official 9-11 thread

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: KAZANI

Originally posted by: Vic
When are you idiots going to realize that innuendo, coincidence, one person's opinion, and hearsay are not proof of some vast conspiracy?

But thanks for proving my point anyway.

It's not about proving "our" conspiract theory, but disproving the government's. When the government tells you that a man who couldn't even fly a small Cessna flew a large airliner, with zero flight time on the type, at a pefect 500 knots-20 feet above the ground trajectory and slammed into the Pentagon, then common sense starts giving your gullibility the pangs of reality.

No it's about proving your theory. Proving the government wrong doesn't prove your theory. Nor have you proven the government wrong. Pointing out minor discrepancies in a "He said, she said" fashion doesn't make a case againt the official story because the vast, vast majority of the main points withstand scrutiny.

Besides that, a complete distorsion of the facts concerning Hanjour's piloting does you no service either. If you're going to use common sense it has to grounded in reality in the first place and your description is not because it's inaccurate.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: KAZANI

Originally posted by: Vic
When are you idiots going to realize that innuendo, coincidence, one person's opinion, and hearsay are not proof of some vast conspiracy?

But thanks for proving my point anyway.

It's not about proving "our" conspiract theory, but disproving the government's. When the government tells you that a man who couldn't even fly a small Cessna flew a large airliner, with zero flight time on the type, at a pefect 500 knots-20 feet above the ground trajectory and slammed into the Pentagon, then common sense starts giving your gullibility the pangs of reality.

Huh? How do you disprove the govts story without proof?

edit: btw anybody with a little flight time could probably pilot one of those things once it is in the air. It isnt rocket science and at that speed you basically point the nose where you want to go. And besides you dont need to land just crash into a target the size of the pentagon or twin towers.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: KAZANI

Originally posted by: Vic
When are you idiots going to realize that innuendo, coincidence, one person's opinion, and hearsay are not proof of some vast conspiracy?

But thanks for proving my point anyway.

It's not about proving "our" conspiract theory, but disproving the government's. When the government tells you that a man who couldn't even fly a small Cessna flew a large airliner, with zero flight time on the type, at a pefect 500 knots-20 feet above the ground trajectory and slammed into the Pentagon, then common sense starts giving your gullibility the pangs of reality.

I don't accept the government's official story (whatever that means), but you have unquestionably failed in your attempts to disprove it. Mostly for reason as I described above. For example, despite your attempts to make it appear so, it wouldn't be hard to hit the world's largest building with a commercial jetliner. I could bullseye it in MS Flight Sim solely with the autopilot, and I have zero flight time in any type. What common sense says is that you guys will keep making up new excuses each and every single time reality gets in the way of your theories.

Originally posted by: dphantom
Then who did fly the plane into the Pentagon?

He probably thinks there was no plane and that it was hit by a missile. Where'd the plane and its 64 passengers and crew go? Shh... they were kidnapped by the shapeshifting lizard people international jew... I mean, "Zionists."

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Huh? How do you disprove the govts story without proof?

edit: btw anybody with a little flight time could probably pilot one of those things once it is in the air. It isnt rocket science and at that speed you basically point the nose where you want to go. And besides you dont need to land just crash into a target the size of the pentagon or twin towers.

I don't know how good (or bad) a pilot Hanjour was, but it he was just good enough to put a plane down on the stripes on visual approach in perfect weather (which it was on 9/11/01), then he was more than good enough to put Flight 77 into the Pentagon.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: KAZANI

Originally posted by: Vic
When are you idiots going to realize that innuendo, coincidence, one person's opinion, and hearsay are not proof of some vast conspiracy?

But thanks for proving my point anyway.

It's not about proving "our" conspiract theory, but disproving the government's. When the government tells you that a man who couldn't even fly a small Cessna flew a large airliner, with zero flight time on the type, at a pefect 500 knots-20 feet above the ground trajectory and slammed into the Pentagon, then common sense starts giving your gullibility the pangs of reality.

I don't accept the government's official story (whatever that means), but you have unquestionably failed in your attempts to disprove it. Mostly for reason as I described above. For example, despite your attempts to make it appear so, it wouldn't be hard to hit the world's largest building with a commercial jetliner. I could bullseye it in MS Flight Sim solely with the autopilot, and I have zero flight time in any type. What common sense says is that you guys will keep making up new excuses each and every single time reality gets in the way of your theories.

Originally posted by: dphantom
Then who did fly the plane into the Pentagon?

He probably thinks there was no plane and that it was hit by a missile. Where'd the plane and its 64 passengers and crew go? Shh... they were kidnapped by the shapeshifting lizard people international jew... I mean, "Zionists."

Clearly they ended up under Denver International Airport.

http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Bases.html

I guess there is a nazi concentration camp under there.
http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Denver_Airport.html

Dont ask how Jews become Nazi's. I think it has to do with the spaceships and stars or something.

 

[digiram]

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: KAZANI

Originally posted by: Vic
When are you idiots going to realize that innuendo, coincidence, one person's opinion, and hearsay are not proof of some vast conspiracy?

But thanks for proving my point anyway.

It's not about proving "our" conspiract theory, but disproving the government's. When the government tells you that a man who couldn't even fly a small Cessna flew a large airliner, with zero flight time on the type, at a pefect 500 knots-20 feet above the ground trajectory and slammed into the Pentagon, then common sense starts giving your gullibility the pangs of reality.

Then who did fly the plane into the Pentagon?

Who knows, but how come the black boxes were destroyed in the crash while atta's passport was found on the street some where?

Let's face it. The reason it happened was to sell the Iraq invasion. We were attacked and in the "interest of national security" had to take action in Iraq. Isn't that what the Iraq war is all about. Protecting us because of how vulnerable we are, given what happened in 911. Any one that beleives the official story is just like a kid that's given poisoned kool aid, but doesn't quesiton what's in it b/c it was given to them by a relative. Which is reasonable of course, but there's nothing wrong with questioning the Kool Aid if it doesn't smell, look, or taste right.

So, look no further than the Iraq invasion and how the war was sold for, if not proof, then it's at least motive.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: KAZANI

Originally posted by: Vic
When are you idiots going to realize that innuendo, coincidence, one person's opinion, and hearsay are not proof of some vast conspiracy?

But thanks for proving my point anyway.

It's not about proving "our" conspiract theory, but disproving the government's. When the government tells you that a man who couldn't even fly a small Cessna flew a large airliner, with zero flight time on the type, at a pefect 500 knots-20 feet above the ground trajectory and slammed into the Pentagon, then common sense starts giving your gullibility the pangs of reality.

I don't accept the government's official story (whatever that means), but you have unquestionably failed in your attempts to disprove it. Mostly for reason as I described above. For example, despite your attempts to make it appear so, it wouldn't be hard to hit the world's largest building with a commercial jetliner. I could bullseye it in MS Flight Sim solely with the autopilot, and I have zero flight time in any type. What common sense says is that you guys will keep making up new excuses each and every single time reality gets in the way of your theories.

Originally posted by: dphantom
Then who did fly the plane into the Pentagon?

He probably thinks there was no plane and that it was hit by a missile. Where'd the plane and its 64 passengers and crew go? Shh... they were kidnapped by the shapeshifting lizard people international jew... I mean, "Zionists."

Yes, I know. I wanted him to say that, but of course these conspiracy folks will never make a flat out assertion backed by facts. Hitting the Pentagon is not hard. And the video did show the plane actually hit the ground just before hitting teh pentagon so the pilot was probably not very competent anyway as he nearly flew the plane into the ground.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: digiram

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: KAZANI

Originally posted by: Vic
When are you idiots going to realize that innuendo, coincidence, one person's opinion, and hearsay are not proof of some vast conspiracy?

But thanks for proving my point anyway.

It's not about proving "our" conspiract theory, but disproving the government's. When the government tells you that a man who couldn't even fly a small Cessna flew a large airliner, with zero flight time on the type, at a pefect 500 knots-20 feet above the ground trajectory and slammed into the Pentagon, then common sense starts giving your gullibility the pangs of reality.

Then who did fly the plane into the Pentagon?

Who knows, but how come the black boxes were destroyed in the crash while atta's passport was found on the street some where?

Let's face it. The reason it happened was to sell the Iraq invasion. We were attacked and in the "interest of national security" had to take action in Iraq. Isn't that what the Iraq war is all about. Protecting us because of how vulnerable we are, given what happened in 911. Any one that beleives the official story is just like a kid that's given poisoned kool aid, but doesn't quesiton what's in it b/c it was given to them by a relative. Which is reasonable of course, but there's nothing wrong with questioning the Kool Aid if it doesn't smell, look, or taste right.

So, look no further than the Iraq invasion and how the war was sold for, if not proof, then it's at least motive.

Text

If the claim is that Hanjour didn't fly the plane, then burden lies on the conspiracy theorists to answer who did. Red herrings like Atta's passport, the Iraq War, and ad homs like suggestions of kool-aid drinking, does not alleviate that burden. Do not assume that we are so stupid that we will miss this simple sleight-of-hand you're trying here.
Black boxes, despite the hype, and relatively fragile and infamously unreliable, and Iraq could have (as I believe) something the govt came up with after the fact in order to (1) capitalize on 9/11, and (2) give the public the illusion they were doing something about it. That's just as plausible a conspiracy theory as yours.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Clearly they ended up under Denver International Airport.

http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Bases.html

I guess there is a nazi concentration camp under there.
http://www.anomalies-unlimited.com/Denver_Airport.html

Dont ask how Jews become Nazi's. I think it has to do with the spaceships and stars or something.

Um... wow... that site.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: event8horizon
BY WAY OF DECEPTION THOU SHALT DO WAR - mossad motto according to victor Ostrovsky

Missed this one. It really shows off your basic ignorance.

"All warfare is based on deception. Hence, when we are able to attack, we must seem unable; when using our forces, we must appear inactive; when we are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; when far away, we must make him believe we are near."
-- Sun Tzu, 500 BC

 

[KAZANI]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: KAZANI

Originally posted by: Vic
When are you idiots going to realize that innuendo, coincidence, one person's opinion, and hearsay are not proof of some vast conspiracy?

But thanks for proving my point anyway.

It's not about proving "our" conspiract theory, but disproving the government's. When the government tells you that a man who couldn't even fly a small Cessna flew a large airliner, with zero flight time on the type, at a pefect 500 knots-20 feet above the ground trajectory and slammed into the Pentagon, then common sense starts giving your gullibility the pangs of reality.

No it's about proving your theory. Proving the government wrong doesn't prove your theory. Nor have you proven the government wrong. Pointing out minor discrepancies in a "He said, she said" fashion doesn't make a case againt the official story because the vast, vast majority of the main points withstand scrutiny.

Besides that, a complete distorsion of the facts concerning Hanjour's piloting does you no service either. If you're going to use common sense it has to grounded in reality in the first place and your description is not because it's inaccurate.

You keep presuming I have an alternative theory, which shows your limited understanding of the 9/11 truth movement. No, I am just a man who does not subscribe to the government humbug edition so easily as you do. I ask legitimate questions and I will not allow people like you to discredit my quest for information.

Enough with this sidetracking flaming! Explain how the Hanjour's piloting description I gave is innacurate or stop trolling this thread.
Here are my sources anyway:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...ec=&spon=&pagewanted=2

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html

 

[Vic]

I don't know anyone who subscribes to the government's "official" story, but that doesn't mean that everyone I know subscribes to the 9/11 "truth" movement of explosives and missiles instead of planes. So don't be surprised if you get hit by "sidetracking flaming" when you continue to resort to straw men and red herrings over and over again instead of answering the questions about your own theories.

For starters:
If Hanjour didn't fly Flight 77, who did?
If Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, what did?
And if not Flight 77, where did the plane and its passengers and crew go?

You see how this works? It's not that we drink any kool-aid or buy any "official" version, it's just that the conspiracy theorists can't answer the simplest of questions, much less ask "legitimate" ones of your own. So take the halo off.

 

[digiram]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: digiram

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: KAZANI

Originally posted by: Vic
When are you idiots going to realize that innuendo, coincidence, one person's opinion, and hearsay are not proof of some vast conspiracy?

But thanks for proving my point anyway.

It's not about proving "our" conspiract theory, but disproving the government's. When the government tells you that a man who couldn't even fly a small Cessna flew a large airliner, with zero flight time on the type, at a pefect 500 knots-20 feet above the ground trajectory and slammed into the Pentagon, then common sense starts giving your gullibility the pangs of reality.

Then who did fly the plane into the Pentagon?

Who knows, but how come the black boxes were destroyed in the crash while atta's passport was found on the street some where?

Let's face it. The reason it happened was to sell the Iraq invasion. We were attacked and in the "interest of national security" had to take action in Iraq. Isn't that what the Iraq war is all about. Protecting us because of how vulnerable we are, given what happened in 911. Any one that beleives the official story is just like a kid that's given poisoned kool aid, but doesn't quesiton what's in it b/c it was given to them by a relative. Which is reasonable of course, but there's nothing wrong with questioning the Kool Aid if it doesn't smell, look, or taste right.

So, look no further than the Iraq invasion and how the war was sold for, if not proof, then it's at least motive.

Text

If the claim is that Hanjour didn't fly the plane, then burden lies on the conspiracy theorists to answer who did. Red herrings like Atta's passport, the Iraq War, and ad homs like suggestions of kool-aid drinking, does not alleviate that burden. Do not assume that we are so stupid that we will miss this simple sleight-of-hand you're trying here.
Black boxes, despite the hype, and relatively fragile and infamously unreliable, and Iraq could have (as I believe) something the govt came up with after the fact in order to (1) capitalize on 9/11, and (2) give the public the illusion they were doing something about it. That's just as plausible a conspiracy theory as yours.

I don't have to prove jack. You act like there were survelience cameras in the cock pit that sent feedback of the hijackers flying the plane to Fox News or something. The burden is in the media and the government to prove something before taking action based upon them. Especially, actions that cost billions in treasues and thousands in lives of not only the military but also civilians. However, if the public is willing to just accept everything told to them w/o question, then that isn't going happen.

All I'm doing is keeping an open mind on the situation, and refusing to drink the kool aid cause it smells like shit. In the mean time, I'm thinking of reasons why my daddy would give me this crap. Does he have a life insurance policy on me or something?

 

[digiram]

Originally posted by: Vic
I don't know anyone who subscribes to the government's "official" story, but that doesn't mean that everyone I know subscribes to the 9/11 "truth" movement of explosives and missiles instead of planes. So don't be surprised if you get hit by "sidetracking flaming" when you continue to resort to straw men and red herrings over and over again instead of answering the questions about your own theories.

For starters:
If Hanjour didn't fly Flight 77, who did?
If Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, what did?
And if not Flight 77, where did the plane and its passengers and crew go?

You see how this works? It's not that we drink any kool-aid or buy any "official" version, it's just that the conspiracy theorists can't answer the simplest of questions, much less ask "legitimate" ones of your own. So take the halo off.

I'll ask you...why are we in Iraq right now and what was the main justification for going into Iraq???

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: digiram
I don't have to prove jack. You act like there were survelience cameras in the cock pit that sent feedback of the hijackers flying the plane to Fox News or something. The burden is in the media and the government to prove something before taking action based upon them. Especially, actions that cost billions in treasues and thousands in lives of not only the military but also civilians. However, if the public is willing to just accept everything told to them w/o question, then that isn't going happen.

All I'm doing is keeping an open mind on the situation, and refusing to drink the kool aid cause it smells like shit. In the mean time, I'm thinking of reasons why my daddy would give me this crap. Does he have a life insurance policy on me or something?

More red herrings and distractions. It's not that I have a closed-mind, it's that you're lying and being elusive about it. I'd love to believe your claim that Hanjour didn't fly the plane, BUT (1) you refuse to back it up, (2) it's not relevant to the fact that Flight 77 did hit the Pentagon, and (3) you're also not supporting your claim that Iraq was a direct pre-planned result of 9/11, except through innuendo.
I offered plausible alternative theories, ones completely at odds with any "official version," and got insulted as a kool-aid drinker.

This is the reason why I say that if the conspiracy theorists are right, then they are in on their own conspiracy theories. Nothing else can explain how the theories could be true, and theorists so good at discrediting themselves.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: KAZANI

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: KAZANI

Originally posted by: Vic
When are you idiots going to realize that innuendo, coincidence, one person's opinion, and hearsay are not proof of some vast conspiracy?

But thanks for proving my point anyway.

It's not about proving "our" conspiract theory, but disproving the government's. When the government tells you that a man who couldn't even fly a small Cessna flew a large airliner, with zero flight time on the type, at a pefect 500 knots-20 feet above the ground trajectory and slammed into the Pentagon, then common sense starts giving your gullibility the pangs of reality.

No it's about proving your theory. Proving the government wrong doesn't prove your theory. Nor have you proven the government wrong. Pointing out minor discrepancies in a "He said, she said" fashion doesn't make a case againt the official story because the vast, vast majority of the main points withstand scrutiny.

Besides that, a complete distorsion of the facts concerning Hanjour's piloting does you no service either. If you're going to use common sense it has to grounded in reality in the first place and your description is not because it's inaccurate.

You keep presuming I have an alternative theory, which shows your limited understanding of the 9/11 truth movement. No, I am just a man who does not subscribe to the government humbug edition so easily as you do. I ask legitimate questions and I will not allow people like you to discredit my quest for information.

Enough with this sidetracking flaming! Explain how the Hanjour's piloting description I gave is innacurate or stop trolling this thread.
Here are my sources anyway:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/f...ec=&spon=&pagewanted=2

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/pentagon.html

Yeah, my limited understanding.

:roll:

I've been debating the troofers since all this conspiracy crap began concerning 9/11. I understand them very well and I'm very familiar with their tactics; too familiar.

As far as Hanjour, he received his commerical pilot certification in April '99. He also flew a 737 simulator on a couple of occassions. He had 600 hours of flight time. In reference to his piloting skills:

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/Newsday_com.htm

Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said.

The difficulty in flying a plane, even a commercial jet, is the take-off and landing. Hanjour had to do neither. He merely pointed it and crashed it. Nor was his flying "perfect" by any stretch of the imagination considering his wacky turn/dive over DC, knocking over street lights, and bouncing off the ground just prior to hitting the Pentagon.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: digiram

Originally posted by: Vic
I don't know anyone who subscribes to the government's "official" story, but that doesn't mean that everyone I know subscribes to the 9/11 "truth" movement of explosives and missiles instead of planes. So don't be surprised if you get hit by "sidetracking flaming" when you continue to resort to straw men and red herrings over and over again instead of answering the questions about your own theories.

For starters:
If Hanjour didn't fly Flight 77, who did?
If Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, what did?
And if not Flight 77, where did the plane and its passengers and crew go?

You see how this works? It's not that we drink any kool-aid or buy any "official" version, it's just that the conspiracy theorists can't answer the simplest of questions, much less ask "legitimate" ones of your own. So take the halo off.

I'll ask you...why are we in Iraq right now and what was the main justification for going into Iraq???

That's not relevant. I already explained that the govt could have just capitalized off 9/11 to use an excuse to attack Iraq. It doesn't require the kind of pre-planned mega-conspiracy being proposed here.
Or are you saying the Japanese didn't attack Pearl Harbor?

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: digiram
I don't have to prove jack. You act like there were survelience cameras in the cock pit that sent feedback of the hijackers flying the plane to Fox News or something. The burden is in the media and the government to prove something before taking action based upon them. Especially, actions that cost billions in treasues and thousands in lives of not only the military but also civilians. However, if the public is willing to just accept everything told to them w/o question, then that isn't going happen.

All I'm doing is keeping an open mind on the situation, and refusing to drink the kool aid cause it smells like shit. In the mean time, I'm thinking of reasons why my daddy would give me this crap. Does he have a life insurance policy on me or something?

More red herrings and distractions. It's not that I have a closed-mind, it's that you're lying and being elusive about it. I'd love to believe your claim that Hanjour didn't fly the plane, BUT (1) you refuse to back it up, (2) it's not relevant to the fact that Flight 77 did fdact hit the Pentagon, and (3) you're also not supporting your claim that Iraq was a direct pre-planned result of 9/11, except through innuendo.
I offered plausible alternative theories, once completely at odds with any "official version," and got insulted as a kool-aid drinker.

This is the reason why I say that if the conspiracy theorists are right, then they are in on their own conspiracy theories. Nothing else can explain how the theories could be true, and theorists so good at discrediting themselves.

This whole last few posts are why these threads get locked. The CT's can never provide an argument backed by facts. All they can do is provide innuendo, unproven assertions and off topic diversions to avoid ever having to argue definitively the who, what, when, where, why, and how of the incident.

By the CT's reasoning, all they have to do is say "I don't beleive the government version therefore the government is involved in a conspiracy to destroy the WTC and Pentagon." The CT's don't need to provide proof because in their minds, it is up to everyone else to prove them wrong.

Unfortunately, the postion the CT's take is the hallmark of an uneducated person. That is, an educated person will have the courage of their convictions to stand up and argue with facts and reason for their position and be ready to counter the opposing argument.

Because the CT's cannot do that, their only recourse is to sidetrack the argument with spurious allegations and non-sequitors.

So for what it is worth, I am all for the mods locking this thread. It would be nice to have a debate, but when one side cannot provide facts/proof, then the whole point becomes meaningless.

 

[KAZANI]

Originally posted by: Vic
I don't know anyone who subscribes to the government's "official" story, but that doesn't mean that everyone I know subscribes to the 9/11 "truth" movement of explosives and missiles instead of planes. So don't be surprised if you get hit by "sidetracking flaming" when you continue to resort to straw men and red herrings over and over again instead of answering the questions about your own theories.

For starters:
If Hanjour didn't fly Flight 77, who did?
If Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, what did?
And if not Flight 77, where did the plane and its passengers and crew go?

You see how this works? It's not that we drink any kool-aid or buy any "official" version, it's just that the conspiracy theorists can't answer the simplest of questions, much less ask "legitimate" ones of your own. So take the halo off.

Oh, no. I keep telling you I don't have an alternative theory but you just continue ignoring that statement. Look, it's simple reasoning:
We need more information to form a bloody theory on what happened. In the meantime we can safely infer that the official report was a lie. It was set up to fail and conducted a very shallow investigation.

You want to know what really happened? First accept the fact that the government did not tell you what happened and then join the club of those who ask the questions. Because it all boils down to having this annoying habit of asking questions and not being comfortable in complacency. At least that you should respect.

 

[digiram]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: digiram
I don't have to prove jack. You act like there were survelience cameras in the cock pit that sent feedback of the hijackers flying the plane to Fox News or something. The burden is in the media and the government to prove something before taking action based upon them. Especially, actions that cost billions in treasues and thousands in lives of not only the military but also civilians. However, if the public is willing to just accept everything told to them w/o question, then that isn't going happen.

All I'm doing is keeping an open mind on the situation, and refusing to drink the kool aid cause it smells like shit. In the mean time, I'm thinking of reasons why my daddy would give me this crap. Does he have a life insurance policy on me or something?

More red herrings and distractions. It's not that I have a closed-mind, it's that you're lying and being elusive about it. I'd love to believe your claim that Hanjour didn't fly the plane, BUT (1) you refuse to back it up, (2) it's not relevant to the fact that Flight 77 did hit the Pentagon, and (3) you're also not supporting your claim that Iraq was a direct pre-planned result of 9/11, except through innuendo.
I offered plausible alternative theories, ones completely at odds with any "official version," and got insulted as a kool-aid drinker.

This is the reason why I say that if the conspiracy theorists are right, then they are in on their own conspiracy theories. Nothing else can explain how the theories could be true, and theorists so good at discrediting themselves.

Just listen to the justifications for the Iraq war that came right out of the mout of GWB. Look what happened on 911, Saddam is dangerous, the same thing can happen again if we don't take action. The problem is the action doesn't even relate to what happened on 911, but 911 was used to indirectly justify it. Not the event in itself, but the thought of the new world that we're in due to it.

Perhaps, it's the father beating the child for his own good as control of the oil in the region would be critical in maintaining power and wealth at home.

I just hope that the reason isn't due to personal gains from the industries that are involved in and are able to profit from it. ie. the father killing his son to cash in on insurance pay outs.

I just don't see a valid reason for why the oil suppliers would want to hurt it's best customers. Unless, they wanted instability to occurr in their region to limit supply and increase prices. In that case, we're the suckers.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: KAZANI

Originally posted by: Vic
I don't know anyone who subscribes to the government's "official" story, but that doesn't mean that everyone I know subscribes to the 9/11 "truth" movement of explosives and missiles instead of planes. So don't be surprised if you get hit by "sidetracking flaming" when you continue to resort to straw men and red herrings over and over again instead of answering the questions about your own theories.

For starters:
If Hanjour didn't fly Flight 77, who did?
If Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, what did?
And if not Flight 77, where did the plane and its passengers and crew go?

You see how this works? It's not that we drink any kool-aid or buy any "official" version, it's just that the conspiracy theorists can't answer the simplest of questions, much less ask "legitimate" ones of your own. So take the halo off.

Oh, no. I keep telling you I don't have an alternative theory but you just continue ignoring that statement. Look, it's simple reasoning:
We need more information to form a bloody theory on what happened. In the meantime we can safely infer that the official report was a lie. It was set up to fail and conducted a very shallow investigation.

You want to know what really happened? First accept the fact that the government did not tell you what happened and then join the club of those who ask the questions. Because it all boils down to having this annoying habit of asking questions and not being comfortable in complacency. At least that you should respect.

If you don't have an alternative theory of any kind, then what are doing here in this thread besides flinging unwarranted accusations of buying "official versions" or being "comfortable in complacency"?
Have you seen me ONCE try to convince anyone of any supposed official version, or to tell people to trust our government?
OTOH, if the facts and evidence are abundant and clear (like how the planes hit the buildings for example), then I'm going to begin my arguments from there, regardless of whether they might happen to belong to some government version or not.

So let me be EXTREMELY clear so your bullshit line doesn't come up again: I don't trust our government, I do ask questions, and you're the one being disrespectful... of us.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: digiram

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: digiram
I don't have to prove jack. You act like there were survelience cameras in the cock pit that sent feedback of the hijackers flying the plane to Fox News or something. The burden is in the media and the government to prove something before taking action based upon them. Especially, actions that cost billions in treasues and thousands in lives of not only the military but also civilians. However, if the public is willing to just accept everything told to them w/o question, then that isn't going happen.

All I'm doing is keeping an open mind on the situation, and refusing to drink the kool aid cause it smells like shit. In the mean time, I'm thinking of reasons why my daddy would give me this crap. Does he have a life insurance policy on me or something?

More red herrings and distractions. It's not that I have a closed-mind, it's that you're lying and being elusive about it. I'd love to believe your claim that Hanjour didn't fly the plane, BUT (1) you refuse to back it up, (2) it's not relevant to the fact that Flight 77 did hit the Pentagon, and (3) you're also not supporting your claim that Iraq was a direct pre-planned result of 9/11, except through innuendo.
I offered plausible alternative theories, ones completely at odds with any "official version," and got insulted as a kool-aid drinker.

This is the reason why I say that if the conspiracy theorists are right, then they are in on their own conspiracy theories. Nothing else can explain how the theories could be true, and theorists so good at discrediting themselves.

Just listen to the justifications for the Iraq war that came right out of the mout of GWB. Look what happened on 911, Saddam is dangerous, the same thing can happen again if we don't take action. The problem is the action doesn't even relate to what happened on 911, but 911 was used to indirectly justify it. Not the event in itself, but the thought of the new world that we're in due to it.

Perhaps, it's the father beating the child for his own good as control of the oil in the region would be critical in maintaining power and wealth at home.

I just hope that the reason isn't due to personal gains from the industries that are involved in and are able to profit from it. ie. the father killing his son to cash in on insurance pay outs.

I just don't see a valid reason for why the oil suppliers would want to hurt it's best customers. Unless, they wanted instability to occurr in their region to limit supply and increase prices. In that case, we're the suckers.

It is unlikely that you will find any single poster on this forum more opposed to the Iraq War from the very beginning than me (with the possible exception of Harvey), and all I can say to this post is so what?, STFU, and :roll:.

For the last time, that 9/11 was used to sell the Iraq War is not proof that 9/11 was pre-planned and executed for that purpose. It's just innuendo, and not even very good at that. Get a clue.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
This thread is a perfect example of why the old policy of locking 9-11 conspiracy threads made sense.

 

[KAZANI]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
As far as Hanjour, he received his commerical pilot certification in April '99. He also flew a 737 simulator on a couple of occassions. He had 600 hours of flight time. In reference to his piloting skills:

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/Newsday_com.htm

Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said.

The difficulty in flying a plane, even a commercial jet, is the take-off and landing. Hanjour had to do neither. He merely pointed it and crashed it. Nor was his flying "perfect" by any stretch of the imagination considering his wacky turn/dive over DC, knocking over street lights, and bouncing off the ground just prior to hitting the Pentagon.

1- Hanjour had no flight experience with a Boeing 757. A simulator just doesn't count, so leave it.

2- Bernard was not even piloting with Hanjour (is flight instructors said he had trouble commanding a small Cessna). Even so, the school refused to give him even the necessary skill refreshing lessons which would enable him to be trusted to rent an aircraft.

3- Pointing at a building and hitting it is an oversimplified version of the - still not known at the time - intrinsic maneuver that Hanjour allegedly pulled off over the Washington sky.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: KAZANI
1- Hanjour had no flight experience with a Boeing 757. A simulator just doesn't count, so leave it.

Avionics in a 757 are not vastly different from a 737. Besides that, Hanjour had training manuals for the 7575 and 767 and used MS Flight Simulator to familiarize himself with the avionics layouts. So, thanks but no thanks. I will not leave it. You simply saying it doesn't count carries no weight whatsoever in the face of the evidence.

2- Bernard was not even piloting with Hanjour (is flight instructors said he had trouble commanding a small Cessna). Even so, the school refused to give him even the necessary skill refreshing lessons which would enable him to be trusted to rent an aircraft.

Bernard didn't have to pilot with Hanjour. He was the chief flight instructor at Freeway. It was his job to know how people wanting to rent the Freeway planes performed.

3- Pointing at a building and hitting it is an oversimplified version of the - still not known at the time - intrinsic maneuver that Hanjour allegedly pulled off over the Washington sky.

"Intrinsic maneuver." What the heck is that suppose to mean or imply?

From Danielle O'Brien, Dulles ATC, who was tracking the flight on radar:

""The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane," O'Brien said. "you don't fly a 757 in that manner. It's unsafe."

Hanjour was still a lousy, inexperienced pilot. But he had enough experience to take over the controls in flight and crappily fly it into a very, very large building. The implication that was impossible for him to do is ridiculous. Any dork can learn that skill with about 10 hours of practice on MS Flight Simulator. They may not do it well, but they will be able to do it.