TwasOnTheFifthOfMay
Striker
You obviously look at everything with an open, objective viewpoint.You're not seriously suggesting that CIA were the good guys are you?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You obviously look at everything with an open, objective viewpoint.You're not seriously suggesting that CIA were the good guys are you?
you in actual fact, of course, mean SOME experts don't agree with him.
I've avoided this thread for long enough, but one of my pet hates is people who believe in conspiracy theories, yet refuse to acknowledge that 'experts' also exist who offer totally different version, simply because they don't fit the version of events YOU want to believe.
People who believe in conspiracies, UFO's etc. should really re-appraise their stance. Because I have seen VERY few who are willing to take a look at ALL of the evidence, and produce a reasoned judgement. And just for once, try questioning the background behind some of the youtube videos people have posted on here. Who made them, for example? would they have an agenda? what exactly is their experience in the field they are supposedly 'experts' in? Youtube is an excellent platform, but it certainly isn't a reliable basis of information.
Yes I actually do....what is your take on the '53 overthrow of Mossadegh may I add? Justified?You obviously look at everything with an open, objective viewpoint.
This "ex" CIA pilot you're putting your faith in also believes that the US government is in regular contact with alien races, and that the dark side of moon has rivers, lakes, and an advanced civilisation living on it:
So it's not surprising you conspiracy loons are hanging on his every word. He's your perfect spokesman.
Like you, I have absolutely no idea.Yes I actually do....what is your take on the '53 overthrow of Mossadegh may I add? Justified?
you in actual fact, of course, mean SOME experts don't agree with him.
I've avoided this thread for long enough, but one of my pet hates is people who believe in conspiracy theories, yet refuse to acknowledge that 'experts' also exist who offer totally different version, simply because they don't fit the version of events YOU want to believe.
People who believe in conspiracies, UFO's etc. should really re-appraise their stance. Because I have seen VERY few who are willing to take a look at ALL of the evidence, and produce a reasoned judgement. And just for once, try questioning the background behind some of the youtube videos people have posted on here. Who made them, for example? would they have an agenda? what exactly is their experience in the field they are supposedly 'experts' in? Youtube is an excellent platform, but it certainly isn't a reliable basis of information.
To place complete trust in the people you left is the absolute antithesis of democracy IMO.
As i mentioned earlier in the thread there was a one hour gap between the first plane hitting the tower and a plane slamming into the Pentagon ! Now given the importance of the Pentagon and the fact that it was known there were multiple hijacked planes in the air i am truly amazed that any plane got anywhere near the Pentagon. I know Exile mentioned that there was an exercise going on on the day involving the military airforce i can not believe for a second that there was no aircover for Washington and New York or that there wasn't enough time to arm planes and get them airborne. There are fully armed planes waiting to be scrambled as a matter of course. The military had (and were on the day) trained for just such an eventuality of hijacked planes being used as weapons. I have read that there was confusion as to whether it was part of the exercise or "real life" but would have thought that after planes started going into the twin towers any confusion would have been over.
I have no idea. I am amazed that after the bombing of 1993 that the centre of American civilian/military command got a plane flown into it 1 hour after another plane had been flown into a tower in New York though. No military planes ?What happened to the ground to air missiles that the pentagon possess? Why didn't these trigger? That airspace is the most heavily restricted and fortifies in the world. But a hijacked plane with no transponder which lost contact is allowed to plough into it? Reeto
What happened to the ground to air missiles that the pentagon possess? Why didn't these trigger? That airspace is the most heavily restricted and fortified in the world. But a hijacked plane with no transponder which lost contact is allowed to plough into it? Reeto
controversial but you cant endlessly go around the globe causing trouble and never be on the end of any blowback , no matter how big you areI saw this happen live on the internet in work, bloody unbelievable. We are all shocked but our boss, who happened to be Italian, came over and said "That'll teach them. Now they see what its like getting innocent people bombed" or words to that effect.
We all thought he was mad at the time, but I can see what he was trying to say now.
controversial but you cant endlessly go around the globe causing trouble and never be on the end of any blowback , no matter how big you are
As i mentioned earlier in the thread there was a one hour gap between the first plane hitting the tower and a plane slamming into the Pentagon ! Now given the importance of the Pentagon and the fact that it was known there were multiple hijacked planes in the air i am truly amazed that any plane got anywhere near the Pentagon. I know Exile mentioned that there was an exercise going on on the day involving the military airforce i can not believe for a second that there was no aircover for Washington and New York or that there wasn't enough time to arm planes and get them airborne. There are fully armed planes waiting to be scrambled as a matter of course. The military had (and were on the day) trained for just such an eventuality of hijacked planes being used as weapons. I have read that there was confusion as to whether it was part of the exercise or "real life" but would have thought that after planes started going into the twin towers any confusion would have been over.
Just picking up yet another thing that gets quoted as 'fact'. 'Bomb sniffing dogs removed from the complex' implies they were all taken out. That's not true. One even died in the attack, and his handler was trapped in the rubble. There had been additional dogs brought in to check the building because of some phone threats - not uncommon I would guess. The dogs found nothing. The extra dogs were stood down - in other words, it returned to normal levels of security. And yet...everyone who will happily dismantle any aspect of the mainstream explanation happily repeats this uncritically. You can see it on this thread, over and over again.
I love a good conspiracy theory, and happily accept that governments will do some terrible things unchecked. But a kind of wild-eyed empty-brained acceptance of anything (jews! energy weapons!) actually helps governments, rather than hinder them, as when they do bad things the accurate sceptic who is getting at the truth is lost in the noise of the loons who will believe anything some nutter on Youtube claims.
Put the conspiracy theories to the same level of test and challenge you put the publicly accepted theory to. Then see what's left.
They didnt 'trigger' because they didn't exist. Unless you have proof of course?
Like shooting fish in a barrel this.
No it didn't and no it wasn't.How true.
If a few dare to question the events because logically they do not all tally with the official story and they seek the truth, they are lost in a sea of easily swayed public, who are too ignorant, stupid or naive to do anything other than just blindly accept what they are being told to believe.
If someone told you the grass is blue, would you believe them?
If so, you must the type that think an aluminium airliner can scythe through a steel building and the (relatively small, as most jet fuel exploded on the outside of the building) resulting fire can then bring the building crashing down, in less than an hour?
Righto...
It is said that jet fuel gushed down the central lift shafts and set fire to the ground floor on at least one WTC tower, iirc?
I thought that the people in lower sections of the tower, particuarly the bottom, weren't aware of anything serious, initially?
All of you that believe anything that the powers that be want you to, will now class me in with the hologramatic planes theory - just as last time.
Ironically, you have the cheek to refer to the small number of us that like to question things as 'sheeple'.
That's ironic.
About as ironic as a solitary passport surviving a high speed crash and resulting fireball.[DOUBLEPOST=1394587913][/DOUBLEPOST]
How's that?
Show me the damage to the grass and building and tell me how an airliner caused it?
Terrorism aside, even from your blinked viewpoint, you must be able to see a lack of the expected.
No wings and tail sections on the outside of the building.
No gouges in the grass from the wing that supposedly dug in and amazingly did not break off.
I'll not mention the most obvious one - again.
As for the lack of confiscated CCTV footage being released, the Pentagon has nothing to lose from it, only credibility to gain.
Someone on here reckons it hasn't been released because it would 'show a masterclass on how to fly a plane into the Pentagon'.
We have already been told, numerous times by those that fully believe the offical statements, how easy it is to fly a hijacked airliner into a building, just point and fly, right? Plus there is plenty of footage out there of the second plane hitting the WTC.
So what amazing new terrorism skills would be gained from seeing another plane hit another building?[DOUBLEPOST=1394590713][/DOUBLEPOST]Just watched that September Truths documentary from the engineer from Newcastle Uni, where he discusses 'the ball'.
It is the first time I have see that discussed andI had forgotten about it, tbh, but I do remember being very interested in what it actually was, at the time.
It is also the first time I have seen the bulging fuselage discussed in that way and also the nose of the plane exiting the building.
Things I had heard of before, but never found footage of. I have seen the live CNN explosion stuff without the plane, before.
Ignoring those that saw what they saw, in person, that day, these planes being added via CGI and overlayed onto existing footage is entirely possible.
Although I reckon more people would have come forward and said there were no planes, tbh.
IT ALL DEPENDS HOW DEEP THIS GOES #tinfoilhat
Wow- you should get a job in forensics mate, you're insight is impeccable. 60 tons of flammable material you say. You do understand that paper and petrol are both flammable materials right? However one can burn hot enough to power an internal combustion engine, the other burns only hot enough to light a cigarette.No it didn't and no it wasn't.
Anyway, in addition to the jet fuel, there was about 60 tonnes of flammable material on each floor. Once the fires started, that's what fed them.
They didnt 'trigger' because they didn't exist. Unless you have proof of course?
Like shooting fish in a barrel this.
Width and length and things of comparable size confuse you, WOW![DOUBLEPOST=1394552756][/DOUBLEPOST]
You just simply don't get it do youI don't know what happened, as does no one in he public domain as there has been a cover up.
I have seen video footage of molten steel pouring from one of the twin towers. I have heard an 'officially verified phone call' saved on an answerphone end with a whisper 'It's a frame', I could go on!
What the pentagon/norad doesn't control any ground based missiles defence system? So why do they want to upgrade this system at a tune of 1.9 billion?
Another question about the pentagon hit I would like you to give a reasonable explanation is: putting yourself in the mind of the terrorist pilot, you have a straight line into the pentagon where you can hit the top of it to cause untold damage. Yet you make a daring convoluted banking manoeuvre that would've tested the plane and any experience pilot because of the speeds involved and the increased risk of stalling, hitting the only side of the pentagon that had been upgraded to take out civilian civil servant accounts?
Why would he do this?
The missile system you're referring to is for nukes man.
The second paragraph? lol Mad ye like.