To all Believers of the Official Story:

reply to post by watchZEITGEISTnow


Nope sure don't.
I believe they knew it was coming, and allowed it to happen you know like Pearl Harbor. And the buildings simply collapsed as they said.

Not demolitions and obviously not some super stolen from space alien tech that no one knows about or nuclear devices or any super secret tech.

Because quite simply it would be far simpler to tick off the right people that are willing to do such a thing and let them do their thing than to plan then ignore the warnings and setting up a perfect situation for them to work, you wouldn't NEED TO execute such a large scale and risky operation yourself.
Just planning and executing a plan with your own people (and materials) that can (maybe) eventually rat you out or materials be traced possibly. Is tooooooooo complex as to be a good plan.

And I think all this what I see as WILD speculation kills the credibility of anyone asking any questions.




[edit on 5-1-2008 by WraothAscendant]

reply to post by Boone 870


1. When you tell people to Google the Boeing website, that is not citing. That is telling people to look up their own information.

2. Boeing does not make the rules for the airlines concerning keys. Airlines do not have to keep the same locks installed by Boeing.

3. Hearsay means nothing without valid physical evidence backing up any assertion.

4. This tangent on keys started, because someone said the cockpit doors were flimsy, and then failed to prove anything about flimsy cockpit doors in commercial jetliners. Just as no one has proved what the airlines did to protect the cockpit crew prior to 9/11/2001. Everything that has been posted, regarding cockpit crew protection, has been nothing but hearsay.

5. If the pilot is not kept safe, no one else on the plane will be either.

reply to post by OrionStars

3. Hearsay means nothing without valid physical evidence backing up any assertion.

Nice logic.

Let's use your logic for a while.

Prove that there is a Shanksville Pennsylvania.

Give it your best shot.

Originally posted by Boone 870
reply to post by OrionStars

 

3. Hearsay means nothing without valid physical evidence backing up any assertion.

Nice logic.

Let's use your logic for a while.

Prove that there is a Shanksville Pennsylvania.

Give it your best shot.

Erm. How does that prove your stance is right?

reply to post by WraothAscendant



Erm. That's not the point.

Would you like to prove that there is actually a Shanksville Pennsylvania?

reply to post by Boone 870


Still a valid question. How does that prove your stance and disprove his?

Me thinks taking such a tact ruins all stances because there is a LARGE amount of ambiguity to what is real and what is not even at the bedrock of what we think to be true.

stupid double post.

[edit on 5-1-2008 by WraothAscendant]

reply to post by WraothAscendant



I'm trying to deny ignorance.

I'm using OrionStars logic to prove a point. If he would be kind enough to respond.

reply to post by Boone 870


Trying to deny what YOU consider ignorance. You mean. If you want to go down the path your starting to go down.

It strikes me as amazing the sheer amount of people on this forum that equate ignorance with not agreeing.



[edit on 5-1-2008 by WraothAscendant]

reply to post by WraothAscendant

Trying to deny what YOU consider ignorance. You mean. If you want to go down the path your starting to go down.

It strikes me as amazing the sheer amount of people on this forum that equate ignorance with not agreeing.

Have you been paying attention to this thread?

I've posted links to the 9/11 commission, where the people testifying were sworn in.

I've posted links to the NTSB report that required that all air carriers have a key onboard the aircraft that is readily accessible to flight attendants.

I've posted links to pilots confirming it.

Then members here dismiss it out of hand without providing any evidence to counter it because it doesn't fit their conspiracy theory.

I call that ignorant. Denying ignorance is difficult sometimes. Wouldn't you agree?

Here is Strappings 9/11 theory.

9/11 was NOT an inside job.....BUT....
The Bushes and Bin Ladens are two of the worlds most super elite families. There are as far as I have researched about forty of these government controlling super elitist families that make up the main core of policy makers.

The Bushes and Bin Ladens have been in buiseness with eachother since as far back as the late seventies. I DO believe that the Reagan assasination attempt was a Bush power play since Reagan is one of the small handful of presidents that was not a Skull and Bonesman. Very glad the attempt failed.

In my studied opinion, at least of what I can study online and at my local library, 9/11 was caused by bad blood between the two families. Basically the Bushes turned their back on OBL at the outset of Gulf War 1.
OBL turns the Mujahaddein into Al Qaeda in the mean time so he can still play megalomaniac as well.

With OBL largely forgotten the Bushes decided to turn Afghanistan into the US's own oil transport route.

Bush Senior left office but development of the region continued under the Bush plan. Most of the Bin Ladens couldnt have cared less. But OBL had to find somewhere else to run ops out of since he couldnt set up base back in Saudi Arabia since he got stripped of his citizenship.

Years pass...tempers build. Clinton does not much of anything. A photo op cruise missile strike here and there. Clinton did indeed have OBL in the crosshairs of at least one early predator drone(armed)and hired assasins. Each time Clinton would not pull the trigger because he didnt want to rub the Arabs the wrong way. Despite the continuing attacks that just grew worse over time.

I do believe that Israel knew about the 9/11 operation and sent its agents to America to make sure they succeded. Which is why the hijackers seemed to just waltz through the US as they pleased. Israel is extremely happy to have the US on a short leash. More than glad to have the US taking care of their business for them.

Why risk destroying your nation and deplete your economy when you can see to it that we just come and and clobber the snot out of their enemies for them?

Other than that its all just snowballed into war profiteering on all sides and it no longer seems to matter who did start it....

To those who say we are the cause of terrorism....
US or not...terrorists would be doing evil deeds anyways...it does not matter what we do or did not do...they would attack us anyways!

Final point on current war on terror...
There are next to NO good guys...everybody is wrong. All governments in one way or another are up to their necks in elitist crapulence leaving the common man to go fight and die for them...no matter whose flag is flown....

reply to post by Boone 870


Have been paying attention. I wasn't attacking your beliefs there budro, I somewhat share them, except I think they knew it was coming and let it happen.

Your approach is off and I was stating such. Case in point. I can only vouch for the world existing 28 years and the first 2 years I am not 100% on. Even then, how do I even truly know that it isn't some sort of total recall I don't remember right or whatever thing?

I could state a great many things claiming that such and such place actually exists. And someone if they are so inclined come up with valid points on why it doesn't. It's THE WHOLE PROBLEM with well all so called "knowledge".

reply to post by Boone 870


Why don't you apply that type of "logic" on people more appreciative of it?

Originally posted by OrionStars
That is not valid proof. It does not matter what someone said. It matters as to whether or not it can be physically proved by the person saying it. It goes to the highly significant issue of someone's credibility in testimony.

After a whole lot of posts from people who fly can you prove that the doors could not be breached without the pilots making a call?

I guess you do not need to prove anything...

We have given you our thoughts on this and you want us to physically prove it? And so what is your credibility to say otherwise?

We are not here trying to disprove your little pet hypothesis for we are just explaining what it is like on a flight deck and how this is well within the realms of possibility.

It just seems like your trying to ”win” and not really looking at this with maybe some extra insight from a few of us. You have continually asked questions that have already been explained over and over, and every time someone with some real life knowledge answers you it is like you don’t even read it and fire off another question.


[edit on 5-1-2008 by Xtrozero]

Originally posted by OrionStars
5. If the pilot is not kept safe, no one else on the plane will be either.

The safety of the crew has more to do with the ability to gain access to them in case of an emergency than security prior to 9/11. Planes are not locked so to say they are easily assessable in many different ways inside and outside.

That is just the nature of aircraft.

reply to post by Xtrozero


So security was not important before 9/11/2001? Why not? It is not as if planes were never hijacked or bomb threats made on board flying over US soil prior to 9/11/2001. They were.

You other questions in another post bear absolutely no relations to the my citation you used in that one.

reply to post by OrionStars


Erm Orion.
Yea to a large extent in the US security aboard a plane was in a word crappy.
Remember how it came as such a big suprise that it happend?
Remember how many were shocked?
Simple fact is. We did not think it would happen to us. Your using your post 9/11 judgement to judge PRE 9/11 stuff.
Perhaps you should realise that the things we do now are because 9/11 happend? And post 9/11 thinking just didn't happen til it was in fact post 9/11?
Just some thoughts.

Originally posted by OrionStars
So security was not important before 9/11/2001? Why not? It is not as if planes were never hijacked or bomb threats made on board flying over US soil prior to 9/11/2001. They were.

What are we doing here my friend can you answer me that? Are you just arguing to argue or are you trying to find answers? 80% of your questions can answered on your own if you just thought about it for a minute.

Security is important, and so that is why there is so much security outside around the planes. That is needed because planes are not secure and the safely of evacuation and the needed ability for easy access in an emergency outweighs everything else, and so security rests with the airport.

You do not need a pilot to tell you this...

So as I already said airplanes are inherently unsecure.

reply to post by Xtrozero


Establishing the disinformation put out in the "official" reports is indeed inconsistant disinformation, when compared to other valid documentation gathered by qualified expert independent investigators. That is my understanding of what is supposed to be accomplished in this forum.

We carefully examine the following type of blatant inconsistencies. Apparently, US bureacrats consider the entire balance of the world population to be too stupid to recognize blatant inconsistencies when they see and/or hear them:

911research.wtc7.net...

The Report notes that Hani Hanjour's pilot application was rejected, and that he was a "terrible pilot," on the one hand, but asserts that he was "operation's most experienced pilot," and piloted Flight 77 through a 330-degree spiral dive maneuver, on the other.

The Report explains that the suicide terrorists chose not to target a nuclear power plant because they "thought a nuclear target would be difficult because the airspace around it was restricted, making reconnaissance flights impossible and increasing the likelihood that any plane would be shot down before impact." (p 245) It fails to apply the same logic to their targeting of the Pentagon, which, being the heart of the US military, is presumably even better defended than a nuclear power plant."'