40 'Smoking Guns' Collectively Proving That 9/11 Was An Inside Job

WARNING!

This back and forth STOPS NOW.

It is achieveing nothing more than frustration on both sides and needless bulk to this thread.

Again - to be VERY clear - IT STOPS NOW.

...this is the only warning that will be given...

It has been made very clear at the very base of each page of this Forum: HERE that any such activity will result in post-banning or account termination.



Peace,
ALIEN





[edit on 31-7-2008 by alien]

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

I've had enough of your constant sniveling and whining on multiple threads.

It's too bad it took that to get you to come back.

Before we go into the articles you have posted in your attempt to refute the evidence I have offered.

You did not:

1- Show me where I lied
2- where I Put a spin on things

(i'll forget about the SSDI index and the CNN victims list)

If you are going to call me a liar. I want you to back it up.

Now onto your infomation.

Flight 93: We Know it Crashed, But Not Why
FBI is silent, fueling "shot down" rumors


By WILLIAM BUNCH

November 15, 2001

Ok, you have a 77 year old man who knows of two guys that "heard" a missile. You have a piece of an engine that was found "a considerable distance"... um... and?

Evidence indicates Flight 93 shot down by U.S. fighter
by Bill Walter
The Idaho Observer

A Reuters report from September 13 stated that the FBI cannot rule out that hijacked Flight 93 was shot down by a U.S. fighter jet before it crashed in Pennsylvania. Citing indications of a shoot down, the report states:

September 13th. 2 days after the attacks. Before any investigation was concluded? So you posted an article from the 13th. Since then Golden, has the FBI ruled out the plane was shot down?
hint: YES

Human remains recovered in Somerset
By Robin Acton and Richard Gazarik
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
September 13, 2001

.

www.pittsburghlive.com...

The FDR and other witness statements refute Mr. Stop's statment. Also the physical evidence. The debris field that was away from the crash only (a few miles away) contained small light weight items. Nylon, paper, etc.

It a missile was used, largers debris including airplane parts etc would have been found.

September 11, 2001 (Before 10:06 a.m.): Flight 93 Breaks Up Prior to Crash?
  

See above. There is no physical evidence to support this, including FDR.

The plane is generally obliterated upon landing, except for one half-ton piece of engine found some distance away. Some reports indicate that the engine piece was found over a mile away. [INDEPENDENT, 8/13/2002]

The FBI reportedly acknowledges that this piece was found “a considerable distance” from the crash site. [PHILADELPHIA DAILY NEWS, 11/15/2001]

Come on now... instead of posting these tid bits... you know how far away the piece of the engine was. You know it was not found over a mile away.

Later, the FBI will cordon off a three-mile wide area around the crash, as well as another area six to eight miles from the initial crash site. [CNN, 9/13/2001]

Your point?

One story calls what happened to this engine “intriguing, because the heat-seeking, air-to-air Sidewinder missiles aboard an F-16 would likely target one of the Boeing 757’s two large engines.” [PHILADELPHIA DAILY NEWS, 11/15/2001]

one "story" thats all it is. It has been explained several times what happened. If you look at the FDR... both engines were running. No witness statemets to an engine being blown off either.

The rest of your articles state the same thing.

The debris field was consistant with what happened. Only light weight debris were found outside the impact area.

So tell me Golden... what do you think happened to flight 93?
From what you are posting i would assume you think it was shot down?

[edit on 31-7-2008 by ThroatYogurt]

There are too many things about flight 93 that don’t add up, and I see no concrete proof or evidence that proves the official government story.
We have links to FBI statements, not a very trustworthy source, and eyewitness reports from the day and days after the incident, which I would find a little bit more credible.

Why the debris field 6-8 miles away?
Why is there nothing left of the plane? This is a question asked dozens of times, and has not been answered satisfactorily. “Disintegrated on impact” just won’t cut it.

I don’t believe the official story.
Was FL93 shot down? I believe so, and this whole cock and bull story of the “Let’s Roll” scenario is just fabricated to soften the blow of the whole 9/11 trauma….kind of like “we fought back against the odds”.

Are there not also questions on the viability of making a cell phone call from a plane in 2001?

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
If you are going to call me a liar. I want you to back it up.

I just did.

Here's yet another London newspaper account:

Cover story: Unanswered questions
Independent, The (London),  Aug 13, 2002  by John Carlin

1. The wide displacement of the plane's debris, one explanation for which might be an explosion of some sort aboard prior to the crash. Letters - Flight 93 was carrying 7,500 pounds of mail to California - and other papers from the plane were found eight miles (13km) away from the scene of the crash. A sector of one engine weighing one ton was found 2,000 yards away. This was the single heaviest piece recovered from the crash, and the biggest, apart from a piece of fuselage the size of a dining-room table. The rest of the plane, consistent with an impact calculated to have occurred at 500mph, disintegrated into pieces no bigger than two inches long. Other remains of the plane were found two miles away near a town called Indian Lake. All of these facts, widely disseminated, were confirmed by the coroner Wally Miller.

findarticles.com...

After all that, you're still gonna spread your disinfo and claim that Flight 93 crashed in one piece WHEN THERE WAS NOTHING AT THE CRASH SITE BUT A 10 X 20' SMOKING CRATER?

Unbelievable.

.


[edit on 31-7-2008 by GoldenFleece]

reply to post by ThroatYogurt


I am curious how the FBI ruled out shoot down if they didn't reconstruct the plane? Or is flight 93 the only plane that doesn't need to be reconstructed to determine if there was a bomb/missle that damaged it?

Embarrassing for those in Denial of the truth

www.rense.com...

snipits:
The following is an excerpt from Mark H. Gaffney's forthcoming book, THE 911 MYSTERY PLANE AND THE VANISHING OF AMERICA, to be released in September 2008.

Regrettably, there is considerable evidence that elements of the Bush administration were complicit in the 9/11 attack, and may even have helped stage it. Let us now examine some of what I regard as the most compelling evidence. However, the following discussion makes no claim to be comprehensive.

We know that within minutes of the "worst terrorist attack" in US history, even before the collapse of WTC-2 at 9:59 am, US officials knew the names of several of the alleged hijackers. CBS reported that a flight attendant on AA Flight 11, Amy Sweeney, had the presence of mind to call her office and reveal the seat numbers of the hijackers who had seized the plane.[1] FBI Director Robert Mueller later said, "This was the first piece of hard evidence."[2] In his memoirs CIA Director George Tenet emphasizes the importance of the passenger manifests, as does counter- terrorism czar Richard A. Clarke.[3] All of which is very strange because the manifests later released by the airlines do not include the names of any of the alleged hijackers. Nor has this discrepancy ever been explained.

According to MSNBC, the plan to invade Afghanistan and "remove Al Qaeda from the face of he earth" was already sitting on G.W. Bush's desk on the morning of 9/11 awaiting his signature.[4] The plan, in the form of a presidential directive, had been developed by the CIA and according to Richard Clarke called for "arming the Northern Alliance...to go on the offensive against the Taliban [and] pressing the CIA to...go after bin Laden and the Al Qaeda leadership."[5]

A former Pakistani diplomat, Niaz Naik, tells virtually the same story. During a BBC interview, three days after 9/11, Niak claimed that senior American officials had informed him in mid-July 2001 that the US would attack the Taliban "before the snows start falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest."[6] Niak said he received this information in Berlin at a UN-sponsored international contact group on Afghanistan. He also predicted, correctly, that the US attack would be launched from bases in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. But how could US officials know in mid-July that American forces would invade Afghanistan in October unless they had foreknowledge of the attack?

Foreknowledge probably also explains why General Richard Myers, the acting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs on 9/11, announced at the first post-9/11 meeting of Bush's National Security Council, held on video-conference the afternoon of the attack, that "there are forty-two major Taliban bombing targets."[7] But how did Myers come to have such detailed information about military targets in Afghanistan, so soon after the 9/11 attack? This important detail belies oft-repeated claims that the US military was not prepared to attack Afghanistan, and points to extensive war planning before 9/11. Journalist Steve Coll arrived at a similar conclusion while researching his 2004 book, Ghost Wars, an excellent history of the period leading up to the 9/11 attack. Coll interviewed two Clinton administration officials who informed him that "the Pentagon had been studying possible targets in the same spring [i.e., 1998] that the CIA had been drawing up its secret plan to raid Tarnack Farm," located near Kandahar, Afghanistan, where bin Laden had taken up quarters at the invitation of Taliban leader Mullah Omar.[8]

According to Clarke, at the same meeting on the afternoon of 9/11, CIA Director George Tenet informed the president that "Al Qaeda had committed these atrocities."[9] But, again, how did Tenet know this so soon after the attack, especially given that "security failures" had occurred, unless he had foreknowledge?

No Hard Evidence

On September 20, 2001, the Bush administration officially declared that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attack. Three days later, Secretary of State Colin Powell announced on Meet the Press that the government would soon release "a white paper" detailing the evidence against bin Laden.[10] Later the same day, Bush faced questions from the press about Powell's remark and backed away from releasing any additional information. Bush explained that the government had a lot of evidence but that most of it was classified and could not be made public. Bush emphasized, however, that the evidence "leads to one person, as well as one global terrorist organization."[11] National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice made a similar statement during an interview on FOX News. Said Rice: "We have very good evidence of links between Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda operatives, and what happened on September 11."[12] Rice refused to release any particulars, however, and, like Bush, claimed that the evidence was "classified."

As we know, the US government never got around to releasing the promised white paper. Why not? Was it because the evidence against bin Laden was too weak to hold up in court? Such was the view of journalist Seymour Hersh, who cited CIA and Justice Department sources to this effect in his regular column in the New Yorker magazine.[13]

Foreign intelligence agencies were also busily investigating the case, but fared no better. For instance, Germany's Chief Federal Prosecutor, Kay Nehm, admitted that there was no hard evidence linking bin Laden with the crime.[14] The lack of evidence prompted former German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt to speak out against President Bush's decision to invoke Article V of the NATO Treaty, mobilizing NATO's involvement in the war on terrorism. In Schmidt's own words: "Proof had to be delivered that the September 11 terror attack came from abroad. [Yet,] that proof still has not been provided."[15]

Osama did not cooperate by acknowledging his role in the attack; on the contrary. In a statement on September 16, 2001 carried by Al- Jazeera, bin Laden categorically denied any involvement. Days later, he repeated this denial during an interview with the Pakistani newspaper Ummaut.[16] On November 3, 2001 Al-Jazeera released a third statement, in which bin Laden not only denied involvement but also accused the Bush administration of waging a "crusader war" against the Muslim world. To the best of my knowledge, none of these denials were reported in the US med

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
If you are going to call me a liar. I want you to back it up.

I just did.

No you didn't. Your articles showed nothing. This was clearly pointed out to you.

Here's yet another London newspaper account:

Please tell me what parts of the plane were found outside the impact area that would support the shootdown theory. Yes, I know about the fan from the engine. If you read the 100's of articles, you would see that only debris found far away were light weight materials. Things that will blow around with an approx. 11MPH wind.

After all that, you're still gonna spread your disinfo and claim that Flight 93 crashed in one piece WHEN THERE WAS NOTHING AT THE CRASH SITE BUT A 10 X 20' SMOKING CRATER?

Unbelievable.

Ok, can you please tell me what you think happened? First you post an article that supports the OS...but you attempt to show it as evidence of a shoot down theory.

Then you say there was nothing at the crash site.

Which is it Golden?

Originally posted by celticniall
There are too many things about flight 93 that don’t add up, and I see no concrete proof or evidence that proves the official government story.
We have links to FBI statements, not a very trustworthy source, and eyewitness reports from the day and days after the incident, which I would find a little bit more credible.

you also have FDR information, DNA evidence, radar evdience, and phone calls to loved ones. Only 2 from cell phones...the rest from airphones.

Why the debris field 6-8 miles away?
Why is there nothing left of the plane? This is a question asked dozens of times, and has not been answered satisfactorily. “Disintegrated on impact” just won’t cut it.

Light weight materials found a few miles away...consistant with an 11 mph wind. Thousands of pounds of airplane parts were collected. Hundreds of pounds of human flesh were found as well.

I don’t believe the official story.
Was FL93 shot down? I believe so, and this whole cock and bull story of the “Let’s Roll” scenario is just fabricated to soften the blow of the whole 9/11 trauma….kind of like “we fought back against the odds”.

Let me ask you. You are on flight 93...you know your fate. What would you have done?

Thank you.

Are there not also questions on the viability of making a cell phone call from a plane in 2001?

answered above. Please also note that the two phone calls that did connect were at much lower altitiudes.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Light weight materials found a few miles away...consistant with an 11 mph wind. Thousands of pounds of airplane parts were collected. Hundreds of pounds of human flesh were found as well.
.

But you are forgetting about the engine core found 2000 yards away. 11 mph winds would not blow it.

Can you show evidence like photos with sources and official reports about these so called thouands of pounds of parts and human flesh?

reply to post by ULTIMA1


Read it again Ultima. I mentioned the engine fan. Thank you for your amazing input.

Originally posted by ThroatYogurt
Read it again Ultima. I mentioned the engine fan. Thank you for your amazing input.

Well it was not an engine fan it was an engne core. Please get your informaton correct.

Originally posted by GoldenFleece

Do you think if you keep repeating the same lie over and over that anyone will actually believe you?

Do YOU think avoiding evidence makes it go away? I repeat things because you continue to fail at aswering them.

You attack me because the facts go against your fantasy.

OK fool,

exactly the reply I expected from you.

I'll post it one more time in bold because you obviously have a severe reading comprehension deficit to think that a 2000-pound engine piece found more than a mile away got there from being blown by the wind or that burning debris falling from the sky (including human remains) 2.5 miles from the "crash scene" is somehow irrelevant:

It is VERY relevant. To the truth. How high was the flume? How strong was the wind?

"Remains of the plane?" Can nylon from a seat be remains? Come on now Golden. You are calling me a liar and a spinner and this is all you can come up with? What kind of remains? The only thing reported far awar were LIGHT WEIGHT MATERIALS.

Lets talk about the engine:

Jeff Reinbold, the National Park Service representative responsible for the Flight 93 National Memorial, confirms the direction and distance from the crash site to the basin: just over 300 yards south, which means the fan landed in the direction the jet was traveling. "It's not unusual for an engine to move or tumble across the ground," says Michael K. Hynes, an airline accident expert who investigated the crash of TWA Flight 800 out of New York City in 1996. "When you have very high velocities, 500 mph or more," Hynes says, "you are talking about 700 to 800 ft. per second. For something to hit the ground with that kind of energy, it would only take a few seconds to bounce up and travel 300 yards."

www.popularmechanics.com...

Robert Sherman, a conventional weapons expert with the Federation of American Scientists who worked for the state department as former executive director of the Arms Control and Non-Proliferation Advisory Board, and also wrote extensively about F-16s and Sidewinder missiles, looked at the missile theories on flight93crash.com and deemed it "the usual paranoid crap."

"There was nothing there that gets me very worked up," he says. "Maybe [the plane] did break up. A crash is not a sanitary event. By definition, the uncontrolled impact of an airplane does strange things."

Sherman said that if a missile had hit Flight 93, there would have been more evidence. "If a Sidewinder had hit it, there would have been pieces of the fan or the fuselage in a larger area," he says. "If the engine breaks up, then the fan blades are going to come off like bullets. Pieces of the wing and fuselage would be all over the place."

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

So you're literally trying to save your ass and no matter how much proof anyone provides that Flight 93 was shot down, no hijackers appeared on any flight manifest or autopsy report, the WTC towers collapsed by controlled demolition, some kind of missile hit the Pentagon and 9/11 was the inside job of the century, you're gonna make a complete fool of yourself by stubbornly insisting that none of it's true while trying to make everyone believe that you're just an amateur debunker who only posts on ATS from 8-10 pm on weeknights and that 9/11 just happens to be the only topic on this entire board that you're interested in.

I will refrain from attacking you presonally. But allow me to point out some things:

you claim that 93 was shot down yet 2 posts ago you said the crater was empty -

you were shown the flight manifest- with the hijackers names on them

you want to talk about CD's and missiles at the Pentagon? let me know.

Then you accuse me in a round about way of working for the government?

Sorry sir... you struck out.


The rest of your thread has been reported. I don't think it's fair that I get a warning for calling someone a liar (with proof of the lie) and you can accuse me of lying, working for the government, and child molestation.

What this did was prove to not only me, but to the members here your total lack of charachter.

You have resorted to name calling and childish antics because you have failed 100% in your posts.




"You loose - Good day sir!" - Willie Wonka

reply to post by ULTIMA1


9/11 Debunked: 95% of United 93 found


9/11 Debunked: United 93 not Shot Down


9/11 Debunked: United 93 did not land in Cleveland

reply to post by ThroatYogurt


I must have missed it. Where was it that you mentioned how the FBI was able to rule out a shoot-down without reconstructing the aircraft? Is there a precedence for this?

Thanks.

Originally posted by Cool Hand Luke
9/11 Debunked: 95% of United 93 found

So if 95% was found where is it?

Where are the photos of it?

Whre are the reports matching the parts to Flight 93?

Where is the reconstruction being done?

reply to post by PplVSNWO


I don't recall seeing any witnesses stating the heard an explosion prior to impact.

Also the FDR report states this:

"From 10:00 to 10:02 there were four distinct control column inputs that caused the airplane to pitch nose-up (climb) and nose-down (dive) aggressively. During this time the airplane climbed to about 10,000 feet while turning to the right. The airplane then pitched nose-down and rolled to the right in response to flight control inputs, and impacted the ground at about 490 knots (563 mph) [FDR says 500 kts] in a 40 degree nose-down, inverted attitude. The time of impact was 10:03:11."

www.ntsb.gov...

CVR shows no evidence of an explosive device detonating.

As far as the FBI:

FBI Completes Flight 93 Investigation
"Nothing was found that was inconsistent with the plane going into the ground intact," Crowley said.

www.thepittsburghchannel.com...

Originally posted by ULTIMA1


So if 95% was found where is it?

Where are the photos of it?

Whre are the reports matching the parts to Flight 93?

Where is the reconstruction being done?

Maybe your answer here:

Flight 93 Crash site evidence collected

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Where are the photos of it?

If you watched the video, you saw many pictures including the one with the dumpster full of wreckage

Whre are the reports matching the parts to Flight 93?

Well I guess eye witnesses, flight data recorder, pics of the colours on the wreckage in the video, and radar mean nothing to you?

Where is the reconstruction being done?

Nowhere. Why would they need to? The reason TWA Flight 800 was reconstructed was because they did not know the cause of the explosion. When you have so many eyewitnesses, radar, flight data recorder etc etc
why would you need to reconstruct it when the cause is known.

Plus reconstruction is incredibly expense and guess who's flipping the bill, the american taxpayer

reply to post by ThroatYogurt

WOW! how on earth dose the Government know how hight how low what speed this plane was doing,when the Government claims they didnt know where this plane really was .

The Governmnet claimes they couldnt dispatch military jet to find this plane?

So how dose the Government know all this?
Like how low the nose dilt then it tilt to the right then to the left then it raise up a little then it drop down a tad... Please.. I almost get the feeling the Government was flying the plane.

Was the black box found?
I keep reading conflicting stories about the black boxs
Some say the Government found the black boxs and others state they couldnt find the black boxs.

But I find this so hard for this Government to know the exact movement this airplane was doing but it could not shoot this plane down, dont YOU.

If this plane crash in this shallow hole and the rest of the plane is in the hole in the ground why didnt they bring in bulldosers and dig up the rest of the plane?

Why did the government not alow crash experts work with FFA like they always do in every crash scene in the USA only on 911 they did not want the crash scene experts digging around hummmm...

WHY were the Hasmat team at this crash scene?
When crash scene expert look at the video on tv from the news, they saw Hasmat team digging around what they found ODD was Hasmat NEVER is call in to investigate airplane crashes.

It is a cover up.