Another reason that points to an inside job !

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Thanks Dave. I guess it's ok than...if it was private contractors...contracted by...fairies...

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly

 

5. This one is my favorite.You would need to be certain, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that your crew of 19 will successfully board their respective targets, even though, they were all arab looking, with arab names, some on terrorist watch lists, and were carrying concealed weapons (box cutters). You would need to be sure that none of them will fail to pass the airport security checks. If just one of them fails, the whole plan could just collapse. So 19...why 19? Does it make sense to have odd number of hijackers for an even number of planes? Was one of the planes easier to hijack than the rest and needed fewer guys to control it?

Rather than go through each of your 7 points I will just play with this one for a while,

First of all terrorist watch lists were not the same as they were after 9/11, the lists they were on were not circulated correctly between departments, the terrorists were on the state departments TIPOFF list which the FAA did not have access to. The fact that they were Arabs holds is of no significance however several were selected for CAPPS screaming, it was also quite easy before 9/11 to get on a plane with a box cutter.

On the issue of why 19, well there was supposed to be 20 hijackers however Ramzi Bin al-Shibh (others have been named as the 20th hijacker) was unable to attain a American visa so they made do with 19.

Why don't you explain that the U.S. and Allied Intelligence Heard the 9/11 Hijackers Plans from Their Own Mouths ?

Reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
_______________________________________

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
_______________________________________

So the list was for the state department. Than I suppose, everyone that enters the country is compared against the list, by someone at the state department?

Originally posted by OtherSideOfTheCoin
reply to post by MarioOnTheFly
______________________________________

And that was the problem, the agencies were not exchanging the information so no, nobody was looking.

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly
reply to post by OtherSideOfTheCoin
_____________________________________

So the list is useless, and the state departmnet wasn't doing their job. Good to know you guys are paying their wages...

So now we know that it was the State Departments' negligence that allowed the attacks to succeed . I can't remember who at the State Department suffered any kind of consequences, maybe you can remind me?

Originally posted by MarioOnTheFly


Not everybody, because nobody took the fall but Osama...what you are saying are dead letters on a screen. OS apologists just shrug shoulders and say "incompetence"...which means..."not guilty".

Nonsense. There are many people who think 9/11 was a terrorist act by OBL et al who are furious at the lack of proper intel and inter-agency failures. But if you don't bother to find out about this stuff and only see it through a prism of 9/11 "Truthers v OSers" you're not getting a nuanced view.

The 9/11 Commission itself was incredibly critical of government, agencies and institutions, describing "deep institutional failings", "failure of imagination" and a lack of organisation.

What do you mean? There is a protocol for checking persons before allowing them in to the country. There is a protocol for dealing with hijackers. There is a protocol also for arresting the accused and having them tried for the crime for which they are accused of.

There are protocols for everything. Protocol for filling forms, for applying for jobs, for putting out fires...there are protocols for plethora of things. Protocol means...prepared response to a predictable situation. Hijacking airplanes is certainly predictable...as was 1000 times shown...and I hate to quote it again...but here it is...Operation Northwood. Claiming that such an event was somehow out of the realm of predictability...is IMO...looking the other way.


But sure...we can argue about specifics...since one of the Hijackers wore orange shorts...that somehow excludes this event from being resolved with protocol. There is a protocol for hijacked airplanes...and whatever the outcome of the hijacking is...protocols were not followed.

This is just a rant. It is not "arguing about specifics" to point out that the protocol for hijackings was to comply with terrorists' demands, let them land and then work from there. I agree to an extent that one might have expected one's leaders to have greater imagination and predicted the threat if not specifically then at least generally; that one certainly would have expected them to be in better shape to handle it. And guess what? So does the Commission Report.

Northwoods is, as usual, irrelevant.

I do actually. Human behavior is more or less very predictable. Where I don't have faith is institutions...because they are run by the money...not morality.

Again I agree to an extent.

But did you predict 9/11?

reply to post by TrickoftheShade

The 9/11 Commission itself was incredibly critical of government, agencies and institutions, describing "deep institutional failings", "failure of imagination" and a lack of organisation.

NORAD had drills of jets as weapons

New security concerns



Failure of whos imagination ?

Originally posted by dawnprince


If 9/11 was truly an act of foreign terrorists , why attack the towers at such an early time ? surely if they wanted to be sure of maximum loss of life , they would have attacked when the towers were sure to be more populated .

In that case why fly planes into them?

If it was a controlled demolition just "pull it " and down come both of the towers with every single person inside with no chance whatsoever of anybody evacuating the buildings?

reply to post by Classified Info

In that case why fly planes into them?

If it was a controlled demolition just "pull it " and down come both of the towers with every single person inside with no chance whatsoever of anybody evacuating the buildings?

Excellant! Bravo!

Why waste time with remote controlled jets.
Just pick a few bad guys in positions to access explosives.
Kill the bad guys and leaves their bodies in to buildings with allah notes.
Set off the explosives.

You don't have to shoot down a plane in PA.
You don't have to plant plane parts in DC.

Originally posted by samkent
reply to post by Classified Info

 

In that case why fly planes into them?

If it was a controlled demolition just "pull it " and down come both of the towers with every single person inside with no chance whatsoever of anybody evacuating the buildings?

Excellant! Bravo!

Why waste time with remote controlled jets.
Just pick a few bad guys in positions to access explosives.
Kill the bad guys and leaves their bodies in to buildings with allah notes.
Set off the explosives.

You don't have to shoot down a plane in PA.
You don't have to plant plane parts in DC.

Planes are more dramatic! Also, you cant cause a self-inflcited wound on the pentagon without something like a 'plane', it's not like anyone who is not a government agent can get anywhere near the pentagon to plant a bomb!
It also allowed them to take more freedoms away from the genral public.

This conspiracy was planned out over decades, it was one giant elaborate dramatic hoax. The 'truth movement' you constantly go on about was part of their plan, they created it, they set it up soon after 9/11, everyone on here (aside shills, if there are any) are part of the plan, they want you all arguing over the large amounts of disinfo they created. The want confusion, they want people to call each other wack jobs everytime they get close to the truth.

There were hundreds of people involved, all paid off to be part of this huge conspiracy.

Think about it, it's easier to get people to be part of the psy-ops if you tell them there will be no victims, and that it's just a big illusion to make the general public think lots of people died, and slamming planes into buildings is even more dramatic, it makes people think even more people died. The jumpers, just more hoaxed drama.

Maybe some people actually did die, but that was not the plan, minimal deaths was the plan, but their co-conspirators opted in for financial gain under the guise that all the deaths would not really occur and would just be hoaxed, to make the hoax seem more realistic.

It's much easier to get people to conspire with you if you tell them that there will be no victims, because they will then have no guilt, and a big fat paycheck for doing their part and keeping their mouths shut.

Go think about this for a while, it's something everyone should run through their mind, because all the bickering that goes on in places like this is fruitless, because most 'debunkers' are just arguing about disinfo they picked up off tv or 9/11 government created websites.

Originally posted by kidtwist


Planes are more dramatic!

Maybe to you.

To have the towers standing there one minute and then seconds later they are GONE with everybody that was inside...is much more dramatic to me.

Originally posted by Classified Info

Originally posted by kidtwist


Planes are more dramatic!

Maybe to you.

To have the towers standing there one minute and then seconds later they are GONE with everybody that was inside...is much more dramatic to me.

The collapse of the buildings was just another layer of drama, as to the comment of 'everyone' inside, we will never know how many people were really inside. The whole planes/collapse was all part of the dramtic hoax. The more dramatic the better, it was planned that way.

reply to post by maxella1


You do know what "REAL TIME" means ....?

It means receiving information in time to affect the situation ...

NSA is normally on a 48 hour turnaround.

That is the raw intercept is recorded and forwarded to Fort Meade Md It them must be listened to, interpeted
and sent for analysis The information must then be distributed to the correct people to take action if any

This takes time Apparently Bin Laden and his operatives knew of the time lag between when a phone call was
intercepted and when the action could be anticipated

Apparently you have problem with READING COMPREHENSION or did you fail to read the link you
submiited....?

IE - NSA intercepts phone call at 9:53 am about additional planes still airbirne (Flight 93) It does not reach
Rumsfeld until after noon (1205PM)

Flight 93 crashed at 10:03am So how is this real time if did not reach Rumsfeld until 2 hours after it crashed?

Originally posted by thedman
reply to post by maxella1

 

Apparently you have problem with READING COMPREHENSION or did you fail to read the link you
submiited....?

Why do your comments always have to resort to insulting members? You do realise that manners and decorum are part of the rules here? Can you not debate without being derogatory? Just because you don't agree with someone's comment there is no need to be constantly rude, is there?

Im probly going to be called a lunatic follower or a crazy person my self, but any one that has any bit of a scientific mind and reads the book Where Did The Towers Go by Dr Judy Wood would have a clear idea of what happened on that day in New York. Here are her credentails.

B.S. (Civil Engineering, 1981) (Structural Engineering),

M.S. (Engineering Mechanics (Applied Physics), 1983), and

Ph.D. (Materials Engineering Science, 1992) from the Department of Engineering Science and Mechanics at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in Blacksburg, Virginia.
She has to my knowledge has done the ONLY forensic investigation into the subject matter and is probly the person best suited to do so. Bring on the name calling.

Good theory, but has been discussed many times before