9/11 Commissioner slips up, says missile hit Pentagon

reply to post by mmiichael


how long did it take the real info on the Gulf of Tonkin, or the fact that our guys new Pearl Harbor was coming to come out? At least 30 years! Long after everyone involved on a higher level were dead.

There are links sites that prove that 9/11 was a stimulus to go to war, a FALSE ONE!!!!!! Now, actual verbal verification, what more does America need to see to prove that we bombed our own buildings [ trade towers, Pentagon]? "A nation is only as good as it's government"- Herbert Hoover

reply to post by UKWO1Phot

That Youtube video is very badly done...

I myself don't know what to take of the slip ups in interviews, though it does remind me of Obama's slip up when he mentioned his "muslim faith".

I have a hard time believing any 9/11 conspiracy theories because there are just too many differences in them. A lot of them seem to set up for book releases, to which someones going to profit. I do however enjoy the arguments presented in these threads on both sides as it makes for great entertainment and forces me to research more. Thank you to both sides.

Lurker status re-enabled

i wonder how long it would take to be arrested if i headed into Logan and inquired about taking a missile into DC err, a plane into DC rather...

and another point. wouldnt it be safe to assume after the first slip-up the government wouldve been on red-flag status over what kind of carefully selected language and descriptions they would use concerning 9/11?

call me crazy i guess.

S&F 9-11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!!!!!!!

EVRYONE IN AMERICA NEEDS TO KNOW ABOUT THIS COVER UP!!!

Thanks op

here are the videos I posted about earlier, sorry if they have been posted already.





also, here is a link to a site that raises valid points about the pentagon and WTC

www.serendipity.li...

[edit on 12-1-2009 by LiveFreeOrDie..]

And comparatively speaking, those sexual relations with that woman doesn't seem like such a big deal anymore.

I've got a new presidential motto: "Make Cigar Love, Not War."

Yup it was never a big deal in the first place. I'm just using the line as a reminder that people in power are not obliged to tell us the truth when we dont "need to know"

I think it's amusing people keep saying things like it would be impossible for a "terrorist in a cave" to plan these attacks. He lived in a cave entirely? Are you suggesting he was a caveman with no resources? Not even a phone? Or was he a millionaire, with more resources and terrorist training bases than any other terrorist cell on the planet? Hmmm... I think it's the latter. I think perhaps you should read up further on the capabilities of this terrorist before you dismiss his ability to conduct attacks on a unsuspecting country with laughable defenses.

It's ironic, about two weeks prior to these attacks, I was in NJ, flying back to Colorado from PA. I had a huge ol' knife I bought in a hunting shop in PA in my bag, I forgot to put it in my luggage. I got on the plane, got home, and while unpacking was laughing with my wife about how I was able to waltz through security with a 10" hunting blade.

After the attacks, sure, he is in hiding. After the attacks he ADMITTED to planning. But prior, he had unlimited $$$ and resources to get the job done.

As far as Operation Northwood or any other operation goes, that's misdirection on your part to try and prove this was a coverup. It proves NOTHING other than what people will TRY to plan. You are suggesting here, that they managed to carry it off successfully.

They managed to plant HUNDREDS (perhaps thousands) of miles of demolition cables... and no one noticed. Plant wreckage.. and people stupidly didn't see it. Managed to keep hundreds or thousands silent after the fact. Dispose of an entire plane and the passengers, apparently willing to commit cold-blooded murder on many fronts, to try and justify a war. Hoodwinked people into thinking a missile or other plane was a jet.

Er.. and Fleece.. which is it for you? I thought you supported the flyover theory? Um.. but now you say it's a painted jet. But.. no.. it's a missile! Hm.. I am not sure you know what you really believe. As long as it was a government cover-up, you're happy.

And if a single WTC building had been flown into and collapsed, it would STILL be 9/11. It would still be a vivid statement. Heck.. why not just blow up the stock exchange, since supposedly they were trying to do in our economy?

And yes.. it WAS perfectly conducted, if the best you can go on is light poles would have flown farther, "pull out" means it was demolition, and someone saying missile could ONLY mean they are apparently brilliant enough to pull this off.. but STUPID enough to blurt this out to the public. Hmm.. he couldn't possibly be talking about using planes as missiles.. because it doesn't fit in with your theories.

reply to post by fleabit

archives.cnn.com...

or what we are told he says in the video that he supposedly admits to doing it in. not that audio can be faked on a video.

www.nydailynews.com...

admitted to planning?
guess it all depends on which story you want to believe.

as far as Northwoods is concerned, this was a plan from the 1960s. It wasn't something they would "try" to plan. It was a plan ready to go if approved. Take the time to read it. I suspect with 30+ years to refine the plan that it could have been pulled off just as easily as Bin Laden pulled off his alleged plan. With technology that is available now compared to then, I suspect it be even easier to do now.
Moreover, recently declassified U.S. Government documents show that in the 1960s, the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff signed off on a plan code-named Operation Northwoods to blow up American airplanes (using an elaborate plan involving the switching of airplanes), and also to commit terrorist acts on American soil, and then to blame it on the Cubans in order to justify an invasion of Cuba. The operation was not carried out only because the Kennedy administration refused to implement these Pentagon plans.

www.gwu.edu...

as for "hundreds or thousands of miles of demolition cables", have you not heard of remote, wireless detonators? An operation to pull this off also wouldn't likely require hundreds or thousands of people to complete it. notice in the below link, this one can be fired from 3000 meters(about 2 miles)

www.detnet.com...

blowing up the stock exchange wouldn't have the same trauma effect as destroying a huge, recognizable landmark like the towers, either. Far fewer people and much less worldwide recognition. Unless you are a New Yorker, I doubt there would be as many people in our own country, much less the world, that would even recognize the stock exchange if they saw it. The WTC, on the other hand, has worldwide recognition, if for nothing else than from the previous attack on it.

In order to get a strong concensus to move as the administration did, there would have to be a large scale and heinous spectacle to get that support.

It all comes down to what you are willing to believe our government is capable of.

Let's not forget the sinking of the Maine, the apparent revelation that the Gulf of Tonkin attacks never really happend, the revelation that FDR knew of subs outside Pearl Harbor prior to the attack and no alert was issued to Pearl intentionally and possibly even knew of the coming attack from radio intercepts, the attack on the USS Liberty that was allowed to happen, other US ships in the area were ordered NOT to come to its defense and more recently, Cheney proposing to use US Navy SEALS disguised as Iranians in gun boats to attack our own ships in the Gulf to spark an attack on Iran.


[edit on 12-1-2009 by LiveFreeOrDie..]

[edit on 12-1-2009 by LiveFreeOrDie..]

[edit on 12-1-2009 by LiveFreeOrDie..]

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
i wonder how long it would take to be arrested if i headed into Logan and inquired about taking a missile into DC err, a plane into DC rather...

and another point. wouldnt it be safe to assume after the first slip-up the government wouldve been on red-flag status over what kind of carefully selected language and descriptions they would use concerning 9/11?

call me crazy i guess.

for the record this was my post. i wasnt signed in earlier at work.

Originally posted by fleabit


And yes.. it WAS perfectly conducted, if the best you can go on is light poles would have flown farther, "pull out" means it was demolition, and someone saying missile could ONLY mean they are apparently brilliant enough to pull this off.. but STUPID enough to blurt this out to the public. Hmm.. he couldn't possibly be talking about using planes as missiles.. because it doesn't fit in with your theories.

who said those faces were the brains?

the rest of your post was laughable.

reply to post by lifewhyz


Thanks for your expert analysis of my post. When you come can up with reasonable, intelligent, logical answers to the questions myself and others raise, feel free to chat with me. Misdirection, guesswork, biased research, and most of all, an inherent and driving desire to prove our government is an evil entity capable of mass murder is all I am hearing. When I pressed what the people saw in the Pentagon 'flyover' theory, when many eyewitnesses saw the plane strike the building, I got the serious reply that they were 'fooled' by some sort of mind trick. Yea.. that's logical, well-thought out research there.

Originally posted by pinch

Originally posted by tezzajw
They're all laughing at us.

You got that right. Laughing at you because of of your creative imaginations. One of the definitions: "Mis"sile\, n. [L. missile.] A weapon thrown or projected or intended to be projcted (sic), as a lance, an arrow, or a bullet."

Read that again - "a weapon...projected" A 90 ton airliner used as a weapon on an attack against a building is indeed, a missile. A manned-missile, in this case. A car can be a weapon, depending on how it is used. A hammer can be a weapon. A pencil can be a weapon. An airliner can be a weapon.

So yes, we are ALL laughing at you and will continue to do so on a regular basis.

[edit on 10-1-2009 by pinch]

Also a MISSILE can be used as a MISSILE...

Keep on going with your definition(i.e.):

missile
n missile [ˈmisail]
1 a weapon or object which is thrown or fired from a gun, bow etc. missiel قَذيفَه снаряд střela missil das Geschoß βλήμα proyectil mürsk گلوله ammus projectile טִיל प्रक्षेपास्त्र, अस्त्र metak, zrno lövedék peluru kasthlutur; skeyti, skot missile, proiettile 飛び道具 쏘는 무기 svaidomasis daiktas/ginklas šāviņš peluru projectiel kasteskyts, prosjektil pocisk míssil proiectil метательный снаряд/предмет strela izstrelek projektil kastvapen, projektil สิ่งที่ขว้าง ปา หรือยิงออกไป เช่น ก้อนหิน จรวด mermi, ok 投擲武器，發射物 реактивний снаряд دور سے نشانے پر پھینکا جانے والا ہتھیار vật phóng ra 投掷武器，发射物
2 a rocket-powered weapon carrying an explosive charge a ground-to-air missile. missiel صاروخ ракета raketa missil; raket der Flugkörper βλήμα misil reaktiivmürsk موشک ohjus missile טִיל मिसाइल फेंक कर मारने योग्य चीज projektil rakéta roket flugskeyti missile ミサイル 미사일 raketa raķete roket raket rakett(våpen) rakieta, pocisk rakietowy míssil ra­chetă ракета raketa raketa projektil robot, missil, raket[] ขีปนาวุธ roket, füze 導彈 ракета راکٹ کے ذریعہ پھینکا جانے والا دھماکا خیز ہتھیار tên lửa 导弹
guided missile
a rocket-powered missile which is directed to its target by a built-in device or by radio waves etc.

Originally posted by fleabit
I think it's amusing people keep saying things like it would be impossible for a "terrorist in a cave" to plan these attacks. He lived in a cave entirely? Are you suggesting he was a caveman with no resources? Not even a phone? Or was he a millionaire, with more resources and terrorist training bases than any other terrorist cell on the planet? Hmmm... I think it's the latter.

I think he could be a billionaire with a cellphone living in a comfy house, but that doesn't make the task easier. You still have to be sure the planes won't be intercepted before reaching their targets, unless you know they won't.

I think perhaps you should read up further on the capabilities of this terrorist before you dismiss his ability to conduct attacks on a unsuspecting country with laughable defenses.

Yes, laughable defenses because that morning the defenses were busy simulating what was really happening... elsewhere.

After the attacks, sure, he is in hiding. After the attacks he ADMITTED to planning. But prior, he had unlimited $$$ and resources to get the job done.

Are you sure it was him? I remember him stating it was not him, then changing his mind in a suspicious video.

As far as Operation Northwood or any other operation goes, that's misdirection on your part to try and prove this was a coverup. It proves NOTHING other than what people will TRY to plan. You are suggesting here, that they managed to carry it off successfully.

No try, the plan was there, so someone carried it out.

They managed to plant HUNDREDS (perhaps thousands) of miles of demolition cables... and no one noticed.

Miles of cables... are you sure there is no possibility at all they could have used remote control?

Plant wreckage.. and people stupidly didn't see it. Managed to keep hundreds or thousands silent after the fact. Dispose of an entire plane and the passengers, apparently willing to commit cold-blooded murder on many fronts, to try and justify a war. Hoodwinked people into thinking a missile or other plane was a jet.

Have you ever been fooled by an illusionist? Most of the times we can't see the trick even if we stand in front of an illusionist in a closed room.

And if a single WTC building had been flown into and collapsed, it would STILL be 9/11. It would still be a vivid statement. Heck.. why not just blow up the stock exchange, since supposedly they were trying to do in our economy?

I agree, it would still be 9/11.
If they blew up the stock exchange they would have lost trillions of dollars, it's kinda shooting at your own foot, like poisoning water supplies.

And yes.. it WAS perfectly conducted, if the best you can go on is light poles would have flown farther, "pull out" means it was demolition, and someone saying missile could ONLY mean they are apparently brilliant enough to pull this off.. but STUPID enough to blurt this out to the public. Hmm.. he couldn't possibly be talking about using planes as missiles.. because it doesn't fit in with your theories.

Actually I have better questions, which I have asked, which nobody answered yet...

Originally posted by CTrider

Originally posted by stealthAUS
definition of missile:
source oxford online dictionary:

missile

• noun

1 an object which is forcibly propelled at a target.

2 a weapon that is self-propelled or directed by remote control, carrying conventional or nuclear explosive.


"an object which is forcibly propelled at a target."
proof that an aeroplane can be used as a missile. some earlier missiles before the design of the crusiform shape liked very much like UAV's with a charge on them.
also in saying that anything from throwing a rock to a dart is classified as a missile.

1. A plane is not "forcibly propelled" unless it gets it's momentum solely from a device such as the catapult used to launch fighters on a carrier. That actually does not happen anywhere as only planes getting their momentum from outside sources are gliders (Or whatever they're called... ). Forcibly propelled implies an outside source providing the initial momentum. Hence the explanations you posted explicitly state different propulsion methods (self-propelled vs. forcibly propelled).

2. A plane is not a "weapon" except in a broad sense. A plane (fighter) can carry weapons. Just as a man can be considered a weapon, but usually is NOT referred to as such. A man can carry weapons. Same difference.

So, no, neither fits the case at hand.

Now fling a man at a building...he is also a missile

I agree with you...a plane is not a weapon, and fortunately for us who want the truth known...neither are the minds of these official story believers...

I think taking the "Missile" term so literally is ridiculous.

We all remember the guy who threw his shoes at George Bush don't we?

Here's a few quotes from some new sites:

President George Bush Ducks Shoe Missile Thrown At Him In Baghdad By Arab Journalist Muntadar Al-Zeidi - Pictures And Video

Link

It could just as well have been a bomb. Nothing funny about being attack by any missile thrown.

Link

Secret service protects Bush from missile shoes

Link


Just saying...

reply to post by Chadwickus


I just recently saw a piece where they showed a memo from CNN asking their reporters to use the term "Neighborhood" when referring to Palestinians settlements... Then you hear them spout their lies using these words....

They implant it into your unconscious.. that's why 9/11 sticks in the mind... they said 911, terrorists so much that first week that who could think of anything else... Here's a prev post of mine that may explain more..


So the fact that they used the "missile" word in the context of a shoe is their way of distracting you from what a missile is... I know and most people know... but how many have seen the shoe/missile/etc media propaganda??

Time will tell what a missile is in the dictionary in the future...

On the day it happened I knew straight away George Bush had something to do with it, that's why he didn't batt an eyelid when told of the news at that primary school he was at at the time it happened. There was an article on a news website about remote-controlled airplanes which were being tested flying unmanned from Australia to America, it may have been a Canadian news website. In reality only the Yanks could organize and pull-off (and finance) such a synchronistic operation 9/11, when compared to the likes of suicide bombers etc,.

Have a look at David Icke's website or any other site on the Iluminati or Jason Society J12.

It's quite amazing when people do not wish to have their eyes opened to what goes on in the world behind the scenes. They will criticise and reject any other opinions that do not fit with the way they see the world rather than remain open and consider the possibility that things happen in the world that are orchestrated by the 'powers that be' for one hidden agenda or another and that will never be made known to the general public.

Tina
New Zealand

reply to post by Chadwickus

Actually, with a convienient power down the day before (Cable upgrade) you might could pull it off. And attacking our theory because it is complicated and takes planning really doesn't help the alternative.