Jump to content

Theme© by Fisana
 

Photo

Did Bush Engineer 9/11??


  • Please log in to reply
2019 replies to this topic

#141 acdbrn666

acdbrn666

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8254 posts

Posted 20 February 2004 - 06:39 PM

bluedyedshark


Where did those people live? What were they doing? Where were they going? You don't know any of that. All you see are the corporate names and assume foul play. Fl 77 was going to Calfiornia. Couldn't the Navy guy have been on his way to his homebase after a meeting in Washington? Boeing has a HUGE testing facility in CA how do you know the Boeing folks weren't coming or going to a meeting together? The lockheed guy could have been on his way to Edwards Air Force base in CA. The Raytheon guy could have been going home or to LA for a meeting. Washington is swarming with people who work for the Defence Industry. CA has a HUGE amount of defense industry folks and military bases. The fact that you have identified 7 people out of 60 proves nothing. I have been on fully loaded planes that were over half filled with defense industry folks coming and going from conferences. Around the country.
  • 0

#142 masterful

masterful

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1097 posts

Posted 20 February 2004 - 06:52 PM

Saying that a conspiracy is horseshit is name-calling to you? Ok, I suppose if you believe that, then in your little world, you're right, I did name-call. Didn't call anyone a name though eh?

Mike Rivero's beliefs are MUCH more extensive than simply saying a jumbo jet hit the pentagon, but keep telling yourself that he's right, it might pay off for you in the end. I'm done providing you links and information, you obviously are dead-set in believing what you want to believe. Good luck with that.

I've read every website that I posted, for one reason or another, multiple times. Some of it was posted because it was factual and scientific, some of it was posted because it was interesting, and some of it was posted for effect. I have always claimed, from the beginning, that I wasn't trying to prove 'Bush's gang' correct in any way, this is something that you have made up, and desperately cling to, even in the face of ample evidence to the contrary. You choose to believe what you wish, regardless of the facts, it's your right. I have no further interest in trying to enlighten you.

What evidence am I ignoring concerning the Muslim extremists being able to fly a plane Ong? Being a 'shill', apparently I'm unable to think for myself, so spell it out to me. What evidence do you have that these people were unable to fly a plane? What exactly do you think Ariana Airlines was shut down for? Who do you think was flying those planes that were confirmed to be hauling drugs and weapons back and forth from Afghanistan? Saying something is false doesn't make it false Ong. The only weapons that you appear to have in a debate is the ability to remain absolutely blind, and stand, unshakingly, behind your belief that you've somehow proven something. I've read the things you posted . . . and I've shown you how easy it is to discount them. What more would you like? Show me this evidence you have that is so all-encompassing. In fact, you seem to have changed your story at this point, so for the sake of clarity, why don't you tell me what it is that you believe, and then provide evidence to support that belief . . . and we'll work from there.

The entire timeline is one long indictment. You can read it how you like, but if you read with objectivity, how can you deny that Osama Bin Laden's group was responsible (or at least involved)? How could you possibly believe that? It's even possible that it was sanctioned by people in the US government . . . but does that somehow mean to you that Muslim extremists WEREN'T the hijackers of those planes?

I enjoy debate, but I don't enjoy reiterating the same things over and over again. If you're going to force me to take that course of action, I'll happily converse with someone else. If you want to take a route that is more conducive to progression, I'm all for it. Either way, I would advise that you seriously appraise your extreme refusal to believe anything that conflicts with what you've previously heard. It's your life though . . .

Masterful.
  • 0

#143 bluedyedshark

bluedyedshark

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 278 posts

Posted 20 February 2004 - 06:53 PM

what you say is true.Many people think there is a connection however.
  • 0

#144 bluedyedshark

bluedyedshark

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 278 posts

Posted 20 February 2004 - 07:03 PM

http://www.unanswere...opic.php?tid=61
  • 0

#145 grob

grob

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4579 posts

Posted 20 February 2004 - 07:23 PM

"The groups of people you love, and the groups of people you hate have verified that this is in fact . . . TRUTH. That being said, this plane was flown badly. They struck the ground before hitting the Pentagon,

Really? Like where? They say that the plane bounced off the Pent. lawn, but the lawn is clearly pristine in the photos."

This is of course not possible.. We have 7 frames from the pentagon surveillance camera that shows something hitting the pentagon and blowing up. I have never seen a plane that did not burst into flame on touching anything. IF the pentagon plane had touched ground at 500 MPH, it would have instantly caught fire before hitting the pentagon. You would have clearely seen a ball of fire going at the pentagon. Although it might not have exploded just yet.

Look at any video footage of any air plane accidents. There are lots of them on the net. Even those who are pretty empty create HUGE balls of fire. ALL crash landings are done after they dump all the fuel yet they still catch fire.


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>They were flown by middle eastern Muslim extremists<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

BULL-KAKA-SHIITE!!!!!!!!!!! Bigger than Elephant turds!
:rolleyes:
  • 0

#146 Ong'sHat

Ong'sHat

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2451 posts

Posted 20 February 2004 - 08:32 PM

Masterful -

Reading the stuff you write is an exercise in unreality.

You say that the Timeline website is "one long indictment" - and so it is, IT IS ONE LONG INDICTMENT OF THE LIES OF 911!

Let's see if we can pin you down to one teeny weeny little point, like pinning down an eel. Here - directly from YOUR Timeline link which you say you've read and reread:

9:01 a.m.: Bush later makes the following statement. "And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I used to fly myself, and I said, 'There's one terrible pilot.' And I said, 'It must have been a horrible accident.' But I was whisked off from there -- I didn't have much time to think about it." Bush could not have possibly seen the first plane (American Airlines Flight 11) hit the WTC, because the only video showing this was not shown on television till later in the day. So how could he have possibly seen and said this?

OK, explain that to me, and tell me why no one in the US mass media has confronted Bush on this. On two seperate occasions Bush said that he saw the FIRST plane crash into the FIRST WTC on 911 prior to going into his classroom. He said he saw it on tv.

The problem is that there was no known image of plane #1 crashing available until 9/12 (here it says later on 911 - I thought it was 912, but at any rate the video was not even known to exist - except by the French photographer - at the time of day Bush said he saw it. )

So then, what was Bush watching? Was he getting a direct feed from the celebrating Mossad film crew?

Address this one tiny little issue taken directly from "your" website. I don't want to hear you cursing and spitting and making excuses now. One issue.

Now, a little later, again from YOUR website, Bush learns of the SECOND crash:

9:05 a.m.: Andrew Card walks up to Bush while he is listening to a Goat Story with 16 second graders in Sandra Kay Daniels-s class at Emma E. Booker Elementary School in Sarasota, Florida. Card whispers in his ear "A second plane has hit the World Trade Center. America is under attack." Bush (commander-and-chief?) keeps listening to this Goat Story with these children for at least 7 minutes, and perhaps as long as 18 minutes. Why he didn't excuse himself from these children right away, and immediately address this national emergency, is totally illogical and unexplainable.

There is no way this should have happened. What of course should have happened, was as soon as the secret service found out about United Airlines Flight 175 impacting the WTC (now knowing it was a "terrorist" act), they would have immediatly grabbed Bush and brought him to an undisclosed location. There is no way the secret service leaves Bush in a place (Emma E. Booker Elementary School) where everyone knows he is.



That's from YOUR Timeline website. Explain it to me.


Also, I noticed that you totally ignored my statements concerning the forewarning of Israelis at the end of my last message. Totally ignored it as you did every other point I've made, while simultaneously asserting that you never ignore anything.

Trying to reason with these shills is indeed an exercise in unreality and futility!


Ong
  • 0

#147 Ong'sHat

Ong'sHat

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2451 posts

Posted 20 February 2004 - 08:43 PM

ACD wrote:

"Hey Ong,

I told you already what question do you have? This is a very poular thread."



Jeez, ACD, I've already spelled it out for you several times, most recently in the post right above your last one!



Originally posted by Ong'sHat
[B]Re The Beat's comments above.

Yes, this also the very first time that i have heard someone say that they actually saw the plane clearly strike the Pentagon. I would like it if you could explain in detail exactly what you saw. This would be an important documentation.

Meanwhile, here are some exceedingly interesting photographs of the Pentagon scene taken right after 9/11:

http://www.asile.org.../erreurs_en.htm

http://thewebfairy.c...n/flight77.html

Where is the Boeing? Where is the jumbo jet sized damage? They said that the jet bounced off the lawn, but the lawn appears intact.

The very same British-Australian firm that was used to clear away the debris (evidence) at OK City and teh WTC was also used here.

And here are some very interesting quotes by some witnesses:

[I]"Velasquez says the gas station's security cameras are close enough to the Pentagon to have recorded the moment of impact. "I've never seen what the pictures looked like," he said. "The FBI was here within minutes and took the film."

"I was convinced it was a missile. It came in so fast it sounded nothing like an airplane."


"There was no huge explosion, no huge rumbling on ground, it just went -pfff.-"

On Sept. 10, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns.




-- ONG
  • 0

#148 Miss Astrojet

Miss Astrojet

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 4456 posts

Posted 20 February 2004 - 09:11 PM

Salialiol all i see are normal speckled highlights coming from the sun reflecting off of the fuselage. Geez now i wish United had their planes painted Eurowhite so people wouldn't see "Elvis" buried in their current livery.
  • 0

#149 The Beat

The Beat

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 15675 posts

Posted 20 February 2004 - 09:52 PM

Miss Astrojet,

I do see something unusual underneath the fuselage directly behind the wings. I haven
  • 0

#150 masterful

masterful

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1097 posts

Posted 20 February 2004 - 10:03 PM

Ong, I'm going to try one more time to put this in a manner you can understand . . . if it fails, I am going to be content with saying that I tried, and moving on.

I am NOT defending Bush. I have not made up my mind yet, one way or another, whether I believe that the US government was involved, intentionally. I don't know if some of the things that happened were mistakes, incompetence, or downright malicious intent. I have reserved judgement on that issue for the moment.

Let's try this. Let's define the players in the whole scenario:

1) Bush and gang. Cannot be verified, though it is highly suspected by many people. Only proof thusfar comes in the form of questions that cannot or will not be answered by government organizations, and the people involved therein. Lot of coincidences, mistakes, and discrepancies. Timeline I posted creates a lot of thought, and asks some good questions, but can't prove anything. Status: SUSPECTED

2) Israelis, Moussad, Jews, Zionists, etc. Cannot be verified, though it is highly suspected by many people. Only proof thusfar is circumstantial, conjectural, and inconclusive. Strange coincidence seems to lend creedence to the possibility that Israeli intelligence was at least somewhat aware of an attack, though it has not yet been confirmed that they were involved. Timeline I posted creates a lot of thought, and asks some good questions, but can't prove anything. Status: SUSPECTED

3) Muslim extremists. Confirmed by organizations associated with the governments of a number of countries, and various others that aren't associated with any government. MOUNTAINS of conclusive evidence, including names, passports, vehicle rental receipts, witnesses, witnessed pre-emptive admissions, accounts of victims, financial trails, and a million other things that we could sit and list for hours, that are verified one time after another throughout the timelines that we've been reading. Add to that the existence of will, motive, intention, methodology, and previous attempts such as WTC 1993, and Bojinka . . . as well as the threats, promises, statements, and requests made from Osama Bin Laden and company, it's a damn good bet that Muslim extremists were involved. Timeline I posted verifies in it's entirety that at the very least these Muslim terrorists were involved, whether as pawns, or as coordinators . . . but nonetheless involved. Status: CONFIRMED

Now you do with that what you will. If it means nothing to you, so be it. I hope, at least so that I don't feel like I've wasted ALL of this time . . . that you realize that you've been putting a lot of words into my mouth, and making up a lot of beliefs for me that I never claimed to have.

Masterful.
  • 0

#151 Ong'sHat

Ong'sHat

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2451 posts

Posted 20 February 2004 - 10:34 PM

Masterful -

I pinned you down to very specific topics and you respond with more of your circusmspect bullsh it generalities ignoring everything as usual. I have wasted too much time on you already. Any a-hole with computer access can get on a forum and just type "muslim extremist" over and over land over, like you and Miss A-Hole here. that's not what I'm here for, idle chitchat with the brain dead.

Ong
  • 0

#152 Ong'sHat

Ong'sHat

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2451 posts

Posted 20 February 2004 - 10:35 PM

ACD, I am still waiting.


Ong
  • 0

#153 Miss Astrojet

Miss Astrojet

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 4456 posts

Posted 20 February 2004 - 10:36 PM

Nicely put Masterful, however the terrorist supporters here will continue to led by their noses by the islamo-fascists.
  • 0

#154 Miss Astrojet

Miss Astrojet

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 4456 posts

Posted 20 February 2004 - 10:39 PM

Are we as the public to believe that United Airlines would allow one of their 767s to be used as a flying bomb without a single cry of foul from ANYONE at UA? There is nothing unusual in the photo except that a passenger plane is being flown right into a building by terrorists.
  • 0

#155 masterful

masterful

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1097 posts

Posted 20 February 2004 - 11:09 PM

Ong, why would you expect me to address what you last posted? I would have to defend Bush to debate that with you . . . and, as I've said a thousand times already, I am not defending Bush. The only point that I've been trying to make to you is that the airplanes that crashed into buildings on 9/11 were piloted by Muslim extremists . . . if you don't believe, after all that you've read and seen . . . it is only you who suffers. I choose not to live with you in your personal lie.

Muslim extremists piloted those planes, like it or not . . . that's the truth.

Masterful.
  • 0

#156 Miss Astrojet

Miss Astrojet

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 4456 posts

Posted 21 February 2004 - 12:35 AM

Ding ding give masterful a cigar!:D
  • 0

#157 The Beat

The Beat

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 15675 posts

Posted 21 February 2004 - 12:38 AM

I've got both sites open now (snopes and hunt for the Boeing)

I'm going question by question, just like snopes did. BTW, urbanlegends is one of the better sites out there.

I'll give you my opinion as I finish each question.
  • 0

#158 The Beat

The Beat

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 15675 posts

Posted 21 February 2004 - 12:51 AM

Why only the outer rings damaged.

The photo by HFTB is much more persuasive than the drawing submitted by snopes. Who wouldn't take a satellite image over some artist's impression??

snopes says this:

"It caused damage to all five rings (not just the outermost one) after penetrating a reinforced, 24-inch-thick outer wall."

then writes this:

"Exterior photographs are misleading because they show only the intact roof structures of the outer rings and don't reveal that the plane penetrated all the way to the ground floor of the third ring."

You would have to infer that the plane damaged by major vibration the last two rings that looked like this: "these steel tubes and, again, they go from the first floor and go all the way to the fifth floor," says Evey. "We have everything bolted together in a strong steel matrix. It supports and encases the windows and provides tremendous additional strength to the wall."

Damage, again, is up for interpretation. Someone stubs their toe, "Ohhhh, damage." I don't know, it could mean anything. I know that when you put the words plane crash and damage together, people generally don't think of toe stubbing as the resultant damage.

I'll have to give this one to HFTB. Both are incomplete, and inconclusive, but pictures make it over drawings any day.
  • 0

#159 The Beat

The Beat

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 15675 posts

Posted 21 February 2004 - 01:08 AM

Can you explain how a Boeing 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of 41.6 yards and a cockpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just the ground floor of this building?


To me this is practically a nonquestion. The plane has to hit somewhere. It is entirely feasible that a commercial jet airliner can land on the bottom floor of any given building. It's really friggin' hard for any pilot to do it at that speed, but it is still feasible, with pilot assistance or not.

If we accept the official version, this means that the terrorists almost blew it!! Had they hit right in front of the Pentagon (please, no "skipping rocks" theories. It ain't landing on water) it would have done considreably less damage and Allah might have only awarded them 11 virgins. Sorry, that's sick, but this version always comes out sounding like that.

They would have been much better off if they had hit THE TOP floors and came crashing down on the floors below. As it turned out, the top three floors could evacuate with little loss of life.

But snopes doesn't win because of their video. That has been raked over many times. 1) the one frame that shows a plane part (the tail) is disproportionate with the size of a 757 about to smash into the Pentagon. 2) the more you watch the explosion, the more it starts looking like a missile of sorts hit it, instead of a plane.

Snopes gets this one, because HFTB is asking the wrong question. For the story to exist, the plane had to hit SOMEWHERE. If there were no explosion, then it would indeed be DAMN difficult to convince people that a plane just crashed into the Pentagon.
  • 0

#160 The Beat

The Beat

    Registered User

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 15675 posts

Posted 21 February 2004 - 01:17 AM

You'll remember that the aircraft only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring. Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this photograph?

(oops, I guess I should have given you the link from back then
http://www.asile.org.../erreurs_en.htm)

snopes says:

"You'll recall from the discussions above that the hijacked airliner did not "only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring"
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Copyright © 2020 Pravda.Ru