Ex-CIA Pilot - No Planes Hit The Twin Towers


Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

Therein lies the problem - people cannot refrain from conflating honest questioning of their elected governments - the cornerstone of democracy and ironically the Declaration of Independence itself - without mentioning UFO's and moon landings.

It is the responsibility of everybody to constantly hold government to account, to view everything cynically and suspiciously, it is a tragedy that so many people seem to think the opposite.

To place complete trust in the people you left is the absolute antithesis of democracy IMO.[DOUBLEPOST=1394578145][/DOUBLEPOST]
You obviously look at everything with an open, objective viewpoint.
Yes I actually do....what is your take on the '53 overthrow of Mossadegh may I add? Justified?
 
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.
:lol::lol:
Reverse psychology, love it......using youtubes against peep's youtubes.

There are many levels of loon i reckon. I mean, you couldn't even begin to write Watergate. No fucker would believe it.
 
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.

I wouldn't be so harsh on you tube, as there is some really interesting stuff on there particularly "9-11 The New Pearl Harbour" Unfortunately the stuff which should be debated does get lost amongst no plane theories and energy weapons which just makes it a farce. However just cause it's from you tube and not on the BBC or Sky doesn't mean it should be less credible at least not the likes of the New Pearl Harbour.
 
To place complete trust in the people you left is the absolute antithesis of democracy IMO.

Which was exactly my point. To place complete trust in anything is wrong - yet all I ever see are those who 'question' these things placing complete trust in sources with almost no useful basis. and from its start, this thread was based on conspiracy theories, so I think its fair I mention them.

And to the other post above, youtube doesn't ALWAYS have to be less credible than the BBC or Sky, but the simple fact that anyone can put material on it means you HAVE to be dilligent in checking, as you should be with anything.
 
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.

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
 
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
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 ? :confused:

Conspiracy is fertile ground for disinformation as well mind.
 
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

They didnt 'trigger' because they didn't exist. Unless you have proof of course?

Like shooting fish in a barrel this.
 
I 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.
 
I 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
 
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

think this was what he was getting at, his timing was poor when he said it mind the 2nd plane had just crashed in.
 
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 because you can't believe it, doesn't mean it's not true. You have to consider the level of threat and response time they plan for. There may still have been some bombers on that level of stand by as a hangover from the Cold War, but interceptors? they would have hours of notice. You don't just strap half a dozen sidewinders on and press the big green 'fly now' button. Arming and fuelling takes time, then you've got to generate tanker support for your interceptors so they can stay on station for longer. you've also got to consider that even had they launched immediately they would have been belting all over the country in order to get there just too late. Military aircraft don't fly armed as a matter of routine, because of the potential for accidents.

The same thing could happen tomorrow and the level of respopnse would be similar is the uncomfortable truth. It's just not feasible to do unless you have an interceptor sitting on the runway at all times in the city, and even then it's a long shot because of the time it takes to verify whether a suspicious aircraft has just lost comms, has committed a gross navigational error, or there's something more sinister going on. You get into the cockpit over London and you'll have hit your target long before any Typhoons get there, probably before anyone realises you've even done it.
 
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.

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]
They didnt 'trigger' because they didn't exist. Unless you have proof of course?

Like shooting fish in a barrel this.

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
 
Last edited:
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
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.
 
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.
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.

I'm sure you know which is which though.
 
They didnt 'trigger' because they didn't exist. Unless you have proof of course?

Like shooting fish in a barrel this.

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?
 
Last edited:
Width and length and things of comparable size confuse you, WOW![DOUBLEPOST=1394552756][/DOUBLEPOST]
You just simply don't get it do you :rolleyes: I 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!
:lol:
Well that's me firmly put back in my place!
 
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.
 
The missile system you're referring to is for nukes man.

The second paragraph? lol Mad ye like.

Ok hang on marra, can you not remember the Star Wars program? or the Pentagon's Strategic Defence Initiative to build a massive missile defence system that raised so much controversy during the Reagan and first Bush years? 130 billion dollars were poured into developing that system. It was designed to detect and intercept missiles fired from an unknown destination travelling at well over 10 times the speed of a commercial airliner, and to shoot them down in 15 minutes or less, before they reached their US targets. Its not just nukes man. was that all just bluffing and ripping off the US taxpayer?

Please tell me any of the 2nd paragraph in me previous post that you take umbrage with mate. I can't get me head round it. Would love for you to give me a reasonable explanation of why the inexperienced terrorist pilot would do this. Or explain away the sworn testimony of Senator Norman Mineta who was secretary of transport at the time, who was in the pentagon that day. I wonder why his testimony was omitted from the official report?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top