Nobody doubts that 9-11 was commited by government insiders anymore, right?

The military has ALWAYS talked openly about some things. They didn't advertise that they were only going to have between 14-21 planes on alert, but they openly said they were cutting down our force, because the threat was gone. You ALWAYS hear the military talking about removing bases, and standing down units, and other budget related cuts. There's a big difference between saying "We're cutting the alert force, and it's going to save us $300M a year" and saying "We're cutting the alert force down to 14 planes, leaving a giant gap in our defenses, and saving $300M a year."

According to you we should NEVER hear anything that the military does then, and it should be a big black hole of information, and they could get away with doing anything they want, and we'd never know.

They didn't have to see "every base" to know there was a hole in our defenses. They planned for the fact that the US has always been "scared" of civilian casualties, and wouldn't shoot them down before they hit their targets. Based on the cut back in the alert force, and the fact that they wouldn't want to kill a bunch of innocent civilians, and that no plane had EVER been flown into anything before after being hijacked, I'd say they knew they had a pretty damn good chance of pulling it off.

[edit on 6/2/2007 by Zaphod58]

Originally posted by Byrd
I do.

I have seen nothing that convinces me. My father and my brother were both high ranking Army officers, and my brother was in the long-term planning division.

It was his office that was hit at the Pentagon. He lost friends and coworkers. The Pentagon lost years of information on future plans and developments.

If Bush or anyone else had proposed taking out the office (or any other part of the Army), there would have been a revolt in the upper ranks and we would have heard about it before the plan got into effect.

[edit on 2-6-2007 by Byrd]

I agree with you that hitting the pentagon would most likely not be an inside job. I tend to think that it was extremist muslims, who were either allowed (or even helped) to high-jack planes, etc. But then they went to far and out smarted our government, and flew them into important buildings. That would explain G.W.s confused face. It was probably a 'holy crap, I hope it wasn't those guys we were helping highjacking those planes for a reason to go to war' face.

Or at least something like that. But I doubt it was a full on inside job.

Originally posted by nick7261

Originally posted by piacenza

Originally posted by nick7261
I will make a bold prediction. There will be dozens of posts that follow but there won't be a single post that meets the challenge.

Ok You explain me how the meteorite on 911 were created (obvisouly following the OCT) and I will wire you 100USD any time.
You wont have any explanation because there is not a single possible explanation for it. I discredited your whole theory unless you prove me wrong (and get some cash).

[edit on 2-6-2007 by piacenza]

I could use the money. What meteorite was created on 9/11? What do you mean "following OCT?"



PS You might want to read this post www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 2-6-2007 by nick7261]

In reference to the meteor:

For your typical meteor:

Super heating or impact event causes angular fragments of mantle rock and nickel-iron that have been fused together by impacts with another body to create said end product... diamonds can be found at meteorite impact sites there's the theory that 'Nukes' used in WTC created said meteorite and Hydrogen bombs can also make diamonds the thing is if there where any diamonds found on the site they would be cloudy and impure yet one thing to take into account is the time for diamonds to form and the pressure created by nukes may not be enough to generate or create diamonds yet still possible to fuse the materials together.





[edit on 2-6-2007 by SR]

So Zaphod,

Why would they announce that our defenses are being lowered? That just makes no sense to me. It would be like saying "oh, we have now gotten rid of our nuclear warheads, so just go ahead and bomb us because we have no retaliation".

Edit: And whoever did, should be executed for treason. It is treasonous to tell foreign nations that we have lowered our defenses. At least in my book.

[edit on 6/2/2007 by Griff]

Originally posted by dragonseeker
you know, on the net, it's all theory, but I'll say this: I'm a new yorker and right after high school I had a messenger job in lower manhattan. I've been to damn near every floor of every building that made up the WTC..and I'm just saying, especially with 7WTC, which wasn't hit by anything, there's no way fire brought those buildings down, no matter what spin they want to put on it, weakened steel, blah blah bull#. Sorry, no way. Something else brought the buildings down, and it wasn't jet fuel. Do I know what did? No. But I am convinced the official story is nonsense, and that's a start.

Dragon, by your own assertion, you have no credibility as to having factual know-how about fire bringing down the towers; zero. You were a messenger, not a structural engineer.

Also, you doubting the official story is no start to a revolution; it is simply your opinion. One that is by your own admission baseless and arbitrary.

Just another question for the skeptics to ponder.

Most skeptics uphold the Bin Laden 'confession' as proof that he was behind the operation. In other words, on the tape they believe he is speaking the truth. So they uphold it as evidence.

Okay, fine. Now let us look at something that the *STAR WITNESS* of the Official Story says:

archives.cnn.com...

Osama Bin Laden

The brothers, who conducted the operation, all they knew was that they have a martyrdom operation and we asked each of them to go to America but they didn't know anything about the operation, not even one letter. But they were trained and we did not reveal the operation to them until they are there and just before they boarded the planes.

Now how are we expected to believe they hit their targets without ever even knowing what was happening until the day of the operation!!

I could use the money. What meteorite was created on 9/11? What do you mean "following OCT?"

Here it is and please don't run away I will gladly listen to any explanation:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by PartChimp

Originally posted by dragonseeker
you know, on the net, it's all theory, but I'll say this: I'm a new yorker and right after high school I had a messenger job in lower manhattan. I've been to damn near every floor of every building that made up the WTC..and I'm just saying, especially with 7WTC, which wasn't hit by anything, there's no way fire brought those buildings down, no matter what spin they want to put on it, weakened steel, blah blah bull#. Sorry, no way. Something else brought the buildings down, and it wasn't jet fuel. Do I know what did? No. But I am convinced the official story is nonsense, and that's a start.

Dragon, by your own assertion, you have no credibility as to having factual know-how about fire bringing down the towers; zero. You were a messenger, not a structural engineer.

Also, you doubting the official story is no start to a revolution; it is simply your opinion. One that is by your own admission baseless and arbitrary.

I honestly don't know how you guys come up with these conclusions..baseless..arbitrary...wow..hehe..thanks, I got my laugh for the day.

Zaphod58

Military readiness is always based on deception, and this is where you and I differ big time. To think that the military is going to openly talk about what they *ACTAULLY* have is ludicrous.


Besides 2 trillion of the Pentagon was missing on Sept-10-2001

www.cbsnews.com...

"According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," Rumsfeld admitted.

So the miltary used all that money and could't even factor in they need a couple of extra planes?? Come on, that is absurd.

Originally posted by dragonseeker

I honestly don't know how you guys come up with these conclusions..baseless..arbitrary...wow..hehe..thanks, I got my laugh for the day.

Again, for the third time, no less; no evidence, no credentials, only veiled insults and skating around the issue at hand. Put up or shut up, so to say. It's really cool that you were a messenger in Manhattan, bud. Now, if you would kindly explain to me how that gives your implications that the government was compliant in 9/11 any validation, or any hard-research you've done for yourself to reach these conclusions, I will gladly tuck my tail between my legs and leave the thread. Until then, I will abide by the assumption that you are another Bush-hater that spent too many late nights watching loose change.

Originally posted by spacedoubt

Nope, I don't believe that 9-11 was an inside job.

I read the cases that try to prove otherwise.
All I see, is hearsay. And ambiguous statements that are interpreted to fit the "insider story".

Then, these are repeated by others, who have other "wouldn't stand up in court" evidence.
I remain unconvinced. But still open to some hard evidence.

Funny, Bush had buried the evidence when New Yorks giullanni said, "let china take the rubble, who cares about the dead, and make it quick" and so it was that the rubble was boated to china, and disposed of, but theres always the thermate videos, or the collapse into their own footprints, or the slew architects and builders who claim it was demolition. Fox news insane attitude towards opposite thinking.. Then you need to ask yourself why? why would they do it? well because of something magical. yes magical. go research. the towers were actually built to be destroyed, and usher in a new age of LAME boring people who circle around a stupid thing to gather energy, which turns them into insane servants of satans will. Its true. go read.


www.youtube.com...
watch this


[edit on 2-6-2007 by mastermind77]

[edit on 2-6-2007 by mastermind77]

Originally posted by PartChimp

Originally posted by dragonseeker

I honestly don't know how you guys come up with these conclusions..baseless..arbitrary...wow..hehe..thanks, I got my laugh for the day.

Again, for the third time, no less; no evidence, no credentials, only veiled insults and skating around the issue at hand. Put up or shut up, so to say. It's really cool that you were a messenger in Manhattan, bud. Now, if you would kindly explain to me how that gives your implications that the government was compliant in 9/11 any validation, or any hard-research you've done for yourself to reach these conclusions, I will gladly tuck my tail between my legs and leave the thread. Until then, I will abide by the assumption that you are another Bush-hater that spent too many late nights watching loose change.

I've actually never seen loose change..and I haven't skated around anything..whatever. You live in your world, I'll live in reality.
Peace

[edit on 2-6-2007 by dragonseeker]

Originally posted by piacenza

I could use the money. What meteorite was created on 9/11? What do you mean "following OCT?"

Here it is and please don't run away I will gladly listen to any explanation:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

I am leaving from my house for now, but I am not running away. I might not be able to look at this for a few hours. I accept paypal.

Originally posted by talisman
Zaphod58

Military readiness is always based on deception, and this is where you and I differ big time. To think that the military is going to openly talk about what they *ACTAULLY* have is ludicrous.

So the miltary used all that money and could't even factor in they need a couple of extra planes?? Come on, that is absurd.

talisman, did you actually bother to LOOK at how Clinton decimated the military in the 1990s after the Cold War ended? They announced all kinds of budget cuts, and program cancellations. They were going for a leaner, faster, stronger military by giving them better weapons (new A2A missiles for planes, B-2 bombers, etc), so they slashed a lot. They closed bases, disbanded units, and all kinds of consolidation. All of it was very public, and openly talked about. So you're telling me that all those were NOT done, and they're actually out there somewhere hiding?

Griff, the military HAS to talk about budget cuts, and unit readiness. It's required that they report to Congress on these areas. Anything reported to Congress is going to be in the public record, because military budgets aren't classified. They have classified sections in them, but the overall budget isn't classified. Classified projects are talked about under other headings, or by project name, which usually has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual project. For example the B-2 initial design was known as Senior Ice and Senior Cejay.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Griff, the military HAS to talk about budget cuts, and unit readiness. It's required that they report to Congress on these areas. Anything reported to Congress is going to be in the public record, because military budgets aren't classified. They have classified sections in them, but the overall budget isn't classified. Classified projects are talked about under other headings, or by project name, which usually has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual project. For example the B-2 initial design was known as Senior Ice and Senior Cejay.

So, if I'm getting what you are saying correctly, they never announced that there were only 14 planes but did announce the budget cut? If so, that's a huge difference when you think about trying to plan something using highjacked jets. They may have known that the budget was cut, but how could they be certain that their plan would work? Especially when FL11 left 20 miles from the pentagon, flew over Kentucky, turned around and flew back to the pentagon. All taking over an hour to accomplish. Why didn't they just highjack the plane near Dulles in the first place? Especially when you think about jet interceptance. Wouldn't it have been much smarter (and less time consuming) to highjack the plane from the start?

[edit on 6/2/2007 by Griff]

Zaphod58

And did you bother to look at 2.3 trillion missing from the Pentagon budget?? They obviously used a lot more money then they thought they had, and with that much money are you honestly now going to hold the absurd position that they never realized that they needed more planes for defense??

I don't believe it was an inside job. Thats not to say the current administration failed to protect us. Bush was on vacation too much, out to lunch, playing with himself...i don't know. What I DO know is that Bush did not orchastrate this mess.

Was is an inside job? I will have to agree with Nick and others in here. There is no proof at all. I'm not a fan of the 911 report, only becasue I feel those hired to take the lead in it...chose their battles to protect Bush from looking even MORE like a retard. It was not to cover up the governments involvement, it was to cover up the ignorance of GW and his pack of idiots.

Well as I said earlier, they were counting on several other factors as well. That we wouldn't shoot down a hijacked plane and kill a couple of dozen innocent victims, that we wouldn't be expecting them to use them as weapons since it had never been successfully done in the past, and the reaction time between realizing they had the planes, and what they were going to do.

As for why these planes, they probably picked flights that had a lower passenger count so there would be less resistance to worry about. If you take a plane with 25 people onboard, with three "muscle" hijackers, it makes less of a chance of the passengers getting together and fighting back until it's too late, as opposed to a flight that's full.

I don't believe it was an inside job. Thats not to say the current administration failed to protect us. Bush was on vacation too much, out to lunch, playing with himself...i don't know. What I DO know is that Bush did not orchastrate this mess.

Was is an inside job? I will have to agree with Nick and others in here. There is no proof at all. I'm not a fan of the 911 report, only becasue I feel those hired to take the lead in it...chose their battles to protect Bush from looking even MORE like a retard. It was not to cover up the governments involvement, it was to cover up the ignorance of GW and his pack of idiots.

Originally posted by talisman
Zaphod58

And did you bother to look at 2.3 trillion missing from the Pentagon budget?? They obviously used a lot more money then they thought they had, and with that much money are you honestly now going to hold the absurd position that they never realized that they needed more planes for defense??

When have I ever said they didn't need more planes for defense talisman? I said that they cut the alert force, not that they didn't NEED them. And you also have to look at how much they spend on projects, and at the over all budget. You look at a budget of $2 trillion, and break it down from there. If they're buying a new carrier, in 1993 dollars, that's $234.5 million right there. Plus when you're buying aircraft, you don't just pay for one or two, so for say an F-22, currently price is around $150 million per copy, if you pay for 10 of them at once, that's another 1.5 billion right there. Plus you have to pay for all of your military units for their yearly operating budgets, fuel, ammunition, spares, etc. The money runs out fast when you're running an entire military. They chose to save money by cutting back on the alert force, IN THE 1990s, and it came back to bite them in the butt in the end.