911 Conspiracy Facts - Incriminating

How could one of the most heavily-defended buildings in the world have been successfully attacked, when the Vice President of the United States, in charge of counter-terrorism on 9/11, watched it approach from many miles away?

Originally posted by IvanZana
How could one of the most heavily-defended buildings in the world have been successfully attacked, when the Vice President of the United States, in charge of counter-terrorism on 9/11, watched it approach from many miles away?

Just trying to read that post makes my head hurt. Was Vice-President Cheney watching the most heavily-defended building in the world approach from many miles away?

Anyway, addressing what I *think* you meant, if you are talking about the Pentagon, define how it is "one of the most heavily-defended buildings in the world".

I'd really like to know what you mean by that. I've worked in the building on and off for 8 years now, including a 2 year stretch from 2004-2006 and as such have a pretty good idea what "defenses" the building has. I'd like to see how your position meshes with mine.

Also, that whole "Cheney tracked the airplane" canard has been disproven a dozen times over now - it was a ghost track left over on ATC radar scopes from a controller designating the UA 93 track with a destination of DCA. When UA 93 crashed, the ghost track continued on the radar scopes for a period of time afterwards, resulting in numerous false alarms throughout the DC area.

[edit on 30-10-2008 by pinch]

Originally posted by pinch

Originally posted by IvanZana
How could one of the most heavily-defended buildings in the world have been successfully attacked, when the Vice President of the United States, in charge of counter-terrorism on 9/11, watched it approach from many miles away?

Just trying to read that post makes my head hurt.

The truth hurts? Take a break. If you dont understand, u2u me and I will explain it to you.

Originally posted by IvanZana

Originally posted by pinch

Originally posted by IvanZana
How could one of the most heavily-defended buildings in the world have been successfully attacked, when the Vice President of the United States, in charge of counter-terrorism on 9/11, watched it approach from many miles away?

Just trying to read that post makes my head hurt.

The truth hurts? Take a break. If you dont understand, u2u me and I will explain it to you.

No, the TRUTH doesn't hurt....trying to read your sentence construction from a grammatical perspective does.

I'll ask again - was Vice President Cheney watching one of the world's most heavily-defended buildings approach from many miles away?

Eats, shoots and leaves.

And you didn't answer my question - what made the Pentagon one of the world's most heavily-defended buildings? You must know else you wouldn't have posted that line, correct? You wouldn't be simply repeating by rote something you heard or read somewhere else, would you? A Troofer??? Say it ain't SO, Joe!

The most incriminating fact about 9/11 is the fact that all of the video showing planes was fake, and proven fake. www.psy-opera.com...

Originally posted by evilempire
The most incriminating fact about 9/11 is...

I still wonder how Bush and Cheney got away with providing unsworn, unrecorded, dual testimony...

That smells of something suspicious, when the two 'leaders' of the country were only prepared to answer questions on their terms. Innocent people, in that situation, should have nothing to hide.

reply to post by pinch


Still at it pinch,

No, the TRUTH doesn't hurt....trying to read your sentence construction from a grammatical perspective does.

This is the typical response of a Disinformationalist!

And you didn't answer my question

You never answer anyone else questions, so why are you complaining?

You must know else you wouldn't have posted that line, correct?

You have no room to talk about sentence construction.

You wouldn't be simply repeating by rote something you heard or read somewhere else, would you?

Same problem here as well about sentence construction, how about practice what you preach!

Lets get back on the topic of the thread, which is incriminating evidence on 911.
Personal attacks derail the thread.

reply to post by cashlink


Well in that case, maybe you can explain how the Pentagon is the "most heavily defended building in the world" then.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by cashlink

 

Well in that case, maybe you can explain how the Pentagon is the "most heavily defended building in the world" then.

No need to argue. The official story has been debunked over and over years ago. Its not important the small details, they are not needed.


THe officials have failed to prove their 'official' conspiracy theory which is just plain stupid.

reply to post by GenRadek


Why don’t you explain it for us?
Why don’t you, tell us your “story” of what happened on 911?

reply to post by tezzajw


Agreed... The same goes for Clinton and Gore. (not under oath) But they did go alone.

reply to post by cashlink


Cashlink.... His story is the facts that have been available for years. What is YOUR story... (with facts)

reply to post by ThroatYogurt


I asked the question first, and I was not talking to you.
I am sure the poor guy can speak for himself, or are you going to be his mouthpiece too.

reply to post by cashlink


Its already been said millions of times before.

And most of it agrees or is correct with the events. It is you "truthers" who now bear the burden of proving it all wasn't. You are both claiming that the Pentagon is "the most heavily defended building in the world" (WHICH is not true) without a shred of real evidence, so, I would like to see your claim made with actual facts that would confirm the claim. I don't have to tell you the whole story as all this is doing is just delaying YOU from answering a question that is based off an erroneous claim. I really don;t enjoy being given the run around so you don't have to answer the questions, and then you all create smokescreens to cover yourselves like this from answering (or not answering) a question that could potentially unravel your entire baseless claims.

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by cashlink

 

Its already been said millions of times before.

And most of it agrees or is correct with the events. It is you "truthers" is you "truthers" who now bear the burden of proving it all wasn't. You are both claiming that the Pentagon is "the most heavily defended building in the world" .

Prove to us that it is not well defended. Prove to us how poorly washington and the whitehouse is defended. (pentagon is mere miles from whitehouse)

[edit on 1-11-2008 by IvanZana]

reply to post by GenRadek


You have been spouting so many inconsistant half truths, why dont you answer the questions instead of avoiding the questions you know will drestroy the official story when answered?

These debunkers need more updated training. They are failing to uphold the official story on every thread ive seen.

See my last post.

reply to post by IvanZana


Are you serious? You people make the claim that since its "so well defended" you have to provide some sort of evidence to back it up. But alas, you revert to the old truther tactic of "ignore then demand the person who asked original question to answer a different question."
Nobody anywhere has ever said the Pentagon was the most heavily defended building in the world prior to 9/11, only the Loose Change and Truther crew afterwards. We are asking you to provide us with some proof that is so. If not, its ok to admit you were wrong. Don't spin this and dodge it so you don't have to answer it. I asked you first to show us evidence it is the most heavily defended building in the world. BUT if you are not going to, or able to, then just admit it. No harm no foul.

reply to post by IvanZana


How well defended is the White House? Remember this little incident?

query.nytimes.com...

CRASH AT THE WHITE HOUSE: THE OVERVIEW; Unimpeded, Intruder Crashes Plane Into White House

By MAUREEN DOWD,
Published: September 13, 1994

Shortly before 2 A.M. today, a small red-and-white plane flew low over 17th Street in the heart of the capital's downtown, banked left in a U-turn near the Washington Monument, and headed straight toward the President's bedroom in the White House.

No one tried to stop it.

Administration officials, who pieced together the flight path, said that the Secret Service agents stationed outside the South Portico had only seconds to scramble out of the way as the two-seat, propeller-driven Cessna 150, its power apparently shut off and only its wing lights on, came straight at them.

Gliding over the treetops, the Cessna passed the fountain and the red cannas blooming on the South Lawn, bounced off the grass just short of the White House, crashed through the branches of a magnolia tree planted by Andrew Jackson and came to rest in a crumpled heap two stories below the Clintons' unoccupied bedroom.

Holy flirking schnidt! A little Cessna managed to defeat the all mighty air defense system in DC and managed to hit the White House almost hitting two Secret Service Agents in the process! My God! If a little Cessna with a top speed of 110mph could penetrate the almighty air defense system that is suppose to magically shoot down any and all intruder craft when it gets near the Pentagon and White House, who else can?

I like this guy's quote especially:

Patrick Porter, 46, a software engineer for General Electric from Portland, Ore., looked at the South Lawn from behind yellow police tapes. "It just proves you can make all the plans in the world and there's nothing you can do to plan against a lunatic who doesn't think rationally," he said.

[edit on 11/3/2008 by GenRadek]

Originally posted by Jake the Dog Man
This shows why the “Truth Movement” is falling apart. When faced with direct questions after their so called “evidence”, they just say nothing. They simply wait a month or so then drag out the same tired lists or points, hoping they can rope in some more supporters who are not willing to read much. These points were compiled over 4 years ago & shown incorrect dozens of times since.

You would think that 7+ years was enough time to put together a simple answer to support your statements.

I probably am making a mistake responding to this but I just really like this form of argument.

No matter how much evidence piles up; scientific, eyewitness, logical, circumstantial, etc.

No matter how many strange occurrences and unexplained circumstances surround the event.

No matter how many contradictions and holes in the official story present themselves.

No matter how many experts, professionals, and insiders point out these facts.

And no matter how ridiculous explanations become...

Just say, "Umm...you don't have any evidence" because IT WORKS. It is ironic you mention people who are not willing to read much because your strategy targets these people.

You have to read/watch the explanations and evidence that is available in order to understand the truth, otherwise just take this guy's word for it that no such evidence exists.

You definitely can't find it all over the internet.