By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
To be clear, I don't mean Bush and Obama protected the Saudis before 9/11. The American government, regardless of administration, has long been an ally of the Saudis. There was no way they were going to let the whole truth come out about 9/11. We still don't know the whole story.
Bush's family connections to the Saudi Royals, especially to Prince Bandar bin Sultan, are obvious, but it runs a lot deeper than that. I feel that accusations of an Inside Job only serve to deflect from a much harsher reality.
I read somewhere before that the Saudi government owns a lot of US debt - basically had them in their pockets since the 70s.
Of course, one has to seriously consider why persons with such a limited piloting ability would be able to accurately fly a large aircraft at a specific target. Taking into account that the earth is supposed to be a global sphere. The fact they did can mean one of only two possibilities. Either it was a US government plot, or the earth is indeed flat, with huge ice walls at the end.
[Post edited 11 Sep 2017 23:09]
. . . or another possibility -- that you're not a pilot. No sane pilot can doubt for a second that a pilot, even with what you call "a limited piloting ability," could hit one of the trade towers. Remember, they were all licensed pilots, with all of the training they needed to do the entire mission.
It's not like hitting an ant with a sewing needle from 100 yards.
I have a private pilot's license and have flown around New York City many times, and can guarantee you that the two Trade Towers made an easy target. Hey Zeus, you can see them from at least 50 miles away [I never measured it, but I have a brain].
. . . or another possibility -- that you're not a pilot. No sane pilot can doubt for a second that a pilot, even with what you call "a limited piloting ability," could hit one of the trade towers. Remember, they were all licensed pilots, with all of the training they needed to do the entire mission.
It's not like hitting an ant with a sewing needle from 100 yards.
I have a private pilot's license and have flown around New York City many times, and can guarantee you that the two Trade Towers made an easy target. Hey Zeus, you can see them from at least 50 miles away [I never measured it, but I have a brain].
Dav, i was actually taking the piss out of another conspiracy theory. The flat earth?
You would have thought there would be footage mind ....
There is footage. I watched a one-hour documentary on television just a day or two ago.
Of course, any idiot will know that someone didn't have cameras trained on the Pentagon as they did on the Towers, but the nature and extent of the damage [only "wild" or "insane" or a similar word can describe both] cannot have been done by dynamite planted in one of the most intensely-guarded buildings in the States. Too much would have been needed, and in too many places.
I wish I could direct you to that video, but if you truly care about the truth, you'll find it yourself. Otherwise, I'm O.K. that those who wish to believe the conspiracy theories have every right to do so, trusting that I will be granted a reciprocity right to believe my eyes and experience.
Manhattan is much bigger and more densely populated than the area around the Pentagon, and there is only one camera shot of the first plane that hit the twin towers. That one "lucky" cameraman just happened to be filming a fire department documentary a few blocks away from Ground Zero; otherwise there'd be no filmed proof of that one, either.
Of course there are countless shots from every possible angle of the 2nd plane, but by then everyone was filming the burning building.
Again any pilot who has flown around the New York area can tell you that in those days, there were an untold number of airplanes flying around "missing off radar." I was one myself on countless flights. And all legally.
The fact, however, is that only the smallest aircraft, and far away, or too low in altitude, etc., from the radar equipment might be "off the radar," but for the most part, they all show up on radar. Airplanes then carried devices [called "transponders"] that responded to a radar inquiry by replying with certain identifying information, which then appears on the radar screen. Turn off your transponder and Air Traffic Control sees your blip but doesn't know who you are.
The o.p. asked about "the towers," plural, which were not blown up with dynamite, but by airplanes with full loads of jet fuel..
The first attack [one one tower] was by a truck, which carried its own explosives into the basement of the tower.
Not sure if you're referring to the same incident but prior to the 9/11 attacks but there was an incident I think in the 90's where a bomb was in one of the underground car parks.
From memory, I think the guy who did it studied at the Metropolitan Uni in Swansea
Just checked and it's correct, name was Ramzi Yousef.
Not sure if you're referring to the same incident but prior to the 9/11 attacks but there was an incident I think in the 90's where a bomb was in one of the underground car parks.
From memory, I think the guy who did it studied at the Metropolitan Uni in Swansea
Just checked and it's correct, name was Ramzi Yousef.
Thanks, Dan, but I thought I was making the same point as yours. A review of my reply remains exactly the same.
As I remember, the first attack [on one buildng] was made with a so-called "truck bomb," with no dynamite pre-planted; brought in in the perpetrator's truck, and the second attack was made on two buildings, each using tonnes of jet fuel as explosive.
It was and still is well known that jet fuel was/is the perfect explosive for such a mission. That is also the reason why the perpetrators chose flights that were on large airplanes fully loaded with fuel for a cross-country flight, hardly reduced by the time they reached New York City.
Thanks, Dan, but I thought I was making the same point as yours. A review of my reply remains exactly the same.
As I remember, the first attack [on one buildng] was made with a so-called "truck bomb," with no dynamite pre-planted; brought in in the perpetrator's truck, and the second attack was made on two buildings, each using tonnes of jet fuel as explosive.
It was and still is well known that jet fuel was/is the perfect explosive for such a mission. That is also the reason why the perpetrators chose flights that were on large airplanes fully loaded with fuel for a cross-country flight, hardly reduced by the time they reached New York City.
I've read and seen various theories with 9/11 Dav, i'm not convinced it was an inside job myself.
As I understand the Twin Towers were built to withstand a strike by a plane. What wasn't taken into account was the fuel, this weakened the structure by heating the steel to the point where it started to bend & ultimately resulted in their collapse.
First is that those who believe it was a set up by the US Government in order to justify a continued war in the Middle East ignore the fact that the same could have been achieved by setting off multiple small bombs in the middle of Times Square, or for that matter, all over the US with a fraction of the effort, cost and risk to achieve exactly the same effect.
Second is that many people seem unable to believe that the terrorists were just plain lucky. It was an event that no one really could have foreseen so many of those elements which are now questioned are questioned with the benefit of the hindsight that the attack itself gave us.
And finally, when conspiracy theorists talk about the Saudis being involved, as they doubtless were, they forget that the Saudi Royal family has something like 15,000 members, so connections with one bit doesn't necessarily mean any connection with the other bits.
It was an horrific attack, I'm sure most of us can remember it as though it was yesterday, but for the people whose lives were destroyed, it must make it even more painful that there are so many ridiculous theories about it all.
First is that those who believe it was a set up by the US Government in order to justify a continued war in the Middle East ignore the fact that the same could have been achieved by setting off multiple small bombs in the middle of Times Square, or for that matter, all over the US with a fraction of the effort, cost and risk to achieve exactly the same effect.
Second is that many people seem unable to believe that the terrorists were just plain lucky. It was an event that no one really could have foreseen so many of those elements which are now questioned are questioned with the benefit of the hindsight that the attack itself gave us.
And finally, when conspiracy theorists talk about the Saudis being involved, as they doubtless were, they forget that the Saudi Royal family has something like 15,000 members, so connections with one bit doesn't necessarily mean any connection with the other bits.
It was an horrific attack, I'm sure most of us can remember it as though it was yesterday, but for the people whose lives were destroyed, it must make it even more painful that there are so many ridiculous theories about it all.
Amen. ..............Until someone else comes up with another wild theory!
I've read and seen various theories with 9/11 Dav, i'm not convinced it was an inside job myself.
As I understand the Twin Towers were built to withstand a strike by a plane. What wasn't taken into account was the fuel, this weakened the structure by heating the steel to the point where it started to bend & ultimately resulted in their collapse.
I'm not saying you're wrong but surely they had to take into account the fuel, otherwise the bloody thing wouldn't have been able to get up there in the first place!
Each time I go to Bedd - au........................
Most modern CCTV cameras these days can't even get a decent image of one person's face when they're standing 10 feet away. To expect nearly 20 year old technology to capture clear imagery in a split second window of a plane moving at about 100 metres per second is perhaps asking a bit much.
There's plenty of imagery out there of aeroplane parts scattered all over the Pentagon lawn. Unless you're a total whacko who believes that CIA operatives quickly nipped out and scattered it all there before anyone noticed then what's to question?
First, your post, below, is completely accurate, and should be dispositive of the suggestion of CCTV tapes being taken and hidden. Thanks.
On one of the posts here [I can't find it -- add that to the conspiracy theories] the poster said that there were some large number of CCTV cameras around the Pentagon, and the tapes were immediately confiscated by police.
Of course, before a U.S. police officer is qualified to investigate crime scenes, he or she is taught that one of the very first tasks is to locate all cameras which might have something on them regarding the crime, to take control of, and secure, the film [tape, drive] which is to be used first to help to solve the crime, and then to be used as evidence.
Of course, the conspiracy theorists ignore that fact, and suggest that they were taken in order to not solve the crime and not to be used as evidence [neither of which was necessary in the end].
Sometimes conspiracy theories are just like people watching a play in the theatre -- both require what is known as "the willing suspension of disbelief."
10 hijacked airplanes to attack targets on both the East and West Coasts, including the United States Capitol and the White House, the staff of the independent commission investigating 9/11 reported in 2004
Some of the 9/11 terrorist plans, the commission staff said, called for the hijacked jets to be crashed into the headquarters of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency, various nuclear power plants, and skyscrapers in California and Washington State, a captured leader of Al Qaeda, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, has told interrogators.
Ive never understood how a passport of one of the hijackers fluttered down and was found by a passer by intact whilst everything else was incinerated instantly.
Also the third building that wasn't hit by a plane, falling into its footprint like the other two towers.
Weird man.
The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
10 hijacked airplanes to attack targets on both the East and West Coasts, including the United States Capitol and the White House, the staff of the independent commission investigating 9/11 reported in 2004
Some of the 9/11 terrorist plans, the commission staff said, called for the hijacked jets to be crashed into the headquarters of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency, various nuclear power plants, and skyscrapers in California and Washington State, a captured leader of Al Qaeda, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, has told interrogators.
I'd say that to if torturers were trying to drown me.
"Please stop drowning me. I'll say anything you f*cking want."
That's why civilised people don't torture people. It's barbaric and it produces nonsense.
Ive never understood how a passport of one of the hijackers fluttered down and was found by a passer by intact whilst everything else was incinerated instantly.
Also the third building that wasn't hit by a plane, falling into its footprint like the other two towers.
Weird man.
Because George Bush, a man so stupid that he had to employ a man to tie his shoelaces, which I know is a fact because I saw it on Youtube which is where all fearless free thinkers get their information, sneaked into the towers with a big bag of nano thermites.
That's what happened. It's on Youtube so prove that wrong.
An interesting thread and I'm no closer to making my mind up about what happened that fateful sunny morning.
Damn, Fath. It's too ****ing bad that after 16 years, this two and a half page thread hasn't suddenly cracked the code for you.
Here's what I think happened.
I think AA Flight 11, Boston to LA, did this.
Later, I hypothesize that UA Flight 175, Boston to LA, did this.
Then, my crazy theory says that AA Flight 77, Washington Dulles to LA, flew into the Pentagon.
Finally, in spite of everything they told ya, UA Flight 93, Newark to San Francisco, flew straight into the ground in rural Pennsylvania, as opposed to its intended target in Washington DC, due to the heroic acts of its doomed passengers.
And any bull**** fantasies about conspiracies involving thousands of boogie men is disgusting, cheap, and extremely offensive to all the innocent people who died that ****ty day.
I sincerely don't give a **** about convincing you about anything, Fath. I'd really just as soon push you firmly in their direction. I'm just feel obligated to point out what a tremendous douchebag you are, for starting this thread, and for that very predictably smarmy reply. This is ALL yours, mate.
Damn, Fath. It's too ****ing bad that after 16 years, this two and a half page thread hasn't suddenly cracked the code for you.
Here's what I think happened.
I think AA Flight 11, Boston to LA, did this.
Later, I hypothesize that UA Flight 175, Boston to LA, did this.
Then, my crazy theory says that AA Flight 77, Washington Dulles to LA, flew into the Pentagon.
Finally, in spite of everything they told ya, UA Flight 93, Newark to San Francisco, flew straight into the ground in rural Pennsylvania, as opposed to its intended target in Washington DC, due to the heroic acts of its doomed passengers.
And any bull**** fantasies about conspiracies involving thousands of boogie men is disgusting, cheap, and extremely offensive to all the innocent people who died that ****ty day.
I sincerely don't give a **** about convincing you about anything, Fath. I'd really just as soon push you firmly in their direction. I'm just feel obligated to point out what a tremendous douchebag you are, for starting this thread, and for that very predictably smarmy reply. This is ALL yours, mate.
[Post edited 13 Sep 2017 6:25]
Would you say the same to some of the survivors and family members of the victims who don't believe the official story?
0
(No subject) (n/t) on 07:26 - Sep 13 with 1624 views
. . . or another possibility -- that you're not a pilot. No sane pilot can doubt for a second that a pilot, even with what you call "a limited piloting ability," could hit one of the trade towers. Remember, they were all licensed pilots, with all of the training they needed to do the entire mission.
It's not like hitting an ant with a sewing needle from 100 yards.
I have a private pilot's license and have flown around New York City many times, and can guarantee you that the two Trade Towers made an easy target. Hey Zeus, you can see them from at least 50 miles away [I never measured it, but I have a brain].
Damn, Fath. It's too ****ing bad that after 16 years, this two and a half page thread hasn't suddenly cracked the code for you.
Here's what I think happened.
I think AA Flight 11, Boston to LA, did this.
Later, I hypothesize that UA Flight 175, Boston to LA, did this.
Then, my crazy theory says that AA Flight 77, Washington Dulles to LA, flew into the Pentagon.
Finally, in spite of everything they told ya, UA Flight 93, Newark to San Francisco, flew straight into the ground in rural Pennsylvania, as opposed to its intended target in Washington DC, due to the heroic acts of its doomed passengers.
And any bull**** fantasies about conspiracies involving thousands of boogie men is disgusting, cheap, and extremely offensive to all the innocent people who died that ****ty day.
I sincerely don't give a **** about convincing you about anything, Fath. I'd really just as soon push you firmly in their direction. I'm just feel obligated to point out what a tremendous douchebag you are, for starting this thread, and for that very predictably smarmy reply. This is ALL yours, mate.
[Post edited 13 Sep 2017 6:25]
Predictably, the conspiracy fûckwits took the bait...
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
