Longcol Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 http://anderson.ath.cx:8000/911/hj05.html I need to do some work on the conversation thing..why? I post links for others to follow if they choose.As I asked before,is that a problem? If you look at the heading for this part of the forum it is headed "General Discussion". To me that means that people put forward their theories / opinions etc - and sometimes use links to authorititive sources to back up their arguements - especially matters regarding fact. Simply posting a link and saying "what do you think of this" is no where near discussion in my book. Can I suggest that you start a thread "9/11 conspiracy links". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ann_a Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 As is often pointed out in the articles linked to,much of the info doesn't make it into the mainstream media for obvious reasons...so what in your opinion are reasonable web-sites? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ann_a Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 "Can I suggest you start a thread 9/11 conspiracy links?" Okay with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ann_a Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 Permament feature? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 ann_a you're still doing it!!! Please take the huge hints and start posting properly. Let's start with robot planes and 9/11. What do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angle20 Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 What's the relevance of all this Northwood stuff? Operation Northwoods is not of direct relevance to 9/11 but is regarded as showing that the American government and military could have the potential to engage in an elaborate and deceitful plot. Northwoods was a real plan - to stitch up the Cubans - though it was never implemented. The plan was for a plane (a fake double) of American 'holidaymakers' to be shot down by Cuban MiGs. In fact the holidaymakers would be selected military personnel who would subsequently land safely. Meanwhile, by a crossing of flight paths a drone aircraft (the actual registered aircraft) would replace their plane to become the target of simulated Cuban aggression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 Operation Northwoods is not of direct relevance to 9/11 but is regarded as showing that the American government and military could have the potential to engage in an elaborate and deceitful plot. Northwoods was a real plan - to stitch up the Cubans - though it was never implemented. I think hare - brained schemes by the USA against Cuba and Castro were two a penny at the time, although they were sensible enough not to try to implement any after the Bay of Pigs debacle. But don't see the relevance to 9/11 - so military intellegence / secret services plot - not really a startling revelation, it's being going on since the trojan horse! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenH Posted October 8, 2006 Share Posted October 8, 2006 It is important to make a clear distinction between "plans" and actual events. To most of us a "plan" involves some intention that we will carry it out, such as an "essay plan" or "planning my holidays". Within the military a "plan" can also involve intention but can also be one of a series of plans put together for particular circumstances or in order to test other plans. In the second world war there was a "plan" to send the Royal Family to Canada and to continue the fight from there, but there was no intention of actually letting the Germand win, just a plan in case the worst happened. The military also like coming up with several "plans" for a particular scenario even though they know some are too risky or unnacceptable. The fact that one person played with possible scenarios or that they were discussed at a meeting doesn't mean they were serious or that they would ever have happenned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
venger Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 The robot plane theory that I am familiar with suggests that both planes were military planes loaded possibly with a missile under the right wing. Both were on a flight path with building 7 which was suspiciously destroyed. The problem remains not with the crdibility of using such technology, but could the US have been responsible. There are serious doubts over the oficial story yet still no independent enquiry and many lies and changes of the official line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenH Posted October 12, 2006 Share Posted October 12, 2006 The problem remains not with the crdibility of using such technology,. The problem lies with the credibility of any of the conspiracy theories. If it was possible to teach a monkey to fly an airliner into a building then there would be 45 million sites about how the US| government used monkeys to create a war in Iraq. Almost all the sites would be written as if it is a fact that this happened. In fact if someone discussed teaching monkeys to fly in 1950 then there would be 1.5 million sites. The real facts are that the airliners were full of innocent people and were crashed into the buildings/ground by terrorists. The cover ups, which are quite minor, are the US government trying not to look too stupid because they let it happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.