9/11 discuss.
- Thread starter Leo.
- Start date
cottonwoodarmada1651
Active member
1. A commercial airliner is "tracked," so to speak, because they are on IFR flight plans. But deviating from a flight plan is not cause for interception, especially pre-9/11. And once again, finding an airplane in the northeastern US that has turned off its transponder is VERY difficult. When that transponder goes off, the plane vanishes off of the ARTCC's radar.
2. The area over the towers is NOT a "no-fly zone" (FYI, an area where flight is prohibited in the US is referred to as one of several types of special use airspace, the term "no-fly zone" has a military connotation). Today, VFR flight over much of Manhattan is generally restricted. But scheduled air carrier flights are exempt from most of those restrictions. They have to be - look at a diagram of JFK; a plane on approach to Runways 13R or 13L has to fly directly over that area. Scheduled air carrier operations are actually exempt from most any restrictions, including Presidential TFRs.
3. I don't understand why people thing it's some crazy coincidence that there was a military exercise going on that day. Newsflash man, exercises are going on CONSTANTLY. What do you think the military does when they're not fighting wars? They're not sitting around waiting, they're training, primarily by way of war games. So that whole argument is stupid.
4. Where did you hear that they have to be dispatched in pairs? Your alleged A-10 was out there all by its lonesome, wasn't it?
5. How is it a coincidence that the Secretary of Defense was in charge of the Department of Defense that day? That's not a coincidence, that's his job.
2. The area over the towers is NOT a "no-fly zone" (FYI, an area where flight is prohibited in the US is referred to as one of several types of special use airspace, the term "no-fly zone" has a military connotation). Today, VFR flight over much of Manhattan is generally restricted. But scheduled air carrier flights are exempt from most of those restrictions. They have to be - look at a diagram of JFK; a plane on approach to Runways 13R or 13L has to fly directly over that area. Scheduled air carrier operations are actually exempt from most any restrictions, including Presidential TFRs.
3. I don't understand why people thing it's some crazy coincidence that there was a military exercise going on that day. Newsflash man, exercises are going on CONSTANTLY. What do you think the military does when they're not fighting wars? They're not sitting around waiting, they're training, primarily by way of war games. So that whole argument is stupid.
4. Where did you hear that they have to be dispatched in pairs? Your alleged A-10 was out there all by its lonesome, wasn't it?
5. How is it a coincidence that the Secretary of Defense was in charge of the Department of Defense that day? That's not a coincidence, that's his job.
cottonwoodarmada1651
Active member
Here we go again. BECAUSE THE TRANSPONDERS WERE TURNED OFF. There was no way of knowing where the planes were or which ones were definitely hijacked. Tracking down one or two airplanes in the northeastern US is no small task. And sending out fighters to shoot down the hijacked planes very likely could have ended in the wrong planes being shot down.
Maybe like flight 93? I'd take everything the government hands you with a grain of salt.
Ok. Listen. You're very good at picking apart the details. But at that level, the information has passed through so many hands.
When I gather information, I never adopt just one source.
The upside down jet is strange, I do admit, But a shot down plane could easily just turn upside down and crash.
The point is, and let me appeal to the feeling side of you, and not the rational side, the point is that there are some VERY powerful people with vested interest in this shit.
To think they sit idly by while these things happen is entirely foolish..
When I gather information, I never adopt just one source.
The upside down jet is strange, I do admit, But a shot down plane could easily just turn upside down and crash.
The point is, and let me appeal to the feeling side of you, and not the rational side, the point is that there are some VERY powerful people with vested interest in this shit.
To think they sit idly by while these things happen is entirely foolish..
punk_rider
Active member
A great author made a good paper about the "conspirationnists".
I won't translate the whole thing but he was showing brilliantly how some people NEED to believe in these "conspiration theories", not because they are true or even possible, BUT just because these kind of theories are very pleasant to believe in.
why? Just because these people feel smarter, you know that kind of "I understand what 's really happening, i'm smarter than you dumb people because I know things you don't".
It's all about self esteem and self affirmation. The guy believing "X files" style that the government lies is so proud to feel like being one of the few to be smart enough to understand the whole thing.
These people are just worthless to talk to because even in front of the most obvious proof they are wrong, these people will always have the answer "this is a proof created by the government".
These people are just gonna find something new to feed their willingness to feel different from the others "stupid" people.
They will say Elvis' not dead, man never stepped foot on the moon, the chinese communists from the canadian FBI killed Kennedy, GW Bush is an alien, Dick Cheney eats kids ...
These people are first annoying. Then, they become funny. Finally, when you understand their motivations, you feel sad for them. They deserve more pity than being bashed.
I won't translate the whole thing but he was showing brilliantly how some people NEED to believe in these "conspiration theories", not because they are true or even possible, BUT just because these kind of theories are very pleasant to believe in.
why? Just because these people feel smarter, you know that kind of "I understand what 's really happening, i'm smarter than you dumb people because I know things you don't".
It's all about self esteem and self affirmation. The guy believing "X files" style that the government lies is so proud to feel like being one of the few to be smart enough to understand the whole thing.
These people are just worthless to talk to because even in front of the most obvious proof they are wrong, these people will always have the answer "this is a proof created by the government".
These people are just gonna find something new to feed their willingness to feel different from the others "stupid" people.
They will say Elvis' not dead, man never stepped foot on the moon, the chinese communists from the canadian FBI killed Kennedy, GW Bush is an alien, Dick Cheney eats kids ...
These people are first annoying. Then, they become funny. Finally, when you understand their motivations, you feel sad for them. They deserve more pity than being bashed.
skiminnesota
Active member
are you saying that the government shot down the wrong plane, when 93 crashed?
there were terrorist on that plane, you are forgetting about all the phone calls passengers made to loved ones.
and mega props to cottonwooddreams you are owning this thread. +karma+
there were terrorist on that plane, you are forgetting about all the phone calls passengers made to loved ones.
and mega props to cottonwooddreams you are owning this thread. +karma+
almostaskier
Active member
Well, there we have it: the confession of irrationality.
skiminnesota
Active member
o, and let me make myself clear, i do NOT think the government shot down 93.
Why dont you make some more judgemental stereotyping comments, I think you missed a few.
Theres a difference between believeing something because you want to, and because its more fun, and actually facing information with an open mind, and having a picture emerge from that information.
You lost credibility in your post when you threw all the conspiracies together like they are all the same thing.
The moon landing is not connected to JFK.
Don't put them in the same sentence.
I believe the CIA killed JFK
It is declassified soon, and we will know for sure soon.
I don't believe in elaborate terroism operations were carried out by 2 dozen afghans.
That is hard to swallow.
The fact that they hit both their targets is incredible.
Especially since none of them knew how to fly a commercial jet.
Don't you guys think about things like that?
The reason I am not providing my prrof with my arguements, is because we don't have a clear focus in this thread, we're not talking about one thing.
I mention a plane, and the next guy brings in the moon landing.
How can I deal with that? I can't have a conversation with someone who refuses to believe that things might not be as they seem on CNN.
You want to talk about something specifically, I will provide the evidence. BTW, If you refuse to watch google links, we can;t really talk about something we both havent seen,
We cant talk about zeitgeist if you havent seen it.
Its foolish,
and a waste of time.
And I am curious, how many of you actually have seen zeitgeist?
Molten steel at ground zero Cannot be explained.
The CIA have staged attacks on itself as long as it has been around.
Eisenhower (i think it was him) let pearl harbor happen. He knew the fleet was coming, The australians notified them.
They wanted it to happen. If you're asking why would they want to, you're really out of touch. (I can answer if you really can't think of a reason)
They also instigated, and provoked it by freezing all japanese assets, and halting trade.
They had the nukes ready on the Enola Gay before pearl harbor.
Stop me anytime.
Wait you cant, because thats the truth.
The gulf of Tonkin incident was completely staged, It was entirely a press generated incident. The boat didnt even exist.
Lusitania - Delibaretly Sunk to bring America into war.
Thousands of Americans were killed.
Hitler burned his own parliment and blamed the communists.
JFK was shot after he delivered this speech:
What else....
Oh yeah, the Uss Cole - staged
DO I have to mention the CIA coke and heroin planes that have crashed lately, proving, what lots of people already knew, that the CIA runs drugs to fund black ops.
wait ill get a link
http://www.madcowprod.com/10092007.html
Paste:
WORLD EXCLUSIVE
Oct 08, 2007
by Daniel Hopsicker
Seventeen months after an American-registered DC9 airliner was busted with 5.5 tons of cocaine, a majorinternational scandal is brewing over a second drug trafficking incident in Mexico's Yucatan involving an American-registered jet owned by a dummy front company of the kind usually associated with the CIA.A weekend visit to “Donna Blue Aircraft Inc” of Coconut Beach FL., the company which FAA records show owned the Gulfstream II business jet (N987SA) which crash-landedwith 3.7 tons of cocaine aboard in Mexico’s Yucatan two weeks ago, has revealed that the company’s listed address is an empty office suite with a blank sign out front.There was no sign of Donna Blue Aircraft, Inc., at the address listed at the Florida Dept. of Corporations, 4811 Lyons Technology Parkway #8 inCoconut Beach FL.
However, there were, oddly enough, a half-dozen unmarked police cars parked directly in front of the empty suite. Phone calls to Butters Development, the industrial park's leasing agent, went unreturned.Moreover the brief description of Donna Blue on its Internet page, apparently designed to “flesh out the ghost a little,” is such a clumsy half-hearted effort that it defeats the purpose of helping aid the construction of a plausible “legend,” or cover, and ends up doing more harm than good...For example, the website features a quote from a satisfied Donna Blue Aircraft customer. Unfortunately his name is “John Doe.” And the listed phone number is right out of the movies: 415.555-5555. Its known in the trade as "sloppy tradecraft."
Ok, so the CIA runs drugs - In my world it is common knowledge...
Thats part of the interest in Afganistan - The Heroin
Opium
All opiates
Ok thats enough for now.
Be specific if you want to talk about something.
PS the plane in PA was shot down lol
But thats a dead horse.
and not really important.
Theres a difference between believeing something because you want to, and because its more fun, and actually facing information with an open mind, and having a picture emerge from that information.
You lost credibility in your post when you threw all the conspiracies together like they are all the same thing.
The moon landing is not connected to JFK.
Don't put them in the same sentence.
I believe the CIA killed JFK
It is declassified soon, and we will know for sure soon.
I don't believe in elaborate terroism operations were carried out by 2 dozen afghans.
That is hard to swallow.
The fact that they hit both their targets is incredible.
Especially since none of them knew how to fly a commercial jet.
Don't you guys think about things like that?
The reason I am not providing my prrof with my arguements, is because we don't have a clear focus in this thread, we're not talking about one thing.
I mention a plane, and the next guy brings in the moon landing.
How can I deal with that? I can't have a conversation with someone who refuses to believe that things might not be as they seem on CNN.
You want to talk about something specifically, I will provide the evidence. BTW, If you refuse to watch google links, we can;t really talk about something we both havent seen,
We cant talk about zeitgeist if you havent seen it.
Its foolish,
and a waste of time.
And I am curious, how many of you actually have seen zeitgeist?
Molten steel at ground zero Cannot be explained.
The CIA have staged attacks on itself as long as it has been around.
Eisenhower (i think it was him) let pearl harbor happen. He knew the fleet was coming, The australians notified them.
They wanted it to happen. If you're asking why would they want to, you're really out of touch. (I can answer if you really can't think of a reason)
They also instigated, and provoked it by freezing all japanese assets, and halting trade.
They had the nukes ready on the Enola Gay before pearl harbor.
Stop me anytime.
Wait you cant, because thats the truth.
The gulf of Tonkin incident was completely staged, It was entirely a press generated incident. The boat didnt even exist.
Lusitania - Delibaretly Sunk to bring America into war.
Thousands of Americans were killed.
Hitler burned his own parliment and blamed the communists.
JFK was shot after he delivered this speech:
What else....
Oh yeah, the Uss Cole - staged
DO I have to mention the CIA coke and heroin planes that have crashed lately, proving, what lots of people already knew, that the CIA runs drugs to fund black ops.
wait ill get a link
http://www.madcowprod.com/10092007.html
Paste:
WORLD EXCLUSIVE
Oct 08, 2007
by Daniel Hopsicker
Ok, so the CIA runs drugs - In my world it is common knowledge...
Thats part of the interest in Afganistan - The Heroin
Opium
All opiates
Ok thats enough for now.
Be specific if you want to talk about something.
PS the plane in PA was shot down lol
But thats a dead horse.
and not really important.
right on
and PS
Free enterprise IS dumping toxic waste in our water supply. Well, not up here in BC, but unfortunately for Americans, every major water source in the US is contaminated.
http://www.naturalnews.com/022809.html
Medication Pollution Spreads: Water Supply of 24 U.S. Cities Found Contaminated with Pharmaceuticals
Oh ya, Thanks for the Free Viagra in my drinking water Pfzier
DICKs
and PS
Free enterprise IS dumping toxic waste in our water supply. Well, not up here in BC, but unfortunately for Americans, every major water source in the US is contaminated.
http://www.naturalnews.com/022809.html
Medication Pollution Spreads: Water Supply of 24 U.S. Cities Found Contaminated with Pharmaceuticals
Oh ya, Thanks for the Free Viagra in my drinking water Pfzier
DICKs
skiminnesota
Active member
my thought censorship part was, IMO that on certain subjects(global warming) there is one point of VIEW(and thats what it is, NOT FACT) and if you voice that opinion against that view, you are shot down, as un caring, moron, you can see where im going. and this goes both ways, left and right.
and my problem, with the light bulbs, like you said, its a slippery slope, if the government tells me what light bulb to use, when are they going to tell me what kind of car i can drive, how warm i can heat my house, what i eat, where i go. its a slippery slope, and i dont believe it is the right course for america to go down.
let me use a video, to illustrate my point. this hits really close to home, for both of us. and i for one am horrified that anyone would ever vote for this man.
i know i am making a huge, broad statement, but here it goes, i dont want the Government making decisions that the individual should be making, America, "land of the free", right?
just as long as your free actions dont hurt others, (light bulbs wont) then you should be free to make those decisions.
and my problem, with the light bulbs, like you said, its a slippery slope, if the government tells me what light bulb to use, when are they going to tell me what kind of car i can drive, how warm i can heat my house, what i eat, where i go. its a slippery slope, and i dont believe it is the right course for america to go down.
let me use a video, to illustrate my point. this hits really close to home, for both of us. and i for one am horrified that anyone would ever vote for this man.
i know i am making a huge, broad statement, but here it goes, i dont want the Government making decisions that the individual should be making, America, "land of the free", right?
just as long as your free actions dont hurt others, (light bulbs wont) then you should be free to make those decisions.
cottonwoodarmada1651
Active member
Strong argument, but no, it's not. And I've already shown why.
cottonwoodarmada1651
Active member
Once again, THESE ARE NOT INSIGNIFICANT DETAILS! I don't even know why I'm discussing this with you when any evidence that contradicts you is passed off as unimportant "details." What if I said finding molten steel at Ground Zero was an insignificant detail? As it happens, it's not - there was molten steel at Ground Zero because steel was melted when it was cut with torches in order to be removed.
The upside down plane is NOT just strange, it's a fucking smoking gun. If the plane had already been hit by a missile, it would have been noticeably in flames and falling from the sky, not flying. You don't think the witnesses would have noticed that? This is clear proof that it WAS NOT SHOT DOWN. Your entire argument about this point is moronic.
Somebody benefitting from something is not proof that they were behind it.
Finally, if you're seriously asking me to abandon reason in considering your arguments...well, ok. In that case, I guess you win. When examined in the light of delusional, emotionally-based paranoia, your case is very, very strong. But I prefer to function in the world of logic and rationality, so we'll just have to agree to disagree, epistemologically anyway.
The upside down plane is NOT just strange, it's a fucking smoking gun. If the plane had already been hit by a missile, it would have been noticeably in flames and falling from the sky, not flying. You don't think the witnesses would have noticed that? This is clear proof that it WAS NOT SHOT DOWN. Your entire argument about this point is moronic.
Somebody benefitting from something is not proof that they were behind it.
Finally, if you're seriously asking me to abandon reason in considering your arguments...well, ok. In that case, I guess you win. When examined in the light of delusional, emotionally-based paranoia, your case is very, very strong. But I prefer to function in the world of logic and rationality, so we'll just have to agree to disagree, epistemologically anyway.
you already quoted that post, and I addressed it.
one eyewitness account is not sufficient in itself, thats why I don't recognize it as conclusive evidence.
The ATC who heard the communications between the planes is a more reliable source. I know you havent seen that, but I have.
So you cant change my mind.
one eyewitness account is not sufficient in itself, thats why I don't recognize it as conclusive evidence.
The ATC who heard the communications between the planes is a more reliable source. I know you havent seen that, but I have.
So you cant change my mind.
cottonwoodarmada1651
Active member
Please share this alleged evidence.
cottonwoodarmada1651
Active member
I'd be interested to see that evidence. But I have to warn you, it'll take a lot to convince me of the legitimacy of a random documentary. I'm not an expert engineer or anything, but I am a pilot and most of the aviation-related information I've seen from conspiracy theories is patently absurd. So I will continue to point out bullshit in regards to flying, ATC, the airspace system, etc.
punk_rider
Active member
You are SO freakin' funny dude!
First, I've never meant landing on the moon and other stuffs where linked, I just say that it is funny that 99% of people thinking 9/11 is a Bush made attack also think man never landed on the moon, or have doubts about the Shoah ...
You told everything in one sentence: "I BELIEVE the CIA killed JFK" ... yeah ... you believe ... you believe a lot of things, but you ain't prove nothing!
I have a strong back up about 9/11 origins ... the official report! It's full of proofs and will have to give counter to them to convince people... and you definitely don't ...
1/ two dozens of afghans? None of them were afghans but ...
2/ It's actually very easy to pilot an airplane ... I did it without experience, w
First, I've never meant landing on the moon and other stuffs where linked, I just say that it is funny that 99% of people thinking 9/11 is a Bush made attack also think man never landed on the moon, or have doubts about the Shoah ...
You told everything in one sentence: "I BELIEVE the CIA killed JFK" ... yeah ... you believe ... you believe a lot of things, but you ain't prove nothing!
I have a strong back up about 9/11 origins ... the official report! It's full of proofs and will have to give counter to them to convince people... and you definitely don't ...
1/ two dozens of afghans? None of them were afghans but ...
2/ It's actually very easy to pilot an airplane ... I did it without experience, w
Dr_Feelgood
Active member
such bullshit, scheme or not. 5000 people died for nothing. absolutely nothing. including my good friend's dad. he was on the 55th floor when the plane hit and he couldnt get out in time. fucking bullshit. makes me just hate the world and this thread
skiminnesota
Active member
owned,
to drew, i will type a response to your post, in a little bit, when i have study hall.
to drew, i will type a response to your post, in a little bit, when i have study hall.
.
skiminnesota
Active member
do you have any news on if you could sell me some goggle lenses?
haha you better check out my reply, it going to be good. i have been formulating it in my mind, but i suck at writing(im sure you never noticed
so most of the time i am not able to fully put my ideas into text.
haha you better check out my reply, it going to be good. i have been formulating it in my mind, but i suck at writing(im sure you never noticed
so most of the time i am not able to fully put my ideas into text.
skiminnesota
Active member
so you are saying i should accept common knowledge when it comes to"global warming"? if i accept that, would you accept common knowledge about 911?
well just like you "do not know" about 911, "i do not know" about global warming.
and when that opinion, gets voiced, people are usually shot down, as retards.
(note) i have never commented on your overall intelligence, because you believe differently about 911.
and my comment about choosing what food i eat, was saying, why not let the government choose what i eat in my day to day diet? if they know what is better, then why not let them choose? just like they "know" about the light bulbs. (i dont think that will ever happen, but its a slippery slope, just like your "dumping pollutants into the rivers")
let me elaborate, there are tons of people who "know" better than me, when it comes to a good diet, so why not let them choose for me? because its MY LIFE. and i can choose to heed their advise or give their advise "the finger", and go about MY LIFE. and choosing how i light MY HOUSE, should be my decision. and if these light bulbs are gods gift to man, then everyone will buy them, over the normal incandescent ones. the government will not have to tell me.
let me use a personal example, my grandfather(the one i used as an example earlier) recently switched over to environmentally friendly LED christmas lights, now the government didnt tell him to switch, but he weighed the cost to operate the normal c9 bulbs VS the LED lights, and even though it cost him 300$ to buy all LED lights, he figured out he would save 75$ a year, so in 4 years his LED lights will pay for themself. so if these bulbs are soooooo great, then they will succeed without the government pushing it on us. plus think of all the people that cant afford a 4$ light bulb, you will be taking money that could go towards buying food for their family, and FORCE them to spend it on fancy light bulbs.
about my voting, i plan on voting for McCain, i dont agree with everything he stands for, but IMO he would be better(not great) than the two other choices.
and your little comment about the "land rover" let me put some myths about who I am as a person to rest.
i live in Loretto MN, (google it ) the town is 600 people. i live in a 4 bedroom, 2 bath, 2,000 sq ft "starter" home. i currently drive a 92 ford taurus, (hardly a land rover). i work for everything i own. my parents dont give me anything(besides food and clothes) my neighborhood is a working class neighborhood, most of my neighbors are carpenter's, work in manufacturing, ect. I AM NOT A RICH WHITE BOY! i didnt even start skiing until i could afford to buy the equipment myself.
dont get me wrong, i live a great life. but i hardly live in a 4,000 sqft mansion on a hill and drive a "land rover"
also, i would have thought you would be kissing the feet of Bush, go check out the environmental policy he just signed.
i cant wait to see what you have to say next, i will be obsesivly checking NS after i get off work tonight
the one thing i greatly respect you for is, that you have very well thought out and researched opinions, and for the most part keep you arguments logical, and dont resort to stupid name calling, like most of NS does.
doesnt mean i agree with what you always say, but i value the debate. because, most of the people i interact with on a day to day basis, dont care about many big issues in life.
well just like you "do not know" about 911, "i do not know" about global warming.
and when that opinion, gets voiced, people are usually shot down, as retards.
(note) i have never commented on your overall intelligence, because you believe differently about 911.
and my comment about choosing what food i eat, was saying, why not let the government choose what i eat in my day to day diet? if they know what is better, then why not let them choose? just like they "know" about the light bulbs. (i dont think that will ever happen, but its a slippery slope, just like your "dumping pollutants into the rivers")
let me elaborate, there are tons of people who "know" better than me, when it comes to a good diet, so why not let them choose for me? because its MY LIFE. and i can choose to heed their advise or give their advise "the finger", and go about MY LIFE. and choosing how i light MY HOUSE, should be my decision. and if these light bulbs are gods gift to man, then everyone will buy them, over the normal incandescent ones. the government will not have to tell me.
let me use a personal example, my grandfather(the one i used as an example earlier) recently switched over to environmentally friendly LED christmas lights, now the government didnt tell him to switch, but he weighed the cost to operate the normal c9 bulbs VS the LED lights, and even though it cost him 300$ to buy all LED lights, he figured out he would save 75$ a year, so in 4 years his LED lights will pay for themself. so if these bulbs are soooooo great, then they will succeed without the government pushing it on us. plus think of all the people that cant afford a 4$ light bulb, you will be taking money that could go towards buying food for their family, and FORCE them to spend it on fancy light bulbs.
about my voting, i plan on voting for McCain, i dont agree with everything he stands for, but IMO he would be better(not great) than the two other choices.
and your little comment about the "land rover" let me put some myths about who I am as a person to rest.
i live in Loretto MN, (google it ) the town is 600 people. i live in a 4 bedroom, 2 bath, 2,000 sq ft "starter" home. i currently drive a 92 ford taurus, (hardly a land rover). i work for everything i own. my parents dont give me anything(besides food and clothes) my neighborhood is a working class neighborhood, most of my neighbors are carpenter's, work in manufacturing, ect. I AM NOT A RICH WHITE BOY! i didnt even start skiing until i could afford to buy the equipment myself.
dont get me wrong, i live a great life. but i hardly live in a 4,000 sqft mansion on a hill and drive a "land rover"
also, i would have thought you would be kissing the feet of Bush, go check out the environmental policy he just signed.
i cant wait to see what you have to say next, i will be obsesivly checking NS after i get off work tonight
the one thing i greatly respect you for is, that you have very well thought out and researched opinions, and for the most part keep you arguments logical, and dont resort to stupid name calling, like most of NS does.
doesnt mean i agree with what you always say, but i value the debate. because, most of the people i interact with on a day to day basis, dont care about many big issues in life.
skiminnesota
Active member
o, and when i said, I AM NOT A RICH WHITE BOY.
i meant, im not rich,
im white, but guess what, i dont cling to my guns, and religion, and i dont hold antithapy towards people that are different. and im not the "typical white person".
i meant, im not rich,
im white, but guess what, i dont cling to my guns, and religion, and i dont hold antithapy towards people that are different. and im not the "typical white person".
cottonwoodarmada1651
Active member
Ok I just watched that and I really don't understand what evidence you think is here. First of all, the tapes are heavily edited - you can tell they're all chopped up. At the beginning, you hear 93 say something like, "United 93 checking in, level at 350" several times in a row. That's a sure sign this is condensed and a bunch of stuff is left out - you just wouldn't say that repeatedly.
Basically, as you're flying you're continuously changing frequencies and talking to new controllers. So say you're talking to Cleveland Center on 135.95, hypothetically. As you leave that frequency's coverage area, you'll be told, "United 93, contact Cleveland Center on 127.25," to which you'll probably respond something like, "Twenty-seven twenty five for United 93, good day." You then change your radio frequency to 127.25 and call up Cleveland on this new frequency. If you're not climbing or descending, you'll probably say something like, "Cleveland Center, United 93 checking in, level at 350," meaning you're with them on the new frequency and level at flight level 350 (basically 35000ft). In this clip, you hear 93 check in two or three times, meaning these are probably clips of audio that were actually spread out over a good half hour.
When Center starts repeating, "United 93, Cleveland, verify level at 350," that has to mean that radar is showing something different than what 93 has said - level at 350. This means that: a) the altitude being reported by the transponder is changing and b) the transponder is still on. Shortly thereafter (presumably when the hijackers remember to turn the transponder off/figure out how to do so), Center says at about 2:48 they "just lost the target on that aircraft." That probably means the transponder was turned off. About this time you hear one of the hijackers say that there's a bomb on board - he evidently thinks he's talking on the intercom to the cabin and not on the radio.
ExecJet 956 and American 1060 are two other flights in the area, so when the transponder goes off and Cleveland loses radar contact, the Center controller asks these flights if they can see 93. 956 replies that they can, 1060 says they're looking.
At the end, a female controller's voice is heard. Either there's a gap here and the two segments have been put together or she's not a Cleveland Center controller - maybe she's a TRACON controller, I'm not sure. She is apparently talking to the Falcon (your alleged A-10) that is trying to help locate 93 and see if it has crashed. At the very end, the Falcon locates the crash site and sees black smoke.
What in here did you interpret as evidence of a shoot-down? I honestly don't see it.
Basically, as you're flying you're continuously changing frequencies and talking to new controllers. So say you're talking to Cleveland Center on 135.95, hypothetically. As you leave that frequency's coverage area, you'll be told, "United 93, contact Cleveland Center on 127.25," to which you'll probably respond something like, "Twenty-seven twenty five for United 93, good day." You then change your radio frequency to 127.25 and call up Cleveland on this new frequency. If you're not climbing or descending, you'll probably say something like, "Cleveland Center, United 93 checking in, level at 350," meaning you're with them on the new frequency and level at flight level 350 (basically 35000ft). In this clip, you hear 93 check in two or three times, meaning these are probably clips of audio that were actually spread out over a good half hour.
When Center starts repeating, "United 93, Cleveland, verify level at 350," that has to mean that radar is showing something different than what 93 has said - level at 350. This means that: a) the altitude being reported by the transponder is changing and b) the transponder is still on. Shortly thereafter (presumably when the hijackers remember to turn the transponder off/figure out how to do so), Center says at about 2:48 they "just lost the target on that aircraft." That probably means the transponder was turned off. About this time you hear one of the hijackers say that there's a bomb on board - he evidently thinks he's talking on the intercom to the cabin and not on the radio.
ExecJet 956 and American 1060 are two other flights in the area, so when the transponder goes off and Cleveland loses radar contact, the Center controller asks these flights if they can see 93. 956 replies that they can, 1060 says they're looking.
At the end, a female controller's voice is heard. Either there's a gap here and the two segments have been put together or she's not a Cleveland Center controller - maybe she's a TRACON controller, I'm not sure. She is apparently talking to the Falcon (your alleged A-10) that is trying to help locate 93 and see if it has crashed. At the very end, the Falcon locates the crash site and sees black smoke.
What in here did you interpret as evidence of a shoot-down? I honestly don't see it.
skiminnesota
Active member
and according to "common" knowledge global warming is a direct result of us humans producing to much CO2 and other pollutants, and this supposedly happened in 1970, and contined until 1998, NEWS FLASH! global warming is DONE! (according to some scientists) read this.
"For many years now, human-caused climate change has
been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the
biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific,
but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn
from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at
the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global
average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight
decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).
Yes,
you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of
temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station
and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere.
"In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and
say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet
in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the
28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998
constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will
also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar
warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest
phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between
1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were
increasing at their greatest rate."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml
so in response to your original statement, about not putting a date on global warming, sorry you are wrong. there have been dates put on global warming.
"For many years now, human-caused climate change has
been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the
biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific,
but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn
from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at
the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global
average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight
decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).
Yes,
you did read that right. And also, yes, this eight-year period of
temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station
and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the
atmosphere.
"In response to these facts, a global warming devotee will chuckle and
say "how silly to judge climate change over such a short period". Yet
in the next breath, the same person will assure you that the
28-year-long period of warming which occurred between 1970 and 1998
constitutes a dangerous (and man-made) warming. Tosh. Our devotee will
also pass by the curious additional facts that a period of similar
warming occurred between 1918 and 1940, well prior to the greatest
phase of world industrialisation, and that cooling occurred between
1940 and 1965, at precisely the time that human emissions were
increasing at their greatest rate."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml
so in response to your original statement, about not putting a date on global warming, sorry you are wrong. there have been dates put on global warming.
snarfsnarf44
Member
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAGAA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA
HAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHHAAH
HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAH
HAAHAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAA
HAHAHAHAAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAAAHAHHAHAH
ha. ha. ha.HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA!!
phew
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAGAA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA
HAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHAAHHAAH
HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAAHAHAHAHHAAHHAHAHAHAH
HAAHAHAHAAHAAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAA
HAHAHAHAAHAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAAHAAAHAHHAHAH
ha. ha. ha.HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAH
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAA!!
phew
skiminnesota
Active member
wow, i am simply stunned with the level of intellect you displayed in your post.
snarfsnarf44
Member
hey, if ur interested, theres a very good movie on this subject, (as well as some others) called Zeitgeist. some points are questionable in the film (as always), but for the most part it is super in-depth, seemingly valid evidence. also some seriously scary shit in there about the federal reserve. glad im canadian.
watch it online
http://zeitgeistmovie.com/
watch it online
http://zeitgeistmovie.com/
snarfsnarf44
Member
dude, (if ur actually serious,) its people like u who let the war in iraq (soon iran) to happen. patriotism is next to pointless. oh, and, by the way, god did NOT have mercy on my soles, im getting new shoes tomorrow.
white+wolf
Member
It was an act of terror. not this inside job bull
Crack.
Active member
ok, I am just going to put my two cents in. If you guys yell at me I do not care.
First off, I have not researched 9/11 like most of you have, but I do know it was a tragedy and have learned some knowledge from this thread.
Why would any of you even say it was the government who planned and executed 9/11? That is completely obsurd! George Bush had been in office 9 months he didn't even know what he was doing yet! People seem to blame the government wayyy too much. My car got stolen. OMG the government planned it.
I do not know much about the world trade centers and I do not want to research it but I infer that some we do some foreign affairs there. Why would we want to attack a building where we keep some of our foreign affiliations intact? It makes no sense.
My last statement is: Why would the government want to create this whole mess. It was a tragedy and based on that one guys post talking about his dad, it was severely brutal. Some people were scarred emotionaly, some people were permentally hurt, and some people died. This created a mess and the government would have to know that this would create conspiracy theories so why shine some light on them. Yet again, it makes no sense.
Believing some movie you saw is completely unthinkable. Yes, they do have facts and yes they did so much research but it nothing if its not true.
Well there was no parts of the plane found and no passengers.
-THE WHOLE BUILDING WAS ON FIRE. Rubel may get burned and that is a very poor arguement.
First off, I have not researched 9/11 like most of you have, but I do know it was a tragedy and have learned some knowledge from this thread.
Why would any of you even say it was the government who planned and executed 9/11? That is completely obsurd! George Bush had been in office 9 months he didn't even know what he was doing yet! People seem to blame the government wayyy too much. My car got stolen. OMG the government planned it.
I do not know much about the world trade centers and I do not want to research it but I infer that some we do some foreign affairs there. Why would we want to attack a building where we keep some of our foreign affiliations intact? It makes no sense.
My last statement is: Why would the government want to create this whole mess. It was a tragedy and based on that one guys post talking about his dad, it was severely brutal. Some people were scarred emotionaly, some people were permentally hurt, and some people died. This created a mess and the government would have to know that this would create conspiracy theories so why shine some light on them. Yet again, it makes no sense.
Believing some movie you saw is completely unthinkable. Yes, they do have facts and yes they did so much research but it nothing if its not true.
Well there was no parts of the plane found and no passengers.
-THE WHOLE BUILDING WAS ON FIRE. Rubel may get burned and that is a very poor arguement.
I dont have video footage of a guy in a CIA jacket shooting JFK.
You can never have evidence.
Beyond a reasonable doub t.
Evidence, and Proof, including the Official report, can be falsified on a whim.
The plan for The New American Century has been working on the plan since 1999.
YOu mentioned the moon.
It pisses me off thinking that people knew about the atacks beforehand.
The london bombing piss me off too.
Im just pissed off at the guys that did it.
CHeny, Rumsfeld, and the Elite.
not no name terrorists.
You can never have evidence.
Beyond a reasonable doub t.
Evidence, and Proof, including the Official report, can be falsified on a whim.
The plan for The New American Century has been working on the plan since 1999.
YOu mentioned the moon.
It pisses me off thinking that people knew about the atacks beforehand.
The london bombing piss me off too.
Im just pissed off at the guys that did it.
CHeny, Rumsfeld, and the Elite.
not no name terrorists.
skiminnesota
Active member
ok that'd be great, i dont know how the whole sponsorship thing works, but if you are getting a bunch of stuff and dont need all of the lenses, i would definitely be interested in buying some. thanks.
almostaskier
Active member
Marwan al-Shehhi (from the United Arab Emirates), Fayez Banihammad (from the United Arab Emirates), Mohand al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Hamza al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian), Ahmed al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian).
American Airlines Flight 11: Mohamed Atta al Sayed (Egyptian), Waleed al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Wail al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Abdulaziz al-Omari (Saudi Arabian), Satam al-Suqami (Saudi Arabian).
United Airlines Flight 93: Ziad Jarrah (Lebanese), Ahmed al-Haznawi (Saudi Arabian), Ahmed al-Nami (Saudi Arabian), Saeed al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian)
American Airlines Flight 77: Hani Hanjour (Saudi Arabian), Khalid al-Mihdhar (Saudi Arabian), Majed Moqed (Saudi Arabian), Nawaf al-Hazmi (Saudi Arabian), Salem al-Hazmi (Saudi Arabian).
American Airlines Flight 11: Mohamed Atta al Sayed (Egyptian), Waleed al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Wail al-Shehri (Saudi Arabian), Abdulaziz al-Omari (Saudi Arabian), Satam al-Suqami (Saudi Arabian).
United Airlines Flight 93: Ziad Jarrah (Lebanese), Ahmed al-Haznawi (Saudi Arabian), Ahmed al-Nami (Saudi Arabian), Saeed al-Ghamdi (Saudi Arabian)
American Airlines Flight 77: Hani Hanjour (Saudi Arabian), Khalid al-Mihdhar (Saudi Arabian), Majed Moqed (Saudi Arabian), Nawaf al-Hazmi (Saudi Arabian), Salem al-Hazmi (Saudi Arabian).
BMskier
Active member
where the fuck is all the remaining hull or body of the plane crash that happened in the field in like penn.? no plane crashes and just disinigrates. the mmilitary has "accidently" misseled commercial jets before. such as the one over long island a long time ago. i think that with this certain crash..the military just said fuck it and fired a missle at the plane to destroy it. this was a smart move if they actually did it...be cause they saved more lives than the ones they killed, but i still think its wrong to missle commercial planes and not let this information public. thats my take ont he whole day and dealy.
skiminnesota
Active member
i think we made some real progress (both of us have)
i didnt take your land rover comment personally, i just wanted you to know that just because i am VERY conservative, that i dont live in a huge house and live off a trust fund. those type of people make me sick, america is about hard work, and striving for something better. not living off the hand of others.
would you agree that it is apsolute crazy talk that the government should be telling ME what light bulb to use? (its not going to make that much of a difference) and if the government tells me i have to use that bulb, then why not tell me i have to drive a prius? (that will save the planet way more than a stupid light bulb) its a slippery slope i dont want our country to go down. my point is, once the government gets its hands into something, good usually doesnt come out of it.
i would agree with the part about politicians driving Global warming, but that also goes both ways, there is a whole industry that depends on "global warming" take our own MN example, we have one of the most "progressive" policy's when it comes to ethonel. and look at what we have because of ethonel. higher food prices, a fuel that cannot survive with out government subsidies, and now talk of food rationing all related, to jumping the gun and turning millions of acres of corn into a non productive fuel.
ethonel is a failure, even ask the UN.. now, what if we jump the gun and, kill tons of jobs, make food more expensive. we need to be cautious about moving to fast, only to find out we acted on a lie, (or bad information) wow it sounded like i was talking about iraq but that is a different debate.
i am all for going "green" but i know, that the only way it will ever work, is if it can be sustained in the free market,(look at ethonel, i need one of those all aboard the fail boat pics, haha)
about the Gay marriage part, i have an aunt who lives with another woman, they are not lesbians, but they were roommates, who, shall we say, became "best friends" but its not sexual.
i really dont give a shit who you sleep with, as long as you dont get in my face and cram it down my throat. im fine with people being "gay" just dont make me change my life, accommodating them. (but it still grosses me out) the part you got me right on was, prolife, but dont debate that here.
haha i lost my train of thought halfway through my post, so if there is anything i didnt address i will try to get to it later.
if i could instantly turn thoughts into words on paper, this post would be sooooooooo long, you wouldnt be able to fit it all on one page. but sadly i dont have that good of writing skills(but i will get better)haha
i didnt take your land rover comment personally, i just wanted you to know that just because i am VERY conservative, that i dont live in a huge house and live off a trust fund. those type of people make me sick, america is about hard work, and striving for something better. not living off the hand of others.
would you agree that it is apsolute crazy talk that the government should be telling ME what light bulb to use? (its not going to make that much of a difference) and if the government tells me i have to use that bulb, then why not tell me i have to drive a prius? (that will save the planet way more than a stupid light bulb) its a slippery slope i dont want our country to go down. my point is, once the government gets its hands into something, good usually doesnt come out of it.
i would agree with the part about politicians driving Global warming, but that also goes both ways, there is a whole industry that depends on "global warming" take our own MN example, we have one of the most "progressive" policy's when it comes to ethonel. and look at what we have because of ethonel. higher food prices, a fuel that cannot survive with out government subsidies, and now talk of food rationing all related, to jumping the gun and turning millions of acres of corn into a non productive fuel.
ethonel is a failure, even ask the UN.. now, what if we jump the gun and, kill tons of jobs, make food more expensive. we need to be cautious about moving to fast, only to find out we acted on a lie, (or bad information) wow it sounded like i was talking about iraq
but that is a different debate.i am all for going "green" but i know, that the only way it will ever work, is if it can be sustained in the free market,(look at ethonel, i need one of those all aboard the fail boat pics, haha)
about the Gay marriage part, i have an aunt who lives with another woman, they are not lesbians, but they were roommates, who, shall we say, became "best friends" but its not sexual.
i really dont give a shit who you sleep with, as long as you dont get in my face and cram it down my throat. im fine with people being "gay" just dont make me change my life, accommodating them. (but it still grosses me out) the part you got me right on was, prolife, but dont debate that here.
haha i lost my train of thought halfway through my post, so if there is anything i didnt address i will try to get to it later.
if i could instantly turn thoughts into words on paper, this post would be sooooooooo long, you wouldnt be able to fit it all on one page. but sadly i dont have that good of writing skills(but i will get better)haha
skiminnesota
Active member
o, and about the bike. good for you!
if i didnt have to drive 20miles to get to my job, i would definitely bike.
i guess, if you look at it that way, i do, my part in saving the earth, (not that it needs saving
)
i dont bike for that reason, i bike for the exercise i do bike everywhere i go in my town, (its only 1 square mile) people give me "the look" when i pull up to friends houses on my bike. haha
if i didnt have to drive 20miles to get to my job, i would definitely bike.
i guess, if you look at it that way, i do, my part in saving the earth, (not that it needs saving
)i dont bike for that reason, i bike for the exercise i do bike everywhere i go in my town, (its only 1 square mile) people give me "the look" when i pull up to friends houses on my bike. haha
freestyler540
Active member
cottonwoodarmada1651
Active member
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
skiminnesota
Active member
i know you werent talking directly about me, but i am showing that i agree that hypocrisy occurs, but like you said, the left does it too, the only thing i can totally control is, my life, and what i say, and how i act.
and i live my life by a pretty strict set of rules and core values.
and let me use a different set of words, on the global warming part.
if you dont accept the "general consensus" (is that a better choice of words?) on 911 then why is it so bad for me to not accept the "general consensus" on global warming. the facts are, that radical changes made to the way of life every american lives, could be disastrous. (ie a huge version of ethonel)
and i live my life by a pretty strict set of rules and core values.
and let me use a different set of words, on the global warming part.
if you dont accept the "general consensus" (is that a better choice of words?) on 911 then why is it so bad for me to not accept the "general consensus" on global warming. the facts are, that radical changes made to the way of life every american lives, could be disastrous. (ie a huge version of ethonel)
Flo_Rida_2016
Active member
wow this thread went way off topic. start another thread and ill gladly join the politics debate. for now though this is a debate for 9/11 and i think that skipimp or whoever got thoroughly pwned by cottonwood whatever.
skiminnesota
Active member
say what you want. ^ this thread has been beaten to death on 911.