Let's speculate about what happened to the passengers of flight 93?

I think that whenever there are facts or evidence that support more of a conspiracy aspect of 9-11 than there are facts or evidence to support the "official" aspect of the attacks, I think it's childish not to go with the facts of the case.

If this was an actual court case for example, call it The People of the United States vs. The United States Government, one side representing the conspiracy side and the other the "official" side and if you were to take a jury of our peers before being spoon fed the "official" side by our news corporations, it'd most likely be a HUNG CASE.

You cannot disprove a conspiracy any more than you can prove the "official" case.

I love how people here, Americans most likely who have gone through the American education system, act as if this country is Holy before the eyes of God.

Let's be serious. Can the United States government pull off something like 9-11, then have the power to cover it up? The non-biased answer is YES, they CAN.

Have we done it before? YES

USS Maine, Gulf of Tonkin accident, Pearl Harbor, The Lusitiania(sp?). The question is that if 50 years from now we can add 9-11 into those acts?

There is also the fact of the Operation Northwoods memo from 1962 displaying that the United States would officially, covertly of course, take a course of action to wage war.

Who cares about who really hijacked the planes or what happened that day. It's like in the movie JFK when Mr. X tells Jim Garrison that the who and the how is the question that keeps people from asking the REAL QUESTION and the real question is WHY and who has the power to COVER IT UP?

Just like the shooters of the JFK don't even know who pulled the trigger. Well the hijackers of 9-11 don't even know who hijacked those airplanes.

I think it's fair to say that when Bush was elected president in 2000 a majority of the people were expecting a WAR. I was. Could someone here really imagine what his presidency would have been like without a 9-11?

9-11 was the key because without it there would be no war in Iraq or Afghanistan?

Who has benefited from this war directly?
Who will benefit from this war 10-15 years down the line?

The Military-Industrial-Complex is real. No conspiracy. You better believe in it. President Eisenhower believed in it and he was a MILITARY MAN.

Personally, I believe Israel played the biggest role in 9-11.

I will never forget that quote Ariel Sharon said in October '01.

"We, the Jews, control America and the Americans know it."

Maybe they do.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
Funny how people ignore the facts. If it doesnt fit their agenda....then they dont want to hear it!

Funny how people that believe the official story ignore facts because the media has fed them BS.

I have done research, filed FOIA request and have e-mailed comapanies who were actually at ground zero.

What have you done find the facts?

Originally posted by Illmatic67


If this was an actual court case for example, call it The People of the United States vs. The United States Government, one side representing the conspiracy side and the other the "official" side and if you were to take a jury of our peers before being spoon fed the "official" side by our news corporations, it'd most likely be a HUNG CASE.

Um, well you're wrong there.

U.S. v. Moussaoui.. Moussaoui was actually found guilty. If you would like to read about the trail and the evidence that was brought against him plase click:www.rcfp.org...

This was a court of law and he was defended and treated to a fair trail. I challange you to actually READ the evidence that was brought up in court. Open the documents, the prosecutions exhibits. Then tell me how much of 911 was a set up by our government.

Originally posted by Illmatic67
You cannot disprove a conspiracy any more than you can prove the "official" case.

I'm up for the challenge! You DISprove the Offical Story piece by piece with your CT's... and I'll do my best to counter.

Originally posted by Illmatic67I love how people here, Americans most likely who have gone through the American education system, act as if this country is Holy before the eyes of God.

"For we are all sinners and fall short to the glory of God" - Romans

Originally posted by Illmatic67Let's be serious. Can the United States government pull off something like 9-11, then have the power to cover it up? The non-biased answer is YES, they CAN.

Um nope..not of this magnitude

Originally posted by Illmatic67
Have we done it before? YES

When was the last time we KILLED three thousand civilians for... whatever reason.

Originally posted by Illmatic67USS Maine, Gulf of Tonkin accident, Pearl Harbor, The Lusitiania(sp?). The question is that if 50 years from now we can add 9-11 into those acts?

We can argue these CT's on another thread

Originally posted by Illmatic67There is also the fact of the Operation Northwoods memo from 1962 displaying that the United States would officially, covertly of course, take a course of action to wage war.

DECADES ago... was NOT carried out ...and did NOT plan on killing any Americans!

Originally posted by Illmatic67I think it's fair to say that when Bush was elected president in 2000 a majority of the people were expecting a WAR. I was. Could someone here really imagine what his presidency would have been like without a 9-11?

9-11 was the key because without it there would be no war in Iraq or Afghanistan?

I agree with the first paragraph. Bush wanted Saddam. The second paragraph... Bush was going after Iraq BEFORE 911 happened...( IMO)

Originally posted by Illmatic67I will never forget that quote Ariel Sharon said in October '01.

"We, the Jews, control America and the Americans know it."

Maybe they do.

This quote can NOT be verified. AT ALL!!! you can post 25 websites quoting it...but it NEVER happened! oh ...wait.... I cant ask for a reliable source...the JEWS run the media!!! Thats right (sarcasm)

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Funny how people that believe the official story ignore facts because the media has fed them BS.

I have done research, filed FOIA request and have e-mailed comapanies who were actually at ground zero.

What have you done find the facts?

I have done what you have...and more....please tell me... what has all your research got you?? Nothing! Everything you have posted that I have read is the same ol same ol.... no list of matching numbers... no crime scene report.... you have offered NOTHING in your posts but BOGUS claims that are easily debunked.

How come you havent read my post about the REAL call that was made from the flight 93 bathroom?? Maybe becasue the truth will not fit your agenda?

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
I have done what you have...and more....please tell me... what has all your research got you?? Nothing! Everything you have posted that I have read is the same ol same ol.... no list of matching numbers... no crime scene report.... you have offered NOTHING in your posts but BOGUS claims that are easily debunked.

How come you havent read my post about the REAL call that was made from the flight 93 bathroom?? Maybe becasue the truth will not fit your agenda?

My research has gotten me evidence and facts that were missing or left out of the official story. I have not seen any evidence that debunked what i have posted, its been said but not proven.

How do you know the that call you posted was the real call ?

Please show me any official reports or hard evidence that backs up your theory or the official story.

Dispatcher honored for Flight 93 efforts

Friends and relatives congratulate Westmoreland County 911 dispatcher John Shaw, who was honored yesterday for his work during the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. Shaw answered a phone call from a frantic passenger aboard hijacked United Airlines Flight 93, which crashed near Shanksville in Somerset County.

www.post-gazette.com...

David Felt's younger brother Gordon, who was played the 911 tape by the FBI when he went to hear the cockpit recordings in a special event for the victims' families, said, "There was no mention of white smoke or an explosion." Also, the dispatcher who took the call, John Shaw, confirmed that Felt had mentioned neither bomb nor white smoke. "It never happened," he stated".

web.archive.org...://www.pittsburghpulp.com/content/2002/11_28/news_cover_story.shtml

The man that made the comment about the white smoke claimed to be reading off a transcript ..and in FACT .. didnt even take the call! It was John Shaws boss that made those comments.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

Um, well you're wrong there.

U.S. v. Moussaoui.. Moussaoui was actually found guilty. If you would like to read about the trail and the evidence that was brought against him plase click:www.rcfp.org...

This was a court of law and he was defended and treated to a fair trail. I challange you to actually READ the evidence that was brought up in court. Open the documents, the prosecutions exhibits. Then tell me how much of 911 was a set up by our government.

Again, The People of the United States vs. The United States Government

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

"For we are all sinners and fall short to the glory of God" - Romans

Yes, a quote from the Bible. I guess that makes everything sweet and dandy now don't it? But is it in the best interest of a so called Christian nation to have its president labeling nations and groups as "evil". Or I guess because he had a dream that God told him to invade Iraq it makes this cause more the merrier?

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

When was the last time we KILLED three thousand civilians for... whatever reason.

No, that's new for the government. What isn't new for the government is various false flag operations that led to national uproar which then led to various wars which is what I stated.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
DECADES ago... was NOT carried out ...and did NOT plan on killing any Americans!

"As ABC news reported, the NORTHWOODS document show that in 1962, the US Joint Chiefs drafted plans "to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in US cities..." -Ultimate Sacrifice, page 58 (ISBN 0786718323)

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
I agree with the first paragraph. Bush wanted Saddam. The second paragraph... Bush was going after Iraq BEFORE 911 happened...( IMO)

So you're telling me that Bush was going to get the go-ahead from Congress to invade Iraq even if there wasn't any 9-11? Good luck with that one

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
this quote can NOT be verified. AT ALL!!! you can post 25 websites quoting it...but it NEVER happened! oh ...wait.... I cant ask for a reliable source...the JEWS run the media!!! Thats right (sarcasm)

I never knew that the Jews ran the media but thanks I'd look into it.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
And if you read further, I backed it up with more, including hijackers saying "roll it" and "up, up, up" and other comments that appear to be about maneuvering the plane in a manner it wasn't meant to be.

You must not have read the transcript that was read at the trial from flight 93. I do not see much about moving the plane around a lot.

www.rcfp.org...

Originally posted by Illmatic67
Again, The People of the United States vs. The United States Government

The reason for my post was that a jusry DID see the evidence of the events of 911 and convicted a man based on that evidence. I saw it as an oppertunity for you to look at the exhibits. ( i was quite certain you would not)

Originally posted by Illmatic67
Yes, a quote from the Bible. I guess that makes everything sweet and dandy now don't it? But is it in the best interest of a so called Christian nation to have its president labeling nations and groups as "evil". Or I guess because he had a dream that God told him to invade Iraq it makes this cause more the merrier?

Dude...because I believe the offical version of 911 does NOT mean I am a supporter of Bush. If you read my posts, I HATE the man with a passion.

Originally posted by Illmatic67
No, that's new for the government. What isn't new for the government is various false flag operations that led to national uproar which then led to various wars which is what I stated.

yes...there have been false flag operations...no proof that because it was done in the past that THIS even was also false flag.

Originally posted by Illmatic67
"As ABC news reported, the NORTHWOODS document show that in 1962, the US Joint Chiefs drafted plans "to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in US cities..." -Ultimate Sacrifice, page 58 (ISBN 0786718323)

Read Operation Northwoods... it does NOT state that ANY Americans will die.

Originally posted by Illmatic67

So you're telling me that Bush was going to get the go-ahead from Congress to invade Iraq even if there wasn't any 9-11? Good luck with that one

It's a fact...Bush had a plan to invade Iraq prior to 911. ( i believe it was prior to him being sworn in as president!) I will look it up though

Bush Sought ‘Way’ To Invade Iraq?

“From the very beginning, there was a conviction, that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go,” says O’Neill, who adds that going after Saddam was topic "A" 10 days after the inauguration - eight months before Sept. 11.

“From the very first instance, it was about Iraq. It was about what we can do to change this regime,” says Suskind. “Day one, these things were laid and sealed.”

www.cbsnews.com...

That is utterly ridiculous. How do you commit "acts of terrorism in US cities" without KILLING Americans.

I think you are as confused on the definition of terrorism like the United Nations is.

People inhabit cities. In this case, AMERICANS inhabit US CITIES.

There is KILLING involved in TERRORISM. 2+2=4

And I'm not arguing your case on Bush invading Iraq before 9-11. I probably even know the link or source you are referring to but the one I read a long time ago mentioned Afghanistan, not Iraq.

And there's a Constitution in this country that has not become some lost idea or artifact (yet). And that constitution states that only Congress can authorize when this country goes to war, not the President. And President Bush, no matter how much or less a dictator people think of him, would have a real big headache trying to convince Congress and the American people to invade Iraq without a smoking gun.

Originally posted by Illmatic67
That is utterly ridiculous. How do you commit "acts of terrorism in US cities" without KILLING Americans.

I think you are as confused on the definition of terrorism like the United Nations is.

People inhabit cities. In this case, AMERICANS inhabit US CITIES.

There is KILLING involved in TERRORISM. 2+2=4

I think your the confused one:

ter·ror·ism - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ter-uh-riz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

ok...i see violence in there...and threats.....and intimidate...oh.. and COERCE... nope... don't see the word.. murder or kill in there.

Please read Operations Northwoods.. www.gwu.edu...

the talk in it is about UNMANNED DRONES being blown up.

Originally posted by Illmatic67And I'm not arguing your case on Bush invading Iraq before 9-11. I probably even know the link or source you are referring to but the one I read a long time ago mentioned Afghanistan, not Iraq.

Smart move on your part!

Originally posted by Illmatic67And there's a Constitution in this country that has not become some lost idea or artifact (yet). And that constitution states that only Congress can authorize when this country goes to war, not the President. And President Bush, no matter how much or less a dictator people think of him, would have a real big headache trying to convince Congress and the American people to invade Iraq without a smoking gun.

I am AGAINST the war in Iraq. Read the constitution... only congress can DECLARE WAR. Bush got the authorization to use military force.... (yes with false intel) from congress....

And the Democratic Congress just voted to allow MORE funding to the war!

Originally posted by CaptainObvious


I think your the confused one:

ter·ror·ism - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ter-uh-riz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3. a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.

ok...i see violence in there...and threats.....and intimidate...oh.. and COERCE... nope... don't see the word.. murder or kill in there.

Please read Operations Northwoods.. www.gwu.edu...

the talk in it is about UNMANNED DRONES being blown up

I don't think when there's a global emergency the UN Security Council will seek a translation from a high school dictionary for the meaning of Terrorism.

You, sir, are the confused one, again.


"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby — in contrast to assassination — the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought (Schmid, 1988)."

See the word "victim"? That can mean a victim of MURDER
www.unodc.org...
www.un.org...

And I don't know how many times I have to post this:

"As ABC news reported, the NORTHWOODS document show that in 1962, the US Joint Chiefs of Staff drafted plans to "KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE AND COMMIT ACTS OF TERRORISM IN US CITIES"

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
I am AGAINST the war in Iraq. Read the constitution... only congress can DECLARE WAR.

Yea, I think I said that. Are you even reading my posts?

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
You must not have read the transcript that was read at the trial from flight 93. I do not see much about moving the plane around a lot.

www.rcfp.org...

The second transcript I quoted WAS the transcript from the trial. They said a couple of times "roll it. roll it" and "up. up. up." and other things that relate to maneuvering the plane. And for that matter they didn't necessarily have to SAY anything about it, they could have just DONE it.

I don't understand why Flight 93 is still in question. There is video proof of Donald Rumsfeld accidently telling everyone the truth that Flight 93 was shot down. There is also proof the government used a "heroic dramatisation" straight from Hollywood that people in Flight 93 actually tried to take over, just to hide the fact they shot down Flight 93.

video.google.com...

Heck we even know the name of the guy that shot Flight 93 down, Lt Col Rick Bidney.



[edit on 24-6-2007 by 11 11]

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The second transcript I quoted WAS the transcript from the trial. They said a couple of times "roll it. roll it" and "up. up. up." and other things that relate to maneuvering the plane. And for that matter they didn't necessarily have to SAY anything about it, they could have just DONE it.

But you were basing your theory that the plane was doing wild maneuvering based on what was said in the cockpit.

Again their was not that much said that would indicate they did that much to the plane.

Originally posted by Illmatic67
I don't think when there's a global emergency the UN Security Council will seek a translation from a high school dictionary for the meaning of Terrorism.

You, sir, are the confused one, again.


"Terrorism is an anxiety-inspiring method of repeated violent action, employed by (semi-) clandestine individual, group or state actors, for idiosyncratic, criminal or political reasons, whereby — in contrast to assassination — the direct targets of violence are not the main targets. The immediate human victims of violence are generally chosen randomly (targets of opportunity) or selectively (representative or symbolic targets) from a target population, and serve as message generators. Threat- and violence-based communication processes between terrorist (organization), (imperilled) victims, and main targets are used to manipulate the main target (audience(s)), turning it into a target of terror, a target of demands, or a target of attention, depending on whether intimidation, coercion, or propaganda is primarily sought (Schmid, 1988)."

See the word "victim"? That can mean a victim of MURDER
www.unodc.org...
www.un.org...

And I don't know how many times I have to post this:

"As ABC news reported, the NORTHWOODS document show that in 1962, the US Joint Chiefs of Staff drafted plans to "KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE AND COMMIT ACTS OF TERRORISM IN US CITIES"

Originally posted by CaptainObvious
I am AGAINST the war in Iraq. Read the constitution... only congress can DECLARE WAR.

Yea, I think I said that. Are you even reading my posts?

The bolding was by me. The source of my definition of terrorism was from Dictionary.com. May I point out that in YOUR source the world Kill, or murder is not mentioned. Thats NOT to sat that it CAN'T mean to murder some one. In the case of Operation Northwoods.... I did not read ANYWHERE that the US was planning on killing anyone on US property.

Have you read operation northwoods?

Originally posted by 11 11
I don't understand why Flight 93 is still in question. There is video proof of Donald Rumsfeld accidently telling everyone the truth that Flight 93 was shot down. There is also proof the government used a "heroic dramatisation" straight from Hollywood that people in Flight 93 actually tried to take over, just to hide the fact they shot down Flight 93.

video.google.com...

Heck we even know the name of the guy that shot Flight 93 down, Lt Col Rick Bidney.

It's all psychological. These guys know the evidence doesn't add up in the official story. That could have been a calculated slip. Ask yourself, did the mainstream media follow up on that slip by Rumsfeld? No..........why? Well, in reality it would have destroyed the whole propaganda ploy and on top of that it would be emotionally detrimental to the families of those passengers who died. The previous could not be admitted at all cost, but the latter could be if necessary. They could always use that excuse and if we still questioned the whole thing they could come back and say to us "how dare you do this to those families, we were trying to save these families even more pain!", in effect turning it back around on the public and making themselves look like saints. Everything is psychological...........EVERYTHING!!!!!!!

What gets lost in this psychological tug-of-war? The real truth.

Peace




[edit on 25-6-2007 by Dr Love]

Originally posted by Dr Love
Ask yourself, did the mainstream media follow up on that slip by Rumsfeld? No..........why?

Put simply, because it would be a threat to national security. As some of you know, "threats to national security" are of the highest priority, and the most important threats to engage. The United States would do absolutly anything to get rid of these threats, even if it means killing 3000+ innocent civilians, and lying to the entire world.

Originally posted by CaptainObvious

Have you read operation northwoods?

Take up that quote with ABC news and the Jewish ran media as you mentioned earlier.

John F. Kennedy was my fav. president so yes, I have read Operation Northwoods and I'm pretty sure I know what's said in the document and what the document can be translated as.