Any evidence Bush planned 9/11

[Orion999]

Is there any evidence for the commonly held belief here that the Bush administration was in on 9/11?

There seems to be plenty of evidence supporting Islamic terrorists as the culpritst, most of all the fact that they admit the did it? Why would they claim responsibility for 9/11 and justify the U.S. waging war on them in Afganistan if they had nothing to do with it? If Bush was in collusion with the terrorists why does he kill and capture them all the time. Why would Muslim's be in league with the leader of a country in an action used to justify invasions of their countrys?

There must be some logical reason for this belief, besides the Bush is evil proof

If 9/11 was done by the Bush admistration or anyone other than Al-Quada, why does Al-Quada publically acknowledge orchestrating it?

[Zero]

http://www.911truth.org/
http://www.911sharethetruth.com/
http://www.st911.org/
http://www.ny911truth.org/
http://www.911truthradio.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_Truth_Movement
http://www.nineeleven.co.uk/
http://www.sf911truth.org/
http://www.mujca.com/
http://www.v911t.org/
http://www.911truth.ie/
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/seekin.php
http://canadawantsthetruth911.blogspot.com/
http://www.911revealingthetruth.org/
http://www.911review.org
http://www.911truthla.us/
http://www.911truthmovement.org/
http://www.infowars.net/
http://www.physics911.net/
http://www.stoplying.ca (http://www.stoplying.ca/)
http://www.911podcasts.com/default.php

Thats only off the first few pages of Google.

EDIT:
Probably the biggest repository of information is at globalresearch.ca (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=theme&themeId=18)

[Orion999]

What I would really like to know and have been unable to find an explanation for in my limited viewing of these sites is this.

If Islamic terrorists did not commit 9/11, then why do they frequently claim that they did? It's not like members of Al-Quada are accusing Bush of commiting 9/11 in order to invade their countries. They freely and publically admit they did it.

The idea that Bush would secretly carry out the 9/11 attacks, and then blame them on a muslim organization that had nothing to do with the attacks, and that then the Muslim organization would falsly take credit for the attacks, just strikes me as absurd.

If anyone has a reasonable explanation for this I would love to hear it.

[An archist]

Of course Al Qaida were in it, they carried out thye attacks, that's clear.
BUT why weren't the planes that crashed into the WTC towers and the pentagon intercepted?
Intercepting a plane is quite a common procedure, it happens about a 100 times a year. Meybe the first plane couldn't get intercepted because the people responded too slow, but then why didn't they intercept the second or the third?

[Orion999]

Of course Al Qaida were in it, they carried out thye attacks, that's clear.
BUT why weren't the planes that crashed into the WTC towers and the pentagon intercepted?
Intercepting a plane is quite a common procedure, it happens about a 100 times a year. Meybe the first plane couldn't get intercepted because the people responded too slow, but then why didn't they intercept the second or the third?



This cannot be your entire reasoning for believing The United States President to be guilty of high treason and mass murder. Plane response time?

First: It was not until after the second plane hit the WTC, that it was entirely clear that this was an act of war.

Second: their are over 10,000 planes in the sky over America at 9a.m., It was impossible to determine immediately which ones (if there were even anymore as far as they knew) had been hijacked.

Third: I tend to believe that the final plane was in fact shot down by our military, instead of the people revolting leading to the crash.


There has got to be something better than this to justify so many people believing this.

[Sir_No_Sir]

I think it's also worth noting that not everyone who doesn't quite buy what they're selling believes it was exclusively Bush (more accurately, the Government).
I think that Bush and Al-Qaeda may have plotted together. But that's just me.

[An archist]

Yes indeed there are 10.000 planes in the sky, but each one is carefully monitored, I'll try looking for the exact events and the timing, but what I do know is that contact was lost with the planes and they went off their set route, suggesting the plane had bgeen hijacked, in that case it's standard procedure to intercept the plane, if it still doesn't respond, it is most likely to be taken down.
For the first plane it's possible people didn't see the seriousness of the situation, but when that plane hit the first tower, and people in the control room saw a second plane that went off it's original course and where contact was lost, they must have understood the seriousness of the situation.
About the plane that crashed: it's very likely that it was shot down (as should have happened with the others) witnesses say having heard 2 bangs and the plane's rubble was scattered over a serious distance, suggesting that it had an explosion in mid-air.
Yet the black boxes of the plane and phone calls made by passengers clearly show that the passengers (among them a professional pilot) were about to, or had already overpowered the hijackers. Also, the last three minutes of the black box recordings were missing.
So why would the military take down the plane that probably would have landed safely, but let three other planes fly to their targets uninterrupted?

And I'm not even getting started about the plane that hit the pentagon.
How could a boeing 757 with a width of 38 metres leave a hole of 5 metres wide and completely evoporate due to the heat? Shouldn't the wings be lying outside the building? But that's not the most important argument, the first part of the text is, it suggests that the US government knew damn well what was about to happen and they let it happen.
I don't think they organised it, but they were at least indirectly responsible for it (also because they financed Bin-Laden and Al-Qaida and supported them with training.)

[Orion999]

Even if what you are saying is true about Plane response time, It is hardly conclusive evidence that the American govt allowed the massmurder of it's own citizens.

[An archist]

well, they sure didn't prevent it, even thought they had the chance

[theraven]

Originally posted by An [email protected] 3 2006, 03:34 PM
well, they sure didn't prevent it, even thought they had the chance
where did they have the chance?

[Orion999]

Once again nobody has anything credible to say about this topic. Using the govt.s confusion on 9/11 as proof of Bush compliance with terrorists is insane. They were not prepared for a situation 9/11. Bush was not in the air traffic control tower ordering people to ignore terrorist threats.

Anyone who makes the assumption out govt. was in on the attacks instead of the infinitely more logical conclusion that they were simply inept, is just grasping for anything they can find to support their twisted world view.

[An archist]

Yes they were prepared, I just told you: the interception of a plane happens about a 100 times a year: there are set procedures for that, if those procedures were followed, no planes would have crashed into the WTC towers, I can believe that the people in the control tower didn't think the situation was really serious when they lost contact with the first plane, but when the second plane went off it's course, heading for New York, where moments ago a plane crached into the WTC, why didn't they react?
Also why did the FBI take the tapes of the security cameras of a gas station near the pentagon that showed the plane crash and kept them hidden for so long? Wouldn't it make more sense to show them to the public to show us what happened?

[Orion999]

Before 911 for what reason was a plane intercepted once every three days?

What possible reason could the U.S. militatry have for intercepting commercial jetliners that frequently? where did you get this information?

Being prepared to intercept one plane because it is having mechnical problems (what other possible reason could there be?) does not mean ordinary air traffic controllers were prepared to deal with the threat of multiple hijacked planes.

After the First plane hit the WTC, how much time elapsed between the next two.
And you can't fault them for not realizing an attack was going on until after the second plane hit. So how much time elapsed between the second WTC hit and the Pentagon one?

I don't think it's nearly as long as you seem to think it is.

[MrDoom]

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

[An archist]

What reason could the military have to intercept planes?

When communication is lost with a plane and it's going off it's original course, there is a chance that that plane is hijacked, even if it's not, the military planes guide the commercial plane to the airport where it can best land (if it can't communicate, how could it ask if the landing lanes are clear?) that seems to be perfectly normal don't you think?
So even if there was no reason to assume the planes had been hijacked, the crew of the planes couldn't communicate, so they couldn't land either! (or they would risk to crash into another plane) sending in military jets was the logical thing to do; one jet flies in front of the commercial plane and tips it s wings from the left to the right (or the other way round), the commercial plane immitates that move and then follows the leading jet to an available airport, the following jet is there to shoot down the plane in case of a hijacking.
I got that information form the Humo, a respected Belgian magazine, known for their in-depth articles.

[Orion999]

There is no way this happened every three days. Anytime there is an incident with an airplane like this it is reported on the news and it is a few times a year. You still have not answerd how much time was their in between the second and third attacks. The only attack you can even blame them for is the third one, and they shot down the forth.

Once again the Idea that this logic provides proof that the U.S. president is a mass murderer of his own people and was not simply due to incompetence is absurd. You must have more than this.

[An archist]

I haven't given you the time yet because I'm still looking for the article, anyway, things like that usually happen when the plane is having technical difficulties, in a country where so much planes fly everyday, I don't find it that hard to assume every three days one of 'em is having difficulties.
I'll try to post the elapsed times as soon as I find the article, I'm quite sure it's here somewhere, but I do know that as soon as they lost contact with the first plane they should have sent jets to intercept the flight. if they had done that, but the jets were too late, they still coul have sent them after the second plane.
And it still leaves us with the question why they shot down the fourth plane after the passangers had taken over.

EDIT: And I'm not saying Bush is incompetent at all.

[Capitalist Lawyer]

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

You read that loser's website?

:lol:

[An archist]

First plane: AA left from Boston at 7.59
-at 8.14 it ignored an order to fly higher, radio communication was lost (it might have been hijacked)
-at 8.20 it changed course radically from it's pr-set course.
-at 8.21 stewards called to say the plane had been hijacked and people had been killed
-at 8.28 the plane headed for NY
-at 8.46 it crashed into the first tower

the FAA instruction manual states clearly that if there is any doubt wether the plane's been hijacked or not: you should act as if it has been.

-at 8.14, about the time the FAA had indications the first plane had been hijacked, the second flight took off from Boston
-at 8.42, communication was lost, the plane's transponder failed and it changed course
-at 8.43 they called NORAD about this, NORAD should have intercepted the second plane by 8.53, at that time, the planes should have been long ready
-at 9.03 the second plane crashed in the second tower

on a side note: at 8.55 people in the second tower heard the message that all was clear and that they could return to the building, but I admit, that was probably just bad communication by NORAD

-at 9.38 a plane crashed into the pentagon

weird huh? the first plane didn't get intercepted: ok, the second and the third however: either NORAD is made up of a bunch of incompetents or I smell a conspiracy

[Orion999]

Like I've stated time and again.

This arguement is nowhere near enough evidence to support such an outrageos claim as the America Govt. massmurdering it's own citizens. Plane intercept senarios are nowhere near enough. If the Govt. policy prior to Sept 11 is to intercept planes on the slightest hint of anything, then The order to just let all these planes kill people would not be able to be kept secret. This is not Communism. You think Bush would risk his life by giving this order that 100's of people would have to have been aware of? In America you cannot suppress this kind of information among 100,s of people. You probably don't believe that but it's true.

You need to give this whole thing up. America does not allow foreign Islamo Jihadist to kill it's people even as a pretext to war. This is what Communists countries do.

[An archist]

I'm not saying Bush gave the order to just let those planes crash inot the towers, but you have to admit that contrary to 'loose change' this is a big questionmark in the whole story, Why didn't they intercept those planes? Why why why?
and if they did intercept the fourth plane, why didn't they admit it?

If there's a conspiracy, it's not said that it was made up by Bush and the people around him, it could be anyone in the right position. Who benefitted from those attacks?

[Orion999]

Also, after the first plane hit the WTC, Thats all that would be needed as a pretext to war, so why not go after the others?

At least your not one of these crazies who think the THe U.S. staged the whole thing which is basically who I was asking to give evidence. I still have to believe That simple U.S. Govt. incompetance was the cause for your arguement which does hold enough merit to warrant lookeing into.

I was under the impression that prior to 9/11 The US was not at all as prepared to intercept planes as you claim, but I have no evidence for that.

[Avtomatov]

Personally, i dont give a shit who did it.

[Guerrilla22]

:D The planes were flown into the twin towers and pentagon by remote control!

[Zero]

Alright. Lets get down to this.

(Sources taken from reasonably fair skeptics websites.)

"Failiure" of National Air Defense.


Originally posted by "911review.com"+--> ("911review.com")The procedure for intercepting unresponsive aircraft has been routine in U.S. domestic airspace, ever since the end of the Cold War. According to an Associated Press story, fighters were scrambled 67 times between September, 2000 and June, 2001. Scrambling, or getting fighters in the air, is the first step in carrying out an interception, which consists of catching up with and examining the errant aircraft.

The number and distribution of bases with available interceptors, combined with short scramble times and high speeds of the jets, virtually guarantees that a jetliner flying anywhere in the northeast U.S. could be intercepted within 20 minutes.

Fighter pilots are trained to scramble in under five minutes. They waste no time getting from the barracks to their jets, and are ready for takeoff in a matter of seconds. It's only 10 seconds from power-up to takeoff, and twenty seconds to reach airliner cruising altitude. An F-15 can travel the distance between New York City and Washington D.C. in under eight minutes.[/b]
Why were these planes never intercepted? After all 67 successful interceptions before, why were the following 4 planes allowed to fly without any F-15 scrambled, when it is unilatterally a generic procedure? There is a pretty conclusive article found here (http://www.attackonamerica.net/airdefensesstooddownon911.htm) detailing a theory of why this did not happen.

The Boeing 757 That "crashed into the Pentagon"
There is quite a good article at physics911 (website of scientists, physicists, and engineers who doubt the official story) detailing how the Pentagon attack is impossible. (Though there are many holes in the common conspiracy theories (http://www.911review.com/errors/pentagon/index.html), though most anti-anti-B-757 crash data is just as much conjecture as the official story.)


"physics911.net"
At the 9-11 Pentagon, the world witnessed a fire and suggestions of explosions. Airport fire trucks rushed to the scene of a purported “crash” site - without discovering an airplane. There is no viable evidence of burning jet fuel. Just the statement, "They say it was an airplane." The pre-collapse Pentagon section showed no ‘forward-moving’ damage. The damage is at the wrong location. The expected “crash” damage doesn’t exist. There was no particular physical evidence of the expected "wreckage." There was no tail, no wings; no damage consistent with a B-757 “crash.” Even the Pentagon lawn was undamaged! The geometry of the day certifies the ‘official’ account as a blatant lie. The few aircraft parts discovered at the Pentagon are highly suspect. The dramatic "witness" accounts lack supporting physical evidence - with the exception of those who described the incredibly few aircraft parts. All images show that the building wasn’t aggressively searched for survivors. Lacking any 'expected' clues, one is left to ask "Who said this was an airplane crash, in the first place?"
Article found here (http://www.physics911.net/omholt.htm).

If you skim this article and read what you feel is important that should be enough, there is so much data there it takes awhile to take it all in. A shorter article on Hani Hanjour's impossible flight can be found here (http://www.physics911.net/sagadevan.htm). As well as a possible aircraft used to damage the Pentagon (found here (http://www.karlschwarz.com/02-02-05_Schwarz.pdf).)

There is more evidence of such things like the impossibility of the passangers calling on AirPhones (http://www.physics911.net/cellphoneflight93.htm), faking the Bin Laden tapes (http://www.physics911.net/kevinbarrett.htm), Islamism not supporting suicide attacks (http://www.physics911.net/islamnotsuicidal.htm), science vs official WTC story (http://www.physics911.net/closerlook.htm), use of Thermite to melt sections of the WTC (http://www.physics911.net/thermite.htm)... The truth is out there, don't expect me to bring it to you, sieze it for yourself.

[Zero]

Originally posted by "Orion999"+--> ("Orion999") What I would really like to know and have been unable to find an explanation for in my limited viewing of these sites is this.

If Islamic terrorists did not commit 9/11, then why do they frequently claim that they did? It's not like members of Al-Quada are accusing Bush of commiting 9/11 in order to invade their countries. They freely and publically admit they did it.[/b]
"Islamic terrorists" is a pretty generic term. I suppose in that definition Malcom Small would be a "Islamic Terrorist" :lol: . Though I get what you mean, I was not informed that other groups had taken credit for 9/11, but what I am certain of is that Osama denies involvement (http://911review.com/articles/usamah/khilafah.html). Of course this would be common sense for him in his current position. Though his history of involvement as a CIA operative (http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html), plus that the USA created Islamic Fundamentalism to combat Socialism (http://www.nathannewman.org/log/archives/001645.shtml), that the ISI that is backed by the CIA created terrorism as we know it today (http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO111A.html). Then again, why should I be questioning the official story? Am I un-American? :rolleyes:


"Orion999"
The idea that Bush would secretly carry out the 9/11 attacks, and then blame them on a muslim organization that had nothing to do with the attacks, and that then the Muslim organization would falsly take credit for the attacks, just strikes me as absurd.
Of course it does, that is because you do not have the appropriet information and backing evidence. Look at Who Killed John O'Neill (http://www.wkjo.com/) for a more artistic presention of the facts (there is about a half hour of fluf in the begining.) Everything sounded absurd to me when I first started researching, however when the facts started to roll in, I started to see things differently. Remember, when you attack things as big as this, do not singularly look at one viewpoint. "Follow the money."

[Zero]

Double Post, read page 1 and 2.

[Jazzratt]

Oh for fuck's sake. THERE WAS NO CONSPIRACY. For a start it would require such huge numbers of conspirators that the chance they could keep it secret would be less than nil, secondly and most importantaly (as withall conspiracies) there appears to be no sensible motive. Furnish me with these and something beyond 'oh they didn't intercept the planes'. Seriously, any proper leftist should be above this shit - the governments of the world have no reason to hude their power in conspiracies - they are the fucking power.

[Zero]

Originally posted by "Jazzratt"+--> ("Jazzratt")For a start it would require such huge numbers of conspirators that the chance they could keep it secret would be less than nil,[/b]
I suppose that is debatable, but since nither of us knows anything about how shit functions inside closed doors we won't know till long after the fact eh? But for now, you'd be suprised at what a few orders can do.


Originally posted by "Jazzratt"@
there appears to be no sensible motive.
No sensible motive? Have you even read the Patriot act? Wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act), USA Patriot Act (http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html).


"Jazzratt"
Furnish me with these and something beyond 'oh they didn't intercept the planes'.
... I just did...

If you want more, then look at the links I provided in the second post down... :unsure:

[LoneRed]

I also must point out, why at the possibility Most protected air space in the world( the pentagon) with its No-fly zone, was nothing intercepted, or done anything before hand. Trickery is afoot. Also check out the video Loose Change, I don't think it is past the administration to plan something like this, we can longer rely on our governments information, we must get to the bottom of all things on our own.

[Zingu]

I think this is obligatory (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons) :rolleyes:

[An archist]

^ that was posted before.

So please, someone explain to me why those planes weren't intercepted? is there any logical explanation why this did'nt happen, and yeah, in the case of the pentagon it's even weirder.
So far no-one has been able to explain this.
Also, thanks Zero, for your contribution, it's pretty hard to deny that is it?

[Jazzratt]

Originally posted by Zero+Sep 3 2006, 10:39 PM--> (Zero @ Sep 3 2006, 10:39 PM)
Originally posted by "Jazzratt"+--> ("Jazzratt")For a start it would require such huge numbers of conspirators that the chance they could keep it secret would be less than nil,[/b]
I suppose that is debatable, but since nither of us knows anything about how shit functions inside closed doors we won't know till long after the fact eh? But for now, you'd be suprised at what a few orders can do. [/b]
Could you explain more clearly what you mean there?




"Jazzratt"@
there appears to be no sensible motive.
No sensible motive? Have you even read the Patriot act? Wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act), USA Patriot Act (http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/hr3162.html). Yes, it is a wonderful example of what the government can improvise to twist the situation to their advantadge. The US government just uses its bogeymen as tools. Othwerwise you may as well argue they created the USSR so they could introduce Mccarthyism.



"Jazzratt"
Furnish me with these and something beyond 'oh they didn't intercept the planes'.
... I just did...

If you want more, then look at the links I provided in the second post down... :unsure:
Urgh. I trawled through most of those and they didn't say anything that hasn't been said, and refuted, before. They're mostly the usual conspiracy-nutter type crap.

[Orion999]

informed that other groups had taken credit for 9/11, but what I am certain of is that Osama denies involvement.

Where are you getting this nonsense from.? Immediatly follow the attacks, Osama issued a statement praisin the brave jihadist and expressing his happiness that the level of destruction had exceeded their expectations. Why do they continually release tapes calling for more attacks? Get away from whoever is feeding you this nonsense.




There is quite a good article at physics911 (website of scientists, physicists, and engineers who doubt the official story) detailing how the Pentagon attack is impossible. (Though there are many holes in the common conspiracy theories, though most anti-anti-B-757 crash data is just as much conjecture as the official story.)


QUOTE ("physics911.net")
At the 9-11 Pentagon, the world witnessed a fire and suggestions of explosions. Airport fire trucks rushed to the scene of a purported “crash” site - without discovering an airplane. There is no viable evidence of burning jet fuel. Just the statement, "They say it was an airplane." The pre-collapse Pentagon section showed no ‘forward-moving’ damage. The damage is at the wrong location. The expected “crash” damage doesn’t exist. There was no particular physical evidence of the expected "wreckage." There was no tail, no wings; no damage consistent with a B-757 “crash.” Even the Pentagon lawn was undamaged! The geometry of the day certifies the ‘official’ account as a blatant lie. The few aircraft parts discovered at the Pentagon are highly suspect. The dramatic "witness" accounts lack supporting physical evidence - with the exception of those who described the incredibly few aircraft parts. All images show that the building wasn’t aggressively searched for survivors. Lacking any 'expected' clues, one is left to ask "Who said this was an airplane crash, in the first place?"



Some nut makes this up on a physics web site and you call that proof?

[Zero]

...

Read the fucking article, not just the blurb.

[Guerrilla22]

Where are you getting this nonsense from.? Immediatly follow the attacks, Osama issued a statement praisin the brave jihadist and expressing his happiness that the level of destruction had exceeded their expectations. Why do they continually release tapes calling for more attacks? Get away from whoever is feeding you this nonsense.

No, initially he denied responsibility for the attacks in a video, then like a week later the government produced a video of him admitting responsibility. Its not like video can be easily edited. Where is the evidence to suggest that the US government didn't play a role? All you can point to is the 9/11 commission report, which the Bush regime fought tooth and nail to prevent. The report was made without the commission havinf full access to documents. I wouldn't belive what the government told me happened regardless.

[Terminator]

So please, someone explain to me why those planes weren't intercepted?

Intercepted? How do you go on about "intercepting" a plane with terrorists? Thats first of all, second of all how the hell did they know from the get-go these planes were hijacked by terrorists? I don't understand this "interception" theory you propose? What do you suppose it would have done anyways? You were gonna knock the plane to the side like policeman do in police chases? And then what? Shoot the fucking plane down!? So that then there would have been the biggest outcry in the fucking world! ? Intercept ahhaha thats funny, they would have gotten a loud speaker "PLEASE TERRORISTS FLY AWAY FROM THE CITY, I REPEAT FLY AWAY FROM THE CITY" :lol:

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 07:42 PM

So please, someone explain to me why those planes weren't intercepted?

Intercepted? How do you go on about "intercepting" a plane with terrorists? Thats first of all, second of all how the hell did they know from the get-go these planes were hijacked by terrorists? I don't understand this "interception" theory you propose? What do you suppose it would have done anyways? You were gonna knock the plane to the side like policeman do in police chases? And then what? Shoot the fucking plane down!? So that then there would have been the biggest outcry in the fucking world! ? Intercept ahhaha thats funny, they would have gotten a loud speaker "PLEASE TERRORISTS FLY AWAY FROM THE CITY, I REPEAT FLY AWAY FROM THE CITY" :lol:
:rolleyes: The term "intercept" is used by the military to describe one plane coming within sufficient distance to engage another plane, not literally running into one plane with another plane.

[Terminator]

The term "intercept" is used by the military to describe one plane coming within sufficient distance to engage another plane, not literally running into one plane with another plane.

AYE SIR!! Meaning engaging a freaking passanger plane, hahahahaha do you know how mane people that decision has to go through. I mean the plane has to be inches from the WTC for it to be shot down, and even still i dont think a plane shot down over Manhattan is ver favorable.

[Guerrilla22]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2006, 07:52 PM

The term "intercept" is used by the military to describe one plane coming within sufficient distance to engage another plane, not literally running into one plane with another plane.

AYE SIR!! Meaning engaging a freaking passanger plane, hahahahaha do you know how mane people that decision has to go through. I mean the plane has to be inches from the WTC for it to be shot down, and even still i dont think a plane shot down over Manhattan is ver favorable.
The order to shoot down a passenger plane would probaly have to come from the President himself, I know, however the planes that hit the World Trade Center flew around for like an hour and no fighters were scrambled untill after they hit their target. Also, do you mean to tell me that the pentagon would not know if a plane was approaching their location? They have scrambled jets to intercept single engine planes that have flown in the airspace by the Pentagon, but they didn't know a 757 was near?

[Zero]

Originally posted by "Terminator"
Meaning engaging a freaking passanger plane, hahahahaha do you know how mane people that decision has to go through.

Two planes are scrambled automaticly. There is a list of actions a plane must fit into (not following a specific route, changing velocity strangely, strange weaving, not responding contacts, etc) and if they fit into any of this, two fighter planes are scrambled to intercept at one phone call.

However to shoot a commercial plane down must be ordered by the President.

[Terminator]

However to shoot a commercial plane down must be ordered by the President.

Who was eating shit that day reading his grade level skills to kindergarten students. And when he was told, he kept on reading . Now , does that fit in the "conspiracy"? Or was it that he didn't want to alarm people and thought whatever was happening was being taken care off, or was he so damn stupid he didn't know what the fuck to do? lol

[Orion999]

Even a majority of your fellow comrades think this is all bullshit, so why don't you all get a clue. Suporrting ridiculous theroys like thisonly show your complete lack of a grasp on reality, and that you will believe anything no matter how ridiculous if ti supports your "evil white capitalists" agenda. Your just making yourself look retarted.

[Zero]

Ah, I suppose you'd go back in time and tell that to Darwin and Galileo. ;)


Originally posted by "Orion999"
Even a majority of your fellow comrades think this is all bullshit, so why don't you all get a clue. Suporrting ridiculous theroys like thisonly show your complete lack of a grasp on reality, and that you will believe anything no matter how ridiculous if ti supports your "evil white capitalists" agenda. Your just making yourself look retarted.

an dby useng suprior ytping skils yuor maikng yuorsefl mroe plasuable.

I don't wholeheartedly believe in anything surrounding 9/11. There isn't conclusive evidence for much of anything, however what I do know is that the official story isn't physically possible. Thus, the war was based on inadequate evidence, and all crime scene evidence has been destroyed.

[Orion999]

I do know is that the official story isn't physically possible. Thus, the war was based on inadequate evidence, and all crime scene evidence has been destroyed.


Any evidence for this not provided by some wacko?