What's your theory about 9/11?

Rubbish,haven't you been reading along. Both General Arnold & Col. Marr testified they were tracking Flight 93 long before FAA notification. Marr even said he didn't pay more attention to Flight 77 because he was distracted by Flight 93. Arnold admits it WOULD even have been possible for the Langley F16s to reach Washington DC in time to stop 77,but adds they didn't have authorization to shoot it down even if they had. And last,but not least,it was the 'official' story (agreed upon by both NORAD & the FAA for 3 YEARS) that NORAD knew about Flight 175 at the same time as the FAA due to open lines between the two for the tracking of Flight 11. Would you like me to pull the exact quotes?

OK, since you are not too quick to respond I will take care of it for you. According to the 9/11 Commission, which seems to be what you are using as the source of your theory the testimony of these officers was incorrect. From the Commission Report:

More than the actual events, inaccurate government accounts of those events made it appear that the military was notified in time to respond to two of the hijackings, raising questions about the adequacy of the response. Those accounts had the effect of deflecting questions about the military's capacity to obtain timely and accurate information from its own sources. In addition, they overstated the FAA's ability to provide the military with timely and useful information that morning.

In public testimony before this Commission in May 2003, NORAD officials stated that at 9:16, NEADS received hijack notification of United 93 from the FAA.175This statement was incorrect. There was no hijack to report at 9:16. United 93 was proceeding normally at that time.

In this same public testimony, NORAD officials stated that at 9:24, NEADS received notification of the hijacking of American 77.176 This statement was also incorrect. The notice NEADS received at 9:24 was that American 11 had not hit the World Trade Center and was heading for Washington, D.C.177

In their testimony and in other public accounts, NORAD officials also stated that the Langley fighters were scrambled to respond to the notifications about American 77,178 United 93, or both. These statements were incorrect as well. The fighters were scrambled because of the report that American 11 was heading south, as is clear not just from taped conversations at NEADS but also from taped conversations at FAA centers; contemporaneous logs compiled at NEADS, Continental Region headquarters, and NORAD; and other records. Yet this response to a phantom aircraft was not recounted in a single public timeline or statement issued by the FAA or Department of Defense. The inaccurate accounts created the impression that the Langley scramble was a logical response to an actual hijacked aircraft.

In fact, not only was the scramble prompted by the mistaken information about American 11, but NEADS never received notice that American 77 was hijacked. It was notified at 9:34 that American 77 was lost. Then, minutes later, NEADS was told that an unknown plane was 6 miles southwest of the White House. Only then did the already scrambled airplanes start moving directly toward Washington, D.C.

Thus the military did not have 14 minutes to respond to American 77, as testimony to the Commission in May 2003 suggested. It had at most one or two minutes to react to the unidentified plane approaching Washington, and the fighters were in the wrong place to be able to help. They had been responding to a report about an aircraft that did not exist.

Nor did the military have 47 minutes to respond to United 93, as would be implied by the account that it received notice of the flight's hijacking at 9:16. By the time the military learned about the flight, it had crashed.
 
I think it's damaging to the process of inquiry to offer a counter explanation. A counter explanation isn't required -- and when busted, subconsciously provides a straw-man like leap that concludes all your arguments are false.

The only thing we as truth seekers can really do on this forum is to post our beliefs. These JREF shills appear to be twice as well researched as me, they were probably trained at the Shill Academy. They know all our talking points to the iota. :D

Point is, the 9/11 debates with debunkers lead us nowhere. :(

Its really best to just state what we believe. I believe the towers were brought down in a controlled demolition, nanothermite was used to cut plane shapes into the facade (fake CGI planes were used), thousands of witnesses were paid off.
 
Last edited:
Poll Question:
Would you rather get in fight me with your bare hands while I have a 1" knife, or, go top speed in your car sans safety belt and close your eyes on the freeway for 20 seconds?
I would have to pick going against you with the 1" knife. My reasoning, I have some control of my fate. I'm not a small guy and I would most likely cut you with your own knife but, on the highway at that speed I can't completely control the outcome.

What's the point of this poll? I don't see the connection between these two choices. :confused:
 
Have truthers sunk so low as to now just admit they believe 9-11 was an inside job and not only realize they don't have any evidence to support it, but believe they don't even need any?

Really?
 
Have truthers sunk so low as to now just admit they believe 9-11 was an inside job and not only realize they don't have any evidence to support it, but believe they don't even need any?

Really?

More like you're being Poe'd.
 
Have truthers sunk so low as to now just admit they believe 9-11 was an inside job and not only realize they don't have any evidence to support it, but believe they don't even need any?

Really?

Mark 9:23 "Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth."

My beliefs:
No-plane truth
nanothermite truth
WTC demolition truth

Duh-bunkers :rolleyes:
 
No. I believe that he is a government shill.

For the billionth time, as a truthseeker, my beliefs don't require evidence.

Then you might as well keep them to yourself, because you're never going to convince anyone that they are right with that attitude.
 
Mark 9:23 "Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth."

My beliefs:
No-plane truth
nanothermite truth
WTC demolition truth

Duh-bunkers :rolleyes:
Skeptics don't do Jesus, they do radar. No need for believes. It's called truth for a reason, unless you come from another planet.
 
Skeptics don't do Jesus, they do radar. No need for believes. It's called truth for a reason, unless you come from another planet.

Ah, looks like we have 2 different cults of the same religion fighting. I'll tell you, Mikeys, at least he is honest enough to admit it's just faith to him. You're just as wrong, but you try to BS your way though it by pretending to do science.

I'm not sure which is worse.
 
Why do you call him a shill? He is a honest liar.

We should sue all debunkers for promoting the myth that airplanes impacted the WTC on 9/11. It is part of a huge a PsyOp against genuine truth seekers! Maybe court proceedings will set an end to debunkers' reign.

In fact, I have all the printed forms laying in front of me, ready to bring this case to court. Debunkers need to be held accountable, then we can finally expose the no-plane/nanothermite truth, the truth needs to come out!

I can send you the forms, just give me your e-mail adress or something. You will just have to sign, solidarity in truth.

No more lies from debunkers. :)
 
Last edited:

Back
Top Bottom