to scramble to protect the entire North Eastern Quadrant of the United States with two additional pilots on standby on the morning of September 11th, 2001. Yet stories abound of private and commercial aircraft being intercepted by multiple fighters for the slightest suspicious action including accidental intrusion into restricted airspace, unusual maneuvers in regulated airspace, loss of transponder signal and variations from filed flight plans, to name a few.
[edit]
The 9/11 Commission
Vice President Dick Cheney initially opposed an investigation into the 9/11 attacks, saying that it would take resources and personnel away from the war on terrorism.
The official investigation began 411 days after the attacks, whereas the investigations into the attack on Pearl Harbor and the assassination of JFK began after only 9 and 7 days, respectively.
The commission was given a startup appropriation of only $3 million and made a subsequent funding request for $11 million in order to meet its target date for completion. As a point of comparison, $50 million was set aside to investigate the destruction of the space shuttle Columbia.
[edit]
Other Points of Interest
Rep. Cynthia McKinney led a Capitol Hill hearing on July 23, 2005 on whether the Bush administration was involved in the terrorist attacks. Panelist and former CIA official Melvin Goodman was quoted as saying "Congresswoman McKinney is viewed as a contrarian and I hope someday her views will be considered conventional wisdom." Many 9/11 researchers testified at the hearing, including Michael Ruppert, Peter Dale Scott, Wayne Madsen and several others [5].
A September, 2000 report by the Project for the New American Century (cofounded by Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle), entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces and Resources For the New Century, states the following:
"To preserve American military preeminence in the coming decades, the Department of Defense must move more aggressively to experiment with new technologies and operational concepts, and seek to exploit the emerging revolution in military affairs."
"Further, the process of [military] transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor."
Half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall said that some of our leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act," according a the poll conducted by Zogby International from Tuesday August 24 through Thursday August 26, 2004.
The FOX TV series The Lone Gunmen (X-Files spin off) aired their opening episode "Pilot" six months before 9/11 which depicted a secret U.S. government agency behind a plot to crash a Boeing 727 into the WTC via remote control and blame it on foreign terrorists in the hopes of generating a bigger military budget.
Although it had distanced itself from their former brother and company employee, The Saudi Binladin Group's corporate website [6], coincidentally also had expired on September 11, 2001, the same day as the attacks in the United States.

[mesue]

wow not one word, did it scare you?

[tngirl]

So, here, let's make it all better....you are right...the world is not flat and everything that is scientific MUST be true. There is no such thing as ghosts, smoke and mirrors and I don't believe that there is any possiblilities that we, as humans, could be duped into anything. I don't see it being made personal. I am not kept up by our disagreement. I just can't see discussing something with someone being that "Scarcastic" so....whatever you say, dear...will be my final answer.

The world isn't flat?!? :eek: I thought it was!! lol :D (NOTE: for those that can't see a joke when they see one....THIS IS A JOKE!)

As for saying that EVERYTHING scientific is true, I have never said that. Considering most things scientific are theories, meaning that they have no scientific conclusion so they are not true, only someone's opinion....a starting place to search for the truth. But as they say, to put all your eggs in one basket can prove to be a mistake. Do I believe the government hides things? Hell yeah they do! Do I believe those wanting to prove the government wrong use lies and deceptions and half truths? Yep, I believe they do. Buy you know what? Everyone does.

As for being sarcastic, why do you care? Until you brought it up, my "sarcasm" had nothing to do with you. And you know what you can do with your condensending attitude right? I am not your "dear". :eek:

[grammy2_1]

This is clear proof no large plane hit the pentagon also given the fact that the engine found in FEMA photos clearly shows an engine not found in a 757 but one identified as one being in smaller planes would lead many to believe that it was not a 757 that hit the pentagon.

Oh no? There isn't? How about the FACT that MY own brother was, at the time, a US NAVY SENIOR CHIEF PETTY OFFICER-now retired-ATTENDED the funeral of a fellow Navy Officer and friend's little son-who was ON the 757 plane that crashed INTO the Pentagon, into the very area where his father's office was located!! The father wasn't IN his office at the time because he had just said goodbye to his son at the airport as he left on a classtrip on Flight 77 on THAT 757 plane!!

Now YOU tell the parents of ALL those children killed on THAT 757 plane, Flight 77, or the family members of all the rest of the people who died in that plane, that it never really happened!!! That THEIR loved-ones are still alive...somewhere!!

My brother WENT to that little boy's funeral! He saw what was left of his little body, lowered into the ground inside his little casket!! He grieved FOR and WITH the little boy's family!! Tell THEM it never happened!!

So stop 'listening' to the conspiracy whackos and try talking to people who were ACTUALLY involved or touched by this tragedy in REALITY!

[nightrider127]

wow not one word, did it scare you?


Maybe whoever you were talking about has other stuff to do outside of posting on a message board.

[mesue]

Oh no? There isn't? How about the FACT that MY own brother was, at the time, a US NAVY SENIOR CHIEF PETTY OFFICER-now retired-ATTENDED the funeral of a fellow Navy Officer and friend's little son-who was ON the 757 plane that crashed INTO the Pentagon, into the very area where his father's office was located!! The father wasn't IN his office at the time because he had just said goodbye to his son at the airport as he left on a classtrip in on Flight 77 on THAT 757 plane!!

Now YOU tell the parents of ALL those children killed on THAT 757 plane, Flight 77, or the family members of all the rest of the people who died in that plane, that it never really happened!!! That THEIR loved-ones are still alive...somewhere!!

My brother WENT to that little boy's funeral! He saw what was left of his little body, lowered into the ground inside his little casket!! He grieved FOR and WITH the little boy's family!! Tell THEM it never happened!!

So stop 'listening' to the conspiracy whackos and try talking to people who were ACTUALLY involved or touched by this tragedy in REALITY!

Did you bother reading the post from wiki on the reasons there are so many consiracy theories?
Not one time have I ever said these people who were killed on 911 were not dead, not once and not once have I ever read or heard anyone else say their not dead. Just because someone says the official story is a lie does not mean they are saying these victims did not die. Where are you getting that from?

[Freebeemom]

The world isn't flat?!? :eek: I thought it was!! lol :D (NOTE: for those that can't see a joke when they see one....THIS IS A JOKE!)

As for saying that EVERYTHING scientific is true, I have never said that. Considering most things scientific are theories, meaning that they have no scientific conclusion so they are not true, only someone's opinion....a starting place to search for the truth. But as they say, to put all your eggs in one basket can prove to be a mistake. Do I believe the government hides things? Hell yeah they do! Do I believe those wanting to prove the government wrong use lies and deceptions and half truths? Yep, I believe they do. Buy you know what? Everyone does.

As for being sarcastic, why do you care? Until you brought it up, my "sarcasm" had nothing to do with you. And you know what you can do with your condensending attitude right? I am not your "dear". :eek:

See, now THAT is scarcastic. Sorry, but I find you not able to carry on a conversation due to your high emotion. You have to resort to scarcasim.

Plus, I never put all my eggs in one basket. THAT would be stupid.

[tngirl]

I have a masters in History....and currently working at a museum....trying to preserve the history we have now. Degree is in History/Education and minor in african American Studies...specializing in industrial history and urban history. I am also going back to school for grant writing and historic preservation. I would like to be a curator or an appraiser. I am not sure which one yet. I also have a music minor...anything else?

Let me see, you are approx. 32yrs old and by your own words you have been a stay at home mom for the past 8-10 yrs. (not an easy job I may add, so don't think I am knocking it) So that means that you got your degree and masters and worked for the government all in the matter of approx 4 yrs...if you started college right out of high school...between the approximate ages of 18 to 22.

You just recently back to work in what? February? Started a part time job at the local park district. I have to say, I am impressed with what you accomplished in your life in 4 yrs. But that also means that your "history" hasn't been utilized professionally in about 8-10 yrs, so somehow that just doesn't make you an expert in my opinion. I am not saying that your opinions are wrong....that is for you to decide, but I do not agree with them.

I am not an expert either, but I am intelligent enough to do research and form my own opinions. If those opinions are wrong...so be it. And before you ask, I did not complete my college degree. I had to drop out to care for a sick child and did not have the opportunity to go back. I may someday, but it does not make you any smarter or more educated than me. :)

[tngirl]

Did you bother reading the post from wiki on the reasons there are so many consiracy theories?
Not one time have I ever said these people who were killed on 911 were not dead, not once and not once have I ever read or heard anyone else say their not dead. Just because someone says the official story is a lie does not mean they are saying these victims did not die. Where are you getting that from?

So, if the flight that hit the pentagon wasn't the plane reported, then that means the people on flight 77 are still alive because it wasn't that flight that hit the pentagon. This reasoning does not make sense. Either flight 77 hit the pentagon and the people are dead or it didn't hit and they are still alive somewhere.

[grammy2_1]

Did you bother reading the post from wiki on the reasons there are so many consiracy theories?
Not one time have I ever said these people who were killed on 911 were not dead, not once and not once have I ever read or heard anyone else say their not dead. Just because someone says the official story is a lie does not mean they are saying these victims did not die. Where are you getting that from?

Where???!! From YOUR posts! :rolleyes: You said that the 'theories' PROOVE that it could NOT have been a 757 that crashed into the Pentagon. Well, it WAS FLIGHT 77...now, pay close attention to this next part...which WAS a 757 that the little boy was on!!! THE plane that crashed INTO the Pentagon that morning!!

[tngirl]

See, now THAT is scarcastic. Sorry, but I find you not able to carry on a conversation due to your high emotion. You have to resort to scarcasim.

Plus, I never put all my eggs in one basket. THAT would be stupid.

Point proven

[Njean31]

Oh no? There isn't? How about the FACT that MY own brother was, at the time, a US NAVY SENIOR CHIEF PETTY OFFICER-now retired-ATTENDED the funeral of a fellow Navy Officer and friend's little son-who was ON the 757 plane that crashed INTO the Pentagon, into the very area where his father's office was located!! The father wasn't IN his office at the time because he had just said goodbye to his son at the airport as he left on a classtrip in on Flight 77 on THAT 757 plane!!

Now YOU tell the parents of ALL those children killed on THAT 757 plane, Flight 77, or the family members of all the rest of the people who died in that plane, that it never really happened!!! That THEIR loved-ones are still alive...somewhere!!

My brother WENT to that little boy's funeral! He saw what was left of his little body, lowered into the ground inside his little casket!! He grieved FOR and WITH the little boy's family!! Tell THEM it never happened!!

So stop 'listening' to the conspiracy whackos and try talking to people who were ACTUALLY involved or touched by this tragedy in REALITY!


i had grown bored with this thread but THIS really says it all.......IF there even was SOME KIND OF CONSPIRACY i think that this US NAVY SENIOR CHIEF PETTY OFFICER would have a VERY good reason to realize it..... investigate it....... and break up any sort of cover-up considering the fact his friends boy was on that plane and crashed near his office.... AND JUST THINK OF THE ACCESS HE HAS TO INFORMATION COMPARED TO YOU AND I. how ironic this plane crashed near his office...............how horrific :(

[tngirl]

wow not one word, did it scare you?

Nope, I haven't bothered to read this post since yesterday morning. And to be honest, I didn't even bother to read the conspiracy theorist information. I tried...but got bored. I must have adhd or something, I bore easily.

[tngirl]

i had grown bored with this thread but THIS really says it all.......IF there even was SOME KIND OF CONSPIRACY i think that this US NAVY SENIOR CHIEF PETTY OFFICER WITH AN OFFICE AT THE PENTAGON would have a VERY good reason to realize it..... investigate it....... and break up any sort of cover-up considering the fact his friends boy was on that plane and crashed near his office.... AND JUST THINK OF THE ACCESS HE HAS TO INFORMATION COMPARED TO YOU AND I. how ironic this plane crashed near his office...............how horrific :(

I had gotten bored with it too, but just couldn't resist replying. But, I am definitely through now. Can't "argue" with a rock can you?

[grammy2_1]

i had grown bored with this thread but THIS really says it all.......IF there even was SOME KIND OF CONSPIRACY i think that this US NAVY SENIOR CHIEF PETTY OFFICER WITH AN OFFICE AT THE PENTAGON would have a VERY good reason to realize it..... investigate it....... and break up any sort of cover-up considering the fact his own boy was on that plane AND JUST THINK OF THE ACCESS HE HAS TO INFORMATION COMPARED TO YOU AND I. how ironic this plane crashed near his office...............how horrific

Exactly!
That boys own FATHER was a senior officer as well...he would NOT have just gone along with it at all! He was utterly devastated at the death of his only son and child!
And well, considering that it was mainly the NAVY section of the Pentagon that was hit, its not so ironic, but the fact that that officer's son died on the very plane (FLIGHT 77 and 757 plane) that crashed into the area he worked...well, yes, not only ironic, but made it all the more-so-tragic. That officer, as told to me via my brother, who was his friend, WISHES that it was he who died and not his son, and baring that, he wished that if it had to happen, that he WOULD have been in his office that morning and died WITH his son that day... :(

[Njean31]

Exactly!
That boys own FATHER was a senior officer as well...he would NOT have just gone along with it at all! He was utterly devastated at the death of his only son and child!
And well, considering that it was mainly the NAVY section of the Pentagon that was hit, its not so ironic, but the fact that that officer's son died on the very plane (FLIGHT 77 and 757 plane) that crashed into the area he worked...well, yes, not only ironic, but made it all the more-so-tragic. That officer, as told to me via my brother, who was his friend, WISHES that it was he who died and not his son, and baring that, he wished that if it had to happen, that he WOULD have been in his office that morning and died WITH his son that day... :(

i got a little confused when i first read this post. i thought it was your brother's son and that he had an office at the pentagon so i head to go back and change it. but i understand it now............and YES....that boys own father who WORKS AT THE PENTAGON WOULD NEVER JUST GO ALONG WITH A GOVERNMENT COVER UP.......AND I'LL SAY IT AGAIN.........look at the access he would have to information compared to you or I.......that is so very sad :(

[grammy2_1]

I, too have nothing more to say. I've spoken and told the TRUTH.
I don't need any added stress in my life...especially for unecessary and totally ridiculous reasons. :D

Let them enjoy their little anti-everything bantering amongst themselves. :)
They live for this stuff...sad, isn't it?

Now, I'm off to write my letter to Santa and then, later tonight I have a date with an Alien, to be abducted again! :D
rofl

[Njean31]

I had gotten bored with it too, but just couldn't resist replying. But, I am definitely through now. Can't "argue" with a rock can you?

i just HAD to reply to the posts about the little boy :(

[nightrider127]

Exactly!
That boys own FATHER was a senior officer as well...he would NOT have just gone along with it at all! He was utterly devastated at the death of his only son and child!
And well, considering that it was mainly the NAVY section of the Pentagon that was hit, its not so ironic, but the fact that that officer's son died on the very plane (FLIGHT 77 and 757 plane) that crashed into the area he worked...well, yes, not only ironic, but made it all the more-so-tragic. That officer, as told to me via my brother, who was his friend, WISHES that it was he who died and not his son, and baring that, he wished that if it had to happen, that he WOULD have been in his office that morning and died WITH his son that day... :(


So very, very sad :( :( :( :(

[Bliss]

I, too have nothing more to say. I've spoken and told the TRUTH.
I don't need any added stress in my life...especially for unecessary and totally ridiculous reasons. :D

Let them enjoy their little anti-everything bantering amongst themselves. :)
They live for this stuff...sad, isn't it?

Now, I'm off to write my letter to Santa and then, later tonight I have a date with an Alien, to be abducted again! :D
rofl


Hahahaha! :p

[mesue]

Nope, I haven't bothered to read this post since yesterday morning. And to be honest, I didn't even bother to read the conspiracy theorist information. I tried...but got bored. I must have adhd or something, I bore easily.

Well, until you bother reading the information that is the subject being discussed by all means please don't bother responding. What's the point of responding if you are not even going to bother reading what the evidence is?

[mesue]

I, too have nothing more to say. I've spoken and told the TRUTH.
I don't need any added stress in my life...especially for unecessary and totally ridiculous reasons. :D

Let them enjoy their little anti-everything bantering amongst themselves. :)
They live for this stuff...sad, isn't it?

Now, I'm off to write my letter to Santa and then, later tonight I have a date with an Alien, to be abducted again! :D
rofl


Obviously you too are so convinced that you are right that you have not bother reading the evidence and as I said the photos are clearly showing that, the official story is a lie. How, when, and where each part of 911 happened has been figured out using facts, but it is very indepth and to understand it would mean that you and others here would have to at least have an open mind about it and be willing to sacrifice the time it takes to study it.
I have studied the 911 commission report as well as looked at the conspiracy theories. The truth is the government did not do a very good job of covering their tracks. There are so many holes in the official story, but they really did not have to do a good job of covering it up, most people don't want to believe the obvious truth. They want to believe the official story and if that gives you comfort, then by all means believe it.

While you and others might want to lay all these facts at the conspiracy theorists doors and say their dreamed up nonsense there is one fact that is not disputed by anyone, not even the government and that is that certain people were warned not to fly, one of them being Mayor Willie Brown. Now do you really think alQaida had special feelings for Mayor Brown? Why was the Mayor more important than this child and all the other people who died? Why was he and many others warned and not all American citizens? The fact is someone knew and warned the mayor but left all those others to die. Which sadly does mean his life was valued higher to someone than those people who died. And from all the evidence I have looked at there is no connection between the mayor and alQaida. Say hello to the aliens and Santa Claus for me.

[Chiizii]

Wikipedia lacks credibility. As well as some of the many "theories" that the events on 9-11 were staged by the government.

Simple physics breaks most of those conspiracy theories for me.

Even Snopes carries information that refutes some of the claims.

I find it rather amusing that people still believe that the government is so capable of pulling off the events of Sept. 11, 2001, when most the time the people in the government can't even agree on what to eat for lunch. With that being said, how can it be possible that the government can get it together enough to design such an event and hide so many people from their families and friends.

Believe what you wish. As for me, I will stay focused on physics, logic, and the simple fact that there is a radical group of people that desire deeply to destroy what hard working people are getting up each day to strive for...

[GoTitans]

I find it rather amusing that people still believe that the government is so capable of pulling off the events of Sept. 11, 2001, when most the time the people in the government can't even agree on what to eat for lunch. With that being said, how can it be possible that the government can get it together enough to design such an event and hide so many people from their families and friends.

You have got to be kidding! Apparently I didn't see it, but...YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING!!!!!!!!! Love the lunch comment, how true! :)

[mesue]

Wikipedia lacks credibility. As well as some of the many "theories" that the events on 9-11 were staged by the government.

Simple physics breaks most of those conspiracy theories for me.

Even Snopes carries information that refutes some of the claims.

I find it rather amusing that people still believe that the government is so capable of pulling off the events of Sept. 11, 2001, when most the time the people in the government can't even agree on what to eat for lunch. With that being said, how can it be possible that the government can get it together enough to design such an event and hide so many people from their families and friends.

Believe what you wish. As for me, I will stay focused on physics, logic, and the simple fact that there is a radical group of people that desire deeply to destroy what hard working people are getting up each day to strive for...

Well apparently your powers of logic have escaped you, no one has ever said the government is hiding people from their families or said these people who were killed on 911 did not die. I have never once said that nor have I read where someone else said it except for some more people here saying that anyone who does not believe the official story is saying that. Let me make this perfectly clear once and for all, the people who were killed in the planes, and in the buildings are dead. No one is saying the government is hiding them. What I have said is the official story is a lie, there is much more behind the simplistic story of terrorists did it.

Oh and you are also a physics expert by all means tell me how for the first time in history three steel buildings fell from fire. Now remember this is a first but on that day not one steel building fell from heat, but three. Also there are recordings from experienced fireman who were on the scene and inside the buildings said there were few fires in the building.

While many of you here make fun of my views not one of you can tell me why some people were warned not to fly on that day. Not one of you can tell me why that has not been fully investigated. For the most part all of you re trying to ignore that little fact. It was all over the media that several people received warnings, this is no hidden secret that only conspiracy theorists discovered and can't prove, it is a known fact. Its been over four years and while you all say sympathetic chatter about it, you choose to ignore the fact that there are no answers on these questions forthcoming. You choose to ignore the fact that someone thought that little boys life and all the other victims and any American citizen choosing to fly on that day were not important enough to warn. They knew and they allowed them to board those planes and go off to work in buildings that were going to be hit, they knew and did nothing but warn a few people, why? Are you going to tell me that alQaida an organization that is so secretive they could pull this type of terrorist operation chose to warn a few people ahead of time not to fly on 9/11/01, is that your powers of logic?

[Njean31]

i guess all of these CREDIBLE people must have been hallucinating that day:

and according to your statement about the mayor of some city being warned not to fly.........i guess they forgot to warn BARBARA OLSEN AND ALL OF THE HIGHER RANKING PEOPLE IN THE PENTAGON (compared to some mayor who could be making it up if he even said it) who were killed.

ok now.......these credible people SAW AMERICAN AIRLINES ON THE JETLINER THAT HIT THE PENTAGON....MANY SAW IT. apparantly......the coverup includes random civilians as well.

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html

[YNKYH8R]

Well I guess I’ll throw my poker chip on the table. (Of course people seeing that I’ve posted I here will turn people away immediately I don’t have the same draw as mesue. LOL!) Through my reading of the Soviet Afghan war, the Iran-Iraq war, The Cold War, and the American lead Gulf war, in my opinion, the United States government either helped orchestrate the events of 9/11; or allowed it to happen giving way to plausible deniability.
I’d post links and even go to the length to string together documents I’ve found that lead me to this conclusion. But they wouldn’t be read; which is fine. For the most part we, as individuals, don’t want to read documents that go against what we already have accepted as our own truth.

[Njean31]

Well I guess I’ll throw my poker chip on the table. (Of course people seeing that I’ve posted I here will turn people away immediately I don’t have the same draw as mesue. LOL!) Through my reading of the Soviet Afghan war, the Iran-Iraq war, The Cold War, and the American lead Gulf war, in my opinion, the United States government either helped orchestrate the events of 9/11; or allowed it to happen giving way to plausible deniability.
I’d post links and even go to the length to string together documents I’ve found that lead me to this conclusion. But they wouldn’t be read; which is fine. For the most part we, as individuals, don’t want to read documents that go against what we already have accepted as our own truth.


i love to read articles that challenge my beliefs........just so long as they are credible with educated well known people doing the discussing....not some website that has ghosts, paranormal activity, crop circles and the like being discussed as well (which i read for entertainment).

[nightrider127]

i guess all of these CREDIBLE people must have been hallucinating that day:

and according to your statement about the mayor of some city being warned not to fly.........i guess they forgot to warn BARBARA OLSEN AND ALL OF THE HIGHER RANKING PEOPLE IN THE PENTAGON (compared to some mayor who could be making it up if he even said it) who were killed.

ok now.......these credible people SAW AMERICAN AIRLINES ON THE JETLINER THAT HIT THE PENTAGON....MANY SAW IT. apparantly......the coverup includes random civilians as well.

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html


Thanks for the link. I have bookmarked it. Way too much for me to read right now.

[Njean31]

Thanks for the link. I have bookmarked it. Way too much for me to read right now.

no problem, way tmi for me to read right now too. check out this one statement on that page though.

Benedetto, Richard


Richard Benedetto, a USA TODAY reporter, was on his way to work, driving on the Highway parrallel to the Pentagon : "It was an American Airlines airplane, I could see it very clearly.(...) I didn't see the impact. (...) The sound itself sounded more like a thud rather than a bomb (...) rather than a loud bomb explosion it sounded muffled, heavy, very deep. I didn't see any flaps, it looked like the plane was just in normal flying mode but heading straight down. It was straight. The only thing we saw on the ground outside there was a piece of a ... the tail of a lamp post. (Video)
high bandwidth : http://digipressetmp3.teaser.fr/uploads/491/Benedetto2.ram
low bandwidth : http://digipressetmp3.teaser.fr/uploads/491/Benedetto.ram

[Njean31]

You Are In: USINFO > Resource Tools > Identifying Misinformation



Thierry Meyssan
French Conspiracy Theorist Claims No Plane Hit Pentagon

In 2002, French conspiracy theorist Thierry Meyssan wrote a book suggesting that a cruise missile instead of a plane hit the Pentagon on September 11, and the planes that hit the World Trade Center towers had not been hijacked but were piloted by remote control. Mr. Meyssan believes both attacks were masterminded not by al Qaeda, but "from inside the American state apparatus." (9/11: The Big Lie, p. 139.)

Mr. Meyssan's claims suffer from numerous obvious flaws.

With regard to the Pentagon attacks, Mr. Meyssan ignores or dismisses the facts that:

* many eyewitnesses saw a plane crash into the Pentagon
* the passenger and crew remains from American Airlines flight 77 were recovered at the Pentagon crash site
* eyewitness reports and photographs show plane debris at the Pentagon crash site
* passengers on American Airlines flight 77 made phone calls, reporting their aircraft had been hijacked
* senior Al Qaeda leaders have admitted they conducted the September 11 attacks.

With regard to the World Trade Center attacks, Mr. Meyssan ignores or dismisses the facts that:

* Boeing commercial aircraft can not be remotely controlled
* passengers on both flights that attacked the World Trade Center made phone calls, reporting that their aircraft had been hijacked
* senior Al Qaeda leaders have admitted they conducted the September 11 attacks.

Mr. Meyssan's book, L'Effroyable Imposture [The Horrifying Fraud] is available in 19 languages -- French, English, Spanish, German, Russian, Italian, Greek, Turkish, Persian, Arabic, Korean, Greek, Portugese, Romanian, Czech, Estonian, Croatian, Albanian, Serbian -- and is being translated into four more -- Chinese, Slovenian, Japanese, and Dutch. The book was published in English as 9/11: The Big Lie.

The book was severely criticized in the French press as soon as it appeared. The French newspaper Liberation called the book "The Frightening Confidence Trick ... a tissue of wild and irresponsible allegations, entirely without foundation." Nevertheless, the book was an instant bestseller in France, selling more than 200,000 copies.

The Pentagon Attack

Numerous Eyewitness Accounts

Mr. Meyssan suggests that a cruise missile with a depleted uranium warhead, not a plane, struck the Pentagon on September 11. But he never traveled to the United States to conduct research or interviewed any of the many eyewitnesses to the attack on the Pentagon. He ignores or dismisses the many eyewitness accounts -- some of which specifically identified the plane as having American Airlines markings, as a Boeing 757, and as a plane with passengers onboard, visible through windows. Excerpts from some of the eyewitness accounts are included at the end of this document.

Passenger and Crew Remains Recovered at Pentagon Crash Site

In addition to the numerous eyewitness accounts, the remains of the passengers and crew onboard American Airlines flight 77 were recovered from the Pentagon crash site. A team of more than 100 forensic specialists and others identified 184 of the 189 people who died in the Pentagon attack (125 from the Pentagon and 64 onboard American Airlines flight 77). All but one of the passengers onboard American Airlines flight 77 was positively identified as a match with DNA samples provided by the families of the crash victims. These positive forensic identifications provide irrefutable proof that American Airlines flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon on September 11. In addition, rescue and recovery personnel at the Pentagon reported seeing the bodies of airline passengers. The September 14, 2001 edition of USA Today reported, "When [Army Sergeant Mark] Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped in their seats."

Plane Debris Found at Pentagon Crash Site

People who went to the Pentagon crash site reported seeing parts of an airplane, including the nose cone, landing gear, an airplane tire, the fuselage, an intact cockpit seat, and the tail number of the airplane, as reported in an e-mail to a conspiracy theory website that debunks the conspiracy theory claims. The e-mail also contains photographs of airplane landing gear, tires, and fuselage fragments, which were taken at the Pentagon crash site. Moreover, the black boxes for American Airlines flight 77 were found at the Pentagon crash site.

Passengers Report Hijackings

Mr. Meyssan's book also ignores the fact that several passengers from American Airlines flight 77 made phone calls reporting that their plane had been hijacked.

At 9:12 am, approximately 10 minutes after the American Airlines flight 77 had been hijacked, passenger Renee May called her mother, Nancy May, to report that the plane had been hijacked and that the passengers had been herded to the back of the plane.

Minutes later, passenger Barbara Olson called her husband Ted Olson, the solicitor general of the United States, also reporting that the flight had been hijacked, and that the hijackers had knives and box cutters.

Al Qaeda Admits it Conducted September 11 Attacks

Finally, high-ranking al Qaeda members involved in the September 11 attacks, including Osama bin Laden, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, and Ramzi bin al Shibh, have openly acknowledged that they planned and executed the attacks. As Khalid Sheikh Mohammed told Al Jazeera reporter Yosri Fouda in April 2002, with reference to the September 11 attacks, "I am the head of the al Qaeda military committee and Ramzi is the coordinator of the Holy Tuesday operation. And, yes, we did it." (Yosri Fouda and Nick Fielding, Masterminds of Terror, p. 38.)

Mr. Meyssan provides no explanation for what he believes happened to American Airlines flight 77. If the plane did not crash into the Pentagon, as he claims, where did the plane and all its passengers go? He has no explanation for this question.

Thus, there are:

* numerous eyewitness accounts of an American Airlines passenger plane crashing into the Pentagon
* phone calls from passengers on American Airlines flight 77 reporting that it had been hijacked
* eyewitness accounts of airplane parts and the bodies of airline passengers still strapped in their seats found at the Pentagon crash site, as well as photographs of airplane parts
* the remains of bodies recovered at the Pentagon crash site positively identified as matching those of the passengers and crew on American Airlines flight 77
* acknowledgements by high-ranking al Qaeda members that they carried out the September 11 attacks.

In light of these facts, there is no doubt that American Airlines flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon on September 11.

The World Trade Center Attacks

Mr. Meyssan also suggests that the two Boeing aircraft that crashed into the World Trade Center towers had not been hijacked, but were remotely controlled. He writes:

It was not necessary in fact to have any hijackers on board at all, as there was no taking of hostages: by hacking into the planes' computers before takeoff, it would have been possible to take over the aircraft in flight, thanks to the Global Hawk technology perfected by the Department of Defense. The Boeing would have been under remote control, like a drone -- a plane without a pilot. (9/11: The Big Lie, p. 34.)

Remotely Controlled Flight Not Possible

A Boeing Company official stated that Boeing has designed its commercial airplanes so that it is impossible to control them remotely. Elizabeth Verdiev, a spokesperson for Boeing, stated on June 16, 2005:

No Boeing commercial jet transport can be controlled from outside the airplane. No Boeing commercial jet transport can be "commanded" or have its flight controlled other than from within the flight deck by the pilots. Pilots can program the airplane to take off, fly to a destination and land automatically, but Boeing design philosophy keeps pilots in control and in the decision-making loop at all times.

[Njean31]

cont........

Meyssan's claims about the World Trade Center attacks also ignores acknowledgements by high-ranking al Qaeda members that they carried out the September 11 attacks, and the fact that several passengers and crew from the two planes that crashed into the World Trade Center towers made phone calls describing how their flights had been hijacked.

Passengers Report Hijackings

American Airlines flight 11 crashed into the World Trade Center's north tower at 8:46 am. It had been hijacked at approximately 8:14 am. Flight attendants Betty Ong and Madeline "Amy" Sweeney made phone calls describing the hijacking. Betty Ong's call lasted about 25 minutes, the first four minutes of which were recorded (see footnote 29 of The 9-11 Commission Report).

The 9-11 Commission Report stated:

At 8:19, Ong reported: "The cockpit is not answering, somebody's stabbed in business class -- and I think there's Mace -- that we can't breathe -- I don't know, I think we're getting hijacked." She then told of the stabbings of the two flight attendants.

... At 8:26, Ong reported that the plane was "flying erratically." A minute later, Flight 11 turned south. ...

Sweeney calmly reported on her line that the plane had been hijacked; a man in first class had his throast slashed; two flight attendants had been stabbed -- one was seriously hurt and was on oxygen while the other's wounds seemed minor ....

United Airlines flight 175 crashed into the World Trade Center's south tower at 9:03 am. It had been hijacked between 8:42 and 8:46 am. Passengers Peter Hanson, Brian David Sweeney, and an unidentified flight attendant made phone calls reporting that United Airlines flight 175 had been hijacked and recounting events onboard the plane.

The 9-11 Commission Report stated:

At 8:52, in Easton, Connecticut, a man named Lee Hanson received a phone call from his son Peter, a passenger on United 175. His son told him, "I think they've taken over the cockpit -- An attendant has been stabbed -- and someone else up front may have been killed." ...

Also at 8:52, a male flight attendant called a United office in San Francisco .... The flight attendant reported that the flight had been hijacked, both pilots had been killed, a flight attendant had been stabbed, and the hijackers were probably flying the plane.

... At 8:59, Flight 175 passenger Brian David Sweeney ... called his mother, Louise Sweeney, told her the flight had been hijacked, and added that the passengers were thinking about storming the cockpit to take control of the plane away from the hijackers.

At 9:00, Lee Hanson received a second call from his son Peter:

"It's getting bad, Dad -- A stewardess was stabbed -- They seem to have knives and Mace -- They said they have a bomb -- ... The plane is making jerky movements -- I don't think the pilot is flying the plane -- I think we are going down -- Don't worry, Dad -- If it happens, it'll be very fast -- My God, my God."

The call ended abruptly. Lee Hanson heard a woman scream just before it cut off. He turned on a television, and in her home so did Louise Sweeney. Both of them saw the second aircraft hit the World Trade Center.

Thus, passengers and crew members from both flights reported that they had been hijacked, that passengers and crew members had been killed or wounded, and that the planes were flying in an erratic or jerky fashion, as would be the case if they were being flown by first-time pilots, as both hijacker pilots were. There was no mention or indication of a mysterious "remote control" takeover of the planes.

In conclusion, Mr. Meyssan's book ignores obvious facts, makes sweeping, totally unfounded allegations, and employs spurious logic to try to explain away facts that he apparently finds inconvenient. As the French newspaper Liberation said, the book is "a tissue of wild and irresponsible allegations, entirely without foundation."

Eyewitness Accounts of Pentagon Attack

Following are some of the numerous eyewitness accounts of the Pentagon crash:

* Richard Benedetto: "It was an American Airlines airplane, I could see it very clearly."
* Omar Campo, a Salvadorean" "It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane. I was cutting grass and it came in screaming over my head."
* Joseph Candelario: "I noticed a large aircraft flying low towards the White House. This aircraft then made a sharp turn and flew towards the Pentagon and seconds later crashed into it."
* James Cissell: "I saw this plane coming in and it was low - and getting lower. ... Then I saw the faces of some of the passengers on board."
* Dennis Clem: "There was a commercial airliner that said American Airliners over the side of it flying at just above treetop height at full speed headed for the Pentagon."
* Michael Dobbs: "It was an American airlines airliner. I was looking out the window and saw it come right over the Navy annex at a slow angle."
* Penny Elgas: "... the plane was directly over the cars in front of my car .... I remember recognizing it as an American Airlines plane -- I could see the windows and the color stripes."
* Cheryl Hammond: "We saw the big American Airlines plane and started running."
* Joe Harrington: "... one of my guys pointed to an American Airlines airplane 20 feet high over Washington Blvd."
* Albert Hemphill: "The aircraft, look[ed] to be either a 757 or Airbus."
* Terrance Kean: "I saw this very, very large passenger jet. It just plowed right into the side of the Pentagon."
* William Lagasse: "It was close enough that I could see the windows and the blinds had been pulled down. I read American Airlines on it. ... I saw the aircraft above my head about 80 feet above the ground."
* Robert Leonard: "I ... saw a large commercial aircraft aiming for the Pentagon."
* Lincoln Liebner: "I saw this large American Airlines passenger jet coming in fast and low."
* Elaine McCusker: "I saw a very low-flying American Airlines plane that seemed to be accelerating."
* Mitch Mitchell: "I ... saw, coming straight down the road at us, a huge jet plane clearly with American Airlines written on it .... It crossed about 100 feet in front of us and at about 20 feet altitude and we watched it go in. It struck the Pentagon."
* Terry Morin: "The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the fuselage. I believed at the time that it belonged to American Airlines."
* Christopher Munsey: "I couldn't believe what I was now seeing to my right: a silver, twin-engine American Airlines jetliner gliding almost noiselessly over the Navy Annex, fast, low and straight toward the Pentagon ...."
* Vin Narayanan: "I looked up to my left and saw an American Airlines jet flying right at me. The jet roared over my head, clearing my car by about 25 feet."
* John O'Keefe: "I don't know whether I saw or heard it first -- this silver plane; I immediately recognized it as an American Airlines jet ...."
* Steve Riskus: "I was close enough (about 100 feet or so) that I could see the ‘American Airlines' logo on the tail as it headed towards the building .... I clearly saw the ‘AA' logo with the eagle in the middle."
* James Ryan: "I see an American Airlines plane, silver plane, I could see AA on the tail. ... The plane was low enough that I could see the windows of the plane. I could see every detail of the plane. In my head I have ingrained forever this image of every detail of that plane. It was a silver plane, American Airlines plane, and I recognized it immediately as a passenger plane."
* Joel Sucherman: "... looking straight ahead there was a jet, what looked to be an American Airlines jet, probably a 757, and it came screaming across the highway ... [and] hit the west side of the Pentagon."
* Donald "Tim" Timmerman, a pilot: "I live on the 16th floor, overlooking the Pentagon ... and so I have quite a panorama. ... It was a Boeing 757, American Airlines, no question."
Mike Walter: "I saw this plane, this jet, an American Airlines jet, coming. ... It went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon. I saw the big ‘AA' on the side."
* Ian Wyatt: "I duck, I look up, it looks like a silver American Airlines, twin-engine plane and then boom."

Finally, The 9/11 Commission Report states that on September 11, air traffic controllers at Washington's Reagan National Airport instructed a C-130H cargo plane that had just taken off from the airport to try to follow the plane that had been spotted on radar as heading toward Washington. According to the report, "The C-130H pilot spotted it, identified it as a Boeing 757, attempted to follow its path, and at 9:39, seconds after impact, reported to the control tower: ‘looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon, sir.'"

In sum, hundreds of people on nearby roads or in nearby buildings saw a large passenger plane hit the Pentagon and, as the above eyewitness testimonies demonstrate, numerous people specifically identified it as an American Airlines plane.


Created: 28 Jun 2005 Updated: 28 Jun 2005

Page Tools: Printer friendly version Printer friendly version email this page E-mail this article


Back to Top

USINFO delivers information about current U.S. foreign policy and about American life and culture. This site
is produced and maintained by the U.S. Department of State's Bureau of International Information Programs.
Links to other internet sites should not be construed as an endorsement of the views contained therein.

Home | What's New | About USINFO | Site Index | Contact Us | Privacy
Topics | Regions | Resource Tools | Products usinfo.state.gov url

[Njean31]

how did the government get all of these civilians to lie and to KEEP the secret. do you know how hard it is to keep a secret (especially of this magnitude) between 3 or more people?
not happening imo...............

Eyewitness Accounts of Pentagon Attack

Following are some of the numerous eyewitness accounts of the Pentagon crash:

* Richard Benedetto: "It was an American Airlines airplane, I could see it very clearly."
* Omar Campo, a Salvadorean" "It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane. I was cutting grass and it came in screaming over my head."
* Joseph Candelario: "I noticed a large aircraft flying low towards the White House. This aircraft then made a sharp turn and flew towards the Pentagon and seconds later crashed into it."
* James Cissell: "I saw this plane coming in and it was low - and getting lower. ... Then I saw the faces of some of the passengers on board."
* Dennis Clem: "There was a commercial airliner that said American Airliners over the side of it flying at just above treetop height at full speed headed for the Pentagon."
* Michael Dobbs: "It was an American airlines airliner. I was looking out the window and saw it come right over the Navy annex at a slow angle."
* Penny Elgas: "... the plane was directly over the cars in front of my car .... I remember recognizing it as an American Airlines plane -- I could see the windows and the color stripes."
* Cheryl Hammond: "We saw the big American Airlines plane and started running."
* Joe Harrington: "... one of my guys pointed to an American Airlines airplane 20 feet high over Washington Blvd."
* Albert Hemphill: "The aircraft, look[ed] to be either a 757 or Airbus."
* Terrance Kean: "I saw this very, very large passenger jet. It just plowed right into the side of the Pentagon."
* William Lagasse: "It was close enough that I could see the windows and the blinds had been pulled down. I read American Airlines on it. ... I saw the aircraft above my head about 80 feet above the ground."
* Robert Leonard: "I ... saw a large commercial aircraft aiming for the Pentagon."
* Lincoln Liebner: "I saw this large American Airlines passenger jet coming in fast and low."
* Elaine McCusker: "I saw a very low-flying American Airlines plane that seemed to be accelerating."
* Mitch Mitchell: "I ... saw, coming straight down the road at us, a huge jet plane clearly with American Airlines written on it .... It crossed about 100 feet in front of us and at about 20 feet altitude and we watched it go in. It struck the Pentagon."
* Terry Morin: "The plane had a silver body with red and blue stripes down the fuselage. I believed at the time that it belonged to American Airlines."
* Christopher Munsey: "I couldn't believe what I was now seeing to my right: a silver, twin-engine American Airlines jetliner gliding almost noiselessly over the Navy Annex, fast, low and straight toward the Pentagon ...."
* Vin Narayanan: "I looked up to my left and saw an American Airlines jet flying right at me. The jet roared over my head, clearing my car by about 25 feet."
* John O'Keefe: "I don't know whether I saw or heard it first -- this silver plane; I immediately recognized it as an American Airlines jet ...."
* Steve Riskus: "I was close enough (about 100 feet or so) that I could see the ‘American Airlines' logo on the tail as it headed towards the building .... I clearly saw the ‘AA' logo with the eagle in the middle."
* James Ryan: "I see an American Airlines plane, silver plane, I could see AA on the tail. ... The plane was low enough that I could see the windows of the plane. I could see every detail of the plane. In my head I have ingrained forever this image of every detail of that plane. It was a silver plane, American Airlines plane, and I recognized it immediately as a passenger plane."
* Joel Sucherman: "... looking straight ahead there was a jet, what looked to be an American Airlines jet, probably a 757, and it came screaming across the highway ... [and] hit the west side of the Pentagon."
* Donald "Tim" Timmerman, a pilot: "I live on the 16th floor, overlooking the Pentagon ... and so I have quite a panorama. ... It was a Boeing 757, American Airlines, no question."
Mike Walter: "I saw this plane, this jet, an American Airlines jet, coming. ... It went right there and slammed right into the Pentagon. I saw the big ‘AA' on the side."
* Ian Wyatt: "I duck, I look up, it looks like a silver American Airlines, twin-engine plane and then boom."

Finally, The 9/11 Commission Report states that on September 11, air traffic controllers at Washington's Reagan National Airport instructed a C-130H cargo plane that had just taken off from the airport to try to follow the plane that had been spotted on radar as heading toward Washington. According to the report, "The C-130H pilot spotted it, identified it as a Boeing 757, attempted to follow its path, and at 9:39, seconds after impact, reported to the control tower: ‘looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon, sir.'"

In sum, hundreds of people on nearby roads or in nearby buildings saw a large passenger plane hit the Pentagon and, as the above eyewitness testimonies demonstrate, numerous people specifically identified it as an American Airlines plane.


Created: 28 Jun 2005 Updated: 28 Jun 2005

[mesue]

Well I guess I’ll throw my poker chip on the table. (Of course people seeing that I’ve posted I here will turn people away immediately I don’t have the same draw as mesue. LOL!) Through my reading of the Soviet Afghan war, the Iran-Iraq war, The Cold War, and the American lead Gulf war, in my opinion, the United States government either helped orchestrate the events of 9/11; or allowed it to happen giving way to plausible deniability.
I’d post links and even go to the length to string together documents I’ve found that lead me to this conclusion. But they wouldn’t be read; which is fine. For the most part we, as individuals, don’t want to read documents that go against what we already have accepted as our own truth.

Thanks YNKYH8R glad to know I am not the only one willing to look at 911 with an open mind.

[tngirl]

Well, until you bother reading the information that is the subject being discussed by all means please don't bother responding. What's the point of responding if you are not even going to bother reading what the evidence is?


Ho hum....did I not mention that I TRIED to read your "evidence" but it was just too boring? I have READ the evidence, but you don't agree with what i have read, so, why is it so wrong that I do not believe yours?

As for responding, if I want to respond to your idiocy, that is my perogative.

[Chiizii]

Mesue: You are right. I am making a bit of fun with you because you seem to need validation to your opinion of the events of Sept. 11. You don't need my validation, there are plenty of people who look at those events like you do and you don't need me to join on that bandwagon.

I am not a physics expert. I took a bunch of classes and was a Helo Repairmen for a few years. I know how hot jet fuel burns, I know how much a large airship carries and what the possible amount of pounds unused in those airships were before crashing into the WTC and the Pentagon. I know that the word implosion is overused and that an actual implosions of buildings do not occur very often even with the professionals. I know that all is needed to bring down steel is a cutting of steel and heat as low as 800 degrees F to make a big mess of a steel structure. (My brother is the demo expert and I trust his opinion).
He would say..."Ever play Jinga? "

I found that much of the evidence that you left here left me with more questions than answers. All this cut and paste of entire articles can be very difficult to read in this format and I appreciate those who leave the links so you can read the whole statement.



To answer the question of warnings not to fly on Sept. 11, you just shot a hole in your own opinions. Many people had the intuitions not to fly that day and yes someone who had heard of the events warned Brown not to fly. I noticed that the person that warned Brown is not named. So, it doesn't prove it was someone in the goverment or the enemy of that day.
Gosh. Imagine if that warning had come sooner and taken seriously how many people would be alive today.

[mesue]

i guess all of these CREDIBLE people must have been hallucinating that day:

and according to your statement about the mayor of some city being warned not to fly.........i guess they forgot to warn BARBARA OLSEN AND ALL OF THE HIGHER RANKING PEOPLE IN THE PENTAGON (compared to some mayor who could be making it up if he even said it) who were killed.

ok now.......these credible people SAW AMERICAN AIRLINES ON THE JETLINER THAT HIT THE PENTAGON....MANY SAW IT. apparantly......the coverup includes random civilians as well.

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html

I've already explained how if someone saw a plane and did not know what kind it is and most of us are not experts on types of plane, if we saw a plane and the government or someone saying they were an expert told us it was a certain kind we would all believe it. Someone has already posted a pic and video showing a small plane hitting the pentagon.

As to the Mayor it was Mayor Willie Brown of San Francisco and many people at the pentagon were warned and many canceled flight plans on 911 and that is also a recognized fact. As for Barbara Olson she had just changed her flight plans at the last minute. Your argument that some government people died on that day is weak, no one is saying that all of the government knew what was going to happen, that every government worker was privvy to this kind of info.

The fact is that some pentagon people canceled flight plans on that day, the fact is the Mayor was warned and I really doubt that alQaida warned him or anyone at the pentagon, after all their secrecy is supposed to have been the reason they were able to have carried out their plot of 911 so successfully. Here is a list of people who canceled plans to fly or be in the vicinity of the WTC that day. So who warned them?http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/warnings.html

[tngirl]

HOW THE WTC COLLAPSED

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc.php

This website discusses the collapse in simple terms as to why the Towers collapsed.

[mesue]

Mesue: You are right. I am making a bit of fun with you because you seem to need validation to your opinion of the events of Sept. 11. You don't need my validation, there are plenty of people who look at those events like you do and you don't need me to join on that bandwagon.

I am not a physics expert. I took a bunch of classes and was a Helo Repairmen for a few years. I know how hot jet fuel burns, I know how much a large airship carries and what the possible amount of pounds unused in those airships were before crashing into the WTC and the Pentagon. I know that the word implosion is overused and that an actual implosions of buildings do not occur very often even with the professionals. I know that all is needed to bring down steel is a cutting of steel and heat as low as 800 degrees F to make a big mess of a steel structure. (My brother is the demo expert and I trust his opinion).
He would say..."Ever play Jinga? "

I found that much of the evidence that you left here left me with more questions than answers. All this cut and paste of entire articles can be very difficult to read in this format and I appreciate those who leave the links so you can read the whole statement.



To answer the question of warnings not to fly on Sept. 11, you just shot a hole in your own opinions. Many people had the intuitions not to fly that day and yes someone who had heard of the events warned Brown not to fly. I noticed that the person that warned Brown is not named. So, it doesn't prove it was someone in the goverment or the enemy of that day.
Gosh. Imagine if that warning had come sooner and taken seriously how many people would be alive today.

Oh now its intuition not to fly, ESP. LOL Sorry this is just funny, how hard will you fight to cling to the official story? When you can't disprove the facts of reports of certain people being warned you then turn to ESP.
http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/02/04/Ashcroft.html
And then say that someone who had heard of the events warned Mayor Brown, so you do accept that fact that someone warned him and someone knew, but say I have shot a hole in my opinion because I have not named the person who warned him. Well I can guarantee you this much for sure, it was not alQaida warning him.

[mesue]

HOW THE WTC COLLAPSED

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc.php

This website discusses the collapse in simple terms as to why the Towers collapsed.

Sorry but I find you link just to boring to bother with; besides the fact that I have already read it, and watched a tv special on it.

[tngirl]

Sorry but I find you link just to boring to bother with; besides the fact that I have already read it, and watched a tv special on it.

You are just so dang hysterical....you totally slay me!!! Oh well, my job here is done (unless someone taunts me to return).

[Chiizii]

Oh now its intuition not to fly, ESP. LOL Sorry this is just funny, how hard will you fight to cling to the official story? When you can't disprove the facts of reports of certain people being warned you then turn to ESP.
http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/02/04/Ashcroft.html
And then say that someone who had heard of the events warned Mayor Brown, so you do accept that fact that someone warned him and someone knew, but say I have shot a hole in my opinion because I have not named the person who warned him. Well I can guarantee you this much for sure, it was not alQaida warning him.

Twisting my words isn't going to work. There are many people in this world that follow their own instincts to avoid situations that have later turned out to save their lives. There were many alerts that something big was happening that day from many, and because it was not heeded does not make it a government conspiracy does it? My questioning of your set fast opinion is not clinging to the official version of the events of Sept. 11 either.

You know for sure it wasn't someone associated with Al Qaeda that warned Mayor Brown? Mayor Brown didn't even take the phone call so seriously that he declared some kind of emergency to authorities on the East Coast.


BTW, It is not my burden to prove this opinion of yours that it our government that made that phone call to Mayor Brown and others. It is your burden of proof. And I notice that you are not backing up any of your viewpoints with hard facts, for instance who was it that called Mayor Brown.

[mesue]

Oh and for those of you who might have an open mind, here are reports of who, warned Brown and about others being warned? It says all rights reserved so I hesitate to list anything other than a link. http://www.prisonplanet.com/911/warned.htm

The fact is that none of us agree on what happened on 911, but I think there is clear evidence and proof that someone (besides alQaida) knew and that someone warned people they considered valuable but chose to let others die. Why, what kind of monster would do that?

Someone put stock options against those two airlines involved in 911 and several businesses in the WTC that their stock would fall would fall in a certain amount of time, someone chose to make money off of this instead of save people's lives. I don't know about why any of you would want to let this person get away with making the choice to allow so many to die but you do seem to want that, otherwise you would start accepting the reported and recognized fact that someone knew and from the looks of things many knew and wonder why there has been no further investigation into that.

Al-Qaida had no reason to warn any of these people that were warned, so who knew? And why were they choosing to warn only a few of the elite and allowing others they obviously considered unimportant to die. You all say how sad it is that so many had to die but you accept the fact that someone knew and let them die and that no one has really even addressed this issue or investigated it.

[Chiizii]

My opinion. Prison Planet is a website that has an obvious agenda. Their articles are very slighted and lack proof but has a talent towards juxtaposition. Therefore, using them as proof to back up your opinion is less convincing.

Someone put money into stock is still not proving a point. Who was that someone? It could of been someone associated with al Qaeda. Yes someone knew, it was those associated with al Qaeda or knew their plans of years. Now connect this with someone in the government and you might have something.

[mesue]

Twisting my words isn't going to work. There are many people in this world that follow their own instincts to avoid situations that have later turned out to save their lives. There were many alerts that something big was happening that day from many, and because it was not heeded does not make it a government conspiracy does it? My questioning of your set fast opinion is not clinging to the official version of the events of Sept. 11 either.

You know for sure it wasn't someone associated with Al Qaeda that warned Mayor Brown? Mayor Brown didn't even take the phone call so seriously that he declared some kind of emergency to authorities on the East Coast.


BTW, It is not my burden to prove this opinion of yours that it our government that made that phone call to Mayor Brown and others. It is your burden of proof. And I notice that you are not backing up any of your viewpoints with hard facts, for instance who was it that called Mayor Brown.

I'm not trying to twist your words, intuition is ESP or the sixth sense as many call it. If there was so many alerts that something was happening on that day why were the airports not notified? Please back up this statement of yours that (There were many alerts that something big was happening that day from many) with evidence of that and where they got that information.

True mayor Brown did not take the warning seriously and was preparing to go to the airport when he saw the reports about the attacks. But, the fact is whether he took it seriously or not is really unimportant, what is important is he got a warning. Why didn't so many others, why were the airports not warned?

Reports are that al-Qaida was a very secretive terrorist organization that hated all Americans, and thats why 911 happened so what makes you think al-Qaida would want to warn Mayor Brown or any pentagon officials? Are you telling me in one breath they hate us so much they would commit these heinous acts against us but then for some reason developed warm fuzzy feelings for Mayor Brown and some of the top pentagon officials that they warned them? Please elaborte on this, I would love to hear your reasoning on why al-Qaida warned these people.

[Chiizii]

Reports are that al-Qaida was a very secretive terrorist organization that hated all Americans, and thats why 911 happened so what makes you think al-Qaida would want to warn Mayor Brown or any pentagon officials? Are you telling me in one breath they hate us so much they would commit these heinous acts against us but then for some reason developed warm fuzzy feelings for Mayor Brown and some of the top pentagon officials that they warned them? Please elaborte on this, I would love to hear your reasoning on why al-Qaida warned these people.


Yes, I am saying that there is enough proof that al Qaeda hates our society, our people and our way of life so much to commit heinous acts. There are many radical followers of such thinking that will not stop until the whole world embraces their way of belief and if you don't you should be killed.

No, I am not saying that it was al Qaeda itself that warned Mayor Brown. I am saying that one someone who heard of the plan or were involved sent the warning to Mayor Brown and others because they tried to stop it. It could of been a associate that second guessed the actions of bin Laden followers. But who that very brave person is is a mystery. There is a difference between al Qaeda the group and its mission than the individual that had a second of doubt of the mission.

My point. There is a big difference between the mission of a few and the convictions of a doubter. If a young man of Arab decent said in his class room that the WTC would not be there next week, some Arab decent workers did not show up to work on Sept. 11, bin Laden himself said he was planning a major attack on the United States. There was a a possiblity that these events could of been very different. Things should of been taken more seriously and people shouldn't of pretended that we were so safe and no one would dream to attack us.

Yes, mistakes were made in this situation but it still doesn't mean that there was a grand conspiracy, that is something that was greatly planned by our own government or our President to commit this heinous act in order to further their own political agenda. Serious mistakes and nothing else.

[mesue]

My opinion. Prison Planet is a website that has an obvious agenda. Their articles are very slighted and lack proof but has a talent towards juxtaposition. Therefore, using them as proof to back up your opinion is less convincing.

Someone put money into stock is still not proving a point. Who was that someone? It could of been someone associated with al Qaeda. Yes someone knew, it was those associated with al Qaeda or knew their plans of years. Now connect this with someone in the government and you might have something.

Newsweek is who reported that a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans on September 10th for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns. True, Planet Prison did post this info on their website but they clearly point out it came from Newsweek. Whats their agenda? The report on Condoleeza Rice being the one who warned Mayor Brown, that is listed on Prison Planet as coming from Pacifica Radio. Whats their agenda?


Again tell me why it has not been fully investigated on where these warnings came from? If there is one person who was not an alQaida terrorist, with foreknowledge of the events of 911 then I want to know who that person was and why they did not warn others, you should too!!!

Even if you believe the official story the fact of some people being warned ahead of time are part of that official story it cannot be denied so who warned them and why not warn us all? Why do we not know four years later who warned these people? You can't really be serious when you suggested earlier that it might be al-Qaida warning these people.

[Chiizii]

There were threats being picked up on intelligence chatter and guidelines were followed by many. No big proof there, that happens often and there are actually guidelines that many in the FBI, CIA, Pentagon, et al must follow. Just like the VP is moved into the bunker during certain threats.
I am sure they are investgated but since the results are not conclusive we don't hear about it.

Newsweek is yet another Mass Media Publication that has an big interest in profit. This kind of news sells magazines. It is the language that is being used that should be looked at clearly.

Language is a very important part of all of this. And you mesue have not learned to read what is being said. Again. The questions I raise are my own. They have nothing to do with the official version of the events of Sept. 11th. I do admit that people were warned, but since no one has named official names, it is still up to me to conclude that it is just as possible that one member of the al Qaeda doubted and sent out information that could of been used to save lives. As a group they have a mission and it doesn't mean that all of them believe so deeply they do not doubt. I am sure even in Nazi Germany there were those who doubted greatly but didn't have the ways or means to stop but leaked out as much as they could without losing their own lives.

Have you really sat down and thought about the idea of "warning us all". The whole picture of this? Can you imagine the mass panic, the rush of supplies, the sudden crippling of our whole economy when masses of people do not go to work? The evidence needs to be as solid as it can be and we need great plans in place in order to pull this all off. Unless the intelligence that was gathered that day was as solid as marble things might of been different. But intelligence gathering is not a exact science. And to this day we lack serious plans to take on such an attack in many cities. This is what needs to be changed.

Once again. It is not my burden to prove or produce support to opinions that differ from mine.

[Njean31]

I've already explained how if someone saw a plane and did not know what kind it is and most of us are not experts on types of plane, if we saw a plane and the government or someone saying they were an expert told us it was a certain kind we would all believe it. Someone has already posted a pic and video showing a small plane hitting the pentagon.

These people were pilots, reporters, and business people.....not a bunch of idiots......and the plane was so low that even if they didn't know the type THEY COULD AND DID READ IT ON THE AIRPLANE ITSELF

As to the Mayor it was Mayor Willie Brown of San Francisco and many people at the pentagon were warned and many canceled flight plans on 911 and that is also a recognized fact. As for Barbara Olson she had just changed her flight plans at the last minute. Your argument that some government people died on that day is weak, no one is saying that all of the government knew what was going to happen, that every government worker was privvy to this kind of info.

AGAIN.......THAT'S A PRETTY BIG SECRET FOR SO MANY PEOPLE TO KNOW...IF ONE PERSON IN THE PENTAGON KNEW IT I CAN'T FATHOM THEY'D JUST STAY HOME AND LET THEIR COWORKERS PERISH......not to mention the thousands of others.


The fact is that some pentagon people canceled flight plans on that day, the fact is the Mayor was warned and I really doubt that alQaida warned him or anyone at the pentagon, after all their secrecy is supposed to have been the reason they were able to have carried out their plot of 911 so successfully. Here is a list of people who canceled plans to fly or be in the vicinity of the WTC that day. So who warned them?http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/warnings.html

i don't have a clue who warned them.......maybe alquiada had a leak or two about their plans and the government did not or could not take it seriously in time. i really don't know and don't claim to know all the facts. all i know is that i don't believe the government orchestrated 9/11......

[tngirl]

Oh and for those of you who might have an open mind, here are reports of who, warned Brown and about others being warned? It says all rights reserved so I hesitate to list anything other than a link. http://www.prisonplanet.com/911/warned.htm

The fact is that none of us agree on what happened on 911, but I think there is clear evidence and proof that someone (besides alQaida) knew and that someone warned people they considered valuable but chose to let others die. Why, what kind of monster would do that?

Someone put stock options against those two airlines involved in 911 and several businesses in the WTC that their stock would fall would fall in a certain amount of time, someone chose to make money off of this instead of save people's lives. I don't know about why any of you would want to let this person get away with making the choice to allow so many to die but you do seem to want that, otherwise you would start accepting the reported and recognized fact that someone knew and from the looks of things many knew and wonder why there has been no further investigation into that.

Al-Qaida had no reason to warn any of these people that were warned, so who knew? And why were they choosing to warn only a few of the elite and allowing others they obviously considered unimportant to die. You all say how sad it is that so many had to die but you accept the fact that someone knew and let them die and that no one has really even addressed this issue or investigated it.

You know what? The Clinton administration had an idea and fixed it so our intelligence organizations were not allowed to communicate with each other. So while one had information and another had more information.....they were not allowed to communicate this to each other.....hence, 9/11 and only God knows what else! Have you heard of the investigation going on right now into Able Danger? Maybe you should check with your fellow conspiracy followers on that one. The bombing at the WTC during Clinton's administration was just a test.

[Chiizii]

You know what? The Clinton administration had an idea and fixed it so our intelligence organizations were not allowed to communicate with each other. So while one had information and another had more information.....they were not allowed to communicate this to each other.....hence, 9/11 and only God knows what else! Have you heard of the investigation going on right now into Able Danger? Maybe you should check with your fellow conspiracy followers on that one. The bombing at the WTC during Clinton's administration was just a test.

That is a very good point.

[Bliss]

How is this possible if flight 77 never hit the Pentagon? "the passenger and crew remains from American Airlines flight 77 were recovered at the Pentagon crash site"

If a smaller aircraft hit the pentagon. Where did flight 77 crash? I suppose the Government shot down flight 77 and used a small aircraft to crash into the Pentagon to cover it up? How moronic does that sound? None of the crap posted about a smaller aircraft makes any sense at all. It would make sense to those who couldn't see beyond their nose. (no offense) :rolleyes:

I seen the video..I never seen any type of aircraft in the still photo's that some keep mentioning. All I could make out was the explosion, It's crappy video footage. :rolleyes:

[mesue]

There were threats being picked up on intelligence chatter and guidelines were followed by many. No big proof there, that happens often and there are actually guidelines that many in the FBI, CIA, Pentagon, et al must follow. Just like the VP is moved into the bunker during certain threats.
I am sure they are investgated but since the results are not conclusive we don't hear about it.

Newsweek is yet another Mass Media Publication that has an big interest in profit. This kind of news sells magazines. It is the language that is being used that should be looked at clearly.

Language is a very important part of all of this. And you mesue have not learned to read what is being said. Again. The questions I raise are my own. They have nothing to do with the official version of the events of Sept. 11th. I do admit that people were warned, but since no one has named official names, it is still up to me to conclude that it is just as possible that one member of the al Qaeda doubted and sent out information that could of been used to save lives. As a group they have a mission and it doesn't mean that all of them believe so deeply they do not doubt. I am sure even in Nazi Germany there were those who doubted greatly but didn't have the ways or means to stop but leaked out as much as they could without losing their own lives.

Have you really sat down and thought about the idea of "warning us all". The whole picture of this? Can you imagine the mass panic, the rush of supplies, the sudden crippling of our whole economy when masses of people do not go to work? The evidence needs to be as solid as it can be and we need great plans in place in order to pull this all off. Unless the intelligence that was gathered that day was as solid as marble things might of been different. But intelligence gathering is not a exact science. And to this day we lack serious plans to take on such an attack in many cities. This is what needs to be changed.

Once again. It is not my burden to prove or produce support to opinions that differ from mine.


You keep talking about your questions and then you answer mine with an unsubstantiated idea (no proof on this at all, it borders on the ridiculous) that al-Qaida warned these people. You say your not concerned with the offficial story, well obviously not, since you definitely are not concerned with any real answers either. You say it is not your burden to prove or produce support for others opinion; I don't recall asking you to do that. I simply asked you to answer what is apparently to you a very simple question, who warned the people that were warned? Ever tried finding some evidence to substantiate your own opinions? Just out of the blue, you have decided some nice al-Qaida person warned them, where are you getting that from? BTW you have not posed a question you have simply answered mine with a scenario that as I said borders on the ridiculous.

The official story even includes people being warned and the official story recognizes that they were warned but then ignores and barely addresses the fact that people were warned, why? I guess they don't have to since so many people like you are so accepting that it does not matter who did the warning? (It was that one nice al-Qaida guy, yeah right) It does not matter that someone knew and made money off of the deaths of so many, someone knew and did not warn but a few chosen people.

You people won't look at the actual evidence but say you firmly believe in the official story and this, people getting warned is a part of it, but then you dream up reasons how that happened, whats wrong with actually expecting our security forces to find some real answers to the question posed? Who warned the people that were warned? Is that too much to expect? After all it is part of the recognized official story you all are clinging to.

[mesue]

You know what? The Clinton administration had an idea and fixed it so our intelligence organizations were not allowed to communicate with each other. So while one had information and another had more information.....they were not allowed to communicate this to each other.....hence, 9/11 and only God knows what else! Have you heard of the investigation going on right now into Able Danger? Maybe you should check with your fellow conspiracy followers on that one. The bombing at the WTC during Clinton's administration was just a test.

I have already heard about Able Danger. And how many times have you left this thread because you were so bored? lol.

[mesue]

How is this possible if flight 77 never hit the Pentagon? "the passenger and crew remains from American Airlines flight 77 were recovered at the Pentagon crash site"

If a smaller aircraft hit the pentagon. Where did flight 77 crash? I suppose the Government shot down flight 77 and used a small aircraft to crash into the Pentagon to cover it up? How moronic does that sound? None of the crap posted about a smaller aircraft makes any sense at all. It would make sense to those who couldn't see beyond their nose. (no offense) :rolleyes:

I seen the video..I never seen any type of aircraft in the still photo's that some keep mentioning. All I could make out was the explosion, It's crappy video footage. :rolleyes:

Of course there were bodies being recovered at the pentagon site, many people working there were killed, but on what basis do you base the idea that flight 77 passenger and crew remains were found and recovered there, any photos? What proof do you have they recovered those Flight 77 bodies at that specific crash site? Again I am not saying the people on board flight 77 did not die, I'm simply asking what proof you have their bodies were recovered there? If that is your smoking gun that a 757 crashed there please show me proof.
BTW here is a link, to a still shot of the object that crashed into the pentagon, the object is shown landing on the ground just split seconds before it crashed into the pentagon.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/pentagon/vaportrail.html

[grammy2_1]

Do you even know how ridiculous you sound?
Do you honestly think that these 'unofficial sites' where you get YOUR info, don't lie or edit video/pics/etc?
PARTS of flight 77 were FOUND in the wreckage at the Pentagon. Bodies/body parts from Flight 77 were found there!

Another bit of info as proof-Not only did my bro attend countless funerals for fallen fellow NAVY officers/sailors...and one of their children, but he was also given the task of compiling the list of NAVY DEAD from that day-and involved in family notification!! During which, he was also given access to the lists of civilian deaths-which included civilians who worked at the Pentagon AND those aboard FLIGHT 77!!

Do you REALLY think that the government would PURPOSLY TARGET THE HEADQUARTERS/HUBB OF OUR ENTIRE MILITARY FORCES???
Get real and get a clue. We would NOT purposly allow other countries or people-ie: TERRORIST COUNTRIES/GROUPS to even think for a second they hit us in such an IMPORTANT base of our total Military Operations!! They would NOT purposly let them think they can hit us in such a vulnerable and IMPORTANT place, by staging a crash INTO our PENTAGON!!

And. BTW-my bro being IN washington DC that day, saw, in the skies, with his own eyes and heard with his own ears, our military fighter jets scrambling out of DC to intercept anymore would-be terrorist-made airplane bombs!!
Remember hearing on the news that more 'explosions' were heard in the DC area, not long after the Pentagon was hit-well, I remember it well because I was FREAKING OUT, not knowing at the time where MY brother was in DC at the moment! We never heard from him till late that night that he was okay-and I mentioned to him the other explosions they heard and how worried I was about him...his answer was, "Those weren't explosions, sis. Those were our fighter jets scrambling into the skies in search of any more (insert what he called the terrorist pigs in here). Those noises everyone thought were more explosions, were actually the sonic booms of the jets, because they left the ground at VERY FAST rates of speed."

So yes, our fighter jets WERE up there in the airspace over DC, but AFTER the attack on the Pentagon-NOT BEFORE!

BTW-I think its pretty sick that you'd WANT to SEE photos of the remains of those poor people from Flight 77 or anyone else for that matter who died in the plane crash of FLIGHT 77 INTO the PENTAGON!

[grammy2_1]

Someone put stock options against those two airlines involved in 911 and several businesses in the WTC that their stock would fall would fall in a certain amount of time, someone chose to make money off of this instead of save people's lives.

Oh yes, and on THAT note...are you serious!!?? IF that indeed was the case, don't you think it would have been the terrorist groups trying to make off with the cash? After all they need to keep funding their death and destruction! And do NOT think for a moment that people like that do NOT make money off us in many ways to fund their evil!! Obviously, they use some alias-name and/or means to buy/trade stocks and whatever other forms of 'dealings' they take part in-sort of like Swiss bank accounts and the like.

WHY are you so dead-set on defending terrorists and terrorism!? I think the government should be looking more closely at people like you, who are terrorist sympathizers! And, yes, that is exactly what you are, because basically by trying to take the blame OFF the terrorists, you are indeed, offering aid, comfort and support to the enemy!!

I bet, had anyone you knew, died in any of the tragedies on 9-11 at the hands of terrorists, you'd be singing a much different tune right now!

[YNKYH8R]

I believe that the Us Government is willing to turna blind eye on anything to turn a buck or follow through with an agenda. Look at the Mai Ly Massacre look at Iran-Contra or Abu Grahb no one ever gets in real trouble when the government is invovled.
And you can't say that some of us would change our tune if we had known someone who died because you don't know us.
I will say this though the flight that "crashed" in PA didn't crash, it was shot down by the government before it had a chance to hit Washington.

[grammy2_1]

I will say this though the flight that "crashed" in PA didn't crash, it was shot down by the government before it had a chance to hit Washington.

Well then, you make no sense-you can't agree/believe that the government was behind all this-then say that we shot down another plane, BEFORE it hit another 'target' in DC! Because if the goverment was behind it all, as you people claim, then they WOULD HAVE LET THAT PLANE FIND A CRITICAL TARGET TOO-and NOT be shot down by our own military in an empty field somwhere in PA. to AVOID even more carnage and loss of innocent lives!!!

And BTW, that's old news as well. Which I have no doubt could be true because it HAD to be stopped before hitting another target in DC!! Either way, those people on that plane went down as heroes!!! Because regardless of if our jets took it out before it COULD kill MANY more on the ground than was on the plane, those brave souls on that plane were already in the process(as is PROVED by their cell phone calls/messages) of trying to stop the terrorists from crashing that plane into yet ANOTHER building full of more innocent people!

[mesue]

Do you even know how ridiculous you sound?
Do you honestly think that these 'unofficial sites' where you get YOUR info, don't lie or edit video/pics/etc?
PARTS of flight 77 were FOUND in the wreckage at the Pentagon. Bodies/body parts from Flight 77 were found there!

Another bit of info as proof-Not only did my bro attend countless funerals for fallen fellow NAVY officers/sailors...and one of their children, but he was also given the task of compiling the list of NAVY DEAD from that day-and involved in family notification!! During which, he was also given access to the lists of civilian deaths-which included civilians who worked at the Pentagon AND those aboard FLIGHT 77!!

Do you REALLY think that the government would PURPOSLY TARGET THE HEADQUARTERS/HUBB OF OUR ENTIRE MILITARY FORCES???
Get real and get a clue. We would NOT purposly allow other countries or people-ie: TERRORIST COUNTRIES/GROUPS to even think for a second they hit us in such an IMPORTANT base of our total Military Operations!! They would NOT purposly let them think they can hit us in such a vulnerable and IMPORTANT place, by staging a crash INTO our PENTAGON!!

And. BTW-my bro being IN washington DC that day, saw, in the skies, with his own eyes and heard with his own ears, our military fighter jets scrambling out of DC to intercept anymore would-be terrorist-made airplane bombs!!
Remember hearing on the news that more 'explosions' were heard in the DC area, not long after the Pentagon was hit-well, I remember it well because I was FREAKING OUT, not knowing at the time where MY brother was in DC at the moment! We never heard from him till late that night that he was okay-and I mentioned to him the other explosions they heard and how worried I was about him...his answer was, "Those weren't explosions, sis. Those were our fighter jets scrambling into the skies in search of any more (insert what he called the terrorist pigs in here). Those noises everyone thought were more explosions, were actually the sonic booms of the jets, because they left the ground at VERY FAST rates of speed."

So yes, our fighter jets WERE up there in the airspace over DC, but AFTER the attack on the Pentagon-NOT BEFORE!

BTW-I think its pretty sick that you'd WANT to SEE photos of the remains of those poor people from Flight 77 or anyone else for that matter who died in the plane crash of FLIGHT 77 INTO the PENTAGON!

I never said I wanted to see the pics of bodies I simply asked if there were any since this person is so convinced that because someone said flight 77 hit the pentagon therefore it happened that way.

I really don't care how much paperwork your brother had to do, so what he had to compile a list, what exactly does that prove? Speaking of those jets, why were they not in the air before that? The pentagon was hit last where were they all the time 911 was taking place? For over two hours our country was under attack and they finally got in the air after the pentagon was hit. Now surely you are not going to tell me you do not know the sound of these jets, I live in the boonies and they go over here all the time, sometimes waking us up. But for one moment stop defending everyone and think why were these jets not in the air before that. One would think that your brother would be in a haven of safety on that day but he was not, why? The news had been on that WTC had been hit, why were the jets not already in the air protecting the airspace long before the pentagon was hit? Why did it take so long for those jets to get in the air?

Now to address your next thread where you say I am defending terrorists. apparently you have not read this thread I have said all the way through it there are people out there who knew what was going to happen and that instead of forgetting about it we should find these people and hold them accountable. Do you think that the people who knew and did nothing other than place stock options and warn a few people are not guilty of murder? And at the very least have to explain why they only warned a few people. Why they let those people board those planes, why they let people in those buildings go to work that day if they knew?

You on the other hand give me this song and dance about how it is probably the terrorists who put the stock options on the airlines and businesses, guess what I agree, but these types of things leaves a trail (what do you think a fairy falls down and collects the money) and since there is a trail leading to who collected the money why has our government (security personel) not followed that trail and gotten the culprits? Why are they not doing something about it? I'm wanting the people responsible for this to answer for their crimes. I'm saying there are still many avenues left to investigate, why is no one investigating this? Why are our newpeople not reporting on who put those stock options and collected money from it? Why is no oen not investigating the warnings?

[YNKYH8R]

Well then, you make no sense-you can't agree/believe that the government was behind all this-then say that we shot down another plane, BEFORE it hit another 'target' in DC! Because if the goverment was behind it all, as you people claim, then they WOULD HAVE LET THAT PLANE FIND A CRITICAL TARGET TOO-and NOT be shot down by our own military in an empty field somwhere in PA. to AVOID even more carnage and loss of innocent lives!!!

And BTW, that's old news as well. Which I have no doubt could be true because it HAD to be stopped before hitting another target in DC!! Either way, those people on that plane went down as heroes!!! Because regardless of if our jets took it out before it COULD kill MANY more on the ground than was on the plane, those brave souls on that plane were already in the process(as is PROVED by their cell phone calls/messages) of trying to stop the terrorists from crashing that plane into yet ANOTHER building full of more innocent people!
Well I never said I was in the same boat with mesue. I said that the Government allowed it to happen. Not necessarily orchestrate it.

There is on thing you are forgetting. No one knew (except a select few) that the passengers were trying to retake the plane. So it makes for a good cover story that the passengers took the plane down and not a missile or a plane or anything like that.

One thing you have to realize is the time in between attacks. By the time that airtraffic control and the FCC and the government knew about the two planes crashing into the two towers they were immediately looking for any plane that was deviating off course. The Pentagon is extremely well protected against attack; so it makes no sense to try to avoid that crash they knew the structure of the building would take it. Any casualties that were accrued would be more fodder for the war effort later.

But of course they didn’t want something like the White House or the Capital building taken out. So they probably scrambled some fighters when they had an indication of a plane heading towards the general direction or DC and took it out. It doesn’t take long to scramble a jet fighter.

Now if it is true that the government shot down that plane, fine it need to be done. I just don’t delude myself with the whole “civilian hero story” that the media pushed in our face. “Let’s Roll” my left foot..

[Chiizii]

Oh now I see how this works!

Because the conspiracy theorist says it couldn't be a plane but a missile that blew the big hole in the Pentagon and no other explanation can be valid because there were no bodies and the hole was too small this has to be the truth.

Never mind that the hole in the exterior wall of the Pentagon was 90 feet and the body of a 757 is smaller than that. Never mind that the degree of impact, the rate of feet traveled per second, the debris from the fuselage , the consistent eyewitness that saw an airship not a missile, et al will not even earn a slim amount of credibility in anyone who believes that it wasn't an airship but a missile that went thru the Pentagon that day.

Wait. A missile is a projectile. An airship is basically a projectile with wings. Sheer those wings off with an impact and it becomes a projectile like a missile.

The conspiracy theorist wants proof of bodies despite the idea that even if a missile would have the same outcome of burnt bodies or few parts to identify.

So by picking out things that are cannot be proven because of the lack of bodies, no idea who made phone calls, who invested what money where, and no proof of a paper trail to back anyone's claims it suddenly proves that someone in the government allowed this to happen, was involved in someway or orchestrated the event itself. The proof is in the main stream media investigating anything that sounds reasonable but yet these sources do not name names or provide the proof that it actually happens either. They give these reports in order to sell their product.

It can't simply be what it is. An act of terrorism upon this nation that resulted in the death of Americans and foreign guests. And our official response to such an attack was lacking that day. Mistakes were made by real people. But this is real life and not a big screen movie.

The only thing I am going to say on Flight 93, I don't believe a missile took it down. I believe that the evidence left in the field is not consistant to what a airship would look like if it was brought down by a missile. If a missile or a bomb went off in the airship then the debris field would be much bigger. We all remember the Challenger explosion and how far the debris fell.

[YNKYH8R]

The only thing I am going to say on Flight 93, I don't believe a missile took it down. I believe that the evidence left in the field is not consistant to what a airship would look like if it was brought down by a missile. If a missile or a bomb went off in the airship then the debris field would be much bigger. We all remember the Challenger explosion and how far the debris fell.
The “crash site” in PA is not consistent with a plane that crashes to the ground rather an outside force that blows the plane up, like a missile. Whether from a plane or a ground source who knows (most likely a plane though)

Comparing the Challenger (including Fuel tanks and side thrusters) to the plane in PA is very different. Plus I would be interested to see how high the challenger was when it blew compared to that plane. You have to take into account debris pattern along with wind currents in the area of Cape Canaveral versus PA.

But like I said before, the government did what it had to do in any event.

[YNKYH8R]

Fourth Plane theory
There has been speculation that United Airlines Flight 93 was in fact shot down by planes of the USAF (rather than being deliberately crashed by the hijackers). This issue was addressed by David Ray Griffin in The New Pearl Harbor, citing research by Paul Thompson. Thompson cites a number of mainstream media reports that fighter jets were actually much closer to Flight 93 at the time of the crash than stated in the official record , that local witnesses saw military aircraft flying over the crash zone immediately after the crash, and that pieces of Flight 93 were found far from the crash site, indicating that it started breaking up before it hit the ground. Furthermore, Donald Rumsfeld "misspoke," mentioning "the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon" while making a prepared statement to soldiers in Iraq. Some have argued that it may have been shot down, and its passengers sacrificed to prevent it reaching its target, though Thompson and Griffin believe it was likely shot down because its intended mission had been sabotaged. In Alex Jones's film Martial Law: Rise of the Police State, he states a belief that some Air Force generals rebelled against Cheney and shot down this plane in order to stop it from hitting the U.S. Capitol. Jones cites undisclosed sources, so most people in the 9/11 Truth Movement regard this as speculative, though possibly true.

[Chiizii]

The “crash site” in PA is not consistent with a plane that crashes to the ground rather an outside force that blows the plane up, like a missile. Whether from a plane or a ground source who knows (most likely a plane though)

Comparing the Challenger (including Fuel tanks and side thrusters) to the plane in PA is very different. Plus I would be interested to see how high the challenger was when it blew compared to that plane. You have to take into account debris pattern along with wind currents in the area of Cape Canaveral versus PA.

But like I said before, the government did what it had to do in any event.


I used the Challenger explosion as an example because most people will remember the debris search and how the explosion field was so large.
It is only an example.
Could you give a link that shows that the debris field of Flight 93 was not consistant to a crash. I am very interested in reading it.

[YNKYH8R]

I used the Challenger explosion as an example because most people will remember the debris search and how the explosion field was so large.
It is only an example.
Could you give a link that shows that the debris field of Flight 93 was not consistant to a crash. I am very interested in reading it.
I’d have to go find one. I’m only going off of observation. I never witnessed the attacks of 9/11. That afternoon when I got home and saw the endless footage (especially of the PA “crash”) my first thought was “It was shot down”. Why? Because off all the plane crashes that were reported from 1986 through the mid nineties (there were a lot of them remember) crash sites showed, for the most part, whole fuselages, sections of fuselage, pieces of wing. Large sections sections that survived a crash. The site in PA shows the plane in pieces there were no large sections left. Like it had been blown up.

I tried to do a search for pictures or the crash site after it happened so I could view the wreckage again. Unfortunatly I did find some sites of conspiracy theory. I’ve not read these. And I hesitate putting them up. But here they are. When I have time I’ll do some searches for other famous airline crashes and try to compare the wreckage scene photos.

http://www.rense.com/general64/white.htm

http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/flt93.htm

[YNKYH8R]

Here we go. Check this out

http://www.planecrashinfo.com/

These pictures show crashes. See how the fuselages of these planes are. Now go look at the crash in PA.

[Chiizii]

I’d have to go find one. I’m only going off of observation. I never witnessed the attacks of 9/11. That afternoon when I got home and saw the endless footage (especially of the PA “crash”) my first thought was “It was shot down”. Why? Because off all the plane crashes that were reported from 1986 through the mid nineties (there were a lot of them remember) crash sites showed, for the most part, whole fuselages, sections of fuselage, pieces of wing. Large sections sections that survived a crash. The site in PA shows the plane in pieces there were no large sections left. Like it had been blown up.

I tried to do a search for pictures or the crash site after it happened so I could view the wreckage again. Unfortunatly I did find some sites of conspiracy theory. I’ve not read these. And I hesitate putting them up. But here they are. When I have time I’ll do some searches for other famous airline crashes and try to compare the wreckage scene photos.

http://www.rense.com/general64/white.htm

http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/flt93.htm

Thanks! I will look with you and see if I can find as well.

When I saw the PA field, my thought that it must of been flying at angles that separated the fuselage or a bomb went off inside the plane. I imagine that Flight 93 will always be quite a mystery.

[Bliss]

Of course there were bodies being recovered at the pentagon site, many people working there were killed, but on what basis do you base the idea that flight 77 passenger and crew remains were found and recovered there, any photos? What proof do you have they recovered those Flight 77 bodies at that specific crash site? Again I am not saying the people on board flight 77 did not die, I'm simply asking what proof you have their bodies were recovered there? If that is your smoking gun that a 757 crashed there please show me proof.
BTW here is a link, to a still shot of the object that crashed into the pentagon, the object is shown landing on the ground just split seconds before it crashed into the pentagon.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/pentagon/vaportrail.html


I don't have proof, I was not at the Pentagon or even in Wash DC on Sepetmber 11th. What solid proof do you have that remains from flight 77 were not recovered? You simply do not have solid proof, all of your proof lies in moronic information off the web. That is not proof - a lot of it is opinions, theories & etc, not proof.

You keep saying, The governement was behind it, blah blah blah. Let me ask you this, Ok, if September 11th was all the work of the Governement like you are so set on believing. Then why would the government shoot down flight 93? Wouldn't you think, the government would allow flight 93 to continue on it course instead of taking it out? Why would they target themselves (the whitehouse, pentagon)?

I am not stupid to believe our Governement isn't capible of things. I just do not buy the whole deal of the governemnet was behind it. The reason being is because the Government wouldn't target themselves. They would not shoot down flight 77, and then use another aircraft to crash into the Pentagon (of all places) to cover up their a**. That doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense.

[grammy2_1]

One would think that your brother would be in a haven of safety on that day but he was not, why?

Why, mesue?? Because OUR BRAVE SOLDIERS & SAILORS IN OUR MILITARY DO NOT RUN FROM DANGER...THEY RUN INTO IT!!

Geez! Think!!

[tngirl]

I have already heard about Able Danger. And how many times have you left this thread because you were so bored? lol.

Well, you know what mesue? Thank God that I live in a free country where I have the perogative to change my mind. Besides, since you told me to not respond in here anymore....that was just an open invitation for me. :D

[tngirl]

Of course there were bodies being recovered at the pentagon site, many people working there were killed, but on what basis do you base the idea that flight 77 passenger and crew remains were found and recovered there, any photos? What proof do you have they recovered those Flight 77 bodies at that specific crash site? Again I am not saying the people on board flight 77 did not die, I'm simply asking what proof you have their bodies were recovered there? If that is your smoking gun that a 757 crashed there please show me proof.
BTW here is a link, to a still shot of the object that crashed into the pentagon, the object is shown landing on the ground just split seconds before it crashed into the pentagon.
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/pentagon/vaportrail.html

Let me see, all the vapor trails that I have seen coming from aircraft is white, the "vapor" in this picture is obviously BLACK. To me that would indicate smoke, as a fire possibly caused by a plane crashing?

[tngirl]

http://www.september11news.com/AttackImages.htm

7:58 a.m. - United Airlines Flight 175 departs Boston for Los Angeles,
carrying 56 passengers, two pilots, and seven flight attendants. The
Boeing 767 is hijacked after takeoff and diverted to New York.

7:59 a.m. - American Airlines Flight 11 departs Boston for Los
Angeles, carrying 81 passengers, two pilots, and nine flight
attendants. This Boeing 767 is also hijacked and diverted to New York.

8:01 a.m. - United Airlines Flight 93, a Boeing 757 carrying 38
passengers, two pilots, and five flight attendants, leaves Newark, N.J.,
for San Francisco.

8:10 a.m. - American Airlines Flight 77 departs Washington's
Dulles International Airport for Los Angeles, carrying 58 passengers,
two pilots, and four flight attendants. The Boeing 757 is hijacked
after takeoff.

8:46 a.m. - American Flight 11 from Boston crashes into the North
Tower at the World Trade Center.

9:03 a.m. - United Flight 175 from Boston crashes into the South
Tower at the World Trade Center.

- U.S. Federal Aviation Administration shuts down all New
York area airports.

9:21 a.m. - Bridges and tunnels leading into New York City
are closed.

9:25 a.m. - All domestic flights are grounded by U.S. Federal
Aviation Administration.

9:45 a.m. - American Flight 77 crashes into The Pentagon.

10:05 a.m. - The South Tower at the World Trade Center collapses.

10:05 a.m. - The White House is evacuated.

10:10 a.m. - A large section of one side of The Pentagon collapses.

10:10 a.m. - United Flight 93 crashes in a wooded area in
Pennsylvania, after passengers confront hijackers.

10:28 a.m. - The North Tower at the World Trade Center collapses

The first plane hit at 8:46am, the second at 9:03am and the third hit the Pentagon at 9:45am. That is 59 minutes between the first plane and the third. Where does 2 hours come into play?

As to whether Flight 93 crashed or was shot down, I have no idea what the truth is there. But, most plane crashes are not with a nose dive straight to the ground, they are decents that lead to crashes for one reason or the other. If the plane hit the ground at a nose dive, that could explain for the lack of any large peices of debris, the impact would have destroyed it due to the force of the impact.

[Technologist]

OMG!!!!!!!!!

I just had an intuition to stay out of this thread... before I do something I don't want to do!

PS - DEBRIS fields from plane crashes all show planes trying to land, when they crashed. MEANING when they hit, the are immediately decellerating, and break into large pieces. The debris field from Flight 93 would NATURALLY be smaller, as it was intentionally rammed almost STRAIGHT into the earth... causing everything to FRAGMENT into TEENY, TINY BITS!

'nuff said...

[gobs101]

10:10 a.m. - United Flight 93 crashes in a wooded area in
Pennsylvania, after passengers confront hijackers.

10:28 a.m. - The North Tower at the World Trade Center collapses

The first plane hit at 8:46am, the second at 9:03am and the third hit the Pentagon at 9:45am. That is 59 minutes between the first plane and the third. Where does 2 hours come into play?

As to whether Flight 93 crashed or was shot down, I have no idea what the truth is there. But, most plane crashes are not with a nose dive straight to the ground, they are decents that lead to crashes for one reason or the other. If the plane hit the ground at a nose dive, that could explain for the lack of any large peices of debris, the impact would have destroyed it due to the force of the impact.[/QUOTE]


As someone who was only 10 mins away from this crash when it happened. I could SEE the plane from where I was. I went to the site within mins of it crashing and can tell you it was in many pieces and there is an imprint in the ground from where it finally landed. It was NOT shot down but over taken by the members on board when they realised what was going on. I had taken pictures since it has been made into a memorial site for all lost from the crash. its a very moving place yes its in the fields by old coal mines.

[stresseater]

OMG!!!!!!!!!

I just had an intuition to stay out of this thread... before I do something I don't want to do!

PS - DEBRIS fields from plane crashes all show planes trying to land, when they crashed. MEANING when they hit, the are immediately decellerating, and break into large pieces. The debris field from Flight 93 would NATURALLY be smaller, as it was intentionally rammed almost STRAIGHT into the earth... causing everything to FRAGMENT into TEENY, TINY BITS!

'nuff said...
Oh man why did you have to ruin this thread with logic.

The only thing I am going to say on Flight 93, I don't believe a missile took it down. I believe that the evidence left in the field is not consistant to what a airship would look like if it was brought down by a missile. If a missile or a bomb went off in the airship then the debris field would be much bigger. We all remember the Challenger explosion and how far the debris fell. NOOOOO don't mention the challenger, we'll be back on the whole "we never landed on the moon" tangent again. :rolleyes: :D Besides that if we never went to the moon and we aren't flying into space then it was just a weather balloon anyways... right??? ;) :D

[tngirl]

Oh man why did you have to ruin this thread with logic.
NOOOOO don't mention the challenger, we'll be back on the whole "we never landed on the moon" tangent again. :rolleyes: :D Besides that if we never went to the moon and we aren't flying into space then it was just a weather balloon anyways... right??? ;) :D

ROFLMAO :D :p

[Chiizii]

Oh man why did you have to ruin this thread with logic.
NOOOOO don't mention the challenger, we'll be back on the whole "we never landed on the moon" tangent again. :rolleyes: :D Besides that if we never went to the moon and we aren't flying into space then it was just a weather balloon anyways... right??? ;) :D

OMG! What was I thinking! ;)

Weather Balloon! Good one! :D

[Bliss]

Thank You Gobs for your reply, that answers flight 93.


Did anyone read on one of those whacked out sites posted where it said, the people from flight 93 & 77 landed in Canada. They all have new identities... {shaking head** un freaking believable. I would post it but, I refuse to read through those whacked out links again, I think the link is posted on page 9 or 11.

[mesue]

Sorry I have not been online to address all of your posts but I had computer problems and finally got it fixed. To try and respond to each post would take all night so I will try and repond to all in one post. If I miss something please point it out.

Gobs101, the 2 hrs I mentioned was including the time the planes were hi-jacked and still in the air and went off course. Anytime a plane goes off course NORAD is supposed to investigate. NORAD has a protocol to follow in those circumstances, and standing orders of what to do in those cases, please read the supplied link which details why there are questions involving NORADs response and what a great job they had done before 911. Its one page and a very interesting link. http://www.911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/index.html

Flight 77 of which it is clear that most of you disagree with me on, so lets focus on what we can agree on, I mentioned the fact that all the security camera footage from all the businesses around the pentagon was immediately confiscated and not released since then, well lets just think about that, what exactly are they hiding? Why not release the footage, if a 757 hit the pentagon and there is video evidence of this? Why not realease it? Heck it can't be top secret, its not like we don't already know what hit the pentagon or do we? If a jet hit the pentagon as they said whats the harm in showing it to us? Why keep it hidden away unless there is something to hide? Personally I feel we all have a right to see the confiscated footage.

BTW for most of you who seem to think that conspiracy theorists are saying they the passengers are still alive that is not true, many think the planes landed somewheres (passengers probably told there were reports of a bomb aboard), and all the passengers were put on flight 93. And I find it interesting that some of you think flight 93 was shot down but still argue the official story is totally true.

I also find it intersting that so many of you keep ignoring the fact that the warnings are a part of the official story and NOT part of a conspiracy theory. You keep ignoring the fact that the warning are real, real people got calls not to fly on that day and said so. The calls are part of the official story. Also, the stock options are a part of the official story as well but you all don't seem to think that that all of this can be traced down or is important. First of all the stock options can be traced down, we are talking about someone making money and in the USA Uncle Sam wants his share so there is definitely a paper trail to this, someone mentioned it was probably the terrorists, Well I would agree it was definitely someone with some foreknowledge of the attacks, so why not trace these people down and make them answer how they knew. Heck look at all the cost of money and time they took to get Martha Stewart.
http://www.hereinreality.com/insidertrading.html

What I find more disturbing than anything is your total complacency in this. You accept people who had done their jobs well in the past on that day did nothing right and that allowed 911 to happen. But then when given evidence that can be followed up because you disagree with me on my views you then just trash the established evidence that is part of what you say you believe. So let me ask you don't you think that these people who made money off of 911 can be traced down via the papertrail they left behind and forced to answer how they knew? can we not agree on that at least?

Someone here said her brother worked at the pentagon and said the jets did not go up until after it was hit. Now that is interesting. The WTC had already been struck by an aircraftt even if no one was sure whether it was a terrorist attack the potential was there, those jets should have been in the air protecting the capital from the time the first jet hit the WTC. Does anyone remember when Bush was campaigning in the last election and a pilot of a small plane was unaware that he was in a no fly zone, anyone recall what happened? Why was the pentagon and the capital left unprotected during a time there was a clear and imminent threat? They even told on th air that the planes were headed for the capital. Why did those jets wait until after the pentagon was hit to get in the air?

Ok now to the ones who are PO because I am asking questions and implying by doing so I am attacking our military and security forces, I'm not, I'm simply asking questions that anyone should be asking and I have more faith in them than you do because I don't understand how so many mistakes were made on that one day when they had done a good job before that.

[Chiizii]

About the warnings in the official report. Lets think like a detective. What is the motivation on warning a few people about an upcoming event that will be a disaster? Seems to me that the motivation behind such a warning is to prevent or warn of a disaster. Since no one can find out who made the warnings this might go unsolved. Mesue: Since it is so very important to you, can you tell us who made the warning calls? And can you tell us why none of the investigations are happening? I love you hear your personal opinion and not another cut and paste opinion of someone else. I am serious here I am very interested in hearing what you think.

As for investing in an airline company. That was a money loss. The airline industry has been gaining money since the events of Sept. 11. What would be the motivation behind this insider stock trading. Again Mesue, very interested in hearing your opinion on this as well.

I believe all of us will agree that one the fatal day in Sept. 2001 a lot of mistakes happen. Some because people are human, some because this type of event has never happened in our lifetimes. Some mistakes happened because they shouldn't of....this is not complacency. Some of the evidence you have given to us, Mesue, comes from sources that have an agenda to find fault and presenting facts with blurry pictures that can be looked at and any sort of conclusion can be reached. Even the 9-11 research site in its disclaimer tells that it has no idea who or why the attacks happen but they are there to give "plausible scenarios of how the attack could have been executed by insiders". That site is just what it is..a site to provide plausible scenarios and nothing more. It is not a replacement theory but rather a think tank of what ifs. If no one agrees with their scenarios it doesn't imply that anyone is in agreement of the official version of events, rather it implies that opinions fall somewhere in-between. Many other sites that have been provided have a real agenda, which is to prove conspiracy theories or juxtaposition information.

[tngirl]

I was going to reply and actually post some information. :cool: I decided it was just to early in the morning to strain my brain, not enough coffee. ;) So instead of giving myself a headache, :rolleyes: I have decided to go yard saling!! :D

[Technologist]

Bump, so I can post again...LOL!

[Njean31]

I have decided to go yard saling!! :D


i actually LOVE yard sailingggggggggggg :D

[mesue]

Well this is the third response the other two just would not post I will be surprised if this one does.
Pacifica radio reported Condoleeza Rice was who warned mayor Willie Brown. Its seems a bit far fetched until you realize that top pentagon offcials changed their flight plans for Sept. 11, 2001 also. A bit of history on pacifica radio, they are not some weird conpiracy bunch of folks.
http://pacificaradioarchives.org/archives/grants.html
Pacifica Radio and its stations and producers have won numerous awards over the years. In fact, Pacifica has won every major broadcast award multiple times, including the most prestigious: the Peabody, the Armstrong, among others.

As to the stock options these were not people investing in an airline hopeing for its success.
a stock trade that bets that the value of a company's shares will decrease. The week before 9/11, insiders on Wall Street made anomalous bets that the values of United and American Airlines would drop precipitously in the coming days, and also bet against the values of companies that had a large presence in the towers. The "put options" story was covered by the world's financial press in the weeks after 9/11, with many speculations that Osama had made the sickest stock trade in history. ...
www.oilempire.us/dictionary.html

There were many investors some of the money was collected, some has not been claimed. I guess I will leave it to you to decide if this is important info that should be followed up. IMO it should be.

[tngirl]

Bump, so I can post again...LOL!

hehehe

[Technologist]

and another bump.... to refute the Bull that will be posted!!!!!!

[YNKYH8R]

Obviously no one will take a persons word for it without any kind of source. Although my search was not very extensive I have not been able to find anything on the physical properties of an airplane as a projectile when crashing into the earth. Nor have I been able to find satellite images of the crash (I’ve not been looking that long but I’m hopeful)

So there is still the possibility it was shot down. Or shot at and then having crashed.

[Njean31]

Obviously no one will take a persons word for it without any kind of source. Although my search was not very extensive I have not been able to find anything on the physical properties of an airplane as a projectile when crashing into the earth. Nor have I been able to find satellite images of the crash (I’ve not been looking that long but I’m hopeful)

So there is still the possibility it was shot down. Or shot at and then having crashed.

can i ask you a personal question? what type of work do you do? i was just wondering because it seems i'm always reading and responding to your posts for some odd reason and i don't know much about you. thanks

[YNKYH8R]

can i ask you a personal question? what type of work do you do? i was just wondering because it seems i'm always reading and responding to your posts for some odd reason and i don't know much about you. thanks
Well I’m not going to open myself up to any derogatory comments. So you won’t mind my asking why you ask.

[Njean31]

Well I’m not going to open myself up to any derogatory comments. So you won’t mind my asking why you ask.

i was just curious because like i said i'm always reading your posts (which most of the time are contrary to my beliefs which motivate me to read and research certain topics) and find a lot of what you say interesting and was wondering what kind of work you did......that's all, i wouldn't post anything derogatory and i understand if you don't care to tell me.

[YNKYH8R]

No it's okay. I work in the mortgage industry.

[Njean31]

No it's okay. I work in the mortgage industry.

well that's no fun.........seriously, i thought you'd have been a teacher or instructor of some sort for some reason :)

[YNKYH8R]

Well I just happen to have strong interest in History, political or otherwise. (I just love to hear a good story) I did want to be a history teacher at one point in my life, if that helps.

I also have a strong interest in religious sociology, psychology, and religious history.

[Technologist]

He also has a compulsion with Bush bashing, Tech bashing, and stirring up trouble.

OOPS, forgot to add that he believes everything he reads, with regard to conspiracy theories... and he has a bunch of tinfoil hats in his closet!

*this was a JOKE!*

Waves to Adam - WHASSUP!?!?!?!?!