9/11 conspiracy theories

[ann_a]

Tony insinuates that Dr.Bowman is senile.I think his thoughts were faster than he could verbalise,which is probably why his narrative sounded slow,stilted at times.The man still has friends in high places,and is probably privy to information that is not on public record.I think he was just being cautious.For when he spoke slightly off-topic,he seemed quite animated.Alex Jones can be very "in your face,"who at times didn't just ask a question,but also provided the answer.. ..That said,I'm a fan of his.Dr. Bowman's church isn't some cowboy outfit as you imply,it is recognised by the Roman Catholic Church...And anyway,if he was senile,would anyone seriously back him for Congress?

As to the Payne Stewart accident.I have checked a few sources.Slightly differing versions of what occured,but it would appear that( apart from a few minutes)the plane was tracked,and shadowed very soon after losing radio contact.

You said that the pilots were highly? qualified?Could you give sources ?

Also,wasn't it strange (another coincidence)that Dick Cheney was in charge of NORAD,given that a top general had always held that position?..just a couple of months prior to 911?

And how is it that no-one was reprimanded,sacked,court-martialled?How is it that they were actually rewarded with promotions?

And how is it I haven't had an answer about Building 7?......If the building was "extensively" damaged,why did it fall straight down?

[angle20]

The interceptor jets in the US were to defend them against the Russians. There was no system in place to have jets available in case 4 airliners were hijacked within the states and then crashed into buildings.

The cold war was still going on in 2001?

 

Oddly, the Federal Aviation Administration in a spring 2001 circular to American airports made mention of the possibility that: "the intent of [a] hijacker [might be] not to exchange hostages for prisoners, but to commit suicide in a spectacular explosion".

[KenH]

The cold war was still going on in 2001?

 

Oddly, the Federal Aviation Administration in a spring 2001 circular to American airports made mention of the possibility that: "the intent of [a] hijacker [might be] not to exchange hostages for prisoners, but to commit suicide in a spectacular explosion".

 

The fact that the FAA produces a circular has no effect on air defence other than to make the lot of them look incompetant for not getting together in time. All the FAA circulars are on the internet so can we have a link so we can read it in context?

 

If you look back through the links I provided when de-bunking Archbishop Bowman you will see a document explaining how the interceptor system works. Although I refer to the enemy as Russian, the fact is that before 2001 they guarded their frontiers against attacks from abroad. In the same de0bunked article by Bowman you will see that he claims to have done his own calculations and that the interceptors couldn't have got there any quicker.

[ann_a]

But the jets,when they were scrambled,could have gone from a much closer airport from the one they did...forget which it was offhand....and didn't they go in the opposite direction?

[KenH]

But the jets,when they were scrambled,could have gone from a much closer airport from the one they did...forget which it was offhand....and didn't they go in the opposite direction?

 

Rather than make vague accusations, why not provide the evidence that this was the case. Which airport was closer and had jets ready? Why does the expert you quoted (Bowman) say that they couldn't have got there any quicker, surely he would have added "or from a closer airport such as ....". Where is the evidence that they went in the opposite direction?

[venger]

Ken H, you are forgetting one simple fact.

 

The United States Government had prior knowledge of the attacks, FACT !

[KenH]

Ken H, you are forgetting one simple fact.

 

The United States Government had prior knowledge of the attacks, FACT !

 

If it is a fact then you will be able to produce evidence rather than dodgy videos of people making vague accustations. Can you?

 

In the meantime why not read back through some of my posts where I completely undermine the only vaguely credible conspiracy theorist, Archbishop Bowman. Perhaps there is another credible fruitcake who you would like to produce so we can knock him down with facts?

[venger]

If it is a fact then you will be able to produce evidence rather than dodgy videos of people making vague accustations. Can you?

 

In the meantime why not read back through some of my posts where I completely undermine the only vaguely credible conspiracy theorist, Archbishop Bowman. Perhaps there is another credible fruitcake who you would like to produce so we can knock him down with facts?

 

Thanks for that, I was waiting for you to ask for evidence, when I have time I will compile plenty for you.

 

As for Bowman being the only credible conspiracy theorist, I think that just demonstrates how small your world really is.

 

Your simply like what you know and know what you like.

 

Oh and give up on the name calling please

[KenH]

Thanks for that, I was waiting for you to ask for evidence, when I have time I will compile plenty for you.

 

As for Bowman being the only credible conspiracy theorist, I think that just demonstrates how small your world really is.

 

Your simply like what you know and know what you like.

 

Oh and give up on the name calling please

 

Every video that is produced gets knocked back as vague rubbish. In the Bowman case, he is hailed by the fruitcakes as he appears to have lots of qualifications, many of which are real. However, he is also a self proclaimed Archbishop and claims to have lectured at the House of Lords - they must have a lecture theatre where they invite guest fruitcakes.

 

The conspiracy theorist have put Bowman on a pedastal and I was able to knock him off it with no effort whatsoever. Why have the conspiracy theorists on this forum not come forward and agreed that he is discredited?

[ann_a]

You stated that losing radio-contact,veering off-course and turning off the transponder was of little concern

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/essay.jsp?article=essayairdefense

 

When Dr Bowman said the planes couldn't have got there any sooner,I think he meant, that was because of the time that they were scrambled.They left the base too late.

http://killtown.911review.org/chart.html

curiouser and curiouser...