Is the cover about to be blown off of the CIA's prior knowledge of 9/11? Holy shit. - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

JFK · 08-12-2011, 11:37 AM

Fitty Spooks

cykoe6 · 08-12-2011, 11:44 AM

While I have no idea whether the allegations are true or not....... but Richard Clarke is hardly an impartial observer.

PR_Glen · 08-12-2011, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by marketsmart

people are stupid... they dont learn even after history repeats itself..

pearl harbor
gulf of tonkin
9/11

all allowed to happen...
.

huge difference between the words allowed to happen and planned to happen.. Technically the secretary of defense allowed it to happen because he wasn't paying enough attention, that doesn't make him guilty of planning it though...

Quote:

Originally Posted by wehateporn

PR_Glen,

Like you say the media are an independent and powerful force for good. They are so talented that sometimes they even report what's going to happen in advance, like when the BBC reported that WTC 7 had collapsed before there was any sign that it would fall. Surely the BBC should have received an award for this, but instead it was completely removed from the Internet for some time; I suspect other major news channels were jealous of the BBC

or they just got the info incorrect? That happens all the time, especially in a time of crisis with millions of reports going all over the place.

I was working in a machine shop at the time. By the time i heard about it was about an hour later and planes were falling from the sky all over the place at least 50 000 people were dead and there was no telling how far it could be spread... sometimes the news jumps on a story that isn't even there.. not because 'rockafeller' says so.. it's because it is an imperfect form of communication, especially in times of crisis.

wehateporn · 08-12-2011, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PR_Glen

or they just got the info incorrect? That happens all the time, especially in a time of crisis with millions of reports going all over the place.

I was working in a machine shop at the time. By the time i heard about it was about an hour later and planes were falling from the sky all over the place at least 50 000 people were dead and there was no telling how far it could be spread... sometimes the news jumps on a story that isn't even there.. not because 'rockafeller' says so.. it's because it is an imperfect form of communication, especially in times of crisis.

Always so many strange "coincidences" during these "terror attacks". People from Mathematical backgrounds or those who have a good feel for probability will smell a rat

Here's an incredible "coincidence" that occured on the day of London 7/7

_Richard_ · 08-12-2011, 03:03 PM

best selling author eh?

MediaGuy · 08-12-2011, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by papill0n

yeah maybe

im thinking maybe because of the speed they sheared off or just initially sliced cleanly through the exterior. i do see some lower level damage that I could possibly attribute to damage from the wings.

i assume at the very least someone actually measured the width of the impact area and observed that it was larger than that of the wing span of the plane because if its not.......

ultimately though I would put nothing past any government

The pics there are of the damage after the collapse. The initial hole was a lot smaller and considerably less spectacular. The fact that this area of the Pentagon happened to be undergoing new, reinforced renovations could explain why the impact damage was so slight

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent 488

yeah the dozens of actual witnesses that were there and saw it with their own eyes were all a black ops plot.

There's also dozens of actual witnesses who said it was no way a commercial jet - that it was much smaller. I think this is where the "no plane" theories came from.

I always thought the contradictory witness sightings were interestesting. If the "no plane" theory were right, then maybe the actual flight overflew the pentagon at the same time as a missile hit the building?

But that would bring up the "where's the plane now" and "where're the passengers" questions that are impossible to answer with what evidence there is...

Quote:

Originally Posted by PR_Glen

exactly.. that's why we are hearing about this 'breaking news' from a documentary and not a news broadcast.

and for all the monkeys that think the media is controlled, even if it was there would be nothing stopping a story like that with undeniable evidence... it would take off and fast...

Haven't you heard about the way FOX reported the same "news" as the other big news outlets on so many "events"? They don't have to lie, they just have to not report.

The whole thing about the WTC 7 was washed out of the news for almost a decade and the only way a lot of people ever heard of it was because of the "Truther" conspiracists. Even a major New York judge said "building what?!?" a few years ago during a lawsuit against the Port Authority. He hadn't even heard a third buiding fell that day...

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

yup, the bbc was in on 9/11 too.

or at least that reporting team, nepotism?

No of course not - none of the outlets were. If those responsible for the attacks and collapses (whether it was a goverment conspiracy or a jihadist conspiracy) also issued the press releases or controlled them somehow, then the reporters and anchors are just guilty/gullible of reporting what has been released; the day of the investigative journalist and journalistic anchor person are looong gone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

if anything about this is plausible, it's the fact that the fbi, cia and nsc, etc. were all playing reindeer games with info and not sharing it with the other entities.

It's probably going to stay a "they didn't share info" bullshit story for a long time. But there's CIA people and FBI people who have come out and said they were ordered not to share info, not to pursue investigations, etc..., some who've even apologized publically... and those reports were never disseminated on mainstream news, not even CSPAN.

There's a hell of a lot more to 9/11 than what the government (who everyone here hates and distrusts so much) claims, and yet their 9/11 conspiracy theory is swallowed and regurgitated by everyone, especially people who watch only those news and info outlets (including everyone here who hates and distrusts the government - Bush and Obama - so much)...

:D

raymor · 08-12-2011, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Markham

Not an explosive experts so this is a question. Wouldn't a big plane with it's wings full of fuel do more damage to the areas on the side of where the hole in the building is?

It seems to me the greatest damage was where the fuselage hit the building, not the wings.

As for the 9/11 conspiracy theory. It was shown on a documentary the FBI had information that a large terrorist attack was being planned and probably involving aircraft.

As someone who has had my head inside of wings during my flight training and who has played with more explosives than I should, the damage looks about right to me. Everything about an airplane is designed to be as light as possible. The wings are made of the thinnest aluminium skin they can get away with.

You are about right regarding what was known - someone will probably try to attack us, some time, some where. They might try to hijack a plane, but maybe not. What exactly are you supposed to do with that information?

Here's some similar intelligence. Someone will probably try to attack your server, some time. It might involve one of your PHP scripts. Having been so warned, I'm sure you are rushing right now to go stop it, right?

dyna mo · 08-12-2011, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

No of course not - none of the outlets were. If those responsible for the attacks and collapses (whether it was a goverment conspiracy or a jihadist conspiracy) also issued the press releases or controlled them somehow, then the reporters and anchors are just guilty/gullible of reporting what has been released; the day of the investigative journalist and journalistic anchor person are looong gone.

It's probably going to stay a "they didn't share info" bullshit story for a long time. But there's CIA people and FBI people who have come out and said they were ordered not to share info, not to pursue investigations, etc..., some who've even apologized publically... and those reports were never disseminated on mainstream news, not even CSPAN.

There's a hell of a lot more to 9/11 than what the government (who everyone here hates and distrusts so much) claims, and yet their 9/11 conspiracy theory is swallowed and regurgitated by everyone, especially people who watch only those news and info outlets (including everyone here who hates and distrusts the government - Bush and Obama - so much)...

:D

my comment re: the bbc was sarcasm.

re: the share info, there are some very well research that corroborates the lackof sharing info and the competitive nature between the entities and the overall clusterfuck of intel gathering and disseminating. + this all goes to what clarke is basing his sensationalizing on.

MediaGuy · 08-12-2011, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymor

As someone who has had my head inside of wings during my flight training and who has played with more explosives than I should, the damage looks about right to me. Everything about an airplane is designed to be as light as possible. The wings are made of the thinnest aluminium skin they can get away with.

The damage to the Pentagon looks wrong for a commercial airliner.

The wings should have ploughed back all over the place.

The reported speed makes no sense as well, since at that elevation a commercial jetliner would have stalled or not been able to complete the reported maneuver.

:D

Rochard · 08-12-2011, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BradBreakfast

This is misleading. Your comparing the damage of a small missile that took out a room to a plane taking out 400 feet of concrete of the world's largest building. Looks like the same, but one picture is close up making it look huge while another picture is far away making it look small.

Quote:

Originally Posted by L-Pink

Where's the wing debris?

.

When a plane crash lands into a field at 100 mph there is lots of debris.

When a plane crashes into the world's largest building at 100 mph it disintegrates.

Caligari · 08-12-2011, 04:43 PM

Pretty old stuff really.
The whole fbi/cia knowing prior has been circulating for quite a while, the real question remains as to Lihop or Mihop.

Rochard · 08-12-2011, 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wehateporn

Always so many strange "coincidences" during these "terror attacks". People from Mathematical backgrounds or those who have a good feel for probability will smell a rat

Here's an incredible "coincidence" that occured on the day of London 7/7

No, this is not a "coincidence". Drills run every day. Drills are run every day. I bet you that some branch of the government ran a drill today, and I bet you that one branch of the military ran a drill today.

People are grabbing at straws here. It's become way too easy to say "Oh, well, on 9/11 this person said this over the police radio" and it instantly becomes fact, and people have to debate it for years. That's like saying "Bush was in Florida that morning, and that was odd, him not being in White House, so clearly he must have planned this".

Keep in mind the people that behind the 9/11 Truth Movement make money doing this.

MediaGuy · 08-12-2011, 04:52 PM

To all in gerneral: Clarke based his statements on his knowledge of CIA opetational protocol.

I'm into poutine. Back in a bit...

:D

wehateporn · 08-12-2011, 04:58 PM

There are many stations in London, the drill was at exactly the same three stations where the bombs went off. The drill was a fictional "scenario" of multiple bomb attacks on the London udnerground, it took place at exactly the same time as the bomb attack on 7/7/2005. the train that the so-called bombers were meant to have taken that day was actually cancelled (as confirmed by British Rail). In the photos taken afterwards one can clearly see that the bombs came from underneath the trains

-------------------------------------------
Peter Power, Managing Director of Visor Consultants, a private firm on contract to the London Metropolitan Police, described in a BBC interview how he had organized and conducted the anti-terror drill, on behalf of an unnamed business client.

The fictional scenario was based on simultaneous bombs going off at exactly the same time at the underground stations where the real attacks were occurring:

POWER: At half past nine this morning we were actually running an exercise for a company of over a thousand people in London based on simultaneous bombs going off precisely at the railway stations where it happened this morning, so I still have the hairs on the back of my neck standing up right now.

HOST: To get this quite straight, you were running an exercise to see how you would cope with this and it happened while you were running the exercise?

POWER: Precisely, and it was about half past nine this morning, we planned this for a company and for obvious reasons I don't want to reveal their name but they're listening and they'll know it. And we had a room full of crisis managers for the first time they'd met and so within five minutes we made a pretty rapid decision that this is the real one and so we went through the correct drills of activating crisis management procedures to jump from slow time to quick time thinking and so on.

(BBC Radio Interview, 7 July 2005)

--------------------------------------------------

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

No, this is not a "coincidence". Drills run every day. Drills are run every day. I bet you that some branch of the government ran a drill today, and I bet you that one branch of the military ran a drill today.

People are grabbing at straws here. It's become way too easy to say "Oh, well, on 9/11 this person said this over the police radio" and it instantly becomes fact, and people have to debate it for years. That's like saying "Bush was in Florida that morning, and that was odd, him not being in White House, so clearly he must have planned this".

Keep in mind the people that behind the 9/11 Truth Movement make money doing this.

wehateporn · 08-12-2011, 05:01 PM

The guy who made this documentary went to jail

Agent 488 · 08-12-2011, 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wehateporn

The guy who made this documentary went to jail

"The programme also revealed Muad'Dib to be John Hill from Sheffield, tracking him down to an address in Kells in the Republic of Ireland. The Conspiracy Files also questioned Hill's credibility for claiming on his website to be the Messiah, and that George Lucas was told the script of Star Wars telepathically by The Force."

he sounds sane to me.

wehateporn · 08-12-2011, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent 488

"The programme also revealed Muad'Dib to be John Hill from Sheffield, tracking him down to an address in Kells in the Republic of Ireland. The Conspiracy Files also questioned Hill's credibility for claiming on his website to be the Messiah, and that George Lucas was told the script of Star Wars telepathically by The Force."

he sounds sane to me.

He's just the messenger, always best to focus on the facts presented and consider them independently

Agent 488 · 08-12-2011, 05:12 PM

his analysis is crap.

wehateporn · 08-12-2011, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Agent 488

his analysis is crap.

You've had 11 minutes max

Which part do you feel is crap?

Matt 26z · 08-12-2011, 05:54 PM

For those of you talking about building damage from the plane and referencing the Pentagon photo with all the damage, don't forget that photo was taken after the upper floors collapsed.

This photo was taken shortly after impact:

The hole is approximately 15 feet across. Does it look like a jumbo jet crashed here?

I don't doubt that spectators believe they saw a plane. Maybe it was some sort of modified plane carrying explosives. Maybe it was top secret projection technology. What actually happened here, the public may have to wait 50-100 years to find out.

dyna mo · 08-12-2011, 06:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

For those of you talking about building damage from the plane and referencing the Pentagon photo with all the damage, don't forget that photo was taken after the upper floors collapsed.

This photo was taken shortly after impact:

The hole is approximately 15 feet across. Does it look like a jumbo jet crashed here?

I don't doubt that spectators believe they saw a plane. Maybe it was some sort of modified plane carrying explosives. Maybe it was top secret projection technology. What actually happened here, the public may have to wait 50-100 years to find out.

that's not a picture of the pentagon 9/11 wreckage.

_Richard_ · 08-12-2011, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wehateporn

Always so many strange "coincidences" during these "terror attacks". People from Mathematical backgrounds or those who have a good feel for probability will smell a rat

Here's an incredible "coincidence" that occured on the day of London 7/7

they were having a drill on 9/11 as well eh?

Caligari · 08-12-2011, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

that's not a picture of the pentagon 9/11 wreckage.

is this bottom image in this pic the pentagon?

if so there is a striking similarity of the building and the grounds in front of the building if you look closely.

dyna mo · 08-12-2011, 06:30 PM

hi rez image of the crash site.
https://publicintelligence.net/wp-co...-8006R-002.jpg

L-Pink · 08-12-2011, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

I don't believe our military leaders report to a building surrounded by a chain-link fence with razor wire. That's not the Pentagon.

.

wehateporn · 08-12-2011, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by _Richard_

they were having a drill on 9/11 as well eh?

Yep, there were several war games running on the morning of Sept 11th 2001; hikacking scenarios where jets were hijacked and flown into buildings. Cheney had arranged a drill for a biological attack on New York, that's why FEMA arrived in New York on the 10th September.

Some of the drills had been due to take place later in the year, but Cheney moved them all to take place on Sept 11th. This way it confuses anyone looking at the RADAR screens i.e. they think it's just part of the drill. The drills are also a perfect cover in case anything goes wrong "It was part of the drill, we were making it realistic!"

raymor · 08-12-2011, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

This photo was taken shortly after impact:

The hole is approximately 15 feet across. Does it look like a jumbo jet crashed here?
.

You estimate the main hole is about fifteen feet across. A 757 is
twelve and half feet across. So based on your estimate, the hole it's the right size.

dyna mo · 08-12-2011, 06:57 PM

a fire engine ladder truck is 40-60 feet long, let's say that one in the middle of the pic is 50 feet long. the wingspan on the 757 is 124 feet. eyeballin it, it looks to me like ~3 of those ladder trucks end to end equal the width of the destroyed wall with the destruction being less severe the farther out from center. all very clear in the picture.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

hi rez image of the crash site.
https://publicintelligence.net/wp-co...-8006R-002.jpg

wehateporn · 08-12-2011, 07:16 PM

Did The Simpsons predict 9/11 in 1997? When they show the magazine notice the Coupon at the bottom right i.e. Coup On. A wad of cash is waved in front of the magazine i.e. "It's all about money"

raymor · 08-12-2011, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MediaGuy

The damage to the Pentagon looks wrong for a commercial airliner.

The wings should have ploughed back all over the place.

The reported speed makes no sense as well, since at that elevation a commercial jetliner would have stalled or not been able to complete the reported maneuver.

:D

Normal landing speed for a 757 is around 180 knots, or 210 miles per hour. The exact target speed depends on the weight on board. Stall speed is only about 120 mph. Nobody thinks it was going under 120, so we can forget about a stall. It was going about 250, so not anywhere near stall.

So that leaves the question, can someone who was trained to land at 210 instead crash land at 250? Of course! It's about as difficult as crashing your car into a building at 80 mph.

Caligari · 08-12-2011, 07:29 PM

yes it does look like the pentagon-
look closely at the bottom of the building, the exposed cinder block leading to the upper part and the architecture.

now look at that huge pic to the left of the destruction, the part of the building left intact shows the same structure, exposed cinder block etc.
the chain link fence could have been there if they were doing construction and they could have easily extracted it in the large image.
But that image could also be of the part of the building that caught fire but was not directly hit.

raymor · 08-12-2011, 07:35 PM

Anybody who thinks hitting the world's largest building with a plane, search youtube for "kai tak landing" and then see what you think.

Matt 26z · 08-12-2011, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

that's not a picture of the pentagon 9/11 wreckage.

More angles before the upper floors collapsed clearly showing this is the Pentagon:

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymor

You estimate the main hole is about fifteen feet across. A 757 is
twelve and half feet across. So based on your estimate, the hole it's the right size.

Do you see any evidence of a wing, landing gear and an engine crashing into that wall? Shouldn't we see parts of the plane?

The photo again:

bushwacker · 08-12-2011, 08:56 PM

Yawn. There are dozens of photos of airplane wreckage outside the pentagon.

dyna mo · 08-12-2011, 09:25 PM

i placed the photo matt posted in the image i posted and see now it is the corner of the impact area:

but the essence of the picture is misleading, it is clearly not an accurate portrait of the central area of the impact zone.

Agent 488 · 08-12-2011, 09:31 PM

it`s stupid to even argue this shit.

"but there was wreckage on the lawn."

"no, it is fake. it was placed there."

"their were eyewitnesses."

"no, they just saw a hologram."

pointless ...

Agent 488 · 08-12-2011, 09:36 PM

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.asp

wehateporn · 08-13-2011, 06:21 AM

Eliminate The Impossible

Pornstarchive · 08-13-2011, 06:28 AM

Amazing we're about to hit the 10 yr "anniversary" of that event. I'm sure everyone remembers where they were when that hit the news. I was on my way to work about to drive to Los Angeles and I said "fuck that, they might attack here" so I called in. Turns out we were all told to stay home. Crazy day.

Caligari · 08-13-2011, 06:45 AM

Looking closer at the image within the image you can see clearly which part of the building it is. the insert photo is then post-impact and it shows that the part of the building which collapsed is still intact at the time of the photo.

Caligari · 08-13-2011, 07:17 AM

Really the idea of whether or not a plane hit the pentagon is not the issue, but has been made into an issue to further detract from the core issues of the event.

Along with other questions, the idea that 4 planes could go awol for about an hour and NONE of them were intercepted (the one plane downed only because the passengers on board attacked) is highly unlikely, especially considering the target areas.
Yes, other planes had strayed in the past and were not intercepted immediately, but 4 airplanes unchallenged hitting their targets, and extremely sensitive targets at that?

How an awol commercial airplane penetrated pentagon airspace should be the question,
of which there are two answers.

1)through incompetence and negligence the airplane penetrated pentagon airspace and hit the pentagon
2)it was allowed to hit the pentagon

either way its pretty damn bad.

MediaGuy · 08-13-2011, 08:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

my comment re: the bbc was sarcasm.

re: the share info, there are some very well research that corroborates the lackof sharing info and the competitive nature between the entities and the overall clusterfuck of intel gathering and disseminating. + this all goes to what clarke is basing his sensationalizing on.

Yes and this is just one of the *many* coincidences and "mistakes" reported that day...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

No, this is not a "coincidence". Drills run every day. Drills are run every day. I bet you that some branch of the government ran a drill today, and I bet you that one branch of the military ran a drill today.

People are grabbing at straws here. It's become way too easy to say "Oh, well, on 9/11 this person said this over the police radio" and it instantly becomes fact, and people have to debate it for years. That's like saying "Bush was in Florida that morning, and that was odd, him not being in White House, so clearly he must have planned this".

Keep in mind the people that behind the 9/11 Truth Movement make money doing this.

But there are so many of these "coincidences" it's ridiculous...

Quote:

Originally Posted by dyna mo

that's not a picture of the pentagon 9/11 wreckage.

Not of the wreckage but of the damage after the no-wreckage crash.

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymor

Normal landing speed for a 757 is around 180 knots, or 210 miles per hour. The exact target speed depends on the weight on board. Stall speed is only about 120 mph. Nobody thinks it was going under 120, so we can forget about a stall. It was going about 250, so not anywhere near stall.

So that leaves the question, can someone who was trained to land at 210 instead crash land at 250? Of course! It's about as difficult as crashing your car into a building at 80 mph.

And it was reported that all the flights were going over 500 mph before their "crashes"...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caligari

Really the idea of whether or not a plane hit the pentagon is not the issue, but has been made into an issue to further detract from the core issues of the event.

Along with other questions, the idea that 4 planes could go awol for about an hour and NONE of them were intercepted (the one plane downed only because the passengers on board attacked) is highly unlikely, especially considering the target areas.
Yes, other planes had strayed in the past and were not intercepted immediately, but 4 airplanes unchallenged hitting their targets, and extremely sensitive targets at that?

How an awol commercial airplane penetrated pentagon airspace should be the question,
of which there are two answers.

1)through incompetence and negligence the airplane penetrated pentagon airspace and hit the pentagon
2)it was allowed to hit the pentagon

either way its pretty damn bad.

That's another huge hole in the official story... all the "incompetence" theories are hard to swallow because there are so many incompetence incidents. And then there's testimony that wasn't issued or covered by the 9/11 commission report of people who knew the plane was headed into the Pentagon..

And then, all the "incompetents" were promoted.

:D

Agent 488 · 08-13-2011, 08:12 AM

please read and rebut (i know you wont though)

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Payne_Stewart

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Intercept_time

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Stand_Down

as you can see most 9/11 conspiracy truisms are based up deception, omission, lies and fraud ... ironically the same thing you accuse the government of.

sorry they are not in youtube format. you may have to read.

MetaMan · 08-13-2011, 08:18 AM

Israel pulled off 9/11. they run the usa govt. pure fascism. israel was created by us german businessmen BEFORE WW2 as a place to control the usa from outside.

anyone who thinks otherwise is a complete idiot.

Caligari · 08-13-2011, 09:50 AM

haha 911 truth is about as bad as snopes.
snopes - a smug douchebag couple from los angeles who have somehow cornered the "truth" market by finding it on the internet;)

the payne stewart story is such a bad example of awol plane interception it's pathetic.

"air traffic controllers in Florida lost touch with a Learjet carrying golfer Payne Stewart and several companions after it left Orlando headed for Dallas, Texas."
wow a golfer heading for dallas,texas...please call out the national guard while your at it.
just a few things-
1)plane not headed into sensitive airspace i.e. THE PENTAGON, WORLD TRADE CENTER.
2)that was one plane, NOT 4. chance of not intercepting one of the 4 is like getting struck by lightning.
3)from the intel the government obviously knew MONTHS before the attack (read FBI- flight school intel) how they were not totally primed and ready for such an attack is beyond belief...

...that is, unless they were absolutely primed and ready. Lihop

L-Pink · 08-13-2011, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

.

Matt, you are correct that is the Pentagon, sorry.

.

Agent 488 · 08-13-2011, 10:01 AM

of course i don't expect you to "get it." you are too brainwashed by your reality tunnel. you could read it and you will just superimpose your belief system on to it. you probably aren't going to read it anyhow so whatever.

back to your point, the Payne Stewart case is used as proof in the stand down theories.

i don't know what you are trying to say? can you dispute any of the arguments in those links?

or maybe the site itself is a black ops, hmmm?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Caligari

haha 911 truth is about as bad as snopes.
snopes - a smug douchebag couple from los angeles who have somehow cornered the "truth" market by finding it on the internet;)

the payne stewart story is such a bad example of awol plane interception it's pathetic.

"air traffic controllers in Florida lost touch with a Learjet carrying golfer Payne Stewart and several companions after it left Orlando headed for Dallas, Texas."
wow a golfer heading for dallas,texas...please call out the national guard while your at it.
just a few things-
1)plane not headed into sensitive airspace i.e. THE PENTAGON, WORLD TRADE CENTER.
2)that was one plane, NOT 4. chance of not intercepting one of the 4 is like getting struck by lightning.
3)from the intel the government obviously knew MONTHS before the attack (read FBI- flight school intel) how they were not totally primed and ready for such an attack is beyond belief...

...that is, unless they were absolutely primed and ready. Lihop

Caligari · 08-13-2011, 10:27 AM

oye vey...why bother quoting my post when you haven't bothered to read it?
once again, and for the last time-
payne stewart -1999 case, poor example because-
1)awol plane not flying into sensitive airspace i.e. THE PENTAGON, WORLD TRADE CENTER
2)not intercepting one plane is possible, not intercepting 4 planes is highly improbable considering the intel the gov had prior to 9/11.

you see, just because a site posts an example of an intercept/standown scenario doesn't make it applicable to all other scenarios. it doesn't make it the truth barometer.

something to consider- the sky is not blue and grass is not green.

08-12-2011, 11:37 AM	#51
JFK FUBAR the ORIGINATOR Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: FUBARLAND Posts: 67,374	Fitty Spooks __________________ FUBAR Webmasters - The FUBAR Times - FUBAR Webmasters Mobile - FUBARTV.XXX For promo opps contact jfk at fubarwebmasters dot com

08-12-2011, 11:44 AM	#52
cykoe6 Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Vegas Posts: 4,499	While I have no idea whether the allegations are true or not....... but Richard Clarke is hardly an impartial observer. __________________ бабки, шлюхи, сила

08-12-2011, 04:43 PM	#61
Caligari Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: At The Mountains Of Madness Posts: 5,414	Pretty old stuff really. The whole fbi/cia knowing prior has been circulating for quite a while, the real question remains as to Lihop or Mihop. __________________ ATTN Webmasters Cruel Bucks - LIVE Gonzo Does Not Pay ------------------------------------------------ Animal Rescue Click Here to Feed An Animal for Free

08-12-2011, 04:52 PM	#63
MediaGuy Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Montrealquebecanada Posts: 5,500	To all in gerneral: Clarke based his statements on his knowledge of CIA opetational protocol. I'm into poutine. Back in a bit... :D __________________ YOU Are Industry News! Press Releases: pr[at]payoutmag.com Facebook: Payout Magazine! Facebook: MIKEB! ICQ: 248843947 Skype: Mediaguy1 Last edited by MediaGuy; 08-12-2011 at 04:56 PM..

08-12-2011, 05:01 PM	#65
wehateporn Promoting Debate on GFY Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 27,173	The guy who made this documentary went to jail __________________ Sexy Girls Teasing

08-12-2011, 03:03 PM	#55
_Richard_ Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Earth Posts: 30,989	best selling author eh?

08-12-2011, 05:12 PM	#68
Agent 488 Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 22,511	his analysis is crap.

08-12-2011, 05:54 PM	#70
Matt 26z So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: ¤ª"˜¨๑۩۞۩๑¨˜"ª¤ Posts: 18,481	For those of you talking about building damage from the plane and referencing the Pentagon photo with all the damage, don't forget that photo was taken after the upper floors collapsed. This photo was taken shortly after impact: The hole is approximately 15 feet across. Does it look like a jumbo jet crashed here? I don't doubt that spectators believe they saw a plane. Maybe it was some sort of modified plane carrying explosives. Maybe it was top secret projection technology. What actually happened here, the public may have to wait 50-100 years to find out.

08-12-2011, 06:30 PM	#74
dyna mo The People's Post Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: invisible 7-11 Posts: 65,437	hi rez image of the crash site. https://publicintelligence.net/wp-co...-8006R-002.jpg

08-12-2011, 07:16 PM	#79
wehateporn Promoting Debate on GFY Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 27,173	Did The Simpsons predict 9/11 in 1997? When they show the magazine notice the Coupon at the bottom right i.e. Coup On. A wad of cash is waved in front of the magazine i.e. "It's all about money" __________________ Sexy Girls Teasing Last edited by wehateporn; 08-12-2011 at 07:17 PM..

08-12-2011, 07:29 PM	#81
Caligari Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: At The Mountains Of Madness Posts: 5,414	yes it does look like the pentagon- look closely at the bottom of the building, the exposed cinder block leading to the upper part and the architecture. now look at that huge pic to the left of the destruction, the part of the building left intact shows the same structure, exposed cinder block etc. the chain link fence could have been there if they were doing construction and they could have easily extracted it in the large image. But that image could also be of the part of the building that caught fire but was not directly hit. __________________ ATTN Webmasters Cruel Bucks - LIVE Gonzo Does Not Pay ------------------------------------------------ Animal Rescue Click Here to Feed An Animal for Free Last edited by Caligari; 08-12-2011 at 07:30 PM..

08-12-2011, 07:35 PM	#82
raymor Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 3,745	Anybody who thinks hitting the world's largest building with a plane, search youtube for "kai tak landing" and then see what you think. __________________ For historical display only. This information is not current: support@bettercgi.com ICQ 7208627 Strongbox - The next generation in site security Throttlebox - The next generation in bandwidth control Clonebox - Backup and disaster recovery on steroids

08-12-2011, 08:56 PM	#84
bushwacker Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: so. fla. Posts: 2,817	Yawn. There are dozens of photos of airplane wreckage outside the pentagon.

08-12-2011, 09:25 PM	#85
dyna mo The People's Post Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: invisible 7-11 Posts: 65,437	i placed the photo matt posted in the image i posted and see now it is the corner of the impact area: but the essence of the picture is misleading, it is clearly not an accurate portrait of the central area of the impact zone.

08-12-2011, 09:31 PM	#86
Agent 488 Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 22,511	it`s stupid to even argue this shit. "but there was wreckage on the lawn." "no, it is fake. it was placed there." "their were eyewitnesses." "no, they just saw a hologram." pointless ...

08-12-2011, 09:36 PM	#87
Agent 488 Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 22,511	http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.asp

08-13-2011, 06:21 AM	#88
wehateporn Promoting Debate on GFY Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 27,173	Eliminate The Impossible __________________ Sexy Girls Teasing

08-13-2011, 06:28 AM	#89
Pornstarchive Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: San Diego Posts: 31	Amazing we're about to hit the 10 yr "anniversary" of that event. I'm sure everyone remembers where they were when that hit the news. I was on my way to work about to drive to Los Angeles and I said "fuck that, they might attack here" so I called in. Turns out we were all told to stay home. Crazy day. __________________ GGG Model Archive Wine Women and Song - There is Nothing Better...

08-13-2011, 06:45 AM	#90
Caligari Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: At The Mountains Of Madness Posts: 5,414	Looking closer at the image within the image you can see clearly which part of the building it is. the insert photo is then post-impact and it shows that the part of the building which collapsed is still intact at the time of the photo. __________________ ATTN Webmasters Cruel Bucks - LIVE Gonzo Does Not Pay ------------------------------------------------ Animal Rescue Click Here to Feed An Animal for Free

08-13-2011, 07:17 AM	#91
Caligari Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: At The Mountains Of Madness Posts: 5,414	Really the idea of whether or not a plane hit the pentagon is not the issue, but has been made into an issue to further detract from the core issues of the event. Along with other questions, the idea that 4 planes could go awol for about an hour and NONE of them were intercepted (the one plane downed only because the passengers on board attacked) is highly unlikely, especially considering the target areas. Yes, other planes had strayed in the past and were not intercepted immediately, but 4 airplanes unchallenged hitting their targets, and extremely sensitive targets at that? How an awol commercial airplane penetrated pentagon airspace should be the question, of which there are two answers. 1)through incompetence and negligence the airplane penetrated pentagon airspace and hit the pentagon 2)it was allowed to hit the pentagon either way its pretty damn bad. __________________ ATTN Webmasters Cruel Bucks - LIVE Gonzo Does Not Pay ------------------------------------------------ Animal Rescue Click Here to Feed An Animal for Free

08-13-2011, 08:12 AM	#93
Agent 488 Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 22,511	please read and rebut (i know you wont though) http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Payne_Stewart http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Intercept_time http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Stand_Down as you can see most 9/11 conspiracy truisms are based up deception, omission, lies and fraud ... ironically the same thing you accuse the government of. sorry they are not in youtube format. you may have to read.

08-13-2011, 08:18 AM	#94
MetaMan I AM WEB 2.0 Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 28,682	Israel pulled off 9/11. they run the usa govt. pure fascism. israel was created by us german businessmen BEFORE WW2 as a place to control the usa from outside. anyone who thinks otherwise is a complete idiot.

08-13-2011, 09:50 AM	#95
Caligari Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: At The Mountains Of Madness Posts: 5,414	haha 911 truth is about as bad as snopes. snopes - a smug douchebag couple from los angeles who have somehow cornered the "truth" market by finding it on the internet;) the payne stewart story is such a bad example of awol plane interception it's pathetic. "air traffic controllers in Florida lost touch with a Learjet carrying golfer Payne Stewart and several companions after it left Orlando headed for Dallas, Texas." wow a golfer heading for dallas,texas...please call out the national guard while your at it. just a few things- 1)plane not headed into sensitive airspace i.e. THE PENTAGON, WORLD TRADE CENTER. 2)that was one plane, NOT 4. chance of not intercepting one of the 4 is like getting struck by lightning. 3)from the intel the government obviously knew MONTHS before the attack (read FBI- flight school intel) how they were not totally primed and ready for such an attack is beyond belief... ...that is, unless they were absolutely primed and ready. Lihop __________________ ATTN Webmasters Cruel Bucks - LIVE Gonzo Does Not Pay ------------------------------------------------ Animal Rescue Click Here to Feed An Animal for Free Last edited by Caligari; 08-13-2011 at 09:52 AM..

08-13-2011, 10:27 AM	#98
Caligari Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: At The Mountains Of Madness Posts: 5,414	oye vey...why bother quoting my post when you haven't bothered to read it? once again, and for the last time- payne stewart -1999 case, poor example because- 1)awol plane not flying into sensitive airspace i.e. THE PENTAGON, WORLD TRADE CENTER 2)not intercepting one plane is possible, not intercepting 4 planes is highly improbable considering the intel the gov had prior to 9/11. you see, just because a site posts an example of an intercept/standown scenario doesn't make it applicable to all other scenarios. it doesn't make it the truth barometer. something to consider- the sky is not blue and grass is not green. __________________ ATTN Webmasters Cruel Bucks - LIVE Gonzo Does Not Pay ------------------------------------------------ Animal Rescue Click Here to Feed An Animal for Free