Debunking 911 conspiracy theories

Dude111 · 02-04-2014 12:21pm #1

Give this link to anyone who thinks your talking BS about the cover up of 911,an excellent read for them! (If they will read it)

http://web.archive.org/web/20030219110448/http://www.911-strike.com/debunking.htm

partyguinness · 02-04-2014 12:29pm

Dude111 wrote: »

Give this link to anyone who thinks your talking BS about the cover up of 911,an excellent read for them! (If they will read it)

http://web.archive.org/web/20030219110448/http://www.911-strike.com/debunking.htm

Amusing and more than selective with the facts...nothing more.

I think the only cover up in relation to 9/11 was the covering up of the authorities own incompetence.

weisses · 02-04-2014 1:06pm

Piece is from 2003

Much happened after that regarding the validity of a conspiracy

partyguinness · 02-04-2014 1:15pm

The idea that scores of people at government level or whatever conspired to cause 9/11 and are at this moment in time keeping this a secret from the rest of the world is hilarious.

We (humans) are not as clever as we think we are and I for one do not believe for one moment that so many people conspired together to cover up 9/11 and to keep it as a secret to this day.

The most striking thing about that article which is not mentioned is that airport security for internal US flights pre 9/11 was lax. The idea that people walked on to the plane with equipment is not that unbelievable and more than credible. In fact that is what happened.

I worked in Boston and NY in 1999 and took several internal flights and it was really like getting on a bus. I was also in the WWTC for that matter...maybe I am implicated...:eek:

DamagedTrax · 02-04-2014 6:58pm

partyguinness wrote: »

The idea that scores of people at government level or whatever conspired to cause *insert conspiracy theory* and are at this moment in time keeping this a secret from the rest of the world is hilarious.

Mexican wars (both)
Spanish-American war
World War I
World War 2
Korean War
Vietnam War
Grenada invasion
Panama invasion
Iraq and Iran war
Desert storm
etc etc

ALL the above wars were either started by a US false flag or a false flag operation was the reason for US entry. ALL documented with evidence to back it up. what makes it so hard to believe 9/11 was any different? all you need to do is look at who benefited from the event.

whatstherush · 02-04-2014 9:47pm

DamagedTrax wrote: »

Mexican wars (both)
Spanish-American war
World War I
World War 2
Korean War
Vietnam War
Grenada invasion
Panama invasion
Iraq and Iran war
Desert storm
etc etc

ALL the above wars were either started by a US false flag or a false flag operation was the reason for US entry. ALL documented with evidence to back it up. what makes it so hard to believe 9/11 was any different? all you need to do is look at who benefited from the event.

Pearl harbour was a false flag?

weisses · 02-04-2014 11:25pm

whatstherush wrote: »

Pearl harbour was a false flag?

I think he meant that It was known that PH would be attacked and they let it happen ... same as 9/11

DamagedTrax · 03-04-2014 1:28am

what weisses said.

they knew it was happening.

partyguinness · 03-04-2014 9:52am

DamagedTrax wrote: »

Mexican wars (both)
Spanish-American war
World War I
World War 2
Korean War
Vietnam War
Grenada invasion
Panama invasion
Iraq and Iran war
Desert storm
etc etc

ALL the above wars were either started by a US false flag or a false flag operation was the reason for US entry. ALL documented with evidence to back it up. what makes it so hard to believe 9/11 was any different? all you need to do is look at who benefited from the event.

So what??

So the US was involved in the aforemenationed wars & covert operations which of course means that they set up 9/11 to start another war...riiigghhht. As for benefitted, look at the cost and economic data since.

Love the twisting of my post though...

I don't think you get the point I was making...to illistrate my point, some of the theories out there suggest,for example, that the WTC was rigged with explosives....logistically this would have taken quite an operation which would have involved many people, let's say a few dozen, now in this day and age, are you suggesting that there are scores of people out there keeping this a secret. Where are the people that planted these explosives??

Even that light hearted link by the OP suggests that the fuel could not have been hot enough to vaporise the plane...really...well it did!!...

And as no evidence of the plane apparently exists...so this involves a hundreds of fireman, police officers, emergency services either

a. concealing plane parts or

b. there was some other substance/explosive on board to vaporise the plane.

...oh by the way..didnt they find some landing gear a few months back in another building??

As for the missile hitting the Pentagon..this is hilarious stuff. There is CCTV footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon. Even if you still want to believe that a missile stirke was ordered...then somebody had to prep the system and launch the missile...now again are you seriously telling me that there are people who did this and just keeping quite?? Plus there is plenty of plane wreckage from that site!

I think you give the authorities far too much credit and that is prob the most polite comment I will make..;)

partyguinness · 03-04-2014 9:57am

DamagedTrax wrote: »

what weisses said.

they knew it was happening.

'Knew' what exactly...that there was a general and ongoing threat to US cities etc which might involve hijackings?...yeah sure you assume the worst.

or do you subscribe to the notion that the US actually facilitated and helped organise 9/11 (planted explosives etc) as opposed to 'Well, we have a general idea, not too good on the specifics, but then again who can you take serious these days?'

whatstherush · 03-04-2014 10:11am

partyguinness wrote: »

So what??

So the US was involved in the aforemenationed wars & covert operations which of course means that they set up 9/11 to start another war...riiigghhht. As for benefitted, look at the cost and economic data since.

Love the twisting of my post though...

I don't think you get the point I was making...to illistrate my point, some of the theories out there suggest,for example, that the WTC was rigged with explosives....logistically this would have taken quite an operation which would have involved many people, let's say a few dozen, now in this day and age, are you suggesting that there are scores of people out there keeping this a secret. Where are the people that planted these explosives??

Even that light hearted link by the OP suggests that the fuel could not have been hot enough to vaporise the plane...really...well it did!!...

And as no evidence of the plane apparently exists...so this involves a hundreds of fireman, police officers, emergency services either

a. concealing plane parts or

b. there was some other substance/explosive on board to vaporise the plane.

...oh by the way..didnt they find some landing gear a few months back in another building??

As for the missile hitting the Pentagon..this is hilarious stuff. There is CCTV footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon. Even if you still want to believe that a missile stirke was ordered...then somebody had to prep the system and launch the missile...now again are you seriously telling me that there are people who did this and just keeping quite?? Plus there is plenty of plane wreckage from that site!

I think you give the authorities far too much credit and that is prob the most polite comment I will make..;)

And don't forget they managed all this, plus over a 100 years of false flags opps, but they couldn't be arsed plant a few WMD's out in Iraq to actually justify the publicly stated reason, they went in there.

partyguinness · 03-04-2014 10:24am

whatstherush wrote: »

And don't forget they managed all this, plus over a 100 years of false flags opps, but they couldn't be arsed plant a few WMD's out in Iraq to actually justify the publicly stated reason, they went in there.

Of course...maybe they went all Genghis Khan on it and killed off everyone who was invloved in the plot and the last person killed themselves thus taking all the evidence to the grave....:eek:

Just do a Putin on it...just invade. He doesnt need fancy smancy elaborate 9/11 plots to justify invasions

DamagedTrax · 03-04-2014 10:35am

partyguinness wrote: »

So what??

So the US was ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......

I will make..;)

well done, you've just made the leap to next level assumptions about me!

if you want to know my personal views on what happened it doesnt take much detective work (try the thread below this one maybe? since i started it)... but i will say this, anyone spouting the 'official' story to me is likely to be regarded as a bad comedian.

this has smelled fishy for near 13 years, i dont think your regurgitation of the standard lines will change that for me.

partyguinness · 03-04-2014 10:53am

DamagedTrax wrote: »

well done, you've just made the leap to next level assumptions about me!

if you want to know my personal views on what happened it doesnt take much detective work (try the thread below this one maybe? since i started it)... but i will say this, anyone spouting the 'official' story to me is likely to be regarded as a bad comedian.

this has smelled fishy for near 13 years, i dont think your regurgitation of the standard lines will change that for me.

yes I can see that big 'smoking' gun pointed at your head forcing you to read and post replies.

Your 'theory' has the usual regurgitation of bush+neocons+ haliburton+ saudi arabia+isreal zzzzzzzzz...you even got the Kennedy's mentioned...Good Job..:) (if there was a large Thumbs Up emoticon...you would get it). In fact, where is your theory?

You are more than entitled to your opinion and honestly, I have zero interest in changing your mind because neither of us have a clue what really happened.

DamagedTrax · 03-04-2014 11:27am

partyguinness wrote: »

I have zero interest in changing your mind because neither of us have a clue what really happened.

i can respect that, its a line i use a lot. unfortunately not enough users here have that attitude and it can get tiresome.

weisses · 03-04-2014 11:31am

partyguinness wrote: »

The idea that scores of people at government level or whatever conspired to cause 9/11 and are at this moment in time keeping this a secret from the rest of the world is hilarious.

You should have payed more attention during History class or at least inform/teach yourself what happened

partyguinness wrote: »

We (humans) are not as clever as we think we are and I for one do not believe for one moment that so many people conspired together to cover up 9/11 and to keep it as a secret to this day.

You said it right ... Humans are not as clever as we think ...That's how you can get away with false flag setups ...

partyguinness wrote: »

The most striking thing about that article which is not mentioned is that airport security for internal US flights pre 9/11 was lax. The idea that people walked on to the plane with equipment is not that unbelievable and more than credible. In fact that is what happened.

Hijackers where picked out and where searched for a second time (cctv footage available)

partyguinness wrote: »

I worked in Boston and NY in 1999 and took several internal flights and it was really like getting on a bus. I was also in the WWTC for that matter...maybe I am implicated...:eek:

So that's your reasoning it happened as it happened ?? ....

weisses · 03-04-2014 11:37am

whatstherush wrote: »

And don't forget they managed all this, plus over a 100 years of false flags opps, but they couldn't be arsed plant a few WMD's out in Iraq to actually justify the publicly stated reason, they went in there.

You should be more worried as to why they entered an Illegal war in the first place

They made up the WMD claim

They where responsible for the deaths of approx half a million people as a result of their invasion

And you cannot believe 9/11 was allowed to happen by the same government who is responsible for the massacre in Iraq ??

whatstherush · 03-04-2014 11:48am

weisses wrote: »

You should be more worried as to why they entered an Illegal war in the first place

They made up the WMD claim

They where responsible for the deaths of approx half a million people as a result of their invasion

And you cannot believe 9/11 was allowed to happen by the same government who is responsible for the massacre in Iraq ??

Well you will have to clarify what you mean by the bolded part before I can answer your question. Who allowed what exactly?

weisses · 03-04-2014 12:16pm

whatstherush wrote: »

Well you will have to clarify what you mean by the bolded part before I can answer your question. Who allowed what exactly?

See it as a gulf of Tonkin scenario only now the attacks are used as justification to go to War in the Middle east

Since the war in Iraq began in 2003 there have been 4344 Americans killed, 3474 of those in combat. The total Americans wounded is 31494, with over 10000 being wounded in combat.

Puts 9/11 in a different perspective doesn't it

Specially when you realize they had no justification to invade Iraq in the first place but conveniently used the 9/11 attacks to go to war

partyguinness · 03-04-2014 12:26pm

weisses wrote: »

You should have payed more attention during History class or at least inform/teach yourself what happened

LMAO..oh the old classic Boards reply when you havent got anything more intelligent to say..that's a reply I would expect from a newbie..tedious.

So can I take it that you believe that there are countless people out there who know what happened and colluded and have just kept there mouth shut?
You said it right ... Humans are not as clever as we think ...That's how you can get away with false flag setups ...

Hijackers where picked out and where searched for a second time (cctv footage available)

So the security personal at the airports were in on the act as wel?? That's a lot of people to keep quiet. I suppose they were plants.

So that's your reasoning it happened as it happened ?? ....

Yes that's extactly what I am saying....:rolleyes:

You are a funny crowd back in Dingle...

partyguinness · 03-04-2014 12:31pm

weisses wrote: »

See it as a gulf of Tonkin scenario only now the attacks are used as justification to go to War in the Middle east

Since the war in Iraq began in 2003 there have been 4344 Americans killed, 3474 of those in combat. The total Americans wounded is 31494, with over 10000 being wounded in combat.

Puts 9/11 in a different perspective doesn't it

Specially when you realize they had no justification to invade Iraq in the first place but conveniently used the 9/11 attacks to go to war

Nobody doubts that the false WMD pretext to go into Iraq. Not sure what age you are but I took part in the demontrations in 2003 against the invasion...not that it was going to make any difference.

We all knew it was BS the whole Iraq/WMD smokescreen. My biggest shock at the time was the media just bought into it without question.

weisses · 03-04-2014 12:44pm

partyguinness wrote: »

[/B]

Yes that's extactly what I am saying....:rolleyes:

You are a funny crowd back in Dingle...

Where all into music and sheep here

weisses · 03-04-2014 12:50pm

partyguinness wrote: »

Nobody doubts that the false WMD pretext to go into Iraq. Not sure what age you are but I took part in the demontrations in 2003 against the invasion...not that it was going to make any difference.

We all knew it was BS the whole Iraq/WMD smokescreen. My biggest shock at the time was the media just bought into it without question.

How far fetched is it then that they allowed the "attack" to justify going to War

The burning down of the reichstag is another example .. See what happened in Germany as a result of that

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/1310995/Historians-find-proof-that-Nazis-burnt-Reichstag.html

weisses · 03-04-2014 12:56pm

partyguinness wrote: »

LMAO..oh the old classic Boards reply when you havent got anything more intelligent to say..that's a reply I would expect from a newbie..tedious.

To me you perfectly describe your own position you have in this discussion

Sweeping generalizations with nothing added to the discussion

weisses · 03-04-2014 1:00pm

partyguinness wrote: »

So the security personal at the airports were in on the act as wel?? That's a lot of people to keep quiet. I suppose they were plants

No you said they where lax ... I say they weren't and there is cctv footage that supports that

partyguinness · 03-04-2014 1:04pm

weisses wrote: »

How far fetched is it then that they allowed the "attack" to justify going to War

The burning down of the reichstag is another example .. See what happened in Germany as a result of that

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/1310995/Historians-find-proof-that-Nazis-burnt-Reichstag.html

I don't disagree at all that the attack played right into the hands of the neocons. In fact they prob thought that all their birthdays and Christmases had come at once.

Whether they simply looked the other way or actively encouraged it is another matter.

What I dont buy into, is the planting of explosives in the WTC, self inflicted missile attacks, airport security looking the other way etc. For my mind, that would involve too many people having to keep quiet. Just not credible in my eyes.

I also feel that the neocons took the view that there will be an attack someday on US soil in some form and they had to be ready to make the most of it.

For what it's worth South Park do a good parody on the cover up theorys.

partyguinness · 03-04-2014 1:07pm

weisses wrote: »

To me you perfectly describe your own position you have in this discussion

Sweeping generalizations with nothing added to the discussion

I should remind you that was reply to your sweeping generalisation which added nothing...I would have expected a better reply from someone who has been on here longer instead of the ol' "Go away an educate yourself" line.

partyguinness · 03-04-2014 1:18pm

weisses wrote: »

No you said they where lax ... I say they weren't and there is cctv footage that supports that

so do you feel that airport security looked the other way with a little nod and wink?

Remember pre 9/11 there was nothing untoward about bringing those items on board and the cockpit door did not have the same security. With some min planning, it was relatively easy to hijack a plane on an internal flight. Also remember that today's airport security came after 9/11 so there is a danger of applying different standards. Not sure if you remember airport security pre 9/11.

Burky126 · 03-04-2014 1:27pm

Just going to post this here.

http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-two/

http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/911/

weisses · 03-04-2014 1:30pm

partyguinness wrote: »

I should remind you that was reply to your sweeping generalisation which added nothing...I would have expected a better reply from someone who has been on here longer instead of the ol' "Go away an educate yourself" line.

But that is the whole point

There are so many examples in History that justify the view that 9/11 was allowed to happen to serve the Neocons ..

I also have reservations with the whole explosives rigging theory (although i haven't seen any scientific evidence regarding building 7 collapsed due to office fires)

You seem to be up to date with this subject so yes i think your first posts where very generalizing,

You said it yourself you didn't believe the Iraq/wmd smokescreen ... I posted the casualties of that decision, compared to that 9/11 is peanuts ....

So they can pull off and get away with the Iraq invasion and you cannot believe they had solid foreknowledge and probably assisted in the 9/11 attacks ?

weisses · 03-04-2014 1:34pm

partyguinness wrote: »

so do you feel that airport security looked the other way with a little nod and wink?

Remember pre 9/11 there was nothing untoward about bringing those items on board and the cockpit door did not have the same security. With some min planning, it was relatively easy to hijack a plane on an internal flight. Also remember that today's airport security came after 9/11 so there is a danger of applying different standards. Not sure if you remember airport security pre 9/11.

No I'm only stating they weren't lax

Even today you have to agree that airport security is a joke only to give us a false sense of security

And even pre 9/11 it took me a while to clear US customs .. Remember the "interrogation" at Schiphol very well

weisses · 03-04-2014 1:41pm

Burky126 wrote: »

Just going to post this here.

http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/zeitgeist/part-two/

http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/911/

2 minutes reading reagarding building 7

it is far more logical to assume "pull it" means "pull people out of the building" or "pull the plug on the fire fighting". In fact, that is almost certainly what he meant

Wrong conclusion .. According to NIST

while the fires in the other buildings were actively fought by fire fighters to the extent possible, in WTC 7, no efforts were made to fight the fires

Rubbish debunking attempts

partyguinness · 03-04-2014 1:56pm

weisses wrote: »

No I'm only stating they weren't lax

Even today you have to agree that airport security is a joke only to give us a false sense of security

And even pre 9/11 it took me a while to clear US customs .. Remember the "interrogation" at Schiphol very well

Quite frankly, I have no idea if airport security is a joke or not. Not being funny and while I fly several times a year I could not say that it's an area within my area of expertise. I have never put airport security to the test!

As the US authorities said, they did not expect the threat to come internally. They were fixated on an external threat hence the tighter security into the US as opposed to internal flights.

Jaysus, just had a flashback. I can remember (pre 9/11) cabin crew taking small children into the cockpit during flight for a look around.

weisses · 03-04-2014 2:09pm

partyguinness wrote: »

As for the missile hitting the Pentagon..this is hilarious stuff. There is CCTV footage of the plane hitting the Pentagon.

Can you link me to any CCTV footage that shows a Plane (757) hitting the pentagon ... note that for your claim to be accurate we must be able to identify the/a plane

MayoSalmon · 03-04-2014 2:12pm

There's been way to much evidence to suggest the government had nothing to do with it, or at the very least, knew closely to the time a strike/attack was immiment.

weisses · 03-04-2014 2:13pm

partyguinness wrote: »

Quite frankly, I have no idea if airport security is a joke or not. Not being funny and while I fly several times a year I could not say that it's an area within my area of expertise. I have never put airport security to the test!

As the US authorities said, they did not expect the threat to come internally. They were fixated on an external threat hence the tighter security into the US as opposed to internal flights.

Jaysus, just had a flashback. I can remember (pre 9/11) cabin crew taking small children into the cockpit during flight for a look around.

And i don't know about the domestic flight screening that took place in the US pre 9/11

all you could see on the CCTV from the hijackers that they had to undergo a second check

In the 90's I took a peak into the cockpit several times on European flights ... they often had the door open and even explained some of the systems

weisses · 03-04-2014 2:19pm

MayoSalmon wrote: »

There's been way to much evidence to suggest the government had nothing to do with it, or at the very least, knew closely to the time a strike/attack was immiment.

I didn't see any evidence

If there is any evidence it suggest the opposite

http://www.911truth.org/tag/foreknowledge/

loads of info here .... don't know if its all accurate but its a start

MayoSalmon · 03-04-2014 2:25pm

weisses wrote: »

I didn't see any evidence

If there is any evidence it suggest the opposite

http://www.911truth.org/tag/foreknowledge/

loads of info here .... don't know if its all accurate but its a start

Open your eyes so....vast amounts of insider trading occurred before 9/11.

Money never lies!

weisses · 03-04-2014 2:32pm

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Open your eyes so....vast amounts of insider trading occurred before 9/11.

Money never lies!

I didn't see any evidence the government knew nothing

you said

There's been way to much evidence to suggest the government had nothing to do with it

That's why i said that i didn't see any evidence

Or do you believe that although vast amounts of insider trading occurred the government knew nothing ?

MayoSalmon · 03-04-2014 2:34pm

weisses wrote: »

I didn't see any evidence the government knew nothing

you said

That's why i said that i didn't see any evidence

Or do you believe that although vast amounts of insider trading occurred the government knew nothing ?

Sorry, I mis-read your response. Were in agreement so.

partyguinness · 03-04-2014 2:50pm

weisses wrote: »

I didn't see any evidence the government knew nothing

you said

That's why i said that i didn't see any evidence

Or do you believe that although vast amounts of insider trading occurred the government knew nothing ?

How are you supposed to prove you knew nothing?

In law, it is called the burden of proof e.g. a defendent does not go on trial having to prove he did not kill someone. It is up to the prosecution to prove he did.

So the onus here is on the doubters to prove that the gov knew something rather than the Gov to show they knew nothing.

DamagedTrax · 03-04-2014 3:55pm

partyguinness wrote: »

How are you supposed to prove you knew nothing?

In law, it is called the burden of proof e.g. a defendent does not go on trial having to prove he did not kill someone. It is up to the prosecution to prove he did.

So the onus here is on the doubters to prove that the gov knew something rather than the Gov to show they knew nothing.

there's no onus on us to prove anything (although the evidence is plain to see when you understand their modus). this isnt a courtroom. cheney, rumsfeld et all are lying murderous scum. they can sue me for liable if they like

partyguinness · 03-04-2014 4:09pm

DamagedTrax wrote: »

there's no onus on us to prove anything (although the evidence is plain to see when you understand their modus). this isnt a courtroom. cheney, rumsfeld et all are lying murderous scum. they can sue me for liable if they like

Oh I hate those Btards as much as anyone...cold war dinosaurs.

ps Hate to be a grammer Nazi but it would be libel- liable is a different legal term.

Seanachai · 03-04-2014 4:10pm

Only a few people on the inside know for sure what happens in events like 9/11 , there would be others on the fringe who are better informed than the guy on the street but they know well enough to keep their mouths shut for fear of their own lives or their families. Dyed in the wool debunkers are usually university educated males with a severe comtempt for anybody who they see to be intellectually inferior. They're also often tight fisted meanies.

There are open minded commentators and scientists out there who seem to be genuine in their belief in the official story or something closely resembling it but you won't find them spewing condescending bile on internet forums. Scoffing at people who have genuine concerns that a lot of mainstream news information , science etc is skewed or completely bogus is these people's food and water. If you think that flouride in the form of sodium flouride is harmful to your health when ingested over a long period then avoid it. If you think that you're being spun a line of bull**** on the RTE/BBC/Sky news then don't buy it , I'm all for healthy skepticism and agnosticism but **** this tribe that they call debunkers!!.

partyguinness · 03-04-2014 4:23pm

Seanachai wrote: »

Only a few people on the inside know for sure what happens in events like 9/11 , there would be others on the fringe who are better informed than the guy on the street but they know well enough to keep their mouths shut for fear of their own lives or their families. Dyed in the wool debunkers are usually university educated males with a severe comtempt for anybody who they see to be intellectually inferior. They're also often tight fisted meanies.

There are open minded commentators and scientists out there who seem to be genuine in their belief in the official story or something closely resembling it but you won't find them spewing condescending bile on internet forums. Scoffing at people who have genuine concerns that a lot of mainstream news information , science etc is skewed or completely bogus is these people's food and water. If you think that flouride in the form of sodium flouride is harmful to your health when ingested over a long period then avoid it. If you think that you're being spun a line of bull**** on the RTE/BBC/Sky news then don't buy it , I'm all for healthy skepticism and agnosticism but **** this tribe that they call debunkers!!.

Did a university educated male clutching the Irish Times recently walk past you on the street and not drop a few coins into your cup??:D

partyguinness · 03-04-2014 4:37pm

weisses wrote: »

Can you link me to any CCTV footage that shows a Plane (757) hitting the pentagon ... note that for your claim to be accurate we must be able to identify the/a plane

LOL....I am not falling for that one.

There are several links online but of course you know that already and no doubt you have your rebuttals lined up to cast doubt on the footage and eye witness accounts. So really just a waste of time.

DamagedTrax · 03-04-2014 4:57pm

partyguinness wrote: »

LOL....I am not falling for that one.

There are several links online but of course you know that already and no doubt you have your rebuttals lined up to cast doubt on the footage and eye witness accounts. So really just a waste of time.

what about the eye witness accounts of the mystery plane above washinton as the pentagon went boom?

CNN's Senior White House correspondent John King saw it while standing in Lafayette Park, directly across from the White House. King reported live that "about 10 minutes ago, there was a white jet circling overhead. Now, you generally don't see planes in the area over the White House. That is restricted air space. No reason to believe that this jet was there for any nefarious purposes, but the Secret Service was very concerned, pointing up at the jet in the sky

As it happened, a second individual also filmed the mystery plane on September 11 as it made a banking turn over Washington; and this short video segment even appeared in a made-for-TV docudrama about Flight 93. The two-hour movie was titled The Flight that Fought Back, and it aired on the Discovery Channel in August 2005. Once alerted to its existence, I had no difficulty locating this short segment on the internet. Someone had pulled it from the film and posted it at You-Tube as part of a short melange of video footage about 9/11. Anyone with access to cyberspace may view it on line.[5] The following still-shot was taken from this footage.

those markings look familiar, dont they?

The plane's electronics cover the full radio spectrum, from extremely low frequency (ELF) to high frequency (UHF). Which enables the E-4B to communicate with all US military commands, world-wide, including tactical and strategic forces, naval ships, planes, nuclear-armed missiles, even submarines.

weisses · 03-04-2014 6:26pm

partyguinness wrote: »

LOL....I am not falling for that one.

There are several links online but of course you know that already and no doubt you have your rebuttals lined up to cast doubt on the footage and eye witness accounts. So really just a waste of time.

You said there is CCTV footage showing a plane hitting the pentagon ..

I didn't see anything that even resembles a plane hitting the pentagon

I don't mind your not able to show what you say is there but don't claim your assumption as being fact

You say above there are several links online ... Care to share which one shows the plane hitting the pentagon ?

DamagedTrax · 03-04-2014 6:45pm

weisses wrote: »

You said there is CCTV footage showing a plane something hitting the pentagon ..

i fixed it for him.

whatstherush · 03-04-2014 6:51pm

weisses wrote: »

See it as a gulf of Tonkin scenario only now the attacks are used as justification to go to War in the Middle east

Since the war in Iraq began in 2003 there have been 4344 Americans killed, 3474 of those in combat. The total Americans wounded is 31494, with over 10000 being wounded in combat.

Puts 9/11 in a different perspective doesn't it

Specially when you realize they had no justification to invade Iraq in the first place but conveniently used the 9/11 attacks to go to war

Sorry don't know what happened in the gulf of tolken incident, can you explain it, in terms 911 so I can answer your question.

DamagedTrax · 03-04-2014 6:57pm

whatstherush wrote: »

Sorry don't know what happened in the gulf of tolken incident, can you explain it, in terms 911 so I can answer your question.

http://911review.com/precedent/century/tonkin.html

"The overwhelming body of reports, if used, would have told the story that no attack had happened," he wrote. "So a conscious effort ensued to demonstrate that an attack occurred."

Debunking 911 conspiracy theories

Comments