What really happened???

I've been looking around in some of the threads about 9/11, but a few of my questions have not been answered yet.

Some people clame that the plane that crashed near Pensylvannia was shot down by a military plane. Why would they shoot down THAT plane, and not the plane that was headed for the Pentagon?
The controlled demolition of the two WTC-towers and building 7 seems to be a fact. But why did they do that, what was the point of bringing down such an important building that was supposed to be fire-resistant?
Many people clame that the damage done to the pentagon can not be the work of a Boeing 757. What did crash into the Pentagon then? I've read everything, from a missile that was fired by American military up to a UFO crash.
And if 9/11 WAS the work of the American government, then why did they do it? For money? In order to start a war?

I've read some interesting remarks from conspiracy-theorists. But the non-conspiracy-theorists make some good arguments too. So I haven't really descided if 9/11 was indeed the work of the American government.
I will keep an open mind.

ourworld-top.cs.com...
--> They make some interesting remarks too.

Originally posted by NightWish
I've been looking around in some of the threads about 9/11, but a few of my questions have not been answered yet.

Some people clame that the plane that crashed near Pensylvannia was shot down by a military plane. Why would they shoot down THAT plane, and not the plane that was headed for the Pentagon?

Snippet from an interview with Col. Donn de Grand-Pre, U.S. Army (ret.)
John: Was it shot down because the airline pilots actually regained control of the hijacked auto-pilot or was that to replace the unmanned drone that was shot down?

DGP: No, it was the aircraft, you see, had totally unconscious people on board. There were no hijackers. At 9:35, the Happy Hooligans, the Air Guard flying the F-16s were ordered to take that plane out. And they took it out from 9:35 to 10:00.

John: Were there any refueling jets involved in that operation?

AJ: Hold on a second, John. The question is why would they deviate from the plan of flying it into the Capitol? Why did the globalists decide to go ahead and shoot the plane down?

DGP: There had been an adjustment to the controls, probably by an AWACs aircraft flying overhead, again, remote control. And it was on a course for either the Capitol or the White House. And at this stage, you don't know. The Happy Hooligans came in and took care of it.

AJ: Do you think they were not following orders?

DGP: Who, the Happy Hooligans?

AJ: Well, yeah, you've got Cheney running around, we've got the stand down taking place.

DGP: Well, this is correct, but you see the Adj. General of the State of North Dakota gave the command to take it out. And, by God, they took it out. And I've got the full story in the book.

AJ: That's a good thing they did that. You said you talked to the pilot. Think about this folks. Imagine what Bush would have gotten if he would have had that plane fly into the Capitol? Imagine the police state we would be in right now.

DGP: Yes, yes, yes, indeed.

AJ: Colonel, how did you get in touch with the pilot who shot the plane down?

DGP: It turned out to be an old friend of mine from the Air National Guard and this is my home state of North Dakota. And I attended the ceremony in North Dakota and watched the Adj. General [garbled] the pilot being decorated a year later for this activity that happened on 911 with Flight 93.

Colonel, before we take these four final calls, go over that a little bit slower for folks. That's a big deal. You talked to the pilot, a friend of yours, who shot down Flight 93 that was going for the Capitol or the White House. And go over that for folks.

DGP: Okay, quick rundown. They were out of Hector Field, Fargo, North Dakota. A bunch, this 119 Fighter Group and they are called the Happy Hooligans. They are probably the best interceptors that we have in the country. They were moved to Langley Air Force Base from Hector Field down to Southern Virginia. And when the klaxon horn went off at 9:35, those two pilots put down their coffee and shot into their aircraft and took off. They didn't know where they were going initially but by 10:00 hours, they had rendezvoused over Southern Pennsylvania. That's about 250 miles in just a matter of minutes and engaged 93 with two side-winder missiles. And they accomplished their objective. Now Hector Field, I use to fly out of Hector Field some time ago. I know most of those pilots. I could name names. I know the National Guard Adj. General. And they were decorated about a year later and I have the full write up of that story in my book.

Full transcript and audio at: www.prisonplanet.com...

The controlled demolition of the two WTC-towers and building 7 seems to be a fact. But why did they do that, what was the point of bringing down such an important building that was supposed to be fire-resistant?

Most believe because of two main factors, evidence and finance.
When that building came down, a lot of wallstreet investigations dissapeared off the face of the planet with it.

It's occupents were (number equals floor number):
46-47 Mechanical floors
28-45 Salomon Smith Barney (SSB)
26-27 Standard Chartered Bank
25 Inland Revenue Service (IRS)
25 Department of Defense (DOD)
25 Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
24 Inland Revenue Service (IRS)
23 Office of Emergency Management (OEM)
22 Federal Home Loan Bank of New York
21 First State Management Group
19-21 ITT Hartford Insurance Group
19 National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC)
18 Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC)
14-17 Vacant
13 Provident Financial Management
11-13 Securities and Exchange Commission
9-10 US Secret Service
7-8 American Express Bank International
7 OEM generators and day tank
6 Switchgear, storage
5 Switchgear, generators, transformers
4 Upper level of 3rd floor, switchgear
3 Lobby, SSB Conference Center, rentable space, manage
2 Open to first floor lobby, transformer vault upper level, upper level switchgear
1 Lobby, loading docks, existing Con Ed transformer vaults, fuel storage, lower level switchgear

www.whatreallyhappened.com...

Many people clame that the damage done to the pentagon can not be the work of a Boeing 757. What did crash into the Pentagon then? I've read everything, from a missile that was fired by American military up to a UFO crash.

Well, personally i don't think it was a 757 but i've yet to be convinced either way. Mainly my problem with it being a 757 is more from the ability to pull off that attack and the flight skill required rather than what was left. If it was a 757, it was remote controlled, otherwise a Global Hawk or a remote controlled jet painted to be like a commercial airline.

And if 9/11 WAS the work of the American government, then why did they do it? For money? In order to start a war?

Well, that would take years to explain. Mainly, look into Peak Oil and the energy crisis and how that will affect the rest of the globe. Look into how much oil the US uses in a year, look into countries like china and india and their industrialisation and how an energy crisis will affect them also. Basically, who ever controlls the oil, has the power. It's not about money, it's about power. The energy crisis is a crux for a 'new world order' because the world cannot stay the same after the energy crisis, this means new laws, new restrictions etc etc.

I've read some interesting remarks from conspiracy-theorists. But the non-conspiracy-theorists make some good arguments too. So I haven't really descided if 9/11 was indeed the work of the American government.
I will keep an open mind.

ourworld-top.cs.com...
--> They make some interesting remarks too.

The best way to find the conspiracy in 9/11 is to stay clear of the 'collapse' and the 'pentagon', look into the energy crisis and the military industrial complex to find the answer, Wallstreet, drug money etc. It's been 30 years in the making and we are only at the beggining, there's a lot to this.

It might just be possible USA attacked its own building, it kind of disturbs me we
all saw the WTC footage over and over again while Pentagon footage still isn't
released some way or another, You wont hear me say that USA attacked WTC
and Pentagon but I'd say the chance is really there that they've done it just to
start a war for ...tata what a suprise.... oil!!! I've also seen on the BBC newscasts
the so called terrorist hijackers phoned the BBC sounding really alive, while US
Government claimed they were in the jet hitting both WTC and Pentagon. This
'proof' only hit the BBC news and was never casted on the CNN news. I do know
you American Government #s are out of you minds, you guys don't mind letting
your people bleed for self-profit. But then again, I'm just a stupid 17-year old
Dutch kid not believing all the # your Government telling and letting believe the
confused regular people that didn't ask for all this #. Further more the only
real reason Bush gave to invade Iraq was: "We believe they might have Nuclear weapons"
Yeah right, like that is a reason to kill innocent people in native countries?
There was no real proof they actually have Nuclear Weapons, and till this day
I haven't seen one nuclear missle or anything found in the middle-east.....
I think this all is a bit strange but I do know there is allot of thing we don't know.

Even though I usually only discuss the absurdity of whether a 757 hit the pentagon or not, and usually only that because it is such an lame argument that it hurts any real discussion of what happened on that day and is based out totally on peoples ignorance of aircraft, I am going to chime in here. I have always said from day one that something about the events of that day do not sit right with me. The problem is though that people keep bringing up these absurd arguments over missiles, rods, pods, demolitions, etc…

If the US wanted to attack the US and say it was terrorist using planes, they would use planes, nothing else.

Now regardless of who was flying those planes, the thing that has never sat well with me was why those planes were not intercepted by fighters within a reasonable amount of time after they went off their flight paths. If you want to go conspiracy hunting, I think that is the best path to head down on this one. All this other stuff is garbage that has been put out by those that are desperate to prove the current administration is behind the whole thing, and so they come up with these outlandish ideas that are based on peoples lack of knowledge about planes and aviation, on poor quality video and photos, etc..

As far as reasons, I can think of a few… Like: needing a war to get us out of the recession that we went into after 2000, getting our feet in the door of another oil producing regime and stripping away unprecedented chunks of the US Constitution, just to name a few…

Originally posted by defcon5
Now regardless of who was flying those planes, the thing that has never sat well with me was why those planes were not intercepted by fighters within a reasonable amount of time after they went off their flight paths. If you want to go conspiracy hunting, I think that is the best path to head down on this one.

I agree with you on this one. But then why did they bring down the plane near Pensylvannia, and not the one headed to the Pentagon?

Originally posted by NightWish
I agree with you on this one. But then why did they bring down the plane near Pensylvannia, and not the one headed to the Pentagon?

Is there any substantiated proof that they did shoot it down? Also This plane was over basically no-mans land, if your going to shoot down a plane you MUST do it before it gets to a populated area, or the debris is going to be falling on peoples houses.

Of course that is if they shot it down to begin with...

Originally posted by NightWish

Originally posted by defcon5
Now regardless of who was flying those planes, the thing that has never sat well with me was why those planes were not intercepted by fighters within a reasonable amount of time after they went off their flight paths. If you want to go conspiracy hunting, I think that is the best path to head down on this one.

I agree with you on this one. But then why did they bring down the plane near Pensylvannia, and not the one headed to the Pentagon?

Good point. If you ask me, they didnt bring the plane down with gunfire. They had to have blown it up into a million pieces, as there was no plane to be found. Just a crater and a bunch of small debris scattered up to miles away from the supposed "crash site". Maybe it didnt happen like that. Maybe there is more to it than that, only a few people really know.

And someone please tell me, how on Earth did they know they were headed for the capital or the White House? Did they just assume they were heading in that direction and make it sound dramatic like the President was about to be attacked?

I am from America, and hate it here. I am getting more scared to live here everyday. I think im gonna move to Amsterdam, forget America!!

Lol let me guess, you're going to Amsterdam because you can smoke weed legally?
Hey but let me know if you're really considering moving there, I can give a tour a bit

Not that Amsterdam is very safe nowadays but USA would drive me nuts too,
You'd better head to the east of the Netherlands, legal weed there too but not
the worries of the westernside of the Netherlands.

[edit on 7-9-2005 by Leon Bokhove]

Originally posted by NightWish

Originally posted by defcon5
Now regardless of who was flying those planes, the thing that has never sat well with me was why those planes were not intercepted by fighters within a reasonable amount of time after they went off their flight paths. If you want to go conspiracy hunting, I think that is the best path to head down on this one.

I agree with you on this one. But then why did they bring down the plane near Pensylvannia, and not the one headed to the Pentagon?

The government didn't shoot the plane down, it was never intended to be shot down, Cheney's stand down orders were still active, it was shot down by airforce pilots who were given the order to scramble by their base superior and they went and did it on their own accord because they knew at that point it was heading toward the Capital yet no order for scramble was given to them. They put two and two together and defied the governments plans for that day. They saved the Capital from an attack which was coming. That attack was going to be the one which took out Congress (figuratively) and brought in Martial Law. It failed due to these pilots.

They changed the plans by shooting that plane down. Instead of glorifying it and promoting the fact they shot it down to avoid another WTC/Pentagon incident, the government created a story that the passangers took over and at the call of "Lets roll" the passangers ditched the plane, saving thousands of lives and making them American hero's. The government can manufacture an 'Average American Hero' story quicker than a grandmother can bake a cake.

Why did they make up that story? Because if they didn't, investigation would of led back to who did shoot the plane down and why, when it would of been established that no Presidential or top level order was given but instead that base took it into their own hands, questions would be asked and the truth would of been the only course of action - that is, the fact that Cheney had given NORAD stand down orders and had scramble jets set in the wrong direction so the attacks would be successful. They awarded the pilots who did it and brushed it under the carpet and the "Lets Roll" story was ingrained into the media's version of events and the Rubicon was crossed - that being, the point of no return. They can't back down from what they've established as fact now without watching the rest of their story fall like a deck of cards so it's been hushed.

The word for why Cheney and his cronies would want this to happen is: coup de'tat - look that up.



[edit on 7-9-2005 by TheShroudOfMemphis]

Originally posted by defcon5
Also This plane was over basically no-mans land, if your going to shoot down a plane you MUST do it before it gets to a populated area, or the debris is going to be falling on peoples houses.

Now you're contradicting yourself. First you say you don't understand they didn't intercept the plane headed to the pentagon, and now you state a plane can not be brought down in a populated area?

[edit on 7-9-2005 by NightWish]

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis
The word for why Cheney and his cronies would want this to happen is: coup de'tat - look that up.

You will find nothing since it's spelled 'coup d'état'

Originally posted by NightWish

Originally posted by defcon5
Also This plane was over basically no-mans land, if your going to shoot down a plane you MUST do it before it gets to a populated area, or the debris is going to be falling on peoples houses.

Now you're contradicting yourself. First you say you don't understand they didn't intercept the plane headed to the pentagon, and now you state a plane can not be brought down in a populated area?

[edit on 7-9-2005 by NightWish]

Though I might be tired, I don’t think I contradicted myself. I am simply stating that officially there is no proof that the plane was shot down, but if you were going to bring one down you have to do it in an area where it would cause a minimum of civilian casualties, such as an empty field. So far the quotes from shroud by a retired Air force colonel do not impress me much; his (this colonel’s) second hand knowledge does little to convince me. If there was a bunch of truth to his tales I think they would have become public by now. His talk of remote controlled AWACS guidance discredits him IMHO, since he, nor the pilot he is speaking for, have any solid proof of such things, only speculation. This tells me he has a vested interest in seeing this thing go one way over the other (read: book deal), since someone that was of a neutral stance would not even bring something that unverifiable up to begin with…


[edit on 9/7/2005 by defcon5]

Originally posted by defcon5
I am simply stating that officially there is no proof that the plane was shot down, but if you were going to bring one down you have to do it in an area where it would cause a minimum of civilian casualties, such as an empty field.

Then why are you sceptic about the fact that they didn't intercept the plane headed to the pentagon? It would have been impossible to intercept it since that area is highly populated.

Originally posted by NightWish

Originally posted by defcon5
I am simply stating that officially there is no proof that the plane was shot down, but if you were going to bring one down you have to do it in an area where it would cause a minimum of civilian casualties, such as an empty field.

Then why are you sceptic about the fact that they didn't intercept the plane headed to the pentagon? It would have been impossible to intercept it since that area is highly populated.

You mention the plane headed to the pentagon, but I am going to assume you mean the one headed for supposedly the congress, since that is the one we are discussing at this point.

I don’t think I am saying they did not shoot it down. I am simply saying that there is no proof that they did, and there might never be any hard proof of this, only speculation. I do believe that what most people look for is proof, not speculation, if we want to believe speculation then anything could have happened to that plane. I can think of a thousand different scenarios. One right off the top of my head would be that the passengers did in fact re-seize the aircraft and it was shot down after the fact due to bad communications. I think that would cause the government enough embarrassment to cover the whole incident up, don’t you?

Also how does this Colonel know for a fact what building it was heading for in Washington when it was shot down in PA? Again more speculation on his part to discredit his testimony.

If you mean what do I find strange about the one that hit the pentagon, well generally the fact that it traveled for what, 45 minutes over areas where it could have been shot down prior to it hitting its target. Most planes do not get that far off flight plan without getting a fighter escort to figure out what is going on with the aircraft. There have been plenty of other incidents to show this is the case, google a few up and see for yourself.

That's what bothers me about this Colonel's testimony - it's just more supposition and "I know for a fact....yet I'm not naming any facts".

This is one interview, correct?

Yet there's nobody else, anywhere, who has come forward with this story except one man who is admittedly trying to sell his book? None of the other workers in Fargo would/could support his allegations?

Not one family member? Anywhere? But we're supposed to believe him because he says "I know most of those pilots. I could name names. I know the National Guard Adj. General". (One other question would be, "Why would they tell YOU anything at all?")

My own questions surrounding 9/11 center around the support (both financial and otherwise) we (The US) gave to Al Qaeda, Bin-Laden et al before the events themselvs. How involved was the CIA? How much assistance did we actually give? When?

They are more related to what we knew, and when we knew it.

They are more concerned with exactly why - given not only the most sophisticated technological abilities in the world, but also the most complex and comprehensive intelligence network on the planet - this wasn't prevented. I find it hard to believe that this attack was unexpected, and I find it harder to believe that we could have done nothing at all to prevent it. I want to know how much we were actually involved in the planning and funding of those terrorists.

Despite having read the numerous threads, I just am not convinced that either the 757 didn't hit the Pentagon, or that flight 93 was shot down.

Though there is at least some things relating to the Pentagon which have caused me to question things more closely, with Flight 93, I've seen nothing which even comes close to proving it was shot down.

I've also seen on the BBC newscasts
the so called terrorist hijackers phoned the BBC sounding really alive, while US
Government claimed they were in the jet hitting both WTC and Pentagon. This
'proof' only hit the BBC news and was never casted on the CNN news

You're wrong. These stories were indeed broadcast nationwide in the US, on various news networks; additionally the issue of mistaken, correct, incorrect and stolen identities has been dealt with over and over, by all accounts. Not least by the BBC itself who later retracted two claims, admitting that they had used inaccurate information themselves.

(Noting that mistaken identities can support both "sides" of the conspiracy debate).

Originally posted by defcon5
If the US wanted to attack the US and say it was terrorist using planes, they would use planes, nothing else.

WATS ...you have 2 more votes this month

I couldn't agree with you more. The outlandish and often rediculous theories people come up with do nothing more than distract from the real truth of what happened on 9:11. All these completely unfounded and entirely unproven theories (Air Force pilots choosing to shoot down a commercial airliner without being ordered to; using missiles/drones instead of actual airliners to crash into buildings; using micro nukes under one of the world's most populated areas; firing missiles from pods on aircraft microseconds before they impact; demolition charges in buildings; etc.) do nothing but add ridicule and scorn and emmense doubt by the pubic to the real truth that these events happened exactly as they were witnessed.

Why they happened and how they were allowed to happen is the direction people should be focusing their energy on.

Originally posted by CatHerder

Originally posted by defcon5
If the US wanted to attack the US and say it was terrorist using planes, they would use planes, nothing else.

WATS ...you have 2 more votes this month

I couldn't agree with you more. The outlandish and often rediculous theories people come up with do nothing more than distract from the real truth of what happened on 9:11. All these completely unfounded and entirely unproven theories (Air Force pilots choosing to shoot down a commercial airliner without being ordered to; using missiles/drones instead of actual airliners to crash into buildings; using micro nukes under one of the world's most populated areas; firing missiles from pods on aircraft microseconds before they impact; demolition charges in buildings; etc.) do nothing but add ridicule and scorn and emmense doubt by the pubic to the real truth that these events happened exactly as they were witnessed.

Why they happened and how they were allowed to happen is the direction people should be focusing their energy on.

So what you are trying to tell us, is that you know the truth about everything related, and that these claims of the things you listed above, are all untrue? How in the world do you know? You dont. Those things could have really happened. It doesnt make you sound any smarter by trying to point out lie's when infact they could be completely true.

Originally posted by CatHerder
Why they happened and how they were allowed to happen is the direction people should be focusing their energy on.

We're not doing that already? You say al Qaeda did it because they hate us. We say our government did it and blamed al Qaeda to initiate war in the Mid-East. Either way, we're looking at why this happened. We both have our opinions on the matter.

However, if you think that demolition charges in the WTC towers is unlikely, then feel free to jump back on one of the WTC threads and explain where the angular momentum of the top floors of either building went during collapse, or how compressed air magically failed to equalize and caused those violent squibs. Last I checked, these were still two very real problems with the gravity theory, among others, whether it fits anyone's personal opinion of 9/11's perpetrators or not.

Originally posted by NightWish

Originally posted by TheShroudOfMemphis
The word for why Cheney and his cronies would want this to happen is: coup de'tat - look that up.

You will find nothing since it's spelled 'coup d'état'

Right, now i understand your real purpose for posting. You ask questions with feigned sincerity in order to squash the answers your given.
Nice work. Now for your language lesson:

coup de'tat
A sudden stroke; an unexpected device or stratagem; -- a term used in various ways to convey the idea of promptness and force.

ie. The 9/11 attack.

coup d'é·tat
The sudden overthrow of a government by a usually small group of persons in or previously in positions of authority.

ie. Their failed attempt at.

dictionary.reference.com...