9/11 discuss.

alright regarding wtc 7 larry silverstein who held all the leases on all the wtc's went on air and said that that was a controlled demolition or "pull". Also, one scentist who worked to create the supersteel used in the towers told reporters there was no temperature created by jet fuel hot enough to burn the towers. I've seen a bunch of other things online that make me sceptical but i thnk the problem is that people who believe it was terrorists assume that skeptics blame the government. the reason the conspiracy theory is shuned isn't because lack of evidence but a part of every american that has relied on the government for so long would rather blame extremist groups before questionsing the government. again im not blaming the government i really have no idea what happened but i think as intelligent people you have to look past what you want to believe and realize that something wasnt right that day idk thats my 2 cents
 
LBJ = Lyndon B Johnson, vice prez at the time.

The fact that you didn't pick up on the blatant sarcasm from a popular "The Onion" headline is extremely telling of your intellectual quest for "truth".

Fooled by a lot you most certainly are.
 
haha, i guess i shouldnt have given you the benefit of the doubt that you'd be able to figure it out. Did you have to get your mom to read it to you?

 
those conspiracy videos are cool to watch and all but the plane that crashed in PA that they said wasnt real umm was real. i wasnt home but my grandma and a bunch of people that work at my house were. we live about 25-50 miles from where it crashed at and it flew right over our house at like 1500-2500 feet. plus a guy that works for us was in the fbi for like 30 years and when this happened he still worked for the fbi and he was first on the scene from the fbi.
 
^ that plane was shot down, its official. The air traffic controller told his wife (wasnt supposed to) and the wife told a dude from the FBI who also told people that it was shot down.

THe FBI guy also said you're likely to get killed if you talk about what happened on 9/11 (with regard to the ATC)

now why would the FBI say something like that?

They found 0 bodies. 0 body parts.

strange?

I sure think so.

 
Official huh? I don't see how anyone can't see the absolute absurdity of this story. First off, how would a controller know the airplane was shot down? Explain that. Secondly, the whole idea that the source has to stay anonymous or get killed is a sure sign this was pulled out of somebody's ass. Think about that, it doesn't even make sense. If the guy remains anonymous, "they" can kill him without anybody knowing; if he goes public with this alleged information, suddenly everybody's watching him...tough to kill the guy everybody's watching and not have it get noticed. It's just absolutely preposterous that a crazy story from an anonymous source posted on the internet should be given ANY credibility whatsoever. And lastly, when a plane hits the ground like that, you DON'T find body parts. It would be very suspicious if they did. No body parts were found in the Payne Stewart crash and his Lear hit the deck a lot less violently than that airliner did. Of course, I'm sure you have some story about how everybody on board was abducted by aliens and is safely living on the dark side of the moon but the only people who know about it can't talk or they'll get killed by the men in black so all they can do is post anonymously on some blog.
 
see, the thing is Im the one who has heard these people talk. you haven't . you're making shit up.

It was shot down.

If you argue, you are already wrong, beause it was shot down.

agree with whoever

but It was shot down.

 
If you would have followed the links I posted earlier, you would know what Im talking about.

here, lemme see if I can find it...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/12/archive/main311011.shtml

theres them saying that they were poised to with their fingers on the buttons

thats pretty much as close as your going to get, but other 'sources' .. lemme see...

February 24, 2005Reversing all previous statements, The Washington Envoy to Canada, Paul Cellucci told his Canadian audience that a Canadian general at NORAD scrambled military jets under orders from Bush to shoot down flight 93Read into the article below for the following section:"He compared the situation to one that occurred during the 9/11 terrorist attacks on the U.S. He noted that it was a Canadian general at Norad who scrambled military jets under orders from Bush to shoot down a hijacked commercial aircraft headed for Washington."Cellucci's statement thus reverses all of Washington's previous statements about Flight 93. (Other than the two times that Rumsfeld admitted that Flight 93 was shot down..)is that enough? more?

 


FLIGHT 93 SHOT DOWN

Eyewitness Reports at Odds With Official Scenario





By Christopher Bollyn

INDIAN

LAKE, Pennsylvania—Eyewitness testimonies have generally been excluded

from the official version of 9-11. In the Shanksville area, where many

residents believe Flight 93 was shot down, there are scores of

eyewitnesses whose testimonies contradict the government’s claim that

courageous passengers fought hijackers, forcing the jetliner to crash

rather than be flown into a building.

Some local residents

here are deeply offended by the official explanation of what supposedly

happened to United Airlines Flight 93, calling it a patriotic pack of

lies.

Fearful of retribution from federal agents, many eyewitnesses who spoke with American Free Press asked that their names not be published.

While

differing on some details of the plane said to be Flight 93, which

passed over Lambertsville, eyewitnesses agree that unexplained military

aircraft were in the immediate vicinity when a huge explosive

“fireball” occurred at the reclaimed coal mine near Shanksville.

Viola

Saylor saw Flight 93 pass very low over her house in Lambertsville,

which is a mile north of the official crash site. She was in her

backyard when she heard a very loud noise and looked up to find herself

“nose to nose” with Flight 93, which she says was flying “upside down”

as it passed overhead. It was blue and silver, she said, and glistened

in the sunlight. It was so low that it rustled the leaves of her

100-foot maple tree in her yard.

It flew southeastward for

about three more seconds and even gained elevation before it crashed

over the hill with a “thud,” she said.

“It was really still for

a second,” she said. “Then all of a sudden” she saw a “very quiet” and

low-flying white “military” plane coming from the area of the crash

site, flying toward the northwest.

“It was flying very fast,

like it was trying to get out of here,” she said. “A second or two”

behind the “military” plane were two other planes, which Saylor

described as “normal” planes.

Shown a photograph of a

Fairchild A-10 Thunderbolt II, a low-flying combat aircraft commonly

referred to as a “Warthog,” Saylor identified it as the military plane

she had seen. She said she recognized the two engines on the rear and

the distinctive shape of the cockpit and nose of the plane.

Similar

eyewitness reports of military planes over Shanksville on 9-11 remain

censored by the U.S. corporate media, although they were reported in

two leading British newspapers.

Susan McElwain, a local teacher,

also reported seeing a white “military” plane at the scene of the crash

before witnessing an explosion. Ms. Mcelwain told The Daily Mirror what she saw:

“It

came right over me, I reckon just 40 or 50 feet above my mini-van,” she

recalled. “It was so low I ducked instinctively. It was traveling real

fast, but hardly made any sound.

“Then it disappeared behind

some trees. A few seconds later I heard this great explosion and saw

this fireball rise up over the trees, so I figured the jet had crashed.

The ground really shook. So I dialed 911 and told them what happened.

“I’d

heard nothing about the other attacks and it was only when I got home

and saw the TV that I realized it wasn’t the white jet, but Flight 93.

“I

didn’t think much more about it until the authorities started to say

there had been no other plane. The plane I saw was heading right to the

point where Flight 93 crashed and must have been there at the very

moment it came down.

“There’s no way I imagined this plane—it

was so low it was virtually on top of me. It was white with no markings

but it was definitely military, it just had that look.

“It had

two rear engines, a big fin on the back like a spoiler on the back of a

car and with two upright fins at the side,” Ms. McElwain said. “I

haven’t found one like it on the Internet. It definitely wasn’t one of

those executive jets.

[However,] the FBI came and talked to me and said there was no plane around.”

The plane Ms. McElwain describes is similar to the Warthog seen by Saylor over Lambertsville.

“Then

[FBI agents] changed their story and tried to say it was a plane taking

pictures of the crash 3,000 feet up,” she said. “But I saw it, and it

was there before the crash, and it was 40 feet above my head. They did

not want my story—nobody here did.”

The U.S. media has only

reported what Bill Crowley, FBI spokesman from Pittsburgh, said about

other planes in the area: “Two other airplanes were flying near the

hijacked United Airlines jet when it crashed, but neither had anything

to do with the airliner’s fate.”

In an apparent slip of the

tongue, Crowley said one of the planes, “a Fairchild Falcon 20 business

jet,” had been directed to the crash site to help rescuers. The Falcon

20, however, is made by Dassault of France while Fairchild made the

A-10 Thunderbolt II, the plane described by Ms. Mcelwain and identified

by other eyewitnesses.

The Daily American of nearby

Somerset did not want Ms. McElwain’s story. In fact, the local paper

has never reported that at least 12 local residents saw several

unexplained aircraft at the time of the crash.

Asked why the

paper has not mentioned these eyewitness reports, managing editor Brian

P. Whipkey told AFP “They could not be substantiated.”

THE SCREAMING THING

At

the horseshoe-shaped Indian Lake, about a mile east of the official

crash site, several eyewitnesses recalled hearing “a screaming thing”

that “screeched” as it passed over the golf course and lakeside

community immediately before a huge explosion shook the ground.

Chris

Smith, the groundskeeper at the golf course, said something with a

“very loud screeching sound” passed over in the immediate vicinity of

the golf course before he heard a huge explosion.

“It was like nothing I’ve ever heard before,” Smith said.

The

explosion that followed sounded like a “sonic boom,” he said. Smith and

others said they felt the shock wave from the explosion.

Smith

said he was used to seeing a variety of military aircraft from the

nearby Air National Guard bases in Johnstown and Cumberland, Md.

Another

groundskeeper said he saw a silver plane pass overhead toward the crash

site from the southeast after hearing the loud “screeching” sound. The

large silver plane was at an elevation of several thousand feet, he

said.

A local veteran who flew combat helicopters in the Vietnam

War told AFP that the high-pitched screeching sound was indicative of a

missile.

Shown a photo of an A-10 Warthog, the groundskeeper

identified it as the kind of plane that circled the crash site at a

very low altitude three times before flying away. He recognized the two

vertical fins on the rear of the plane. “Nobody was interested in what

we saw,” he said. “They didn’t even ask us.”

Mobile telephones

and satellite televisions in the Indian Lake area did not work at the

time of the crash, he said. Paul Muro was in his yard in Lambertsville

when Flight 93 passed overhead. Muro, who lives a half-mile closer to

the crash site than Saylor, said the plane was flying rightside up and

normally, although it was very low.

Muro told AFP that he also

saw a large silver plane approaching from the south, the opposite

direction of Flight 93, above the crash site at the time of the

explosion.

The silver plane then turned and headed back in the direction from which it had come, he said.

Tom

Spinelli works at the Indian Lake Marina. After 9- 11, he told a

Pittsburgh television news reporter about the unexplained aircraft he

saw. “I saw the white plane,” he said.

“It was flying around all over the place like it was looking for something,” he said. “I saw it before and after the crash.”

AFP visited the marina and asked Spinelli about the planes he saw on 9-11.

“I’m sorry,” Spinelli said. ‘No comment’ is all I can say.”

An

Indian Lake resident told AFP that federal agents had visited the

marina after Spinelli had spoken to the Pittsburgh news channel, TV 4,

and told him to stop talking about what he saw.

Local firefighters were also told not to talk about what they had seen at the crash site.

(Issue #30, July 25, 2005)

Not

Copyrighted. Readers can reprint and are free to redistribute - as long

as full credit is given to American Free Press - 645 Pennsylvania

Avenue SE, Suite 100 Washington, D.C. 20003

 
Well .. let's forget one second that people having doubts about 9/11 look like those who have doubts about the Shoah (which is forbidden by law in my country) ...

So let's see what people having doubts usually say:

1/ Bush did that to be able to attack Iraq and get the oil:

Well, remember he attacked Afghanistan first? the UN didn't vote the war and that, last but not least, the iraqi constitution says that oil is the sole property of Iraq and is unalienable.

2/ There was no plane in the pentagone but a missile.

Ok, so what happened to the real plane and the real passengers who disapearred?

3/ Mohamed Atta's passport was found on WTC after the crash which is impossible.

Well, I went to the Uss Intrepid memorial, and there was a full PC ... almost intact .. so ... a passport ...

4/ Bush acted fear when he heard the info ...

Damn ... Reagan is an actor who became president .. then Bush should become an actor cause he is damnnnnnn good!

5/ Israel made the attacks we can see jewish people were not in the towers

Common, read the victim's names ...

6/ THe tower shouldn't have collapsed

Ingeneers say the contrary

So ... I REALLY feel like asking whether 9/11 was a terrorist attack looks like people asking if Auscwhitz ever existed.

I am French, we have a lot of damn liberals, extremists muslims and so on ..

You have to know these people agree on several things:

- americans are evil

- america never stepped foot on the moon, is was hollywood

- christians suck

AND 9/11 is a CIA made attack ...

Well I really don't want to be associated with them ... do you?
 
Interesting article. It always seemed strange to me that we didnt shoot down one of the hijacked planes, its like scrambling our nations air force did nothing. And that would be something that the government would rightly try to cover up and put a patriotic face on.
 
So....you're saying the government planned the attacks,but then they decided to shoot down one of the airliners and cover it up? You realize that logically this doesn't make any sense, right? They were behind the attacks, yet they tried to stop the attacks, yet they don't want anyone to know they tried to stop the attacks that they don't want anyone to know they were behind. If you can't follow the logic here, this argument is not worth having.

Also, eyewitness testimony is not reliable, especially using those techniques (i.e., showing someone a picture and saying "is this what you saw?") Our memories are not NEARLY as good as we think they are, just look up statistics on false convictions based on eyewitness identification.
 
they didnt know what they were dealing with, let me speak from experience, on 911 my dad was flying(he is a pilot) and shortly after the attacks he was radioed and told, "get on the ground, now!" they cleared him for an emergency landing in ohio. he landed and after he found out what had happened. they had airforce planes in the sky FAST, he was escorted down. after the initial attacks, they were not letting any airplane go anywhere it wasnt told.

now think about the number of airplanes in the sky on any given day, they had no clue on how many planes had terrorists on them, they didnt know where they were going, they knew NOTHING.
 
Yes it is. So it is to wear or exhibit in public anything related to the SS, SA, SD, Gestapo or nazi party.

Everything that was considered "crime against humanity" in Nurnberg is forbidden.

On the one hand, it is going to far cause nazi shit is forbidden but not communist shit (always remembering nazi killed 50,000,000 people and communism 100,000,000 people).

On the other, it avoids having crazy islamists or nazis getting attention for their stupid theories.

We are not the land of free speech!

 
well in 4 short years our own government will be regulating what type of light bulb i can use.

this is all related to "Global climate change" and here you are called a kook, crazy, naive, ect. just for not taking the same viewpoint on such a trivial topic.

this is not a global warming thread, dont make it one! i was simply conveying that the US government is not far behind, when it comes to thought censorship.
 
Yeah, not the greatest example really, considering our great nation has done other wonderful things like suspending Habius Corpus and unconstitutionally tapping your phone and credit records.
 
those are bad too, but they are not relevant to "global warming" like i was talking about.

let me explain those (they are bad, and i dont support them) have to deal with an immediate threat (Islamic jihad) telling me what light bulb to use has to do with something that is not 100% proven to be happening. AKA "Global warming"

I dont want anyone telling me what kind of light bulb i can use!
 
my thought censorship was a poor choice of words, and im sure you know exactly what i was trying to convey.

as far as the light bulbs go, it sounds like you would support the normal incandescent bulb, do you know how much mercury, and other bad stuff goes into the florescent bulbs?

and way to go, you blew the argument way out of proportion when you said.

"but what if that free enterprise is dumping toxic chemicals into your water supply?"

 
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911stand.html

I've seen from this and other sources that the air force was actually ordered to stand down. How else would a plane be able to fly 48 minutes without any communication without being intercepted. Normally if a plane goes minutes without response, defensive measures are deployed. Not the case that day.
 
Everything you say is wrong.

1- the oil : Halliburton as we speak is building one of the biggest refineries in the world in iraq Quote from the BBC"The US Army said in early April that Halliburton had been paid $50.3m out of the contract that could be worth up to $7bn over two years."

Also

aqi oil deals up for grabs
_39262749_iraq_body.jpg
The amount of work necessary is still unclearThe US military has invited bids for two contracts - worth up to $1bn (£611m) in total - to put Iraq's oil infrastructure back in order.[/b]The keenly-awaited two-year contracts replace a controversial deal agreed in May, under which a subsidiary of US firm Halliburton got the work.Halliburton was previously run by Dick Cheney, now US vice-president.
They are also establishing a Military base in the middle east, to protect Israel, among other things.

2- The people who died at the pentagon who were on the plane - There were no people? Have you seen any crying families? No one has.

Also, that exact portion of the pentagon was specifically reinforced to withstand a missle blast.
3- Even if it was mohommaed attas passport that came from the plane, HE IS STILL ALIVE FOR FUCKS SAKE.

4- BUSH IS AN ACTOR - HOW CAN YOU NOT KNOW THAT.
He reads the teleprompters - Without them he is lost.
All politicians are actors.

5- I dont know about the jews - but it wouldnt surprise me at all.

6 - Engineers actually designed them to withstand multiple plane crashes. And not one said that the towers should have fallen. Don't know what engineers you were talking to.

5 out of 6 aint bad.

 
No, it was all part of the PLAN.

They dont want afghanistan, thats why they gave it to Canada to deal with.

Put the nice guys on the front line, While the americans set up shop in Iraq in order to have a base to launch more wars from. eventually taking on Afghanistan, and controlling the heroin trade.

This shit is obvious
 
They decided to shoot it down, because the plan was starting to fall apart, either that, or they didnt really want to blow up the white house.

If you remember the unique location of twin engines on the back of a plane, as opposed to under the wing, thats a pretty big difference. you dont mix that up.

Also, I think youre stupid.

 
That's a damn weak argument. "Ummm....well, they changed their mind. Yeah that's it. Somebody was like, 'You know, guys, I know we planned to blow up the White House, but let's just shoot that one down, the White House is kind of cool.'" No evidence or logic to back that up.

Also, twin engines mounted on the empennage = not at all unusual. Virtually every business jet has engines mounted in that position because it would be obnoxiously loud in the cabin if they were under the wings.

Another thing - the article you posted mentioned somebody saying they saw Flight 93 low and upside down. Why would it have been upside down if it was shot down? The only reasonable explanation for it being inverted is the official one - there was a fight in the cockpit.

You still haven't told me how the alleged controller you "talked to" could tell from his radar scope the plane was shot down.

"I think you're stupid"? Really? You're gonna go with "I think you're stupid"? Scraping the bottom of the argument barrel here, aren't we?

 
This is absolutely not true. Civil aircraft are not intercepted unless they violate prohibited airspace, active restricted airspace, a presidential TFR, the ADIZ, or something like that, and probably most often not even then. If a plane goes minutes without response, the assumption would be communications failure, not terrorist threat, especially BEFORE September 11.

People seem to have this belief that the American ATC system is designed to track down and destroy rogue aircraft - it's not. Once an aircraft turns its transponder off and/or goes below radar coverage, it becomes VERY difficult to find, especially in the northeastern US, having some of the densest air transport traffic anywhere in the world. THAT is why the Air Force was ordered to stand down - because the military didn't want the wrong airliner (or several wrong airliners) shot down.
 
LOL

Good one!! You play those kind of weird liberals sooo perfectly!

I started to take you seriously then realized it couldn't be serious!

Feakin' funny!
 
thats just me trying to fill in the blanks. Both stories could easily be true - there was a "fight" ( I still like to think they were remote controlled, and something went wrong) and then they chose to shoot it down, either because it now was not going to make its target, or because they wanted to control where the crash site was.

No I haven't gotten the source for you, I don't think you deserve it. I don't like to lower myself to the mudpit level where we squabble over small trivial details and points.

Im not sure about the upside down plane thing... I never saw any photos of wreckage though.

Just scatterred debris, and a crater in a driveway, and a hole in a field.

Maybe it did work perfectly.

But only those who know whats in the document for the New American Century really know what the big plan is or was.

We know they want syria, they need to get it to protect israel.

 
I didnt mean engines on the back are rare, I meant people dont confuse where the engines were on a plane that flies over your head.

I mean, theres a huge difference there.

If you remember, you remember, if you don't, you don't.

 
MAN, watch more documentaries - they called the flights in, 20 min after they were off course.

They DO track every plane off course, especially commercial jets. The area over the towers, is a no fly zone (actually im guessing it is)

The problem was OPeration VIgilant Warrior was taking place AT THE SAME TIME, and the exercise involved FALSE RADAR BLIPS. All the planes were off in Alaska, being dumb, following orders. No one knew what was real, and what was exercise.

There were only 6 planes available out of the whole air force.

Have to be dispached in pairs.

Control of the air force was being controlled by RUMSFELD that day. He called the shots.

Nice coincidences

They just keep adding up.

 
So you're basically just making shit up? You pretty much just admitted that.

I also like how you pass off anything you can't explain as "trivial" instead of admitting that maybe there's something wrong with your theory.

The fact that YOUR witnesses claim to have seen 93 upside down is HUGE. That's one thing you definitely don't forget - a commercial airliner flying low and inverted. And your story gives no explanation for why that would be. The only sensible conclusion here is that the official story is correct and there was a fight between passengers and hijackers that resulted in the plane going down very violently.

Again with the "no wreckage" thing, huh? Once again, what would you expect to see after a crash like that? The simple fact is that there wouldn't be much left. If anything, the plane being shot down would have resulted in more substantial pieces surviving because they would have been falling to the ground rather than flying towards the ground at a cruise power setting.
 
What I'm saying is that if people say, "I remember seeing a white jet with tail-mounted engines," the logical conclusion is NOT that it was a special A-10 on a mission to shoot down an airliner because the government's false flag plan was "falling apart." The logical conclusion, again, is the "official" (*gasp*) one that says a Falcon 20 was on approach and was called up by Center to try and locate an airliner that appeared to have possibly gone down.

Also, why would a military jet be painted white? Especially an A-10 that operates mostly in a CAS capacity - it would make a lot more sense to paint it camo, both for this alleged mission and the types of missions they actually fly in real life. And why use an A-10? It is capable of shooting down an airliner, sure, but it's certainly not the optimal platform. None of this adds up at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top