Now those are some better images, ok i withdraw my statement, it is the whole side of that building on fire, not just bottom floors, sorry it looked like that at first...
But why isn't there any smoke coming out from other sides, from those windows from the sides? Confusing... but ok, let's say it did implode perfectly from that fire on the side.. it's possible, i guess..
(btw Boris, I am seriously not being sarcastic. Bravo for not stubbornly sticking to your guns 'till the end of time. You are the first conspirator on this thread, I think, to actually admit that you might be wrong. I'm NOT saying you ARE wrong... merely pointing out to everyone else, that you are intelligent enough to admit that your explanation MIGHT be incorrect.)
Of course. To claim the victory, and get praise and support from people with a similar mindset.
So tell us which video you mean andwhat is obviously fake about it.
Afghanistan was to catch Bin Laden, so the US could recover from the loss of face from 9/11. Note that it doesn't matter if OBL really did it -- the US claimed he did, so they had to go after him, or face ridicule. And for Iraq, 3 letters suffice: O - I - L.
Why should there be any? Was wholesale surveillance with cameras the norm before 9/11?
Look here. Scroll down to "Claim: A Video clearly showing Pentagon hit has not been released".
Why should there be? In the eyes of muslim terrorists, 9/11 was a huge success. The US is stuck in unwinnable guerilla wars in 2 countries, the Western countries started to look like police states, and their behaviour has raised anti-Americanism in muslim countries to unprecedented levels.
Look here, under "Claim: The hijackers outwitted the most highly sophisticated military defence in the world"
If you have any more questions, I suggest you browse 911guide.googlepages.com first.
You can see that actual video in Loose Change and Farenhait (if i remember corectly) or on Google video and YouTube..
You honestly believe that these terrorists all of a sudden have knowledge and informations to carry such a complex attack? All their previous attacks were desperate suicide attacks, not ONE similliar to this.. [/QUOTE]
Will do, but i don't get this "claim" site you gave me, what am i suppose to see there..
That is not the point here. You asked why there was no second attack like 9/11. I gave a possible reason for that.
If 9/11 was an inside job, you might equally well ask why there was no second attack, to justify the war in Iraq. Instead, they had to invent WMD. (Or you could ask why 9/11 was necessary, if a WMD hoax works just as well.)
Each page debunks several claims of "truthers". I mentioned the heading on the page where your question is discussed.
I agree.. it was not complex at all. In fact, it was really simple. So simple that it was inconceivable from a defence point of view. All you needed was to find people who were willing to die for a cause, and the hard work was done. You'd exploited the one flaw in the defence system - suicide bombers on US soil.
Of course, these days it could possibly be even easier. You don't need to hijack the plane any more.. just recruit pilots. We've pissed off enough of the middle east by now it shouldn't be a problem. The people who tried to bomb Glasgow airport were doctors, FFS.
Which part? Well, the part where they suposedly trained to be pilots, how they knew all the informations that the US military was doing excersises on that day and that 90 % of fighter jets were deployed for these excercises..
They obviously (if they did it in the first place) need to plan this for a year or two, minimum... all i'm saying that all their previous work was desperate suicide bombing attacks, nothing even close to this, you're telling me that that maneuver that was required to hit the Pentagon in that angle was conducted by a terrorist doing "flying for dummies" course?
But how are they exactly telling lies? Cause THEY think it's not possible for a building to fall from a fire on one side? You can't exactly call that a lie, have you seen the interview with that foreign demolition expert in all of the documentaries (not sure where the guy is from, he sounds German) but he said that is a 100 % demolition job, no doubt about it, he didn't even know that it was a WTC7, they just asked him for opinion, he was even more shocked realising it's actually WTC7 and that it fall on 9/11... I would take that guys word then an official 9/11 commission statement that it was fire that caused it to fail, not saying any more details about it..
Boris, if you cannot see how they are deliberately misleading people then you need to drop this whole 9/11 thing. Seriously, Boris, if you can't detect a blatant lie like this, how would you ever be able to find what a truth was?
In 1994, Algerian terrorists from GIA hijacked a320 from air france and stopped to have it refueled in Marseille before leading to Paris (they executed 3 hostages). Secret services at that time were almost sure terrorists were going to crash the plane somewhere in Paris, and launched GIGN assault.
Amazing unit, amazing intervention, amazing results.
They knew the 4 terrorists were in cockpit. Terrorists had grenades, uzi and ak47, only a few feets from passengers. GIGN team leader took 7 bullets to protect passengers and survived. No passengers were wounded.
It was later firmly established that terrorists were to crash the plane on Paris. This event was not used to start a war or anything, so there is no point the gvt would have lied. These guys had nothing to lose and were ready to die as they executed several hostages.
I doubt that was planned. The country was in shock. The US government didn't have a clue what was going on that morning so even if the whole US air force had been sitting in New York, it wouldn't have made any difference. I'm not sure exactly what circumstances are required which allows the air force can shoot down a civilian aircraft, but I'm pretty confident it'd need more evidence than what was available at that time. I bloody hope so anyway
And what had they achieved with that? Nothing. Nobody cares until it's on your doorstep. You can't deny it's had a massive impact on the world. I thought America's global dominance would continue throughout most of my lifetime but nowadays I'm not so sure.
No, it was by a man who had been trained to fly a plane. If you have the money, you you can sign up tomorrow and start your own flying lessons in exactly the same way they did. There's nothing complex about it.
If you want to talk about complex, then consider exactly what the conspiracy theorists are claiming. You question how these fanatics can make a leap from blowing up themselves on the street, to crashing a plane, and yet you haven't made the same comparison in the other direction? How can the US have possibly done this themselves. What would it take to pull off such a phenomenally complicated act as setting up the events of September 11 2001?
Just consider this: how many people would need to be involved in such a stunt? Remove these depending on what extent you believe the theories
1. To bring down a building, you need a demolition team and in this case, not just any demolition team. This one uses equipment that nobody in the explosives industry uses, so possibly the most advanced demolition team in the world. To set up the buildings on the scale we're talking here, that's a big team.
2. Now the buildings were brought down using technology that isn't used in the demolition industry. So this is effectively new stuff, highly advanced and seemingly massively more effective and accurate than anything used in demolition, requiring no visible wiring, fuses, detonators etc. So there's a team of people somewhere that has created, developed, and tested this technology.
3. And considering this is not established technology in this field, how do you develop something that can so perfectly bring down two sky scrapers? If this plan was to work, you couldn't possibly use the WTC towers for the first attempt so you'd need to test it on something else. How? Build a test skyscraper at Area 51? If so, that's a huge team of architects and builders, not to mention the equipment required (cranes, diggers etc.) would need to be hired or bought.
4. The news agencies were apparently in on it, so that's camera men, journalists, editors, directors, sound men, researchers, runners etc.
5. There's a propoganda team. An extremely well connected team of people that can spread the "truth" via all the relevant mediums. Admittedly, all Government's already have these
6. Investigators. The investigators involved in searching and analysing the wreckage were in on it. I don't know how many there were but it must be dozens.
7. Various experts in their fields. There is no shortage of material on the net that completely and utterly debunks the evidence that the conspiracy theories rely on. There are hundreds of people in this category and they must all be in on it.
8. 'Special effects' teams. The Pentagon certainly had a big hole in it's side, and there are pictures of the plane wreckage, so these must have been made by a special effects team somewhere. And some don't even believe planes hit the towers ( :rolleyes: ), so I guess that's a team from Hollywood as well.
And so on.
This is hundreds - possibly thousands - of people who are apparently on the inside. Importantly, not all of them could possibly work for or in Government and therefore would have little incentive to withhold such a massive, massive outrage.
Now remember, this is a Government we're talking about. One of the most beaurocratic, difficult and incompetent organisations on the earth.
And not one of them - not a single one has come forward and said it was an inside job. I'm sorry but people are not that reliable. I think Jimmy Bob - the man who repaired the puncture on the truck full of explosives that was parked outside the Pentagon that day - would have his book out by now.
I like the way you left out the image you first showed us because it doesn't fit with your story.... The first and last images in this post are similar to it but at such an angle you can't actually tell what floors the fires are on. Now in this image you can clearly see through the smoke and could almost tell exactly what floors the fires are on. So, who's the one trying to lead people here? Why not use that other image? Because you know it's questionable what floors the fires were on.
Another question, if you don't mind. Why, if, as you suggest, every floor is a blaze, do we only see fire damage on a few floors at the side of the building and no flames in any picture?
Getting into Washington airspace is no easy task. Transponders on or not, they'd be picked up on radar at NORAD and intercepted. So that must have been a complex task by itself. If of course it was the terrorists and not a "friendly" aircraft.
Yep, as i said, that part about how many people would need to be involved sounds impossible to me, really... but still, something is still bugging me..
About a demolition team, there are statements and i think evidence (i'm not much of a link digger, so i can't give you any links) that there were some suspicious "repairs" going on months before 9/11 and lasting till 9/11... But let's not go there, let's say that planes did actually cause the buildings to collapse..
What's bugging me is what's the deal with fake Bin Laden video, no videos from Pentagon crash, that strange strange hole in Pentagon (did you see what that supossed engine needed going through to create that hole?). Those pictures of plane wreckage on Pentagon are also wierd, showing some small part of an engine, not even close in size to that part from 757...
Then the Larry Silverstein, lucky guy eh? Getting 10 times more money from insurance then he payed for the buildings in the first place, and he conveniently bought them before the event... bunch of strange and unexplained things are still left about that day..
What a load of complete tripe. I'm not being selective about the images I refer to. You only need to refer to ONE photo of the entire building burning to expose the "few small fires" lie. I've done it repeatedly, with many photos. The liars only refer to one photo, from the side of the building that appears on the face of it to fit with their story, but it only fits with their story if you don't look at ALL the photos that you CAN see of WTC7.
Bull SHIT. If you knew even a fraction about what you pretend you do, you'd know that the Pentagon, the Washington Memorial, The Capitol, the Whitehouse and the Lincoln Memorial are all within spitting distance of the flight path into Reagan a/p, formerly Washington National a/p. It's practically in the middle of Washington DC. I've flown in and out of there loads, and you can see ALL the landmarks from the plane as you come in and leave. You're so close to them you feel like you could touch them.
Is it YOUR idea to claim that it's difficult to get into that airspace, or are you just repeating some other bullshit story you've heard tell?
Clearly that's based on nothing but Hollywood fantasy so I can only assume you've watched too many films. Or more worryingly, you've watched them and think it's how things actually happen. The US Government doesn't have computers on which they can say, "enhance", and the system redraws a blurry photograph so they can read a number plate. They have Photoshop, just like everyone else.
Similarly, the US Government don't employ a team of people at each government site that sit and watch a radar 24 hours a day, just in case, one day, there's some sort of air attack on the white house during peace time.
Every department - regardless of how cool and secretive they may seem - have what's called "a budget", and they simply can't afford to spend it on such folly.
Honestly, for your own sake, go and get a job in any government department and you'll soon see how it all works (or doesn't) and all your conspiracy theories will suddenly look quite silly
With many photos yeah? Where are they? I only see smokey images from you, not one with fire. I have seen fires in WTC7 but not, and nowhere near, the fires you suggest.
Wtf, mad to just jump in. Is it not obvious that a normal passenger jet on it's normal flight path can go through this airspace. The hijacked jet was not on it's flight path and air traffic controllers knew it was off course, with a turned off transponder, so why not intercept? I obviously knew there was an airport in Washington, please give me some credit and not try to f'king belittle me at every chance you get. There's also an air force base within spitting distance of the Pentagon too, so why no scrambled jets from there? I doubt the place was empty...
They are f'king facts. An aircraft which is off course and known to be for some time will not fly freely in Washington airspace, fact or fiction???? An air craft with no responding transponder will not fly freely in Washington air space, fact or fiction??? Now please stop with your bullshit man, obviously trying real, real hard to do your thing there. Jumping on me like I have no clue what I'm on about, I obviously do so give some credit. I never attack you like you do me, so a bit of respect would be appreciated.
U4IK is right, there's no way a plane, way off it's flight path with turned off transponder not to cause any suspicion, one, could caught them by surprise, but the 2nd plane that hit the second tower did that after 20 minutes.. Then agian, there must be some procedures wheather you can knock down a comercial jet in that time frame..
Just want to add something for those who think that this is a massive operation that couldn't have been done by the US government. Have a read of this pdf, you can read it all if you like but the good stuff starts on page 7 of the document, or page 10 of the pdf. http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf Please note the date on the first page.
You make it sound like shooting down a passenger jet is simply a matter of... shooting it down. It's not. They had no way of knowing where it was headed, and, at the time, there were more considerations than just blasting the thing out of the air. If the US did that every time a civilian aircraft mistakenly flew through restricted airspace... well air travel wouldn't be as safe as it is today.
...let's say you are given the right by the town to SHOOT AND KILL anyone who walks onto your property. The first time you actually do it, you are still guaranteed to have cops come and investigators and you'll be sued by the family for wrongful murder without a cause...
...it's not that easy when it comes time to "press the little red button" so to speak.
Besides - I don't know about you, but if I were the president, I'd be very, VERY intent in capturing the bad guys on at least ONE of those planes... which means trying to talk them down rather than blowing them up.
Did I mention shoot down anything? They should have first, at least, gone to investigate. Then, if they found out it was terrorists, try to direct him away from populated areas and try start negotiations. Obviously they want to capture them and save the passengers.
And they did know where it was heading, listen to Secretary Minetas statement. Dick Cheney knew where the plane was heading.