what happened on 9/11/2001?

[Capstone]

Look at the herculean effort someone would have had to go through to fake an attack.....

* set up thousands of bombs in the WTC to simulate a controlled demolition. ...​

There's nothing herculean about rigging buildings for controlled demolitions. The WTC jobs could have easily been done by a team of military-trained demo experts (not necessarily from any branch of the US military, mind you) under the cover of a reportedly legitimate elevator modernization project (for Buildings 1 and 2) and routine maintenance/repairs (for Building 7). This work would have been done at least partially in plain sight, but mainly after/before regular business hours; and any uninvolved security, maintenance, or cleaning personnel would have had no reason to give the black operators' activities a second thought.

...* plant people in air towers to falsely report 4 commercial jets had turned off their transponders and had flown off course. ...

The transponders on the legitimate flights could have been turned-off remotely by ground operator(s) who weren't overtly affiliated with the FAA ... or by pilots who may have been in on the operation; but even if there were a handful of shills working in the flight towers, that wouldn't be so outrageous a thing for a small number of people in high places to make happen.

In accordance with the radar data provided by RADES, the shutting off of the transponders would have been crucial to the mid-flight swap-outs. Yes, the data clearly shows unidentified planes (RC drones, maybe?) converging, flying in perfect formation above or below, and then diverging from the radar tracks of reported 9/11 aircraft.

...* fake hundreds of families, pretending to grieve over lost family members.

Not necessarily. The passengers and crews from the real Flights 11 and 175 may have been off-loaded during an unscheduled stop-over and then herded (voluntarily or not) onto Flight 93. The unusually short passenger lists, for the 2 coast-to-coast flights in particular, would have served this hypothetical end very well. Since Boeing 757's have listed passenger capacities ranging from 200-295 people, Flight 93 could have easily accommodated the reported passengers and crews from Flights 11 (92 people), 175 (65 people), along with its own (40 people) for a grand total of 197 individuals (assuming that none of the Pilots or crew members were in on the operation, which may be a hasty assumption).

Of course, Flight 93 would have been remotely-piloted from take-off to crash-site, in my opinion, after having been shot down by a fighter interceptor who wasn't diverted in time; and if the pilot of that interceptor survived his debriefing, I'm sure he was encouraged in no uncertain terms to keep his mouth shut about the shoot-down.

...* fake black box recordings of hijackers.

Yeah, what a MASSIVE undertaking that would have been.

How many of those black boxes were reportedly recovered with usable sound-bites and data anyway?

...* fake phone recordings from flight #93. ...

Not a big deal in the least. People have done far stranger things under heavy duress.

The cell phone calls and the "let's roll" narrative were probably staged in the event that the RC aircraft didn't reach its intended target (Building 7).

...* paint military jets to look like commercial jets. ...

Not according to a number of eyewitnesses. Several people in good positions to see one or both of the aircraft/drones in NYC generally described the plane they saw as "a large, gray, military-looking plane" with "no emblems or logos on it".

I do believe that Flight 93 was a legitimate commercial 757 that had been modified for RC flight, primarily because its intended target would have demanded that it be flown into NYC after the "collapses" of the Twin Towers, where it almost certainly would have been caught by live television cameras from every major network in the country.

...* plant commercial jet airplane parts near crash sites.

Not where parts from the aircraft/drones were recovered.

Although, I must confess, finding a properly painted piece of fuselage shrapnel with a conveniently intact serial number on it laying on the Pentagon's lawn was almost as fortuitous for the OTC as the pristine passport that was found among the dust and debris in the aftermath of the "collapses" at ground zero!

In any case, if any of the prime-time cop shows are remotely realistic, planting evidence here and there is not that big a deal either.

...* fake 4 commercial jet hijackings. ...

Well, this much is certain: faking the hijackings as I've described above would have been far less herculean for the planners and operators than the actual hijackings would have been for the alleged 19 hijackers (flying at speeds well beyond the maximum operating limits while executing enormously difficult maneuvers at altitudes that would have ripped any standard "commercial airliner" to shreds ... were especially neat tricks).

...* plant fake news stories of Muslims learning how to fly commercial jets but not learning how to land them. ...

Why would they had to have been faked?

It's not as though anyone would have investigated reports of some of the alleged hijackers still being alive after 9/11!

...* fake Osama bin Laden taking credit for the attack. ...

Yeah, there's no evidence that anything like that ever happened.​

...When all they had to do was plant bombs in the buildings to blow them up; no planes needed.

They tried that and failed back in 1993.

Any plan to completely "bring down" the Twins would have called for covert access to the breadth and height of the buildings' internal structural supports. The aircraft/drones were simply a cover to help explain the unprecedented totality of the sort of destruction that was planned. Minus the airplanes, the WTC's security companies would have had an awful lot of explaining to do...

You have no evidence of any of that; but most salient -- None of that was needed ... all they had to do is blow up the buildings. Occam's razor has never been more applicable.

Again, they tried that back in 1993. What did "they" learn from that failed operation, you may well ask? I'd say the main thing they learned was that another simple bombing probably wouldn't result in enough death and destruction to shock the country into supporting the war-hawks' agenda, much less tacitly allowing the draconian measures that would be foisted on the American People in the guise of The Patriot Act , ETC.

Oh, and as far as the 9/11 "evidence" is concerned, there's way more in support of my beliefs than the near absence of that in support of the Official Conspiracy Theory®, simply by virtue of the fact that mine are far better corroborated by the facts on the ground. Occam's Razor isn't tantamount to justification for the carte blanche refusal to even try to explain the many observed and documented aspects of 9/11 that remain entirely unexplained by the OTC to this very day.

 

[Capstone]

I should add: it's not just that the OTC holds no explanatory power for several crucial aspects of the events of 9/11/01; it's also, perhaps more importantly, that those aspects often contradict the OTC. The quest for the simplest explanation should never result in the blind acceptance of contradiction-ridden propaganda.

 

[Faun]

Look at the herculean effort someone would have had to go through to fake an attack.....

* set up thousands of bombs in the WTC to simulate a controlled demolition. ...​

There's nothing herculean about rigging buildings for controlled demolitions. The WTC jobs could have easily been done by a team of military-trained demo experts (not necessarily from any branch of the US military, mind you) under the cover of a reportedly legitimate elevator modernization project (for Buildings 1 and 2) and routine maintenance/repairs (for Building 7). This work would have been done at least partially in plain sight, but mainly after/before regular business hours; and any uninvolved security, maintenance, or cleaning personnel would have had no reason to give the black operators' activities a second thought.

...* plant people in air towers to falsely report 4 commercial jets had turned off their transponders and had flown off course. ...

The transponders on the legitimate flights could have been turned-off remotely by ground operator(s) who weren't overtly affiliated with the FAA ... or by pilots who may have been in on the operation; but even if there were a handful of shills working in the flight towers, that wouldn't be so outrageous a thing for a small number of people in high places to make happen.

In accordance with the radar data provided by RADES, the shutting off of the transponders would have been crucial to the mid-flight swap-outs. Yes, the data clearly shows unidentified planes (RC drones, maybe?) converging, flying in perfect formation above or below, and then diverging from the radar tracks of reported 9/11 aircraft.

...* fake hundreds of families, pretending to grieve over lost family members.

Not necessarily. The passengers and crews from the real Flights 11 and 175 may have been off-loaded during an unscheduled stop-over and then herded (voluntarily or not) onto Flight 93. The unusually short passenger lists, for the 2 coast-to-coast flights in particular, would have served this hypothetical end very well. Since Boeing 757's have listed passenger capacities ranging from 200-295 people, Flight 93 could have easily accommodated the reported passengers and crews from Flights 11 (92 people), 175 (65 people), along with its own (40 people) for a grand total of 197 individuals (assuming that none of the Pilots or crew members were in on the operation, which may be a hasty assumption).

Of course, Flight 93 would have been remotely-piloted from take-off to crash-site, in my opinion, after having been shot down by a fighter interceptor who wasn't diverted in time; and if the pilot of that interceptor survived his debriefing, I'm sure he was encouraged in no uncertain terms to keep his mouth shut about the shoot-down.

...* fake black box recordings of hijackers.

Yeah, what a MASSIVE undertaking that would have been.

How many of those black boxes were reportedly recovered with usable sound-bites and data anyway?

...* fake phone recordings from flight #93. ...

Not a big deal in the least. People have done far stranger things under heavy duress.

The cell phone calls and the "let's roll" narrative were probably staged in the event that the RC aircraft didn't reach its intended target (Building 7).

...* paint military jets to look like commercial jets. ...

Not according to a number of eyewitnesses. Several people in good positions to see one or both of the aircraft/drones in NYC generally described the plane they saw as "a large, gray, military-looking plane" with "no emblems or logos on it".

I do believe that Flight 93 was a legitimate commercial 757 that had been modified for RC flight, primarily because its intended target would have demanded that it be flown into NYC after the "collapses" of the Twin Towers, where it almost certainly would have been caught by live television cameras from every major network in the country.

...* plant commercial jet airplane parts near crash sites.

Not where parts from the aircraft/drones were recovered.

Although, I must confess, finding a properly painted piece of fuselage shrapnel with a conveniently intact serial number on it laying on the Pentagon's lawn was almost as fortuitous for the OTC as the pristine passport that was found among the dust and debris in the aftermath of the "collapses" at ground zero!

In any case, if any of the prime-time cop shows are remotely realistic, planting evidence here and there is not that big a deal either.

...* fake 4 commercial jet hijackings. ...

Well, this much is certain: faking the hijackings as I've described above would have been far less herculean for the planners and operators than the actual hijackings would have been for the alleged 19 hijackers (flying at speeds well beyond the maximum operating limits while executing enormously difficult maneuvers at altitudes that would have ripped any standard "commercial airliner" to shreds ... were especially neat tricks).

...* plant fake news stories of Muslims learning how to fly commercial jets but not learning how to land them. ...

Why would they had to have been faked?

It's not as though anyone would have investigated reports of some of the alleged hijackers still being alive after 9/11!

...* fake Osama bin Laden taking credit for the attack. ...

Yeah, there's no evidence that anything like that ever happened.​

...When all they had to do was plant bombs in the buildings to blow them up; no planes needed.

They tried that and failed back in 1993.

Any plan to completely "bring down" the Twins would have called for covert access to the breadth and height of the buildings' internal structural supports. The aircraft/drones were simply a cover to help explain the unprecedented totality of the sort of destruction that was planned. Minus the airplanes, the WTC's security companies would have had an awful lot of explaining to do...

You have no evidence of any of that; but most salient -- None of that was needed ... all they had to do is blow up the buildings. Occam's razor has never been more applicable.

Again, they tried that back in 1993. What did "they" learn from that failed operation, you may well ask? I'd say the main thing they learned was that another simple bombing probably wouldn't result in enough death and destruction to shock the country into supporting the war-hawks' agenda, much less tacitly allowing the draconian measures that would be foisted on the American People in the guise of The Patriot Act , ETC.

Oh, and as far as the 9/11 "evidence" is concerned, there's way more in support of my beliefs than the near absence of that in support of the Official Conspiracy Theory®, simply by virtue of the fact that mine are far better corroborated by the facts on the ground. Occam's Razor isn't tantamount to justification for the carte blanche refusal to even try to explain the many observed and documented aspects of 9/11 that remain entirely unexplained by the OTC to this very day.

There is no evidence to support your claims. Let's start with your claim that passengers were unloaded from flights 11 and 175 and then loaded onto 93....

.... let's see your evidence ...

 

[Capstone]

There is no evidence to support your claims. Let's start with your claim that passengers were unloaded from flights 11 and 175 and then loaded onto 93...[emphasis Capstone's]

No, let's start with an explication of the difference between a "claim" and a proposition, since you apparently don't have a very good handle on that distinction.

. . .Not necessarily. The passengers and crews from the real Flights 11 and 175 may have been off-loaded during an unscheduled stop-over and then herded (voluntarily or not) onto Flight 93. ...[emphasis added]

This statement proposes a scenario that's at least not contradicted by the known facts of the day, E.G. the unusually short passenger lists, the radar data that corroborates the switch-out hypothesis, and perhaps most importantly of all, the verifiable deaths of the passengers and crews from the three flights.

Now, had I claimed that such a scenario had happened, I'd have been more obligated to provide stronger evidence.

If you're going to proceed in our discussion, know that I won't allow you to mis-characterize the nature of any of my statements without calling you on the carpet for it.

 

[Faun]

There is no evidence to support your claims. Let's start with your claim that passengers were unloaded from flights 11 and 175 and then loaded onto 93...[emphasis Capstone's]

No, let's start with an explication of the difference between a "claim" and a proposition, since you apparently don't have a very good handle on that distinction.

. . .Not necessarily. The passengers and crews from the real Flights 11 and 175 may have been off-loaded during an unscheduled stop-over and then herded (voluntarily or not) onto Flight 93. ...[emphasis added]

This statement proposes a scenario that's at least not contradicted by the known facts of the day, E.G. the unusually short passenger lists, the radar data that corroborates the switch-out hypothesis, and perhaps most importantly of all, the verifiable deaths of the passengers and crews from the three flights.

Now, had I claimed that such a scenario had happened, I'd have been more obligated to provide stronger evidence.

If you're going to proceed in our discussion, know that I won't allow you to mis-characterize the nature of any of my statements without calling you on the carpet for it.

Propositions are worthless. My apologies for giving you more credit by assuming you were offering up something tangible and not merely from the dark recesses of your truther mind.

So let's try this from a different angle .... post something based on actual evidence and not from your imagination......

 

[daws101]

anybody notice the logo of the filmmakers on the top right in the opening?
it a twofer produced clip.
it has no credibility whatsoever !

Xendrius - YouTube

check out the channel it's a gut buster!

And yet again, the preferred ad hominem response of OTC apologists heads its ugly rear.

It's not the credibility of Zendrius that's at issue here, Daws; it's the continuity of several independent eyewitness accounts that were captured and preserved for posterity by various local and national news reports on the day of the "attacks". The fact that these accounts happen to corroborate conclusions drawn from the documented airspeed of reported 9/11 aircraft is also fair game. Your incessant ad homs do nothing to address (much less refute or "debunk") either of those facts.

love it when you rationalize.

 

[daws101]

We saw the planes hit the towers..

You saw something that you believe was an airliner hit the tower, since it was not flying a banner saying "this is a hijacked airliner"
all is speculation! and for another piece of info, I do NOT care if the Borg did it, the way things happened simply screams
FALSE FLAG ATTACK![/QUOT

Choke subdued guffaw! "Something that we believe was an airliner"??? All those people who were listed in the manifest and freaking died in the crash???? Was it an accident X 2 and were the cell phone conversations of flight 93 faked while they fought for their lives? Tin foil hats can account for only so much speculation. Sooner or later you have to face reality.

Look at the herculean effort someone would have had to go through to fake an attack.....

* set up thousands of bombs in the WTC to simulate a controlled demolition.

* plant people in air towers to falsely report 4 commercial jets had turned off their transponders and had flown off course.

* fake hundreds of families, pretending to grieve over lost family members.

* fake black box recordings of hijackers.

* fake phone recordings from flight #93.

* paint military jets to look like commercial jets.

* plant commercial jet airplane parts near crash sites.

* fake 4 commercial jet hijackings.

* plant fake news stories of Muslims learning how to fly commercial jets but not learning how to land them.

* fake Osama bin Laden taking credit for the attack.​

... plus who knows how much more? When all they had to do was plant bombs in the buildings to blow them up; no planes needed.

thats quite the list you have there, and as we all know
100% of that would need to be done and done perfectly
in order to fake the "hijacked airliners used as weapons" story.

or?

or you as always are talking out your ass!

 

[daws101]

Look at the herculean effort someone would have had to go through to fake an attack.....

* set up thousands of bombs in the WTC to simulate a controlled demolition. ...​

There's nothing herculean about rigging buildings for controlled demolitions. The WTC jobs could have easily been done by a team of military-trained demo experts (not necessarily from any branch of the US military, mind you) under the cover of a reportedly legitimate elevator modernization project (for Buildings 1 and 2) and routine maintenance/repairs (for Building 7). This work would have been done at least partially in plain sight, but mainly after/before regular business hours; and any uninvolved security, maintenance, or cleaning personnel would have had no reason to give the black operators' activities a second thought.

...* plant people in air towers to falsely report 4 commercial jets had turned off their transponders and had flown off course. ...

The transponders on the legitimate flights could have been turned-off remotely by ground operator(s) who weren't overtly affiliated with the FAA ... or by pilots who may have been in on the operation; but even if there were a handful of shills working in the flight towers, that wouldn't be so outrageous a thing for a small number of people in high places to make happen.

In accordance with the radar data provided by RADES, the shutting off of the transponders would have been crucial to the mid-flight swap-outs. Yes, the data clearly shows unidentified planes (RC drones, maybe?) converging, flying in perfect formation above or below, and then diverging from the radar tracks of reported 9/11 aircraft.

...* fake hundreds of families, pretending to grieve over lost family members.

Not necessarily. The passengers and crews from the real Flights 11 and 175 may have been off-loaded during an unscheduled stop-over and then herded (voluntarily or not) onto Flight 93. The unusually short passenger lists, for the 2 coast-to-coast flights in particular, would have served this hypothetical end very well. Since Boeing 757's have listed passenger capacities ranging from 200-295 people, Flight 93 could have easily accommodated the reported passengers and crews from Flights 11 (92 people), 175 (65 people), along with its own (40 people) for a grand total of 197 individuals (assuming that none of the Pilots or crew members were in on the operation, which may be a hasty assumption).

Of course, Flight 93 would have been remotely-piloted from take-off to crash-site, in my opinion, after having been shot down by a fighter interceptor who wasn't diverted in time; and if the pilot of that interceptor survived his debriefing, I'm sure he was encouraged in no uncertain terms to keep his mouth shut about the shoot-down.

...* fake black box recordings of hijackers.

Yeah, what a MASSIVE undertaking that would have been.

How many of those black boxes were reportedly recovered with usable sound-bites and data anyway?

...* fake phone recordings from flight #93. ...

Not a big deal in the least. People have done far stranger things under heavy duress.

The cell phone calls and the "let's roll" narrative were probably staged in the event that the RC aircraft didn't reach its intended target (Building 7).

...* paint military jets to look like commercial jets. ...

Not according to a number of eyewitnesses. Several people in good positions to see one or both of the aircraft/drones in NYC generally described the plane they saw as "a large, gray, military-looking plane" with "no emblems or logos on it".

I do believe that Flight 93 was a legitimate commercial 757 that had been modified for RC flight, primarily because its intended target would have demanded that it be flown into NYC after the "collapses" of the Twin Towers, where it almost certainly would have been caught by live television cameras from every major network in the country.

...* plant commercial jet airplane parts near crash sites.

Not where parts from the aircraft/drones were recovered.

Although, I must confess, finding a properly painted piece of fuselage shrapnel with a conveniently intact serial number on it laying on the Pentagon's lawn was almost as fortuitous for the OTC as the pristine passport that was found among the dust and debris in the aftermath of the "collapses" at ground zero!

In any case, if any of the prime-time cop shows are remotely realistic, planting evidence here and there is not that big a deal either.

...* fake 4 commercial jet hijackings. ...

Well, this much is certain: faking the hijackings as I've described above would have been far less herculean for the planners and operators than the actual hijackings would have been for the alleged 19 hijackers (flying at speeds well beyond the maximum operating limits while executing enormously difficult maneuvers at altitudes that would have ripped any standard "commercial airliner" to shreds ... were especially neat tricks).

...* plant fake news stories of Muslims learning how to fly commercial jets but not learning how to land them. ...

Why would they had to have been faked?

It's not as though anyone would have investigated reports of some of the alleged hijackers still being alive after 9/11!

...* fake Osama bin Laden taking credit for the attack. ...

Yeah, there's no evidence that anything like that ever happened.​

...When all they had to do was plant bombs in the buildings to blow them up; no planes needed.

They tried that and failed back in 1993.

Any plan to completely "bring down" the Twins would have called for covert access to the breadth and height of the buildings' internal structural supports. The aircraft/drones were simply a cover to help explain the unprecedented totality of the sort of destruction that was planned. Minus the airplanes, the WTC's security companies would have had an awful lot of explaining to do...

 

[Rat in the Hat]

We saw the planes hit the towers..

You saw something that you believe was an airliner hit the tower, since it was not flying a banner saying "this is a hijacked airliner"
all is speculation! and for another piece of info, I do NOT care if the Borg did it, the way things happened simply screams
FALSE FLAG ATTACK![/QUOT

Choke subdued guffaw! "Something that we believe was an airliner"??? All those people who were listed in the manifest and freaking died in the crash???? Was it an accident X 2 and were the cell phone conversations of flight 93 faked while they fought for their lives? Tin foil hats can account for only so much speculation. Sooner or later you have to face reality.

Look at the herculean effort someone would have had to go through to fake an attack.....

* set up thousands of bombs in the WTC to simulate a controlled demolition.

* plant people in air towers to falsely report 4 commercial jets had turned off their transponders and had flown off course.

* fake hundreds of families, pretending to grieve over lost family members.

* fake black box recordings of hijackers.

* fake phone recordings from flight #93.

* paint military jets to look like commercial jets.

* plant commercial jet airplane parts near crash sites.

* fake 4 commercial jet hijackings.

* plant fake news stories of Muslims learning how to fly commercial jets but not learning how to land them.

* fake Osama bin Laden taking credit for the attack.​

... plus who knows how much more? When all they had to do was plant bombs in the buildings to blow them up; no planes needed.

And all those people had to be kept from blowing the whistle before, during, and after the attacks.

By an administration that couldn't keep it quiet that Dick Cheney shot his hunting buddy in the face because he thought he was a bird.

 

[Faun]

We saw the planes hit the towers..

You saw something that you believe was an airliner hit the tower, since it was not flying a banner saying "this is a hijacked airliner"
all is speculation! and for another piece of info, I do NOT care if the Borg did it, the way things happened simply screams
FALSE FLAG ATTACK![/QUOT

Choke subdued guffaw! "Something that we believe was an airliner"??? All those people who were listed in the manifest and freaking died in the crash???? Was it an accident X 2 and were the cell phone conversations of flight 93 faked while they fought for their lives? Tin foil hats can account for only so much speculation. Sooner or later you have to face reality.

Look at the herculean effort someone would have had to go through to fake an attack.....

* set up thousands of bombs in the WTC to simulate a controlled demolition.

* plant people in air towers to falsely report 4 commercial jets had turned off their transponders and had flown off course.

* fake hundreds of families, pretending to grieve over lost family members.

* fake black box recordings of hijackers.

* fake phone recordings from flight #93.

* paint military jets to look like commercial jets.

* plant commercial jet airplane parts near crash sites.

* fake 4 commercial jet hijackings.

* plant fake news stories of Muslims learning how to fly commercial jets but not learning how to land them.

* fake Osama bin Laden taking credit for the attack.​

... plus who knows how much more? When all they had to do was plant bombs in the buildings to blow them up; no planes needed.

And all those people had to be kept from blowing the whistle before, during, and after the attacks.

By an administration that couldn't keep it quiet that Dick Cheney shot his hunting buddy in the face because he thought he was a bird.

They must have put all those people involved into an Air Asia flight which mysteriously disappeared somewhere over some ocean.

 

[n0spam4me]

Engineers use explosives to test geological formations, so as to gain knowledge about the structure they are investigating, and likewise, I see the '93 bombing as a test to learn how the WTC tower reacts to explosives so that the final demolition of the building(s) could be engineered.

 

[daws101]

Engineers use explosives to test geological formations, so as to gain knowledge about the structure they are investigating, and likewise, I see the '93 bombing as a test to learn how the WTC tower reacts to explosives so that the final demolition of the building(s) could be engineered.

so Mr. spammy how long have you been having these delusional episodes....

 

[irosie91]

Engineers use explosives to test geological formations, so as to gain knowledge about the structure they are investigating, and likewise, I see the '93 bombing as a test to learn how the WTC tower reacts to explosives so that the final demolition of the building(s) could be engineered.

so Mr. spammy how long have you been having these delusional episodes....

nothing is TOO ABSURD for islamo Nazi propagandaists----
it is a fact Goebbels exploited and taught to his audience---
emulators ----many of whom fled to muslim countries and wrote their "stuff" extensively------in fact----as a CAREER

 

[daws101]

Engineers use explosives to test geological formations, so as to gain knowledge about the structure they are investigating, and likewise, I see the '93 bombing as a test to learn how the WTC tower reacts to explosives so that the final demolition of the building(s) could be engineered.

so Mr. spammy how long have you been having these delusional episodes....

nothing is TOO ABSURD for islamo Nazi propagandaists----
it is a fact Goebbels exploited and taught to his audience---
emulators ----many of whom fled to muslim countries and wrote their "stuff" extensively------in fact----as a CAREER

ah .....spammy is a nut job for sure but a Nazi of any kind, no way.. koko on the other hand....
imo they are people who find some kind of crazy cold comfort in the myth that somebody is in control of everything...

 

[MaryL]

The OP has a huge problem with 9/11. Imagine that. Ok, ok, snide remarks aside, the events of 9/11 come down to a simple sucker punch. A sneak attack. NOT an conspiratorial inside job. No, not buying that, it's to fantastic and absurd. Ever since the 1983 suicide bombing
on the US marine barracks in Beirut, islamic terrorists have been escalating their attacks. And the simplest and most direct explanation is...TADA: islamic extremist pulled off their crowning achievement, three coordinated attacks using airplanes as weapons within the US borders. NOBODY was expecting it. That is it. NOBODY thought these creeps were capable of it. Now, we KNOW better.

 

[irosie91]

The OP has a huge problem with 9/11. Imagine that. Ok, ok, snide remarks aside, the events of 9/11 come down to a simple sucker punch. A sneak attack. NOT an conspiratorial inside job. No, not buying that, it's to fantastic and absurd. Ever since the 1983 suicide bombing
on the US marine barracks in Beirut, islamic terrorists have been escalating their attacks. And the simplest and most direct explanation is...TADA: islamic extremist pulled off their crowning achievement, three coordinated attacks using airplanes as weapons within the US borders. NOBODY was expecting it. That is it. NOBODY thought these creeps were capable of it. Now, we KNOW better.

that "not capable" part has been amusing me since
islamo Nazis first used it (within days of the attack) to
PROVE------"da mossad done it" I am old enough to
remember the hijackings of planes way back in the 60s as
Islamic terrorism----but plane hijackings go all the way
back to the 30s------usually by novice non real pilots----
The operation was not all that complex-----

 

[MaryL]

The OP has a huge problem with 9/11. Imagine that. Ok, ok, snide remarks aside, the events of 9/11 come down to a simple sucker punch. A sneak attack. NOT an conspiratorial inside job. No, not buying that, it's to fantastic and absurd. Ever since the 1983 suicide bombing
on the US marine barracks in Beirut, islamic terrorists have been escalating their attacks. And the simplest and most direct explanation is...TADA: islamic extremist pulled off their crowning achievement, three coordinated attacks using airplanes as weapons within the US borders. NOBODY was expecting it. That is it. NOBODY thought these creeps were capable of it. Now, we KNOW better.

that "not capable" part has been amusing me since
islamo Nazis first used it (within days of the attack) to
PROVE------"da mossad done it" I am old enough to
remember the hijackings of planes way back in the 60s as
Islamic terrorism----but plane hijackings go all the way
back to the 30s------usually by novice non real pilots----
The operation was not all that complex-----

Some of the 9/11 hijackers got flight training, knew enough to navigate to their destination straight and level and turned off tracking
devices, something I or most of you could have learned, had we applied ourselves. And their weapons? Box cutters, for Christ sake. Box cutters. I don't know the physics of all the buildings collapsing and all that, but that seems irrelevant because nobody else here does
either, this was a unique situation that can't be replicated.

 

[irosie91]

The OP has a huge problem with 9/11. Imagine that. Ok, ok, snide remarks aside, the events of 9/11 come down to a simple sucker punch. A sneak attack. NOT an conspiratorial inside job. No, not buying that, it's to fantastic and absurd. Ever since the 1983 suicide bombing
on the US marine barracks in Beirut, islamic terrorists have been escalating their attacks. And the simplest and most direct explanation is...TADA: islamic extremist pulled off their crowning achievement, three coordinated attacks using airplanes as weapons within the US borders. NOBODY was expecting it. That is it. NOBODY thought these creeps were capable of it. Now, we KNOW better.

that "not capable" part has been amusing me since
islamo Nazis first used it (within days of the attack) to
PROVE------"da mossad done it" I am old enough to
remember the hijackings of planes way back in the 60s as
Islamic terrorism----but plane hijackings go all the way
back to the 30s------usually by novice non real pilots----
The operation was not all that complex-----

Some of the 9/11 hijackers got flight training, knew enough to navigate to their destination straight and level and turned off tracking
devices, something I or most of you could have learned, had we applied ourselves. And their weapons? Box cutters, for Christ sake. Box cutters. I don't know the physics of all the buildings collapsing and all that, but that seems irrelevant because nobody else here does
either, this was a unique situation that can't be replicated.

I INSIST that it be replicated-------ASAP

 

[MaryL]

The OP has a huge problem with 9/11. Imagine that. Ok, ok, snide remarks aside, the events of 9/11 come down to a simple sucker punch. A sneak attack. NOT an conspiratorial inside job. No, not buying that, it's to fantastic and absurd. Ever since the 1983 suicide bombing
on the US marine barracks in Beirut, islamic terrorists have been escalating their attacks. And the simplest and most direct explanation is...TADA: islamic extremist pulled off their crowning achievement, three coordinated attacks using airplanes as weapons within the US borders. NOBODY was expecting it. That is it. NOBODY thought these creeps were capable of it. Now, we KNOW better.

that "not capable" part has been amusing me since
islamo Nazis first used it (within days of the attack) to
PROVE------"da mossad done it" I am old enough to
remember the hijackings of planes way back in the 60s as
Islamic terrorism----but plane hijackings go all the way
back to the 30s------usually by novice non real pilots----
The operation was not all that complex-----

Some of the 9/11 hijackers got flight training, knew enough to navigate to their destination straight and level and turned off tracking
devices, something I or most of you could have learned, had we applied ourselves. And their weapons? Box cutters, for Christ sake. Box cutters. I don't know the physics of all the buildings collapsing and all that, but that seems irrelevant because nobody else here does
either, this was a unique situation that can't be replicated.

I INSIST that it be replicated-------ASAP

Not by computer models or by looking at demolition films, too many variables, too many. And the obvious and likely culprits, islamic terrorist are minimized. THAT is why I won't accept such an unlikely scenario. I have an open mind, I believe in Occam's razor and I think it holds here.

 

[n0spam4me]

Can U say
FALSE FLAG ATTACK?