This is the thread that may very well change the way you look at 9/11 FOREVER!

The Almond · Dec 16, 2006

Karl Johannes said:
did they send the men to afghanistan to appear in training videos and martyrdom videos?
why would they have to mislead people who time and time again have commited their devotion to jihad and suicide?
are bin laden ksm, binalshibh, zawahiri, atef etc also paid off men?
if not how do you explain how bin laden refers to each one by name and repeatedly extols their task?
is a 767 (a plane that is not fly by wire) able to be remotley flown over the mechanical input of the pilots?
if not then who was on that plane when they were electronically hijacked?
if no one then where were all the alleged passengers? crew?
who made the phone calls?
what happened to the hijackers if they were not on the plane?
what happened to the passengers?
how do you account for the extensive delay in the remote flight system (image to plane, plane to controller, controllers reaction, controllers input, input to plane, signal to control surfaces) when taking into account the incredible speed and precision of flight 175's left bank at the last moment?
what elements within the govt are you referring to?
do you have any evidence besides a connection to a dubious claim to earlier govt involvment in a terrorist attack? even if that were true it does not prove anything about september 11
what does the pakistani ISI (which is stock full of radical islamists who do not exactly always listen to the dictates of military coup leader in cheif pervez musharraf) have to do with the USA CIA?

as i am no gravy i cant roll off a list of debunkification at you, but these are questions you must have asked yourself before you posted such an astonishing claim and therefore i would be interested in how you would account for these minor discrepancies

but most importantly...

do you honestly believe america, global hegemon, imperial leader, sole superpower, colonial collossus, is so bereft of enemies who want to kill us that we have to invent them?
that one goes for all the deniers.

Horatius · Dec 16, 2006

28th Kingdom said:
On Sept. 11, 2001, this ISI chief General Mahumd was in Washington meeting with US congress members and he also met with Colin Powell, Secretary of State. Mysterious September 11 Breakfast Meeting on Capitol Hill. "This meeting was described by one press report as a 'follow-up meeting' to that held in Pakistan in late August."

Okay, why is this supposd to be significant? Do you think that countries never have talks with members of other governments, unless they're planning a terrorist attack?

As you can see from the info on the left, I live in Ottawa, the national capital of Canada. I also drive to work down Sussex Dr., where the Prime Minister and the Governor General live, and which runs past a lot of embassies. Whenever there's a high ranking member of a foreign goverment in town, they line this route with alternating flags of Canada and the other country.

I'd say at least once a month, there's a set of such flags up, and often for some very obscure countires. I'll be driving along, wondering why the President of Mongolia is in town, or something. They only go out of their way to advertise the big ones- The Queen, The President of the US, maybe the British PM.

So, if Canada has this many high-level meetings with random Countries, how many does the US have? I'd be willing to bet that in any given week, you could point out at least one "suspicious" meeting that "they didn't tell us about".

Anyone from Washington want to comment?

kookbreaker · Dec 16, 2006

beachnut said:
28th is on a 1984 book fetish trip; by using fictional works to explain NIST reports aka 1984, ...

Remember the Troother definition lists? The entry I had for 1984 was:

1984 A book about an oppressive government that only you read and only you understand.

28kingdom is determined to prove me right.

Horatius · Dec 16, 2006

28th Kingdom said:
What is this describing, if not a progressive, pancake-like collapse? How is the upper falling mass increasing if the floors aren't progressively stacking like pancakes?

It could be a snow-balling collapse. Do you live in Califoria? Have you ever seen snow?

Pardalis · Dec 16, 2006

28th Kingdom said:
My Theory: Elements of the US government hired 19 arab men to take part in some kind of training/mission/operation

Training for what? Since they didn't take part in the 9/11 attacks, what did they train for?

There have been reports of a connection between a Pakistani ISI (CIA) chief (General Mahumd) being directly involved in the wiring of $100,000 to Mohammad Atta (lead hijacker)

Why did they pay Atta 100 000 $ for? Since it is your contention that he didn't take part in the 9/11 attacks?

The 19 men probably had no idea of the elaborate plot they were taking part in.

Again, what was their part in this plan?

[On 9/11 - I believe the US government simply took drone aircrafts (a la ONW) and flew them into the twin towers. I think the reason they used drone aircraft was not to save the lives of the people on board the flights, but because they couldn't find pilots who would fly the planes into buildings.

Proof?

defaultdotxbe · Dec 16, 2006

Pardalis said:
Training for what? Since they didn't take part in the 9/11 attacks, what did they train for?

Why did they pay Atta 100 000 $ for? Since it is your contention that he didn't take part in the 9/11 attacks?

Again, what was their part in this plan?

Proof?

naturally any savvy conspirator will leave a trail of breadcrumbs so sleuthy internet types can blow the lid off the whole thing

babazaroni · Dec 16, 2006

28th Kingdom said:
My Theory: Elements of the US government hired 19 arab men to take part in some kind of training/mission/operation - in the same way the FBI hired Emad Salem to take part in the 1993 WTC bombing.

Why did they not hire any Iraq's to participate?

Why hire 15 Saudi's, our most important Arab country?

Arkan_Wolfshade · Dec 16, 2006

Loss Leader said:
Well, I'll give him this - he actually stated an alternate theory. That's pretty rare and a step forward from "just asking questions" in my opinion. Of course, his theory is an absolute unresolvable mess. Weighing it, we must dismiss it out of hand. But still slightly more intellectually honest than other Tr00thers.

No, he's just changing the subject again to avoid having to do deal with any criticisms or answer any questions.

28th Kingdom · Dec 16, 2006

I think the one glitch in US Operation 911 - was flight 93's (drone plane) failure to reach it's target. I think it was shot down by NORAD before it had a chance to crash into WTC 7. (That's why I say WTC 7 is the smoking gun, because it collapsed without a plane impact)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LD06SAf0p9A

It's been widely reported that NORAD was conducting war game simulations on 9/11 (the exact same kind that happened on 9/11 - i.e. planes being flown into buildings) I think these simulated war games served as a diversionary tactic by the government to effectively disarm NORAD's response times - to real-life situations.

But, ultimately...someone from NORAD did manage to catch up and shoot down Fight 93. Rumsfield, even admits Flight 93 was shot down:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYqLA4X6dQ4

babazaroni · Dec 16, 2006

The NIST shows that the initiation of the collapse was due the the inward bowing of the outer columns which caused the floors to lose support. Not due to one floor collapsing onto another.

Note, I said "initiation".

It's clear that after the collapse started, floors pancaked on top of each other.

As the collapse progressed, more and more mass was added to the collapsing mass.

What's so hard to understand about that, 28K?

defaultdotxbe · Dec 16, 2006

28th Kingdom said:
On 9/11 - I believe the US government simply took drone aircrafts (a la ONW) and flew them into the twin towers. I think the reason they used drone aircraft was not to save the lives of the people on board the flights, but because they couldn't find pilots who would fly the planes into buildings.

i though northwoods used real planes and killed people? are you now conceding that point? (after being beaten over the head with it)

I think the one glitch in US Operation 911 - was flight 93's (drone plane)

so if all the flights were drones what happened to all the passengers?

Pardalis · Dec 16, 2006

A recap:

So we have 19 men who are paid to train to pilot planes but ultimately do nothing.

We have four remote controlled planes intended for four targets (four buildings).

Three hit their mark, one fail and is shot down.

A fifth target is ultimately destroyed.

This is all supposed to make sense.

Timble · Dec 16, 2006

28th Kingdom said:
I think the one glitch in US Operation 911 - was flight 93's (drone plane) failure to reach it's target. I think it was shot down by NORAD before it had a chance to crash into WTC 7. (That's why I say WTC 7 is the smoking gun, because it collapsed without a plane impact)

a) The plane was heading in the wrong direction.
b) What happened to the passengers on flight 93?
c) If it was all part of the government conspiracy, why did they shoot down their own plane before it had a chance to reach its target?
d) You're changing the subject again.
e) Are you delusional?

babazaroni · Dec 16, 2006

28th Kingdom said:
That's why I say WTC 7 is the smoking gun, because it collapsed without a plane impact

My God 28K, that is so profound. How long did it take to realize that WTC 7 was the smoking gun? Did you like google for 9/11 and click "I feel lucky"?

I thought you were going to change the way we thought about 9/11 forever?

How's that working out for you?

We will stay on this thread as long as you want. We will post cats and cute irish pop singers when you ramble about.

Are you going for Christophera's 10,000 post record, and the mental illness that goes along with it?

apathoid · Dec 16, 2006

28th Kingdom said:
I think the one glitch in US Operation 911 - was flight 93's (drone plane) failure to reach it's target. I think it was shot down by NORAD before it had a chance to crash into WTC 7. (That's why I say WTC 7 is the smoking gun, because it collapsed without a plane impact)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYqLA4X6dQ4

Dude, you're at it again with the self-debunking statements. Why in the name of God would the perps still go through with the demolition of WTC7 after the plane(that was supposed to hit it) crashed many hours earlier?

chillzero · Dec 16, 2006

28th Kingdom said:
But, ultimately...someone from NORAD did manage to catch up and shoot down Fight 93. Rumsfield, even admits Flight 93 was shot down:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYqLA4X6dQ4

Does anyone have the rest of this clip?

Pardalis · Dec 16, 2006

Oh, he's saying WTC7 was the fourth intended target? :boggled:

Architect · Dec 16, 2006

Lads and Lassies

I admire you all putting these technical points re: floor collapse (say) to the human tumshie (as I feel PD'oh/28th should be called) however you forget his previous performance on his claim that fire could not cause failure of the trusses. As far as I know I'm still in the tumshie ignore list.

We need quite a focussed strategy here, to try and show him for the fraud he is; heck, I've anything up to 6 weeks whilst this tendon heals so I'm up for it!

(http://www.doubletongued.org/index.php/dictionary/tumshie/

28th Kingdom · Dec 16, 2006

Pardalis said:
A recap:

So we have 19 men who are paid to train to pilot planes but ultimately do nothing.

We have four remote controlled planes intended for four targets (four buildings).

Three hit their mark, one fail and is shot down.

A fifth target is ultimately destroyed.

This is all supposed to make sense.

That's harder to believe...than 19 hijackers...with amateur flying experience...hijacking 4 commercial airliners (100% success rate 4 for 4) with box cutters and managing to pull off air maneuvers that would test even the most skilled fighter pilots...and that somehow, the most advanced and powerful military force in the world...was rendered completely defenseless against such an attack? And, that the Pentagon...was left open for attack - even though we knew at least 20 minutes before it was hit - that America was supposedly under attack from hijacked airliners.

Not to mention...the magical building collapses... that defied common sense...logic and the laws of physics. Nothing about the official story makes sense...and everything about the PET makes sense.

28th Kingdom · Dec 16, 2006

apathoid said:
Why in the name of God would the perps still go through with the demolition of WTC7 after the plane(that was supposed to hit it) crashed many hours earlier?

Greed. Cash Money (Insurance claim)

This is the thread that may very well change the way you look at 9/11 FOREVER!

Graduate Poster

NWO Kitty Wrangler

Evil Fokker

NWO Kitty Wrangler

Banned

Drunken Shikigami

Muse

Philosopher

Unregistered

Muse

Drunken Shikigami

Banned

Muse

Muse

Unregistered

Penultimate Amazing

Banned

Chief Punkah Wallah

Unregistered

Unregistered