Ex-CIA Pilot - No Planes Hit The Twin Towers


Status
Not open for further replies.
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?

A missile defense system is not an anti-aircraft system. The end.

I'm pretty sure the terrorists didn't give a shit where they hit the pentagon. I'd also guess it's easier to level out and hit the side of a building than try and land on the roof.
 
I was reading somewhere that the wreckage of one of the planes had a series of window profiles on it, the profiles did not match anything know, they concluded it was mock up of a plane, think I read somewhere on Youtube
 
A missile defense system is not an anti-aircraft system. The end.

I'm pretty sure the terrorists didn't give a shit where they hit the pentagon. I'd also guess it's easier to level out and hit the side of a building than try and land on the roof.

It's not the end mate sorry. A missile defence system can be used for any threat. Its like saying tazers should only be used on humans, but if a foaming mad dog came at you couldn't use it to protect yourself.

2nd paragraph does not make any sense mate. How is it easier to make a dramatic banking manoeuvre then level out for two miles, meter's above the ground hitting the side of the pentagon, than just simply flying straight into the top of the pentagon? After all he was flying straight for it, would not have to make any turns or nowt. Hanni Hanjour was not a pilot. he had flown simple cessna's, and was that shit the flight instructor told him to give up and refused to gan out with him again.

Thoughts on Norman Mineta?[DOUBLEPOST=1394623567][/DOUBLEPOST]
I was reading somewhere that the wreckage of one of the planes had a series of window profiles on it, the profiles did not match anything know, they concluded it was mock up of a plane, think I read somewhere on Youtube

Haway heed. We don't need conjecture to sully the waters marra. Lets stick to empirical evidence.
 
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.
Why should I get a job in forensics? I used to do it before, and it's a case of 'never go back' as they say.

I hope you never experience a major paper fire as paper and petrol fires are about the same temperature oddly enough, a bit over 1,000 C. That's with normal heat loss of course, if the fire is in an enclosed space compared it its size - like a large fire in an office - then the temperatures can quickly climb much higher than that.
 
The United States did have the capability of ground to air missiles to protect their airspace on 9/11. Yes.

Well dodged on my questions posed to you in my previous posts mind.

Any at the pentagon?

I dodged them because it's batshit. Yes it will be easier to fly into a building than through the roof ffs. :lol:

I'm not bothered about Norman. It will be a quote taken out of context im sure.

I noticed you dodged my question about the debris from flight 93 also? Where you said there was not a single piece of debris. A 'fact' which you know is a lie.
 
If someone told you the grass is blue, would you believe them?
You might be interested in the Asch conformity experiments which basically amounts to the same thing.

Of course, the conspiracy theorists are also victims of this effect, since they are the ones who are led into disbelieving things which were in plain sight - the Pentagon plane being a prime example, or that the towers appeared to freefall rather than there being some resistance.
 
quick questions for the conspiracy theorists:

1) Has anyone from Al quaeda or other fundamentalist organisations also claimed the attacks were faked by the US? Just seems strange to me that they would be happy to take responsibility when they could quite easily sully the reputation of America by having denied knowledge of the attacks (would also have made the US look ever worse for the subsequent wars)
2) What exactly was the purpose of the US faking these attacks? It just seems a way over the top plot, which killed thousands of people, when they could have just made up some shit about WMD or some other imminent threat.
 
Any at the pentagon?

I dodged them because it's batshit. Yes it will be easier to fly into a building than through the roof ffs. :lol:

I'm not bothered about Norman. It will be a quote taken out of context im sure.

I noticed you dodged my question about the debris from flight 93 also? Where you said there was not a single piece of debris. A 'fact' which you know is a lie.

That cover the pentagon? Aye.

Not bothered about Norman? Taken outta context? Why don't you watch his deposition.

If they knew it was coming why wasnt the pentagon and white house evacuated?

Ok can you show me any discerning piece of evidence that a plane crash landed in a field like other crashes in the past, like engine and what not.

This is what I can find
Logon or register to see this image

Logon or register to see this image

 
That cover the pentagon? Aye.

Not bothered about Norman? Taken outta context? Why don't you watch his deposition.

If they knew it was coming why wasnt the pentagon and white house evacuated?

Ok can you show me any discerning piece of evidence that a plane crash landed in a field like other crashes in the past, like engine and what not.

This is what I can find
Logon or register to see this image

Logon or register to see this image

I'm no photoshop expert but they could at least have tried a bit harder
 
quick questions for the conspiracy theorists:

1) Has anyone from Al quaeda or other fundamentalist organisations also claimed the attacks were faked by the US? Just seems strange to me that they would be happy to take responsibility when they could quite easily sully the reputation of America by having denied knowledge of the attacks (would also have made the US look ever worse for the subsequent wars)
2) What exactly was the purpose of the US faking these attacks? It just seems a way over the top plot, which killed thousands of people, when they could have just made up some shit about WMD or some other imminent threat.

1) No one really has claimed responsibility. The US and British government pinned it on Al Qaeda due to overwhelming evidence. Osama denied it at first (real) then a video came out four days before the presidential election, showing osama claiming it. (not real) many people believe that this video and others have been faked by the CIA.

2) Very complex answer, wasn't just about money, power, oil etc. Killing a couple of thousand people to these evil people is nowt. More people have died from the shoddy clean up effort. Where the 1st responders we lied to, and now are dying in their dozens. Or the amount of people who have died in the sham wars.[DOUBLEPOST=1394633404][/DOUBLEPOST]
I'm no photoshop expert but they could at least have tried a bit harder

Show me some pics of that crash site please.
 
1) No one really has claimed responsibility. The US and British government pinned it on Al Qaeda due to overwhelming evidence. Osama denied it at first (real) then a video came out four days before the presidential election, showing osama claiming it. (not real) many people believe that this video and others have been faked by the CIA.

2) Very complex answer, wasn't just about money, power, oil etc. Killing a couple of thousand people to these evil people is nowt. More people have died from the shoddy clean up effort. Where the 1st responders we lied to, and now are dying in their dozens. Or the amount of people who have died in the sham wars.[DOUBLEPOST=1394633404][/DOUBLEPOST]

Show me some pics of that crash site please.

I have none. but the things you put up look like a wile-e-coyote special man :lol: if you look carefully enough at picture #2 you can see the charred remains of an acme tag.
 
quick questions for the conspiracy theorists:

1) Has anyone from Al quaeda or other fundamentalist organisations also claimed the attacks were faked by the US? Just seems strange to me that they would be happy to take responsibility when they could quite easily sully the reputation of America by having denied knowledge of the attacks (would also have made the US look ever worse for the subsequent wars)
2) What exactly was the purpose of the US faking these attacks? It just seems a way over the top plot, which killed thousands of people, when they could have just made up some shit about WMD or some other imminent threat.

1. Why would terrorists deny an act they commited? It's not a question of did the US attack their own citizens, it's a question of why was it allowed to happen - there are documents/reports that link the Saudi government to this, at the time Bush was quite pally with them. Why was more not made of the Saudi link?

2. So they could implement such measures as the patriot act? The reason Al Qaeda attacked us, according to some, is because they're jealous of our freedoms. It wasn't the al qeada upset with our freedom, it was the American government. I dont for one minute think they were faked, I'd argue there was a series of incompetent decisions which allowed the attack, development of the attack.

That's just my opinion like.
 
1. Why would terrorists deny an act they commited? It's not a question of did the US attack their own citizens, it's a question of why was it allowed to happen - there are documents/reports that link the Saudi government to this, at the time Bush was quite pally with them. Why was more not made of the Saudi link?

2. So they could implement such measures as the patriot act? The reason Al Qaeda attacked us, according to some, is because they're jealous of our freedoms. It wasn't the al qeada upset with our freedom, it was the American government. I dont for one minute think they were faked, I'd argue there was a series of incompetent decisions which allowed the attack, development of the attack.

That's just my opinion like.

There are plenty of people on this thread that think the US did attack their own citizens though.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top