[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Mittelwaechter

There was and is no hard evidence at all, Osama to be the guy behind 9/11 - especially the WTC and Pentagon attacks.

That may be true. Many wars have been started on faulty evidence. There is plenty of evidence that the hijackers were Muslim extremists and since Bin Laden was one of their main leaders the conclusion, while possibly wrong, was still logical. That there is no hard evidence that Bin Laden was behind it is not therefore evidence that the US government was.

Hussein wanted to end the Petro-Dollar. They had to attack Iraq, as an example for all the others what happens, if they would try to do alike.

I agree with the belief that attacking Iraq was the wrong thing to do and was done for the wrong reasons. That doesn't lead to the conclusion that the US government did it. Not even a little bit.

No WMDs in Iraq?
Well, there's a huge difference in faking at home with authority or faking in a foreign country, different language and totally opposing potential witnesses for your intentions.

It would be simple. The CIA just takes in a couple of weapons and puts them in a bunker somewhere. Quite easy, actually. The funny part is that you want to believe in huge, and I mean massive, deceptions by thousands of people, but won't allow that a small handful could plant a few WMDs. It sounds like your mind is already made up, and always has been.

Blix was searching at the relavant places and didn't find anything. Now you want to prove some chemo-bio-research facility has been working on chemical or bio-weapons for years. You have to provide evidence for this. It's not enough to place some blue vials there or some truck with chemical warheads and claim "I found it!"

Sure it is. You already argue that we'll believe whatever we're told. Now you want to change that because it doesn't fit your personal agenda?

The US knew Hussein had chemical weapons. They supported him to use them against Iran. They accepted the use against the Kurdes. They were sure Hussein must have some left, but didn't find some.

So Bush didn't lie about the WMDs? I agree.

You didn't get the joke. I hope it is not all of you.

Even with a smiley some have problems to realize some fun and feel insulted. Sorry for that.

You used a "winking" smiley. That one is usually used to indicate that you are saying something the other person can learn from, not to emphasize a joke.

A positive ID of AA77 would be usual. All crashed airliners are tried to be reconstructed after the crash. It's a duty. You may know these pictures, showing some hangar, where all remaining debris is put at its correct position. But they didn't do it with AA77. They say there was some debris and the seat - but all other parts have "disintegrated".

When an aircraft crashes into the ground there are usually major pieces left. When an aircraft crashes head-on into a wall it does indeed tend to disintigrate. Didn't you watch the video of the Phantom hitting the wall? Were are the pieces to assemble of that plane? There were none. Same thing here.

The ban for take off seems to support you, but did a witness know this ban and was this person ready to claim three aircraft being around?
If this witness knew of the ban, it would have been even more confusing to claim a climbing jetliner.

Here is a complete list of all the eyewitness accounts, plus a transcript of the Air Traffic Control conversation. Where are the "three planes", and where is the "climbing airliner"?
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHART...witnesses.html

The C-130 is exactly there for covering the airliner flying over the Pentagon. It is the explanation for any witnesses who dare to question the official story.

Or it was tracking the hijacked jetliner, as stated. Read the transcript provided in the above link. "Gofer06" is the C-130.

The C-130 was visible for all people at the Pentagon and on TV. They were pretty sure, any witness claiming a climbing jetliner, would have seen this prop plane instead, simply deluding himself.

It has already been proven that eyewitnesses often are mistaken about what they think they saw. You used that argument yourself.

This is a very important part of the whole fake. Confusing the witnesses and providing the solution for all who insist on what they saw.

You have claimed several times that you are not a Truther, just asking questions, yet you continually insist that it was faked and do nothing but try to prove it. When are you going to admit that you are convinced it was faked and your purpose here is to prove it.

Roberts Roosevelt simply told what he saw. He didn't care for any number of planes or the following discreditation.
Some simply stand for what they see or what they believe to see. No matter if someone - or the majority - judges them wrong or right.
They rely on their senses and face the opposition. A question of character.

Again you use the tactic of personal attack. If they don't agree with you, they must lack character. The majority you keep bringing up agree with the official version. They must be sheep who believe what they are told.

184 passengers of "AA77" - believing they fly with AA136 - land on 9/11 at a military airbase. They understand it was necessary, becaue of the events of that day.

That was twelve years ago. After that the whole Truther movement came out. Not one of them also doubts and is willing to tell his story?

A serious US Air Force Commander tells them, they have to stay quiet about this, because they have seen the secret new F22 in front of that hangar over there.
They shall not speak about where they landed, they shall not expose themselves to any spies interested in the F22.

The F-22 has been common knowledge for many years since. You can buy models of it. You can look up all the details. It's no longer secret. Not one of them, given what's going on now, would mention it?

These passengers of "AA77"/AA136 survived, they are at home. They believe to be AA136 and shall stay quiet about their landing at the military airbase. No need to speak up.

If they are at home then they are living their lives. They have credit cards. They own houses. They own cars. It should be easy for the Truthers to find at least some of them, which would prove beyond doubt that they are right. Yet not one has turned up.

But who was listed on the "AA77" that departed Washington, took a re-route of 400 miles, switched off the transponder exactly in a secret radar gap, came back to hit the Pentagon, with extremely high speed, declimbing fast and forcing the plane to pull up at ground level, to ram five light poles, touching down exactly into the construction site?
And why didn't the pilot simply head straight from above into the Pentagon? He made an aggressive declimb to get the light poles first, because he didn't like the USA?

Your last two questions are the answer to your first. He didn't dive onto the Pentagon because it would have been too easy to miss. He didn't dive steeply at all. He came in at a shallow angle, almost flat, because that gave him the biggest target. If he was too high he would still have a good chance of hitting the building somewhere. If he was too low there would be a good chance of skidding into the building. He clipped the light poles because in his shallow trajectory they were in his way. He couldn't avoid them and still hit his target.

Assuming it was a fake, the question is: how do you convince relatives, they have lost family in the Pentagon attack?
(It is not a question I'm asking you. It is a question I'm asking myself. I don't consider you to be supportive)

That is the question I've been asking you. As for not being supportive, how can you support someone who has repeated called you a sheep and a believer who doesn't think for himself? And there's that wink smiley again. Maybe you're joking this time too, but it doesn't look like it.