who attacked the pentagon?

[Dawood]

“Ideological warfare is a modern term which refers to a set of efforts in which a nation engages in order to conquer or influence another nation, so that (the attacked nation) takes a particular course of direction.

 

It is far more serious than military warfare, since it aims at secrecy, seeking to achieve subtle objectives initially; so that the attacked nation does not perceive it, nor prepare to halt it, nor stand in its way - thereby falling victim to (such an attack). The eventual result of this onslaught is that this nation becomes sick in mind and sense; loving what the enemy wants it to love and hating what they want it to hate. It is a chronic disease which attacks and destroys nations, doing away with its personality, removing such meanings as foundations and strength. The nation which is struck by this (ideological attack) does not even feel what has hit it, or what it even is! That is why curing it becomes somewhat difficult, and making [the attacked nation] understand the ways of righteousness becomes a struggle.

 

This war takes place by means of school curriculums, general education, media, small and large size publications, and other such channels (that influence the thoughts of its people). Through this the enemy hopes to deviate the nation from its beliefs; becoming attached to what the enemy throws at it. We ask Allaah for safety and protection from this.�

[rattleytins]

 

now that the picture's got ur attention...

 

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loose+change

 

WATCH THAT!!!!!!!!!!

 

im sure theres already links to it on here but seriously watch it through and tell me if you dont believe in the conspiracy theories

[Dawood]

yeah, I watched it a while ago, the evidence is pretty thick.

[lord_casek]

dylan avery is a smart guy.

23 years old i think. 21 or so when

he produced that.

 

of course, it really doesn't take a

genius to put two and two together.

but avery really did a great job

at piecing it together.

[Larry Pubes]

that documentary is a disgrace. he did a 'great job' because it fits perfectly with your ideology, even though the way he put it together makes grand assumptions and is full of speculative 'evidence' and omits alot of other information in the process. it's great he's pissed and wants answers, but come on...

[rattleytins]

i believe it

 

you just can't answer a lot of that stuff,

 

like why did the fbi take the security camera tapes, why did the towers collapse so quickly, where did the recording boxes go

and all the other unanswered stuff

 

i've always thought that the government know a lot that we don't,

and after watchin that i find it hard not to believe it

[CACashRefund]

yeah that video sucks

[rattleytins]

that you for contributing to the thread

[El Mamerro]

Please refer to the previous page where the exact same video was posted and discussed already.

 

I'm with Burlap on this one.

[rattleytins]

I check that link out, one thing that immediately pops out is this:

 

 

 

 

they make it seem like it happened within 5-10 minutes

 

it actually took just shy of an hour from the time of impact to the collapse of the south tower(which was the first to be hit)

 

56 minutes is a long time for something to burn

 

right off the bat from this, i know i shouldnt what this site is saying as 100% fact, im gonna browse around and if i find any other discrepencies ill post em up.

 

yeah but an hour of fire shouldn't cause a building like the world trade centre to collapse,

 

thats the empire state building after a crash, the following is copy and pasted from the abc news website:

 

"The last time a plane crashed into a New York City skyscraper was July 28, 1945. A U.S. bomber flying through thick fog at about 200 mph crashed into the Empire State Building, one of the most recognized structures in the world.

Fourteen people were killed, and dozens injured. "

"About $1 million in damage was reportedly done to the building."

 

fourteen people, and althought there is a hole in the side of the wall and $1 million damage, is that even similar to what happened to the world trade centres?

[El Mamerro]

^ I DON'T SEE ANY AIRPLANE DEBRIS THERE. THAT HOLE IS WAY TO SMALL FOR A BOMBER.

 

THAT WAS A CRUISE MISSILE.

[LIVERWURST*]

It's a convincing video...to those who felt poorly of it, can you point out any specific examples that undermine the overall point? I'm open minded - I beleive something was amiss, but I'm still undecided on how deep it goes...

[TAMER]

yea but that bomber that flew into the empire state building is a hell of a lot smaller and held a hell of a lot less fuel then a commercial airliner. im no conspiracy theorist but i do think something is not completely right about the situation

[lord_casek]

 

that is a b-25 bomber.

 

that crashed into the empure state building.

 

anyone want to do some fact checking and compare the size to a 747?

 

did it have any live ammo on board?

[El Mamerro]

It was a joke dude.

[lord_casek]

no, mammero. i didn't even see your comment. i was replying to the guy who brought up the plane crash in '45. sorry you misunderstood. i'm genuinely interested in size comparison.

it it much smaller, but how much smaller than a 747?

 

i should have made myself clear. on what i was saying.

[El Mamerro]

i'm genuinely interested in size comparison.

 

 

*Insert Beavis and Butthead laugh*

[lord_casek]

<shakes head>

[rattleytins]

LOL

 

well that does look a lot smaller than the 747 and 767 yeah good point.

 

did you know that in feburary 1971 there was a big fire in the world trade centre that lasted 40 mins?

i couldnt get a lot of info on the web tho.

 

i would also be interested in counter arguments, i dont know if i believe it, there is a lot of evidence, but could even bush be that evil?

[lord_casek]

molten steel in the basement nearly 2 months afetr the distaster implies they used thermite

to compromise the structural integrity of the support beams.

 

those towers were built to withstand plane hits, fires, etc.

[100%juice]

there is no question of the US governments direct involvement and planning for the destruction of several of its own landmarks, for the purposes of an ultra-inflated "security" budget.

[Larry Pubes]

a-to-b logic doesn't make it 'no question'. but just for the sake of argument, how do you guys suppose such a dastardly plot was carried out and there have been no credible leaks to indicate such a plot? unless of course select individuals in the upper echelon of the M/I complex have an army of mind control slaves, then shit, obviously it was an inside job.

like i said before, i think there are some big questions the US govt needs to come clean on, but i believe pornographic detail is needed on this subject, not all this bullshit speculation based on a handful of shifty events that seems to indicate whatever fits your worldview. you can't dissect one part of an event and then propose another based mainly on a hunch.

[Dawood]

one thing that makes me wonder about it being an inside job is where would they find a few good americans to smash a couple planes into the towers. Doesn't seem feasable.

 

Unless of course you consider the possible Bush/Bin laden connection.

[Ski Mask]

I think its horrible how easily people buy into this shit. it more or less ensures none of the real questions people should be asking get answered. its a distraction that makes real dissent about the events around 9/11 easily dissmissable by its association with the conspiracy nuts. about 95% of whats being floated by these documentaries can be explained if you really want to look at it critically.

 

this Popular Mechanics article is probably the best refutal I've seen to date. it definately answers alot of the questions that people have been claiming are "unrefuted" in the last few pages. including the fuel temp/controlled demolition nonsense.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y

[Larry Pubes]

I think its horrible how easily people buy into this shit. it more or less ensures none of the real questions people should be asking get answered. its a distraction that makes real dissent about the events around 9/11 easily dissmissable by its association with the conspiracy nuts. about 95% of whats being floated by these documentaries can be explained if you really want to look at it critically.

 

couldn't have said it better myself.

[Larry Pubes]

snaffed from another board and worth the read if you give a shit..

 

The 9/11 Conpiracy: A Skeptics View

Shooting down the "controlled demolition" and "no plane" conspiracy theories

By Ernest Partridge

 

“No testimony is sufficient to establish a miracle unless the testimony be of such a kind that its falsehood would be more miraculous than the fact which it endeavors to establish…” – David Hume, On Miracles

 

This essay is certain to make many readers very angry with me. But ya gotta do what ya gotta do.

Last month, I was a guest on a progressive radio talk show. About half-way through the hour-long program, the conversation was going well, until I expressed some doubts about the “controlled demolition” hypotheses of the collapse of the World Trade Center. That comment sealed the fate of the remainder of the hour, as it prompted an unvarying succession of angry rebuttals and a deluge of alleged “facts” supporting the view that the WTC towers were brought down by pre-set demolition charges, and that the Pentagon was not struck by a Boeing 747. And so I felt obliged to take a closer look at the theories and evidence regarding the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.

After many hours watching videos this weekend of long presentations by David Ray Griffin, Steven Jones and James Fetzer, several other videos both affirming and rejecting “the official version” (OV), and reading numerous articles, it appears to me that the OV of the destruction of the World Trade Center is not credible. Too many anomalies are not explained. A closer look at the conspiracy theories (CTs) indicates that these too can not be true. Too many improbable assumptions. Thus one must conclude that the 9/11 attack on the WTC never took place.

No wait, that’s absurd. Of course it took place! So what we are left with is an abundance of contrary claims, unconfirmable “evidence” leading to utter confusion and no firm conclusions – none, that is, regarding the World Trade Center attack. The Pentagon attack, however, should present little doubt: American Airlines Flight 77 struck the building.

The Evidence Problem:

All accounts of the attacks, whether the official version or any of the numerous conspiracy theories, rest upon weak evidence – “weak,” that is, to all those who did not examine the evidence at the scene, or did not have access to evidence with a secure “chain of custody.” For all others, including myself and presumably all who read this, the evidence is 2nd, 3rd and Nth-hand hearsay. The best evidence available to us, when relevant, are photographic and video images, and even these are subject to various interpretations.

Until recently, the public could rely on published evidence from government scientists and government-supported scientific research, as well as reputable media. But no more. We now know that the Bush Administration alters or withholds scientific reports to conform to policy, dogma and pre-conceptions. The Bushites also lie outright in defense of their policies. As for the media, even that most reliable and respected “newspaper of record,” The New York Times, has become a font of misinformation, including the Clinton Whitewater non-scandal, false and misleading reports of the Florida 2000 vote count, and Judith Miller’s notorious reports of Saddam’s alleged WMDs.

Even so, the critical reader should be capable of identifying and dismissing bizarre assertions, such as Morgan Reynold’s claim that no aircraft struck the twin towers on 9/11 – this in spite of thousands of eye-witnesses and a vast number of photo and video images.

The same critical reader can identify and set aside pronouncements that are devoid of supporting evidence, such as this narrative by James Fetzer of the fate of American Airlines Flight 77 which, if it didn’t hit the Pentagon, as Fetzer contends, must be somehow accounted for:

Flight 77 went off the radar screen in the vicinity of the Kentucky/Ohio border. This whole dotted path [on a map displayed by Fetzer] is a hypothetical or an imaginary path that the plane may have taken, but it was not recorded on radar. And my belief is in fact the plane actually went down in the Kentucky Ohio vicinity… Then a plane, probably an A-13 Sky Warrior was substituted here very close to Washington DC.

Fetzer gives us no citation of the alleged disappearance from the radar screen. (I have heard nothing about this “radar disappearance.” Have you?) Then it gets much worse: “hypothetical or imaginary path,” “may have taken,” “my belief.” Not a shred of evidence is offered in support of this fantasy.

The World Trade Center

Much of the “evidence” presented by the WTC conspiracy theorists is demonstrably false, fallacious or irrelevant. For example:

“The temperatures were not hot enough to melt steel.” True but irrelevant. This is a persistent criticism by the CT. However, the OV does not claim that the steel melted at the impact points (melting temperature, 2700°F), only that it was weakened. The temperature sufficient to weaken steel by fifty-percent (1170°F) was well within the range of the burning jet fuel and office supplies.

“The debris was quickly collected without inspection and shipped off to Asia for recycling.” False. It was relocated to a collection site at Staten Island, where it was examined by forensic engineers, and where personal effects were identified. (Here, here, and here are three of the 54,000 Google hits from a search for “World Trade Center” and “Staten Island” and “Debris”)

“No steel frame building has ever collapsed because of a fire.” Another “fact” repeatedly asserted by CT-s. Irrelevant, even if true. The WTC towers were brought down by a combination of fire and structural damage caused by the impact from the planes. (The collapse of WTC Building #7 was not caused by either fire or impact from planes – a problem for the CV which we will discuss later).

Now look very carefully at these images of the collapse of the WTC towers, here (north tower, 35:20. 36:40), here (south tower, 5:37), and here. (The numbers in parenthesis indicate the time locations in the videos). Notice that the collapse begins at the points of impact. Below the points of impact, the towers remain in place as the disintegration proceeds from the top down.

Next look at these video images of controlled demolitions (131:40) and also the collapse of WTC #7 (1:05). In all these cases, the collapse begins at the base, where the charges were set.

Assume now what your eyes plainly tell you: that (a) the collapse of each tower begins at the point of impact, and (b) that the collapse proceeds from that point downward. Next, try to weave these assumptions into the standard CT hypothesis that the towers were brought down by pre-located explosive charges. What results is this highly improbable scenario:

Charges had to be set beforehand at the points of impact, the 94th to the 98th floors of the north tower, and the 78th to the 84th floors of the south tower. Both aircraft, in stunning feats of piloting skill, succeeded in striking precisely at those pre-arranged locations. However, all charges placed below those points of impact were either duds or were insufficient to precipitate collapses. The towers stood firm as the demolition moved downward from the impact points.

In rebuttal, one might point out that the towers were supported by both the outer walls and an inner core. Might not the charges at the base have caused the collapse of the inner core, while the outer walls remained intact? This would account for the downward vertical plunge of the north tower.

Nice try, but it won’t wash. If the core collapsed within, the accumulating debris from above would have demolished the outer walls below. This did not happen.

However, the official version is not without problems, and the conspiracy theory is not yet out of the contest. There remain some troubling anomalies for the OV:

Foremost among these is the collapse of WTC Building No. 7. Five hours after the towers came down, this forty story structure collapsed. And this time, as you can see here (1:05), the collapse followed the exact pattern of a controlled demolition: beginning at the base and falling uniformly on its own “footprint.” The best that the OV can offer as explanation is that the foundation was weakened by fire, by seismic shock of the collapsing towers, and by the overload of debris from the towers. It is not a compelling explanation, to say the least. Perhaps this explains why an account of the collapse of WTC #7 is missing from the 9/11 Commission report.

Prof. Steven Jones, to my mind the most credible of the 911 critics, claims that melted and congealed steel was found in the rubble, and that it originated at the base of the standing buildings. The only plausible cause of melting with these properties, Jones claims, would be a high temperature explosive such as thermite. Jones is well-qualified to make this assessment. He is a professor of physics at Brigham Young University, with a specialty in metal-catalyzed fusion.

And this is just the beginning of a long list of anomalies that undercut the official version. Among them:

There were numerous reports of explosions below the impact points at the time the towers were hit. Others report that there were explosions before the planes hit.

Tapes of interviews with air traffic controllers were destroyed.

When news of the attack reached the Florida school where Bush was visiting, the Secret Service failed to remove the president from that previously publicized location.

There was a flood of put options (anticipations of loss) on American Airlines and United Airlines stock, within the week before 9/11.

The website, 911research.wtc7.net lists numerous additional anomalies, no doubt, many of these are bogus, but there are others that are troubling.

The governments, New York City and State, and the Feds still have a lot of splainin’ to do.

The Attack on the Pentagon

Unlike the WTC attacks, the Pentagon is rather simple and cut-and-dried. The official version is correct: The west side of the building was struck by American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757. The evidence is clear, unequivocal and overwhelming. The alternative conspiracy theories (impact by a fighter plane or cruise missile) are plainly false, and at times simply pathetic.

This conclusion is compelling when we apply “the David Hume test” to the conspiracy theory: namely, the improbability of CT being true, despite the evidence for OV. Specifically, for CT to be true, we must also assume that:

Hundreds of eyewitnesses on the George Washington Parkway at morning rush-hour were either (a) victims of mass-hallucination, or (b) taken aside and threatened or bribed to testify falsely that they saw a commercial aircraft.

Immediately after the impact, squads of conspirators rushed to the scene (including the inside of the burning Pentagon) to plant body parts, personal effects, and bogus aircraft parts (some, like the engines and landing gear weighing several hundred pounds). Others dumped aviation fuel, to “falsely” suggest involvement of an airplane.

Alternatively, eyewitness testimony of those claiming to find these parts were also coerced, and published photographic evidence faked. All press reports were also concocted to give credence to the official version.

Finally, some explanation must be presented as to the fate of Flight 77 and its passengers, which somehow disappeared without any further trace at the precise time the alleged military aircraft or cruise missile approached and struck the Pentagon.

Sorry, but its just too much for me to swallow.

What Does it all Mean?

How then are we to explain the Bush Administration inaction before 9/11, and its willingness to take full advantage of this “new Pearl Harbor?” I don’t know, but that doesn’t keep me from speculating. So here’s my hunch – and it’s only a hunch which I am willing to revise or abandon if and when more evidence appears. The Busheviks were forewarned (“Bin Laden determined to strike in the U.S.”), but they expected attacks on the scale of the USS Cole and the African embassies: perhaps a few dozen casualties—“acceptable.”. They did not take countermeasures because they saw a strategic advantage in such a “mini-Pearl Harbor.” For such a purpose, the attack on The Pentagon would suffice. They did not expect the destruction of the World Trade Center. However, after 9/11 the die was cast, and so they eagerly launched their “the war on terror, along with the policy outrages that were to follow: the USA PATRIOT ACT, Abu Ghraib, Gitmo. The Iraq War, we now know from Richard Clarke and the Downing Street memos, was on the drawing boards long before 9/11, awaiting just such an event to set it in motion.

All that is little more than a guess. But we can arrive at some more substantial conclusions from our unresolved examination of the 9/11 attacks.

First of all, it is clear that the 9/11 Commission is a travesty. Too many phenomena are unexplained. The evidence must be revisited and validated, and the critics’ anomalies explained. And this must be done fearlessly and independently of any political biases or agendas.

Second, the critics of the official version should, as much as possible, get their facts straight, whereupon they must then cease presenting falsehoods as evidence; e.g., that the debris was shipped immediately, uninspected, to Asia; that the the OV assumes and claims that steel melted; that no physical evidence of the plane was found at the Pentagon, etc.

Third: There is no shame in suspending belief – i.e., in being skeptical. Conversely, it is shameful to jump to a conclusion and a conviction on insufficient and conflicting evidence. Acceptance of the official version, or conversely of the conspiracy theory, are not our only alternatives. Both views are vulnerable and leave many crucial questions unanswered. Far better that we admit to ourselves and tell the world that we simply do not know. Suspension of belief is not a conspicuously American trait. But it is a stock-in-trade of honest scholars and scientists. And it is spur to further investigation, which is most assuredly called for in this case.

Finally, partisan passions should not get in the way of a rational assessment of the evidence. Personally, my web publications testify that I yield to no one in my contempt for Bush and his crime syndicate. I would like as much as anyone to see these crimes pinned on Bush, Inc. But the evidence (however weak) is what it is.

What happened on 9/11? Who is responsible? The questions remain open even as they remain urgent. The American people deserve answers, and more immediately, competent and sustained investigation leading to these answers.

 

Dr. Ernest Partridge is a consultant, writer and lecturer in the field of Environmental Ethics and Public Policy. He has taught Philosophy at the University of California, and in Utah, Colorado and Wisconsin. He publishes the website, The Online Gadfly co-edits the progressive website, The Crisis Papers. His book in progress, Conscience of a Progressive, can be seen here. Send comments to: crisispapers at hotmail.com.

[villain]

peep it and weep

http://www.1984videos.com/

[Ski Mask]

once again. the problem is nobody really wants to look at anything critically, despite claiming to be intrested in the "truth" about 9/11.

 

snaffed from another board and worth the read if you give a shit..

 

 

 

 

There remain some troubling anomalies for the OV:

Foremost among these is the collapse of WTC Building No. 7. Five hours after the towers came down, this forty story structure collapsed. And this time, as you can see here (1:05), the collapse followed the exact pattern of a controlled demolition: beginning at the base and falling uniformly on its own “footprint.” The best that the OV can offer as explanation is that the foundation was weakened by fire, by seismic shock of the collapsing towers, and by the overload of debris from the towers. It is not a compelling explanation, to say the least. Perhaps this explains why an account of the collapse of WTC #7 is missing from the 9/11 Commission report.

this one seems like its been clearly debunked by facts already. see the PM article I quoted earlier http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y

the official version isnt contending that it was merely shock and fire that did it, just the prelim report.

there was much physical damage:

NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out."

and a design abnormality caused signifigant failures that contributed to the building failing in such a way that it more or less fell straight down on itself. again, check the link for details.

 

Prof. Steven Jones, to my mind the most credible of the 911 critics, claims that melted and congealed steel was found in the rubble, and that it originated at the base of the standing buildings.

this part is difficult to debunk given that no source for this information is quoted. was prof. jones the only one to find the congealed steel?

The only plausible cause of melting with these properties, Jones claims, would be a high temperature explosive such as thermite. Jones is well-qualified to make this assessment. He is a professor of physics at Brigham Young University, with a specialty in metal-catalyzed fusion.

Prof. Jones isnt a nut or anything, so I'm not going to question his scientific reasoning here, but its all tying back to somthing that he has no proof was there to begin with.

And this is just the beginning of a long list of anomalies that undercut the official version. Among them:

There were numerous reports of explosions below the impact points at the time the towers were hit.

there was a signifigant explosion at the base caused by the severing of the elevator shafts and loss of jet fuel during the impact, that much has been established by a few sources. but again, this one is too vague to debunk. the 9/11 documentary by the naudet brothers shows lots of footage from the lobby, and gives you an idea of just how disoriented and out-of touch everyone was at the time. people are refusing to factor human psycological issues in here. people get paniced, confused, and disoriented at a time like this. even firefighters were prone to this, so the claims of a couple of terrified survivors is hardly the lynchpin to a conspiracy.

Others report that there were explosions before the planes hit.

again, too vague. nothing that can be proved or disproved.

Tapes of interviews with air traffic controllers were destroyed.

this one is very well documented at least. heres the times article on it http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/06/national/06CND-TAPE.html?ex=1146888000&en=db1708ce58d5d5e3&ei=5070

looks more like an exercise in ass-covering that turned into some kind of boss/union squabble. stupid? yes. sign of a conspiracy? don't see it.

 

When news of the attack reached the Florida school where Bush was visiting, the Secret Service failed to remove the president from that previously publicized location.

given that none of the hijackings were occuring anywhere near his location, I dont see the need. wisking the president away from a public media attended event so far away from the actions isnt going to do anything but trigger panic. but to be fair, this does raise eyebrows, but we'll never know the logic behind it I guess.

 

There was a flood of put options (anticipations of loss) on American Airlines and United Airlines stock, within the week before 9/11.

FALSE. snopes clears this one up. http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp the summary of whats snopes tells us, is that 95% of those PUT orders are tied to one entity, and they were a part of some stock manuevering that also involved buying substantial American Airlines stock. no nefarious plot here.

The website, 911research.wtc7.net lists numerous additional anomalies, no doubt, many of these are bogus, but there are others that are troubling.

The governments, New York City and State, and the Feds still have a lot of splainin’ to do.

The Attack on the Pentagon

Unlike the WTC attacks, the Pentagon is rather simple and cut-and-dried. The official version is correct: The west side of the building was struck by American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757. The evidence is clear, unequivocal and overwhelming. The alternative conspiracy theories (impact by a fighter plane or cruise missile) are plainly false, and at times simply pathetic.

This conclusion is compelling when we apply “the David Hume test” to the conspiracy theory: namely, the improbability of CT being true, despite the evidence for OV. Specifically, for CT to be true, we must also assume that:

Hundreds of eyewitnesses on the George Washington Parkway at morning rush-hour were either (a) victims of mass-hallucination, or (b) taken aside and threatened or bribed to testify falsely that they saw a commercial aircraft.

Immediately after the impact, squads of conspirators rushed to the scene (including the inside of the burning Pentagon) to plant body parts, personal effects, and bogus aircraft parts (some, like the engines and landing gear weighing several hundred pounds). Others dumped aviation fuel, to “falsely” suggest involvement of an airplane.

Alternatively, eyewitness testimony of those claiming to find these parts were also coerced, and published photographic evidence faked. All press reports were also concocted to give credence to the official version.

Finally, some explanation must be presented as to the fate of Flight 77 and its passengers, which somehow disappeared without any further trace at the precise time the alleged military aircraft or cruise missile approached and struck the Pentagon.

Sorry, but its just too much for me to swallow.

What Does it all Mean?

How then are we to explain the Bush Administration inaction before 9/11, and its willingness to take full advantage of this “new Pearl Harbor?” I don’t know, but that doesn’t keep me from speculating.

 

So here’s my hunch – and it’s only a hunch which I am willing to revise or abandon if and when more evidence appears. The Busheviks were forewarned (“Bin Laden determined to strike in the U.S.”), but they expected attacks on the scale of the USS Cole and the African embassies: perhaps a few dozen casualties—“acceptable.”. They did not take countermeasures because they saw a strategic advantage in such a “mini-Pearl Harbor.” For such a purpose, the attack on The Pentagon would suffice. They did not expect the destruction of the World Trade Center. However, after 9/11 the die was cast, and so they eagerly launched their “the war on terror, along with the policy outrages that were to follow: the USA PATRIOT ACT, Abu Ghraib, Gitmo. The Iraq War, we now know from Richard Clarke and the Downing Street memos, was on the drawing boards long before 9/11, awaiting just such an event to set it in motion.

All that is little more than a guess. But we can arrive at some more substantial conclusions from our unresolved examination of the 9/11 attacks.

ok, I also gotta find fault with his conclusions here. he's saying that he thinks they had foreknowledge and decided that it would just be advantageous to let it happen, and run with it. minimal loss, maximum gain, and all that. yet he just finished alleging things like explosions not caused by the planes, controlled demolition and all that. well, what theory is it then??

[shitting]

An example of how the air defense network normally responds to domestic emergencies is illustrated by the well-reported 1999 case of Payne Stewart's Lear jet. When the golfer's jet failed to respond to air traffic controller communications, F-16 interceptors were quickly dispatched. According to an Air Force timeline, a series of military planes provided an emergency escort to Payne's stricken Learjet starting about 20 minutes after contact with his plane was lost.

 

 

I guess you should have done more research involving flight interceptions before "you served me" with your favorite movie.

 

Prove the CIA collected all the video of the crash? haha...ok, I'll just ask them to release some more footage...maybe this time they'll release more than 5 frames of some shitty security camera 200 yards away.

 

 

your 30 seconds of googling produced some shit from the 911 commission and some cnn list of casualties? And can you honestly say that when you googled those links your mind wasn't previously made up? I didn't say arguments supporting the official story were hard to find, even someone as un-biased as yourself managed to find them in 30 seconds.

 

 

As an example of how idiotic you are, I would like to point out that it took 90 minutes for the golfer's jet to be met by the airforce

[heirkb]

FROM PAGE 1, SYMBOLS, ill tell you what happened. the same thing that happened to all the people that have been on planes that the US planted assassination bombs on. im talkin about all the assassination attempts against communist leaders and how the US plants bombs, then the guy doesnt take the plane but the bombs stays and kills the people.

peace