9-11-01 Federal agency planned plane-crashing-into-building drill

[Max Power]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002-08-22-sept-11-plane-drill-_x.htm

WASHINGTON (AP) — In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one U.S. intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft would crash into one of its buildings. But the cause wasn't terrorism — it was to be a simulated accident.

http://infowars.com/articles/London...consultants.htm
(Video)

In London, there was a training scenario regarding several simulataneous attacks on the London Underground.
That day, there were several simultaneous attacks on the London Underground. At the EXACT same stations.

 

[insein]

where have you been? This has been a defunct conspiracy theory for awhile. Even the article is from 2002.

 

[Max Power]

where have you been? This has been a defunct conspiracy theory for awhile. Even the article is from 2002.

Proof?

 

[insein]

Proof?

Still waiting for you to give me some.

 

[manu1959]

all the "hijackers" are still alive and living on the french riviera...

 

[Max Power]

Still waiting for you to give me some.

I posted a USA Today article, a reputable national newspaper with the widest circulation of any newspaper in the U.S.

What proof do you have? Any?

 

[modulistic]

he doesnt have to prove that a drill perfectly coincided with a plane crash drill on the morning of 911. in fact, he cant. thats impossible.

thats called proving a negative.


all he has to do is prove that one did happen, which he did when he posted a mainstream news article.

 

[insein]

I posted a USA Today article, a reputable national newspaper with the widest circulation of any newspaper in the U.S.

What proof do you have? Any?

You posted a newspaper article from 2002 with hearsay and conjecture. If its such a reputable story with a reputable newspaper, then why have the criminal proceedings not begun?

Come on man. I was starting to gain some respect for your ability to argue a point but this is just nonsensical. Its a 3 year old article about a liberals wet dream that has no basis in fact.

 

[Max Power]

You posted a newspaper article from 2002 with hearsay and conjecture.

How old does news have to be, for it to cease being true?

If its such a reputable story with a reputable newspaper, then why have the criminal proceedings not begun?

First you claim this is "defunct conspiracy theory for," and now this is your argument?
Your argument's melting quicker than an ice cube in hell.

 

[insein]

How old does news have to be, for it to cease being true?


First you claim this is "defunct conspiracy theory for," and now this is your argument?
Your argument's melting quicker than an ice cube in hell.

What argument? Im not really defending anything because there is nothing to defend. I saw planes crash into towers on 9/11/01. Your telling me that because of 1 article in a newspaper 4 years ago, my opinion should change?

 

[Max Power]

What argument? Im not really defending anything because there is nothing to defend. I saw planes crash into towers on 9/11/01. Your telling me that because of 1 article in a newspaper 4 years ago, my opinion should change?

Your argument that this is, "defunct conspiracy theory for awhile."

I don't doubt or debate that planes crashed on 9-11. I was in NY at the time.

 

[modulistic]

What argument? Im not really defending anything because there is nothing to defend. I saw planes crash into towers on 9/11/01. Your telling me that because of 1 article in a newspaper 4 years ago, my opinion should change?

I think your opinion should change because the owners of the contracting agencies that hauled away the debris reported lingering pools of molten steel for weeks afterwards, when it is absolute fact and common knowledge that jet fuel will not even come close to melting steel.

 

[manu1959]

I think your opinion should change because the owners of the contracting agencies that hauled away the debris reported lingering pools of molten steel for weeks afterwards, when it is absolute fact and common knowledge that jet fuel will not even come close to melting steel.

really....wow....guess that means jets didn't hit the buildings

 

[modulistic]

jets hit the buildings.

 

[manu1959]

jets hit the buildings.

michael moore told me it was all photshoped and there were demo charges set by the jewish secrete service

 

[manu1959]

I think your opinion should change because the owners of the contracting agencies that hauled away the debris reported lingering pools of molten steel for weeks afterwards, when it is absolute fact and common knowledge that jet fuel will not even come close to melting steel.

what does jet fuel melting steel and molten pools of steel weeks later have to do with each other?

 

[modulistic]

well, the commonly accepted theory is that jet fuel melted the world trade centers. then, when I point out that jet fuel wont melt steel, people usually counter

"well, it only has to soften the steel, not really melt it."

then I point out that the contractors hired to cart away the debris had to deal with lingering pools of molten steel, they dont really know what to say.

 

[manu1959]

well, the commonly accepted theory is that jet fuel melted the world trade centers. then, when I point out that jet fuel wont melt steel, people usually counter

"well, it only has to soften the steel, not really melt it."

then I point out that the contractors hired to cart away the debris had to deal with lingering pools of molten steel, they dont really know what to say.

you have said that twice now.....i am on pins and needles

 

[insein]

ok so if the steel was melted, then what did it if not the jet fuel?

 

[manu1959]

ok so if the steel was melted, then what did it if not the jet fuel?

hmmmmmmmmmm...BBC says not jet fuel....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1540044.stm

bummer