Trying to resolve 9/11

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

Perhaps if you really cared about working out 9/11 you would check it out rather than throwing around more diversions.

So? Another question you will not answer? So, is it true to say Susan Lindauer does believe the actual attack was conducted by middle eastern terrorists?

a reply to: kwakakev

So? Susan Lindauer? You just invoked a middle eastern specialist that believes the actual 9/11 hijackers were middle eastern terrorists backed by middle eastern interests? Is that false?

a reply to: neutronflux

With Susan Lindauer I am looking at people who where caught up in the middle of the 9/11 mess. Her geopolitical perspective is important due to her experience and role. She does hot have all the answers of what exactly happened, but does have questions in which she paid a high price.

There is already heaps of evidence that Middle east terrorists where brought over for the attack. Some got flight training, others where under a protected surveillance despite warnings that did get out.

Susan does accept that the flights did get hijacked by someone, she does not believe it was the people named in the official story.

Hijack 'suspects' alive and well from a BBC article 12 days after the event. There is a more around about other hijackers too.

From what I can gather, the official hijackers where brought over by the CIA to take the blame for the event. Someone took over the planes, due to the military nature of the event, someone in the CIA / military is likely. Remote controlled planes matched the flight path of the passenger planes. The passenger planes then landed in a secure facility. The remote controlled planes went into the buildings.

How there is still a plane operational with the same serial numbers as one of the planes that supposedly went into the towers does support this theory. Susan does bring this point up in her presentation and does find it odd.

One important reason for why a remote controlled plane was used was a lack of competent pilots willing to sacrifice themselves for their cause.

a reply to: kwakakev

You

From what I can gather, the official hijackers where brought over by the CIA to take the blame for the event.

Based on what evidence?

How there is still a plane operational with the same serial numbers as one of the planes that supposedly went into the towers does support this theory

Really. Based on what evidence. Where is the JET at today?

a reply to: kwakakev

If there was any evidence of “ the official hijackers where brought over by the CIA” and “ still a plane operational with the same serial numbers as one of the planes that supposedly went into the towers” would make very good threads here on ATS?

a reply to: neutronflux

The CIA is pretty cagey about what they really do. The missing 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission on Saudi Arabia might have some links to it. Has been lots come out over the years how the terrorists where being watched, but left alone. An indication that the CIA was involved with them. With everything else going on around this the case gets very compelling for direct CIA involvement.

As for the plane, flight 175 N612UA has had some slip out.
Registration details

ACARS CONFIRMED - 9/11 AIRCRAFT AIRBORNE LONG AFTER CRASH

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

With Susan Lindauer I am looking at people who where caught up in the middle of the 9/11 mess. Her geopolitical perspective is important due to her experience and role. She does hot have all the answers of what exactly happened, but does have questions in which she paid a high price.

There is already heaps of evidence that Middle east terrorists where brought over for the attack. Some got flight training, others where under a protected surveillance despite warnings that did get out.

Susan does accept that the flights did get hijacked by someone, she does not believe it was the people named in the official story.

Hijack 'suspects' alive and well from a BBC article 12 days after the event. There is a more around about other hijackers too.

From what I can gather, the official hijackers where brought over by the CIA to take the blame for the event. Someone took over the planes, due to the military nature of the event, someone in the CIA / military is likely. Remote controlled planes matched the flight path of the passenger planes. The passenger planes then landed in a secure facility. The remote controlled planes went into the buildings.

How there is still a plane operational with the same serial numbers as one of the planes that supposedly went into the towers does support this theory. Susan does bring this point up in her presentation and does find it odd.

One important reason for why a remote controlled plane was used was a lack of competent pilots willing to sacrifice themselves for their cause.

Susan Lindauer declared she had sources or source within the state department that revealed to her there are videos that display unmarked vans entering the World trade center garage at night (2am to 3am) between August 23th and Sep 4th 2001. The state department official would not go on the record for fear of losing his life. Her source believes they were there to plant explosives. The unmarked vans stopped coming after the 4th of Sep.

Regarding Susan Lindauer it's unfortunate we can't substantiate this statement. It seems to be true Richard C Fuize (CIA officer) enlisted here to be CIA intelligence asset.  The fact US regime went after her for and wanted to put her on trial and branded her a foreign intelligence asset,  leads me to speculate she was onto something and that US (9/11) deep state wanted her to be silent. That what they do criticize the person and attack the credibility so people will look the other way and not pay attention to what she revealed!

This material is a big red flag for me. 
If this was absolutely a terrorist attack, why were these men not tracked down and arrested?
You have entire cell of 4 guys who seem to have just escaped after the plane got grounded on 9/11.

whyy.org...

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: kwakakev

If there was any evidence of “ the official hijackers where brought over by the CIA” and “ still a plane operational with the same serial numbers as one of the planes that supposedly went into the towers” would make very good threads here on ATS?

The evidence reveals Saudi Arabia financed the plane operation on 9/11.  The Saudi intelligence network base inside the United States pretty much subsidized the operation from the get-go. The 9/11 families have 11 names of Saudi spies and bureaucrats. Prince Bandar on the list and he is a significant player- he was US/ Saudi Ambassador to the United States and later became the Saudi Intelligence Chief after 9/11. What we don't know is why they helped Al Qeada carry out this attack and what was the purpose. 

a reply to: kwakakev

Really. For the ACARS. The system didn’t know the jet was down. The system sent to the JET. Please cite where a ACARS message was broadcasted from the jet after the crash.

So your already started on a false argument.

This woman insisted she overheard the 9/11 hijackers talking about money and that they owed 200,000 dollars. It all make sense this was a mission that involved money. I never bought the religion angle the media claimed. They acted like no devout Muslims in Florida. They probably got too deeply involved and could not pull out of the mission after spending all the money having parties and living up in style..

a reply to: Hulseyreport

This is the first I have heard about another plane that was almost involved. Not quite sure what to make of it at this time.

WCT7 was the big red flag for me. Seeing what happened their was enough to know that the terrorist where not some middle eastern fanatics. It would take months to plan and prepare a controlled demolition like that. When looking hard at the rest of the official story it all fall apart leaving state sponsored terrorism at the prime suspect. The inside job, made it happen.

So how are we suppose to live with that? It is ok to got and blow up some backwater nation on the other side of the world when told 'they did it'. Are we just suppose to turn a blind eye and say 'that's ok' when its our own leaders that actually done it?

a reply to: Hulseyreport

She is running around today free, telling her story? She really wasn’t silenced? Is she just mouthing what the government wants you to know?

a reply to: kwakakev

You

As for the plane, flight 175 N612UA has had some slip out.
Registration details

This is what you posted

How there is still a plane operational with the same serial numbers as one of the planes that supposedly went into the towers does support this theory

So your argument was false.

A late purge date to rectify inventory is not evidence of “ still a plane operational”.

So you have flight logs, maintenance logs, PM records for that airframe after 9/11. Those are operational records. A purge date is not evidence of an operational jet.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: Hulseyreport

This is the first I have heard about another plane that was almost involved. Not quite sure what to make of it at this time.

WCT7 was the big red flag for me. Seeing what happened their was enough to know that the terrorist where not some middle eastern fanatics. It would take months to plan and prepare a controlled demolition like that. When looking hard at the rest of the official story it all fall apart leaving state sponsored terrorism at the prime suspect. The inside job, made it happen.

So how are we suppose to live with that? It is ok to got and blow up some backwater nation on the other side of the world when told 'they did it'. Are we just suppose to turn a blind eye and say 'that's ok' when its our own leaders that actually done it?

Fox News/ or ABC news broadcast it, but right now can't spot the video. YouTube purging of the 9/11 broadcasts, is making it harder. Either way those events on 5th plane is legitimate and arose. It just information that never talked about much nowadays.

This evidence that for me affirms there was a larger attack organized, and it failed. I have a suspicion WTC7 was a target, and they planned to strike it with a plane high in the building?
NIST even reveals in their own report there no video or photographs of fires till 1.30pm on eastside ( Northside) that three hours after the towers collapsed on 9/11. With the fire alarm network failing also inside the building, that remarkably questionable. WTC7 has back up energy systems, even if the main electricity failed, the back up power would kick in and run things.  There only one way to cause fire alarm failure- disconnect manually.

Building seven is a big red flag for the official story. The towers they had the excuse planes hit it, but nothing hit WTC7.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

She is running around today free, telling her story? She really wasn’t silenced? Is she just mouthing what the government wants you to know?

They already went after her and slanted opinions against her. The media have not touched her story since. The 9/11 ( deep state) did their job.

a reply to: neutronflux

Reserved Date 10/11/2005
Renewal Date 09/22/2006
Purge Date 11/11/2007

You can write off the theory about the plane in flight 175 surviving the impact because it only took 6 years to purge. Don't worry that its records got renewed post incident.

I don't have the paper work on the plane.

a reply to: Hulseyreport

There was no flight path to WTC 7 that would make such an attack feasible. This has a long history of being debated.

originally posted by: Hulseyreport

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Hulseyreport

She is running around today free, telling her story? She really wasn’t silenced? Is she just mouthing what the government wants you to know?

They already went after her and slanted opinions against her. The media have not touched her story since. The 9/11 ( deep state) did their job.

Is she free to tell her story at this time. Simple true or false.

originally posted by: kwakakev
a reply to: neutronflux

Reserved Date 10/11/2005
Renewal Date 09/22/2006
Purge Date 11/11/2007

You can write off the theory about the plane in flight 175 surviving the impact because it only took 6 years to purge. Don't worry that its records got renewed post incident.

I don't have the paper work on the plane.

This was the whole argument

a reply to: kwakakev

You

As for the plane, flight 175 N612UA has had some slip out.
Registration details

This is what you posted

How there is still a plane operational with the same serial numbers as one of the planes that supposedly went into the towers does support this theory

So your argument was false.

A late purge date to rectify inventory is not evidence of “ still a plane operational”.

So you have flight logs, maintenance logs, PM records for that airframe after 9/11. Those are operational records. A purge date is not evidence of an operational jet.

———————

So you have no evidence the airframe was in actual operation as you stated? Then your argument was false.