things I don't understand

[pinqy]

Assuming that 9/11 was an inside job, why do it that way?

Assuming:

• Planes hit the WTC, but it was controlled demolitions that brought the towers down.
• No plane hit the Pentagon, but really a missle.
• No plane crashed in Shanksville, the hole was faked.

Why would that plan make sense? Why have planes AND controlled demolition? While planes alone might not have been as destructive (under our assumptions) why wouldn't the planes alone have been sufficient to blame a terrorist attack?
Why shoot a missle at the Pentagon and claim it was a plane? Why not use a plane, or claim the missle was a terrorist missle? Why bother with Shanksville at all if there was no plane, or why not actually crash a plane? What sense does it make to claim a failed attack like that?

Now, my prediction is that some people will not actually answer these questions or even try to explain, but simply post video links (which I can't access) and/or otherwise repeat the same things pointing out alleged flaws in the official story.

So....forget whatever flaws there may be in the official story, just deal with the issue I'm talking about.

 

[Fizz]

twoofers dont care about facts, making sense or evidence. they already have come to the conclusion that america attacked america and will only show evidence that supports their preconceived conclusion.... no matter how absurd.

 

[SFC Ollie]

But Fizz, they have no evidence. Not once has anyone offered proof that the 911 CR is wrong.

We hear or see a lot of BS theories with some really screwed up statements, But there is not an ounce of physical proof that the 911CR is wrong.

So pinqy, keeping this in mind.................................... no one would do it that way.

 

[Activist Too]

I decided that I'd best focus myself on things I might be able to do something about, or help do something about rather than argue about that which I cannot directly affect or prove. I see a lot of this stuff as being used as a red herring (ala debate) to try to distract the public from the things the powers that be do not want them to notice or take action about. Really. We must be clear headed at all times!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I decided that I'd best focus myself on things I might be able to do something about, or help do something about rather than argue about that which I cannot directly affect or prove. I see a lot of this stuff as being used as a red herring (ala debate) to try to distract the public from the things the powers that be do not want them to notice or take action about. Really. We must be clear headed at all times!

I see a lot of this stuff as being used as a red herring (ala debate) to try to distract the public from the things the powers that be do not want them to notice or take action about.

Activis Too, is a power that be?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Assuming that 9/11 was an inside job, why do it that way?

Assuming:

• Planes hit the WTC, but it was controlled demolitions that brought the towers down.
• No plane hit the Pentagon, but really a missle.
• No plane crashed in Shanksville, the hole was faked.

Why would that plan make sense? Why have planes AND controlled demolition? While planes alone might not have been as destructive (under our assumptions) why wouldn't the planes alone have been sufficient to blame a terrorist attack?
Why shoot a missle at the Pentagon and claim it was a plane? Why not use a plane, or claim the missle was a terrorist missle? Why bother with Shanksville at all if there was no plane, or why not actually crash a plane? What sense does it make to claim a failed attack like that?

Now, my prediction is that some people will not actually answer these questions or even try to explain, but simply post video links (which I can't access) and/or otherwise repeat the same things pointing out alleged flaws in the official story.

So....forget whatever flaws there may be in the official story, just deal with the issue I'm talking about.

You are asking people to make 'sense' in their arguments and that is not going to happen.

 

[gslack]

Assuming that 9/11 was an inside job, why do it that way?

Assuming:

• Planes hit the WTC, but it was controlled demolitions that brought the towers down.
• No plane hit the Pentagon, but really a missle.
• No plane crashed in Shanksville, the hole was faked.

Why would that plan make sense? Why have planes AND controlled demolition? While planes alone might not have been as destructive (under our assumptions) why wouldn't the planes alone have been sufficient to blame a terrorist attack?
Why shoot a missle at the Pentagon and claim it was a plane? Why not use a plane, or claim the missle was a terrorist missle? Why bother with Shanksville at all if there was no plane, or why not actually crash a plane? What sense does it make to claim a failed attack like that?

Now, my prediction is that some people will not actually answer these questions or even try to explain, but simply post video links (which I can't access) and/or otherwise repeat the same things pointing out alleged flaws in the official story.

So....forget whatever flaws there may be in the official story, just deal with the issue I'm talking about.

Simple answer? They wouldn't have bothered... Wouldn't have had to. IF they (CIA,NSA,name your agency or whatever) wanted to frighten people into this or that, they wouldn't do so in such a manner. All they would have to do is place the idea in the right head of the right people, relax some security and procedures long enough and play dumb and they would do it for them...

Or even better, they wouldn't even have to do that at all. They could show some pictures of tormented children and or women being mistreated, and we would demand intervention on their behalf...

Thats the reality here.. They try and pretend it was a scare tactic to get us into a war on terror or for ural mountains gas reserves or whatever. But the truth is something like WTC would have been overkill in the extreme.

Sure there are a lot of unanswered questions, and the 911 commission report was just like the warren report for the JFK assassination. it is not meant to give answers or investigate truth. Its to tell us what they are accepting and going to commit to... In every single one of those commissions the who, what, and where are already set. All they do is give the impression they are doing something and giving the public something to quiet them...

Those questions will never be answered because those commissions do not have any intention of investigation.

How did they come down? They were hit by planes knocking out enough of their steel space frame endo-skeleton to allow the stress of the structures weight and the wind at those heights to do the rest.

Who did it? Evil bastards who for some reason wanted to... Whatever the reasons, or whoever they were; be they terrorists, mossad, CIA, Wealthy internationalists pent on world domination, take your pick it changes nothing...

Why? Well you name it... Seriously, I have seen everything from terrorizing the public to an insurance scam and all points between. This does not change anything either.. We can't take it back, and how could we possibly punish those responsible enough? What would be a fitting punishment? Nothing I can think of would quite cut it, and the only alternative would force us to become the type of people we oppose....

My point in all this simple... We will never in our lifetimes know all the particulars, this is too big and too damning for everyone who could possibly be involved. Something like this requires mutually assured destruction of all parties involved. if you could even get one person who was involved, that person would be already vilified beyond any hope of believability or trust. if he or she even made it to that point. And then the lead would be cut off there. Its a hydra, where you cut off one head and another one or two takes its place. All heads assuring the protection and silence of the others....

 

[Mr. H.]

A few of my favorite things I don't understand:

Why do dogs bite?

Why do bees sting?

Why am I feeling sad?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

A few of my favorite things I don't understand:

Why do dogs bite?

Why do bees sting?

Why am I feeling sad?

You're not really feeling sad. You're living IT.

 

[Mr. H.]

Dante, you infer no sense.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

I decided that I'd best focus myself on things I might be able to do something about, or help do something about rather than argue about that which I cannot directly affect or prove. I see a lot of this stuff as being used as a red herring (ala debate) to try to distract the public from the things the powers that be do not want them to notice or take action about. Really. We must be clear headed at all times!

very true.well said.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Assuming that 9/11 was an inside job, why do it that way?

Assuming:

• Planes hit the WTC, but it was controlled demolitions that brought the towers down.
• No plane hit the Pentagon, but really a missle.
• No plane crashed in Shanksville, the hole was faked.

Why would that plan make sense? Why have planes AND controlled demolition? While planes alone might not have been as destructive (under our assumptions) why wouldn't the planes alone have been sufficient to blame a terrorist attack?
Why shoot a missle at the Pentagon and claim it was a plane? Why not use a plane, or claim the missle was a terrorist missle? Why bother with Shanksville at all if there was no plane, or why not actually crash a plane? What sense does it make to claim a failed attack like that?

Now, my prediction is that some people will not actually answer these questions or even try to explain, but simply post video links (which I can't access) and/or otherwise repeat the same things pointing out alleged flaws in the official story.

So....forget whatever flaws there may be in the official story, just deal with the issue I'm talking about.

Simple answer? They wouldn't have bothered... Wouldn't have had to. IF they (CIA,NSA,name your agency or whatever) wanted to frighten people into this or that, they wouldn't do so in such a manner. All they would have to do is place the idea in the right head of the right people, relax some security and procedures long enough and play dumb and they would do it for them...

Or even better, they wouldn't even have to do that at all. They could show some pictures of tormented children and or women being mistreated, and we would demand intervention on their behalf...

Thats the reality here.. They try and pretend it was a scare tactic to get us into a war on terror or for ural mountains gas reserves or whatever. But the truth is something like WTC would have been overkill in the extreme.

Sure there are a lot of unanswered questions, and the 911 commission report was just like the warren report for the JFK assassination. it is not meant to give answers or investigate truth. Its to tell us what they are accepting and going to commit to... In every single one of those commissions the who, what, and where are already set. All they do is give the impression they are doing something and giving the public something to quiet them...

Those questions will never be answered because those commissions do not have any intention of investigation.

How did they come down? They were hit by planes knocking out enough of their steel space frame endo-skeleton to allow the stress of the structures weight and the wind at those heights to do the rest.

Who did it? Evil bastards who for some reason wanted to... Whatever the reasons, or whoever they were; be they terrorists, mossad, CIA, Wealthy internationalists pent on world domination, take your pick it changes nothing...

Why? Well you name it... Seriously, I have seen everything from terrorizing the public to an insurance scam and all points between. This does not change anything either.. We can't take it back, and how could we possibly punish those responsible enough? What would be a fitting punishment? Nothing I can think of would quite cut it, and the only alternative would force us to become the type of people we oppose....

My point in all this simple... We will never in our lifetimes know all the particulars, this is too big and too damning for everyone who could possibly be involved. Something like this requires mutually assured destruction of all parties involved. if you could even get one person who was involved, that person would be already vilified beyond any hope of believability or trust. if he or she even made it to that point. And then the lead would be cut off there. Its a hydra, where you cut off one head and another one or two takes its place. All heads assuring the protection and silence of the others....

very true,just like the warren commission,the 9/11 coverup commission was never meant to investigate anything.just to give the public comfort that they were looking into it.One thing you missed is that explosives brought the towers down.this video here has never been debunked despite what agent Fizzle and others come on here and try to say.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw[/ame]

 

[pinqy]

One thing you missed is that explosives brought the towers down.this video here has never been debunked despite what agent Fizzle and others come on here and try to say.

Regardless of whether or not it has been debunked, the question remains WHY bring it down with explosives? WHY was that done? It doesn't make any sense. Since you're claiming it was brought down with explosives, it obviously makes sense to you, so please share.

 

[Fizz]

very true,just like the warren commission,the 9/11 coverup commission was never meant to investigate anything.just to give the public comfort that they were looking into it.One thing you missed is that explosives brought the towers down.this video here has never been debunked despite what agent Fizzle and others come on here and try to say.

find any evidence of explosives yet?

 

[Terral]

Hi Pingy:

Assuming that 9/11 was an inside job, why do it that way?

Assuming:

• Planes hit the WTC, but it was controlled demolitions that brought the towers down.

WTC-7 was NOT hit by any Jetliner, but collapsed CD Style into its own footprint in 6.6 seconds (my USMB Topic). Do the math!

No plane hit the Pentagon, but really a missle.

The Pentagon was struck by a Raytheon Hypersonic Missile at exactly 9:31:39 AM (my 911Truth Blog Entry) 'and' was struck by a retrofitted A-3 Skywarrior, painted up to look like a real Boeing AA Jetliner at exactly 9:36:27 AM (my USMB Topic). Go through the evidence and try to 'debunk' something ...

No plane crashed in Shanksville, the hole was faked.

We have pictures of the 'hole' taken from the U.S. Geological Survey Satellite on April 20, 1994 (pic), which you should already know from my USMB Topic (here).

Why would that plan make sense?

People (especially Americans) are idiots and will believe just about anything. These are Top Ten Reasons that the USA will be destroyed (my USMB Topic). The best USMB post on 'What Really Happened On 9/11' is here.

Why have planes AND controlled demolition?

What planes? AA11 was 'canceled' just like AA77 (see #1). Flight 93 and Flight 175 landed in Cleveland on 9/11 (story). You confused have been DUPED by Bush, Rove, Cheney, Rumsfeld and now Obama ...

While planes alone might not have been as destructive (under our assumptions) why wouldn't the planes alone have been sufficient to blame a terrorist attack?

Flights 11, 77, 93 and 175 had NOTHING to do with the 9/11 Inside Job, which is the reason the Govt cannot produce any 'time-change parts' (Colonel George Nelson).

Why shoot a missle at the Pentagon and claim it was a plane?

Donald Rumsfeld admitted 'the missile' struck the Pentagon on 9/12 to Parade Magazine (story). The "Jetliner Hoax" was created to give Bush-controlled FBI jurisdiction over the Inside Job Investigation that the same corrupt Agency helped to carry out!

Why not use a plane, or claim the missle was a terrorist missle?

The supposed 'terrorists' do not have access to the sophisticated hypersonic missiles used on 9/11!!!!

Why bother with Shanksville at all if there was no plane, or why not actually crash a plane? What sense does it make to claim a failed attack like that?

The military shot down a Jetliner attached to the Global Guardian Wargames that ran as a cover for these 9/11 attacks (What Really Happened). The FBI and the CIA and the NSA worked together to murder innocent Americans to then assign them seats on two canceled flights (AA11 and AA77) and two flights that landed in Cleveland (93 and 175). Why? Again, Americans are fools that will believe anything ...

Now, my prediction is that some people will not actually answer these questions or even try to explain, but simply post video links (which I can't access) and/or otherwise repeat the same things pointing out alleged flaws in the official story.

I know more about 9/11 than everyone else here combined. Ask any questions you wish and be prepared for 'the' 911Truth ...

So....forget whatever flaws there may be in the official story, just deal with the issue I'm talking about.

Okie dokie then,

GL,

Terral

 

[Tom Clancy]

I have yet to hear where those folks on the plane went..

I mean if it was hit by a Missile where did the plane go?

Cabo? Cancun?

Shit, I'd be down.

 

[Terral]

Hi Tom:

I have yet to hear where those folks on the plane went..

I mean if it was hit by a Missile where did the plane go?

Cabo? Cancun?

Shit, I'd be down.

Read through my answer to the Opening Post Questions, quote something, and ask your question in that context. AA77 WAS CANCELED (see #1 + do the CAPS help?) which means there was no 100-Ton Jetliner involved with the Pentagon Attack.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTJehfQkuyE]These Experts Know That "NO" Jetliner Hit The Pentagon ...[/ame]

GL,

Terral

 

[Tom Clancy]

If it was canceled how did all those people die?

Still in Cancun? Cabo? Canada?

 

[SFC Ollie]

Hi Tom:

I have yet to hear where those folks on the plane went..

I mean if it was hit by a Missile where did the plane go?

Cabo? Cancun?

Shit, I'd be down.

Read through my answer to the Opening Post Questions, quote something, and ask your question in that context. AA77 WAS CANCELED (see #1 + do the CAPS help?) which means there was no 100-Ton Jetliner involved with the Pentagon Attack.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JTJehfQkuyE]These Experts Know That "NO" Jetliner Hit The Pentagon ...[/ame]

GL,

Terral

LOL Where are the people from the flight dumb ass? If the flight was canceled they would be alive and walking around telling people that they were not dead. That, "hey dude I never died at the pentagon, Naw the flight never took off." But this isn't happening. The people who were on flight AA77 that morning died at the pentagon. We have the DNA evidence to prove it. Where is your physical evidence again?

Fucking Dumb ass.

 

[Fizz]

Hi Pingy:

Assuming that 9/11 was an inside job, why do it that way?

Assuming:

• Planes hit the WTC, but it was controlled demolitions that brought the towers down.

WTC-7 was NOT hit by any Jetliner, but collapsed CD Style into its own footprint in 6.6 seconds (my USMB Topic). Do the math!

liar. debunked already.

No plane hit the Pentagon, but really a missle.

The Pentagon was struck by a Raytheon Hypersonic Missile ===delusional bullshit removed===

liar. debunked already.

We have pictures of the 'hole' taken from the U.S. Geological Survey Satellite on April 20, 1994 ===delusional bullshit removed===

liar. debunked already.

What planes? AA11 was 'canceled' just like AA77 (see #1). Flight 93 and Flight 175 landed in Cleveland on 9/11 (story).==delusional bullshit removed===

liar. debunked already.

Flights 11, 77, 93 and 175 had NOTHING to do with the 9/11 Inside Job, ==delusional bullshit removed===

liar.

Donald Rumsfeld admitted 'the missile' struck the Pentagon on 9/12 to Parade Magazine (story). ==delusional bullshit removed===

its been repeated over and over that the hijackers used planes as missiles.

The supposed 'terrorists' do not have access to the sophisticated hypersonic missiles used on 9/11!!!!

there was no hypersonic missile used

The military shot down a Jetliner attached to the Global Guardian Wargames that ran as a cover for these 9/11 attacks (What Really Happened). ==delusional bullshit removed==

liar.

Now, my prediction is that some people will not actually answer these questions or even try to explain, but simply post video links (which I can't access) and/or otherwise repeat the same things pointing out alleged flaws in the official story.

I know more about 9/11 than everyone else here combined. Ask any questions you wish and be prepared for 'the' 911Truth ...

delusional bullshit retained for comedic effect.