Conspiracies, sheeple, the universe and everything

[eddie]

He's just playing head games now, and you're falling for it! Move on, nothing to see here!

[Sailor Steve]

Ooh! More games! Okay, I'll play.

Originally Posted by Mittelwaechter

Again, I can't proof anything over the internet. I have no access to any government data or physical parts of debris, witnesses or enclosed material etc.

But you don't want to prove it anyway. You're just asking questions.

I have only available what is in public domain on the net. I can't do anything but seach for inconsistencys or alternative interpretations of the official reports.

So you admit that you want to find alternate interpretations. You're actually looking for something and trying to prove it was all faked.

I have no influence on American politicians, but I can try to make you doubt the 9/11 reports and question your Senators and Congress Members as other officials to engage in finding the truth.
They have tons of material enclosed - it's all out there, but they are not motivated to act.

Again you admit that you not only doubt the official version, you are totally convinced it's false. Your whole purpose is to prove that it's false.

[quoet]If you are comfortable with the actual situation, if you know everything is ok, you should stay out of any discussion, any engagement. Relax and be happy. Its not your business.[/quote]
So if I can show holes in your version, I should shut up and let you have your way.

If you start to doubt, do it. But do it consequently and change your attitude. If there is any doubt ask questions. If you find satisfying answers - disengage, switch back to comfortable and stay out.
If you find no good answers - act accordingly. Discuss ideas and theories with like minded, supportive people. Those won't discourage and mock you.

But you haven't done that. You've spent page after page trying to prove that those who look at the evidence and conclude the Truthers are crazy are wrong, and there was indeed a huge government conspiracy. You won't even address our questions, such as why would they do it in the first place? You completely ignore everything I say and go right back you your own cozy comfort zone, which is that there has to be a conspiracy, and you need to prove it to us.

I gave you a pretty good explanation for the Pentagon attack, assuming it was not the arabian prince steering AA77.

Not really. You pulled together a bunch of things that would have to have happened for your version to work. There are so many tricks and dodges that would have to be forced to fit that it really is much easier to believe that crazies did this.

All important factors are logically connected and line up. Details may be different, no trucks but containers, the internal situation at the construction site etc.

Not really. The "connections" have to be forced to fit into your scenario with tire irons and crowbars, and make much less sense than the "official" version. It's only logical if you already believe it, which despite your claims you seem to do just that.

Now you jump at me and ask me to explain all the connected strings to this. What do you smoke?

Not really. No one has asked you to explain anything. We've looked at your strings and pointed out that they don't add up. They don't make any sense. And then you turn to insults again. "What do you smoke?" When your arguments fail, accuse the other guy of being on drugs.

I do this for a few days and the missus is giving me the bad eye already. If you think it is justified to search for answers, I expect you to act like descibed above.

I think that if you were only looking for answers you wouldn't be having this problem. You've already decided the "official" version is wrong, and you are desperate to prove it.

You 'know' (=believe) or you want to be delivered (= change believe) with the complete true story of 9/11. I doubt the official story and have to split it down into pieces, to work on them.

Doubting it is fine. The problem is that you're working overtime to convince us of you doubt. That's also fine, but when one of us gives a simple explanation for something you insist that it can't be true and we must be "smoking" something, or just willingly blind. That's not being a doubter or a questioner. That's being a Truther.

I fully understand, my partial success counts nothing to you. But do you beam yourself into your car park or do you go there step by step?

What success would that be? You've swallowed the Truther claims hook, line and sinker, and keep trying to convince others that you're right. So far you've failed miserably.

My general approach to 9/11 is to doubt, more than 90% of my fellow citizens do so.

Cool. Contrary to your claim, I doubt everything. I've looked at the claims of both sides, and not one of the Truther claims hasn't been shown to be stretching the facts to be made to work.

Maybe I will work further on this topic, but not with you bloodhounds on my neck.

"Bloodhounds?" People doubt your claims and show where they are screwy, and that makes them bloodhounds? What are we supposed to do if we see holes in your claims? Just sit and ignore them?

AA77 may have been in the air or not. If grounded it could be at the airport of planned departure.
Or it was somewhere else parked and waiting.
If it was airborne it was ordered to land somewhere.
I guess there was chaos at the airports. Good conditions to veil the truth.

Or it was busy being taken over by religious fanatics. You ignore that possibility because it doesn't fit your theories.

Military airbases are available, with big hangars. Authority and orders may have hidden or hide AA77.
I would prefer the military version, to keep the conrol over the situation.
Papers and data were more easily to fake and even the passengers could be ordered to stay quiet.

"Ordered?" This is America. An authority "ordering" someone to stay quiet is an invitation for them to start talking to anyone who will listen. Do you know how much fame and money could be made by exposing this plot? They aren't all going to stay quiet. It just ain't gonna happen.

Security reasons you know...
No military personnel would be astonished to see a commercial landing at their base.

Very true. Some of them might start to wonder when the plane is put into a hangar and the passengers disappear, though. Civilian planes that land at military bases do so because the military has chartered them to carry military personel somewhere. They aren't hangared.

The passengers may have been confused not to be on AA77 at their departure and would do as ordered.
It would help at a civillian air port either. I can't proof it, but it is a possible version.

And where are all those passengers now?

The biggest flaw in all you ideas is the simple fact that you are speculating and casting a wide net. "It could have happened this way." "They could have been ordered to be quiet." "Witnesses could be faked." "Light poles could be faked." "Explosions could be faked."

Do you start to see it yet. Everything you say is "maybe" this and "could be" that. You absolutely refuse to believe the possibility that the story you deny might be true. It can't be true. The planes can't have been hijacked and flown into buildings. it has to be something else. The government has to be behind it.

Do you see why people like me tend to believe the evidence of our eyes first? The "official version", as you call it, is easier to believe because it makes sense. The evidence found at the scenes does indeed add up. The Truther version requires so many plots, so many lies and so many people to all keep quiet that it doesn't add up.

I also notice that with all your name-calling you haven't addressed any of our own questions. How could a government so efficient as to pull this off also be so stupid as to make all the mistakes the Truthers are able to point out? How could a government so smart as to make this happen just to get us into a war be unable to "find" a few WMDs and "prove" they were right? As someone said earlier, your version has a whole lot more holes in it that the one you claim to doubt.

You're claiming all these things. You really do need to prove them.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by eddie

He's just playing head games now, and you're falling for it! Move on, nothing to see here!

Possibly, but this is entertainment for some of us.

[MH]

This whole conspiracy looks worse than a low budget porn movie.

[Dowly]

@Mittelwaechter

What about the bodies and body parts recovered from Pentagon?
You do know that a body, still sitting on a airliner seat was found, right?
Why go through the trouble of doing that, when they could have just said:
"We took samples from the little we could find and DNA confirms the passengers of AA77 died at Pentagon."

Also, if the plane did fly over Pentagon, why no one saw it? We are talking about
a big city here, yet no one saw it??

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by eddie

He's just playing head games now, and you're falling for it! Move on, nothing to see here!

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

Possibly, but this is entertainment for some of us.

Savage amusement more like

I've just wasted ten minutes of my life catching up on the overnight posts.

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

I've just wasted ten minutes of my life catching up on the overnight posts.

[Mittelwaechter]

@Dowly

As I said, it is about having something to show for those witnesses claiming the plane didn't hit the Pentagon.
Bodies and bodyparts are available on a daily basis.
Organizing debris in the construction area, use some seat and strap a body in. Did they identify any parts to be AA77 at all?
(a FDR was presented a few years later, to counter the US pilots doubts of the flight manouvers)

It is more convincing to have some visible "evidence" there was DNA to find.
They "identified" the highjackers not with positive DNA, but with exclusion.
They didn't cross check this unidentified DNA with probes from rented cars or hotel rooms of the Arabians. (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/us...kers.html?_r=0)

The Reagan Airport is quite close to the Pentagon. Airborne, climbing jetliners are usual in the general area.
Those who saw something suspect have to argue there were three aircraft over the Pentagon. Two flying and one crashed.
Everybody 'knows' the same day AA77 has crashed into the building. If you saw some climbing jetliner you doubt yourself.
Better not make a fool out of you.
This Pentagon Police Officer at the southern dock claimed a commercial jetliner flying away. He is allegedly ordered to not talk about it any longer.

________

I just read an actual 9/11 article . The Arabian pilot wasn't on the first passenger list of AA77. They put him later on, to have a pilot with flying license aboard.
They say he came aboard without check in. (http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/13...ism/index.html)
Otherwise it would have been even more doubtful to claim, an absolute amateur did this perfect high speed landing at exactly the impact point.
The FBI claims, evidence supporting the official story of 9/11 seemed to have been placed.



Why do I doubt? I told already I see too many coincidences in favour for the government and I stongly doubt these 19 amateurs were able to run such a complex attack.
Al Qaeda attacks an embassy or manages some C4 into the USS Cole. They bomb a subway or highjack a plane to free a blind sheik.
(What might have been the intention with the Shanksville airliner. If the government new Al Qaeda was planning this highjacking long enough before, they could have used it to orchestrate 'their own Al Qaeda' attack. This would explain Osama's denial to be responsible for 9/11 (http://web.archive.org/web/200904211...com/id267.html))
Do you remember my statement for possible two (or even three) Al Qaedas in Syria?



Why should they do it? They want to have the public opinion back the following intentions:
- attack Iraq (save the Petro-Dollar), worked
- enforce oil contracts in the Middle East (they have something we want to have - possible oil peak! - let's make them enemies and take what we want), didn't work as expected
- justify the military to hunt down Osama in a large scale in Afghanistan (billions of taxmoney for the military + contracors, + for the MIC), worked
(there may be more behind - http://www.newamericancentury.org/Re...asDefenses.pdf)
- hinder the Saudi Arabians to end the cooperation with the USA (pretty unknown to most, SA stated the USA to fully support only Israel. Again Petro-Dollar! SA immediately canceled these plans with 9/11)
- forget the already missing billions (destroy placed evidence in WT7), worked
- control communication and internet, justify surveillance (keep control over any 'resistance' to be expected, challenging the actual true regency + spy efficiently other nations and their economy for US profit) worked
- attack the Euro to disqualify a new/second global currency (Moody's, Finch and Standard & Poor's ratings), worked (I don't know if the American public is aware of this = save the Petro-Dollar),
- stay the dominant superpower, despite of severe internal problems (more money for the military), works (we'll see for how long)

There may be more I'm not aware right now.


What happened to the passengers of AA77? Good question.
Assuming they landed at my preferred military base ,they are at home today, but stay quiet.
They were made to think they are not the passengers of AA77.

Assuming this, the passenger list of the faked AA77 has to be a fake.
My problem with this is - how do these faked passengers have relatives staying behind?

Someone?

Will have to think on this.

[Tchocky]

[Dread Knot]

Originally Posted by Mittelwaechter

@Dowly




What happened to the passengers of AA77? Good question.
Assuming they landed at my preferred military base ,they are at home today, but stay quiet.
They were made to think they are not the passengers of AA77.

Assuming this, the passenger list of the faked AA77 has to be a fake.
My problem with this is - how do these faked passengers have relatives staying behind?

Someone?

Will have to think on this.

Yes, that part needs a lot thinking. Seriously, is this the best you can do to account for the missing passengers? They're just sitting at home or are back at their jobs? Their kids are enrolled in school, and their relatives say nothing and their neighbors say nothing. The pilots and crew are back flying other planes and no news or media organizations notice? A government with such awesome power to silence hundreds of living people (or simulate them) would never need to stage an event like 911 in the first place to get what it wants.

It also doesn't make any sense to me why the government would stage 9/11 in order to go to war in Iraq. The administration made several allegations about Iraq's possession and capacity to use WMDs as a reason for attacking them, even though it meant lessening our military presence in Afghanistan, where Bin Liden was supposed to be. If the government had perpetrated 9/11 in order to go to war in Iraq, why didn't they just frame Saddam Hussein in the first place? Why waste time, money, and military personnel by framing Bin Laden, having to get into a messy conflict in Afghanistan, and then be forced to exaggerate Iraq's threat potential? If they controlled the event and the narrative why not fill the planes with Iraqi hijackers instead of muddying the waters with Saudi ones?

Someone?

It's your burden of proof. We don't have to throw you a lifeline while you flail about to fill the gaping holes in your theory.

[Dowly]

Originally Posted by Mittelwaechter

@Dowly

As I said, it is about having something to show for those witnesses claiming the plane didn't hit the Pentagon.
Bodies and bodyparts are available on a daily basis.
Organizing debris in the construction area, use some seat and strap a body in.

The photo of the body was released after Zacarias Moussaoui's trial in 2006.
Why wait that long if their aim was to convince people?

Did they identify any parts to be AA77 at all?
(a FDR was presented a few years later, to counter the US pilots doubts of the flight manouvers)

Identified by means of comparing serial numbers and such? I don't know,
haven't seen anything on the internet. (note: that doesn't meant it wasn't identified,
we don't know)

That question is irrelevant anyways, there is plenty of data to point towards AA77
being what struck the Pentagon.

The Reagan Airport is quite close to the Pentagon. Airborne, climbing jetliners are usual in the general area.

Expect on 9/11, it would have been highly unusual, because FAA had,
almost 45 minutes prior banned all takeoffs in the New York, Boston,
Cleveland and Washington area.

Those who saw something suspect have to argue there were three aircraft over the Pentagon. Two flying and one crashed.
Everybody 'knows' the same day AA77 has crashed into the building. If you saw some climbing jetliner you doubt yourself.
Better not make a fool out of you.
This Pentagon Police Officer at the southern dock claimed a commercial jetliner flying away. He is allegedly ordered to not talk about it any longer.

I remember some eyewitnesses saying they saw a plane flying after the crash,
but that would have been the C-130, which was tasked to follow AA77 and
report back on what it (AA77) was doing.

The Pentagon PO you are talking about is Roberts Roosevelt, I believe and yes
you are right, he does mention a second plane he describes as a commercial jet.
What about the rest of 100+ eyewitnesses?

I'll leave it at that for now.

[mapuc]

Here's a hypothetically question that I want you think about and not just give a quick answer

Before I continue I must once again give my point of view on the 9/11 conspiracies -I do not believe in them-

Here's the question

Try to imagine what would happen, political, communities etc IF it turned out that the attack on WTC, Pentagon and the failed attack on the White House*
was a inside job.

Me and some friend had this discussion once. We came to this conclusion that it will result in a deep political crisis and the people of the states will be in a deep chock

Do remember it is only a hypothetically question

Markus

* I believe that the plane that crashed in the middle of nowhere was on it's way to hit the White House.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Mittelwaechter

What happened to the passengers of AA77? Good question.
Assuming they landed at my preferred military base ,they are at home today, but stay quiet.

All 184 of them have never said a word in twelve years? I know that I, and many like me, would certainly have said something. Are they all afraid of government reprisals? Are all of them part of the conspiracy? Do you see how your version raises more questions than it answers?

They were made to think they are not the passengers of AA77.

Who did they think they were then?

Assuming this, the passenger list of the faked AA77 has to be a fake.

Only because you are assuming something first, then looking for an answer. If the airliner hit the Pentagon, then nothing has to be assumed.

Here's a guy who says he believes the airliner hit the Pentagon but there is a huge government conspiracy to convince us that it was a missile. I think he's joking, but you never know. The good thing about his site is that he shows pictures of the debris I don't recall seeing, including a wheel that is unquestionably from a B-757. At the end he includes a list of how many eyewitnesses claimed to see each different version of the crash. He includes a link to all the testimony. His other pages are of interest as well.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ppfinal.html

[Mittelwaechter]

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

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.
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!"

The setup must be more complicated, more complex and hard to uncover.

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.

The US is able to determine the chemical weapons in Syria were fired from Assads territory into rebel territory. Via satellite!
I guess the Russians had a few spy satellites over Iraq these days...

It's your burden of proof. We don't have to throw you a lifeline while you flail about to fill the gaping holes in your theory.

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.



@Dowly

The people are convinced. They waited with the photo, because it was not necessary to show it before. They still keep tons of evidence enclosed. Why?
Just because they have material to chose from, matching exactly the question in being, or usable to alter accordingly.
And because any public material is also a danger to be uncovered.

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".

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.

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.
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.

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.

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.

_____


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.
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.
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.

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?

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)

Will check your link, Steve.

[AVGWarhawk]

It was a guy on a grassy knoll. That is all we know.