KenH Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 9/11 Flight 93 Rare footage 2mins I am struggling to see the significance os lots of bits of aircraft spread over the ground? Perhaps you would like to look back at the video I produced a few posts earlier which explains how a grossly misquoted reference started all the "cruise missile" nonsense and then comment on it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blip Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 I am struggling to see the significance os lots of bits of aircraft spread over the ground? I think the significance is that there is a suggestion that Flight 93 was shot down by a missile? I’m totally convinced that four planes were hijacked. Two hit the Twin Towers, one hit the Pentagon, and one came down in the middle of nowhere. I’ve not seen a scrap of evidence that suggests otherwise. I’m also convinced that the atrocities were planned by Al Qaeda and the planes were hijacked and crashed by Al Qaeda terrorists. Again I’ve not seen a scrap of evidence that suggests otherwise. What does bother me, more than slightly now, is that I’m not yet convinced that the US wasn’t somehow complicit, that the US was aware of the plans, but decided it would be convenient if the attacks went ahead. This has been mentioned before: I've eventually come to the conclusion that 9/11 is a case of LIHOP (Let It Happen On Purpose) I’ve always said to myself that there must have been easier ways to get a war in Iraq started without demolishing the Twin Towers and killing thousands of US citizens. But now I’m thinking, what if they didn’t expect the Towers to collapse? What if they just expected a couple of spectacular explosions and ‘just’ a few hundred killed? Relatively small numbers were killed at the Pentagon due to the strengthened walls and small number of workers in the area at the time. And relatively few were killed in Flight 93, because it didn't reach it's target - it is feasible that the plane was shot down to protect the White House, after all they couldn’t let that happen could they? There’s an interesting site, http://www.oilempire.us which I’ll need a few days to read from start to finish, but it does sound sensible. It doesn’t appear to sell books and DVDs and mugs and stuff, which I like. But it does have a political oil-related message, so is not exactly unbiased. Its explanation for discrepancies such as the lack of video at the Pentagon is that this encourages, and gives credence, to the ‘conspiracy theorists’ with their oddball arguments about missiles, skilled flying, controlled demolition, CIA agents’ offices in WT 7, lizards, etcetera, etcetera. The fact that these oddball theories are easily discredited by the likes of KenH and Tony et al means that ‘we’, the average public, don’t consider for a minute that the US could be involved, simply because it sounds such a hare-brained scheme! It's quite possible, that if necessary, the US will release the Pentagon videos some time in the future, and guess what? The videos will show a plane crashing into the Pentagon! But it doesn’t mean that they weren’t aware that it was going to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Ryan* Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 What does bother me, more than slightly now, is that I’m not yet convinced that the US wasn’t somehow complicit, that the US was aware of the plans, but decided it would be convenient if the attacks went ahead. This has been mentioned before: . Likewise.. seems a little odd.. And where are these Al Queda people that they haven't brought to justice!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 You should watch the News a bit more *Ryan* A bunch of them were killed in plane crashes on 11th September 2001. A bunch of them have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq. A bunch of them are in Guantanamo Bay. Zacarias Moussaoui was given life imprisonment in May despite calls for the death penalty (which Truth Seekers conveniently ignore would shut him up if there was a conspiracy. ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*Ryan* Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 You should watch the News a bit more *Ryan* A bunch of them were killed in plane crashes on 11th September 2001. A bunch of them have been killed in Afghanistan and Iraq. A bunch of them are in Guantanamo Bay. Zacarias Moussaoui was given life imprisonment in May despite calls for the death penalty (which Truth Seekers conveniently ignore would shut him up if there was a conspiracy. ) But whatever happened to getting rid of the Afghan Taliban? Theyve just conveniently forgot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 They have done just that. The Taliban has been removed from power as planned and Ahmed Khazi is now the elected Afghan PM. The rest of the situation in Afghanistanit is a bit of a sorry state of affairs but they haven't been forgotten *Ryan*. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LotarsU1 Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 You really think this? It's not as absurd as you may think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ann_a Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 ann_a...quietly screaming.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ann_a Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 Just out of interest....what are everyone's thoughts?Do you believe the official line?...and who if anyone, has changed their opinion from what they at first believed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted October 5, 2006 Share Posted October 5, 2006 Just out of interest....what are everyone's thoughts?Do you believe the official line?...and who if anyone, has changed their opinion from what they at first believed? I believe the official line is a damn sight more plausible than all the half baked "theories" that the "Truth Seekers" put forward. If I was sat on a jury I think that 99% of the official line has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. If 1% of the official line is wrong or doubtful that doesn't render the other 99% invalid as some people appear to have suggested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.