1. Come and join our community by registering for free here and start discussing politics! HOP - the political discussion forum

9/11 - Italian TV Network Covers WTC 7 Evidence

Discussion in 'Historical Events & Figures' started by KeepOurFreedoms, May 4, 2007.

  1. Actually there is PROOF substantiated PROOF your just mistaken .what DID happen was several of the men whose passports were used ...............never left theyre homes ......the documents were DUPLICATES or FAKES the men portrayed themselves as Living individuals
  2. Thats Not what your Federal Government says???
  3. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
  4. Dave

    Dave New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Messages:
    364
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    How do you explain the many, many phone calls from passengers claiming they were being hijacked by guys with box cutters?

    As for the buildings collapsing in "free fall," its only half true. They collapsed at "near free fall" speeds. Once you have such enormous weight slamming down on the floor below the collapse point, its not suprising that there was no real resistance from the rest of the structure. As more debris builds up as the building is coming down, it only adds to the weight that is coming down on the next floor. Physics worked exactly how it should.

    With regards to NORAD, this is another one of the truisms about 9/11. The "stand down" myth came from a Jim Marrs book claiming that the training exercises being conducted the morning of 9/11 prevented NORAD from executing a response, and that this indicated it was an inside job. In reality, all this indicates is that this was a very sophisticated attack. No one has ever offered any proof of a NORAD stand down.
  5. vyo476

    vyo476 Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    2,401
    Likes Received:
    10
    Trophy Points:
    38
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    Hey Roker. Let's conduct an experiment. I'll stand with a flaming baseball bat and whack you with it repeatedly and we'll see if you light on fire as a result. Then I'll toss it up in the air so that it lands on your head and we'll see if it makes the fire worse. 7 WTC experienced fires that day as a result of being in a very similar situation the one I just described.

    Has anyone ever stopped to consider the idea that the building was hit and weakened in a way that caused it to collapse in a manner resembling a controlled demolition? I'm no demolition expert but I'd figure that's just as likely as a massive government conspiracy behind 9/11.

    There's a pretty big difference between "collapse" and "fall" and her statement was an attempt to characterize the collapse of the Towers as a "fall." Setting the record straight on that is hardly sophomoric. Or do facts not matter?

    Okay, scenario. It's 9/11 and you're on one of the planes and you haven't heard about what else has been happening that day. A bunch of crazy-ass hijackers take over the plane using boxcutters. They've more than likely already killed someone (pilot, etc.) but maybe not. Either way, they've told you that they've hijacked the plane and are taking it back to Boston (or wherever you launched from) so that their demands may be met (this is what they did on Flight 93). If you sit down and shut up, as far as you know you live. Cause a ruckus and they'll cut you open. Stage an uprising on the plane and they'll just crash it. Ask yourself: what's the smart course of action? In hindsight, the uprising. At the moment? Sitting your ass down. As far as you know they really are just taking the plane back to Boston and any attempt to regain control of the plane could result in them intentionally crashing it, getting you and everyone else and anyone unlucky enough to be at ground zero killed.

    Nowadays a plane full of Americans would fight like Hades to regain control of plane. We've learned something new. But on 9/11, without knowledge of the terrorists' plans, the passengers on the three planes that hit their targets didn't rise up against the hijackers, not out of cowardice but out of a desire to keep from escalating the situation.

    Now I'm a zombie, huh? Okay, you obviously know more about NORAD than I do. There are tons and tons and tons of bases that could have scrambled intercept fighters to deal with the planes on 9/11. Okay. Why didn't they? According to the CTs, they were all ordered to stand down. Okay. Why aren't we hearing from more of them, then? How come, in the wake of 9/11, there wasn't a giant outcry of base commanders across America? Sure, a few have chimed in, but according to your information (which I'm not disputing - this paragraph if no other is meant entirely sincerely) there should have been dozens. Either they were all involved in the conspiracy too or something even weirder than the CTs have put forward occurred that day.

    Where is the substantiated proof that the 9/11 hijackers were still alive after 9/11? I'd like to see it. If you could post a link that'd be much appreciated.

    I'll admit that I used to believe in a lot of conspiracy theories. I always thought that something was being withheld because not everything added up. As the authoritative body in charge of everything I blamed the government. Then, after studying a lot of history, I realized something - not everything adds up. We're just not capable of knowing everything about a particular situation. Conspiracy theorists latch onto circumstantial evidence (an unexplained part of the big picture) and then build a case around it.

    You know what? I'm with KeepOurFreedoms. I'd like to see a "real" investigation into 9/11. Let's do it. How? Who knows. But still. Let's do it. I'm just far enough onto the fence about this issue that I'm willing to listen if someone who hasn't already picked a side and is qualified to look into these things does so. Anyone else agree?
  6. KeepOurFreedoms

    KeepOurFreedoms New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2007
    Messages:
    319
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Dallas, Texas
    Payne Stewart Response: 19 Minutes, Hey Presto …
    On October 25, 1999, at 9:33 a.m. air traffic controllers in Florida lost touch with a Learjet carrying golfer Payne Stewart and several companions after it left Orlando headed for Dallas, Texas. Nineteen minutes after Air Traffic Control realized something was wrong, one or more US Air Force fighter jets were already on top of the situation, in the air, close to the Learjet. Moreover, throughout the course of its flight, Payne Stewart's jet was given escort from National Guard aircraft coordinated across state lines. See "Golfer Payne Stewart Dies," October 25, 1999, at:

    http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/DailyNews/plane102599.html
    or read the National Transportation Safety Board report on Payne Stewart's flight:

    http://www.ntsb.gov/Publictn/2000/AAB0001.htm
    or
    http://www.Public-Action.com/911/stewart
    (There are minor discrepancies between the ABC and NTSB reports.)

    That was the response when a small private jet lost radio contact with air traffic control over a relatively sparsely populated area in Florida. Compare that to what was done when they lost communication with four commercial passenger jets flying over the populous northeast on September 11, 2001.
  7. KeepOurFreedoms

    KeepOurFreedoms New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2007
    Messages:
    319
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Dallas, Texas
    !!!!!
  8. USMC the Almighty

    USMC the Almighty New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,070
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Exactly right.

    My question is why would they need to take down WTC 7? Wasn't the pretext for war already established with WTC1 and WTC2?
  9. Dave

    Dave New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Messages:
    364
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The Payne Stewart story has been told so many times its starting to get too easy to debunk it.

    First, if you look at the time it took for a response to the Payne Stewart incident, it takes 39 minutes from the time a plane goes off course, until an intercept can even be launched. It took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach Payne Stewart's plane. His plane remained in transponder contact the whole time. The flights on 9/11 had their transponders turned off, which would have made them extremely harder to make contact with. It is clear that no fighter could have reached Flight 11 and 157 before the impacted the towers. Even making it to Flight 93 would have been a pretty big stretch. FAA regulations in effect during the Payne Stewart incident, as well as on 9/11, prevented supersonic intercepts in American airspace. There simply wasn't time to make an intercept on 9/11.

    The Payne Stewart story is often used, as it is here, to make it appear that these types of intercepts are common or are standard operating procedure. Anybody want to take a guess at how many times a fighter intercept has been launched in the decade before 9/11? You guessed it, only one. The Payne Stewart flight was the ONLY incident of any fighter intercept launched over American airspace in the entire decade prior to 9/11.
  10. KeepOurFreedoms

    KeepOurFreedoms New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2007
    Messages:
    319
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Dallas, Texas
    See if you can find out what/who was officed in Building 7.
  11. KeepOurFreedoms

    KeepOurFreedoms New Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2007
    Messages:
    319
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Dallas, Texas
    Please check the time span of all 4 box cutter hijackings, and the small airspace the were in.
  12. Dave

    Dave New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Messages:
    364
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0

  13. Id love to see an investigation for REAL...but it will never happen .KOF is a great gal as i said earlier she knows alot about this issue too
  14. ArmChair General

    ArmChair General New Member

    Joined:
    May 6, 2007
    Messages:
    687
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    www.spamwebsite.com
    Another fun fact about that day, 9/11. Turns out there was a total of 12 -- TWELVE -- fighters assigned to defend the whole of the US. And those were -- you guessed it -- National Guard. So America was guarded by 12 planes piloted by dentists, claims adjusters or copier repairmen.

    Then the USAF admitted something even more sickening: if they had managed to get any fighters into the air in time (which they didn't), they were planning to order the pilots to crash their planes into the hijacked airliners, because there were no air-to-air weapons to arm them with.

    American kamikazes! Sure, it's a good movie title -- but Christ, didn't all of us wage-slave suckers pay billions of tax dollars for whole arsenals full of every air-to-air weapon Raytheon or Lockheed or Hughes ever came up with? Didn't the USAF brag up the AMRAAM (Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile), the "Slammer," as the biggest thing since look-down shoot-down?

    It's like a sick joke: the same USAF penpushers who lobbied the AMRAAM through Congress were sitting in the Pentagon when a hijacked jet smashed into it. And even after that -- after a whole wing of their own HQ was hit and burning -- the Pentagon still couldn't find a single AMRAAM-armed fighter jet to send up.

    Hell, the USAF didn't really even need AMRAAMs. Sidewinders would've done fine -- even the Sparrow, the dog of American AA missiles, would've worked against a slow blimp target like a passenger jet. A burst from a 20mm nose cannon would've done the job. But they couldn't even manage that.

    You can look through a thousand years of military history and you'll never find a strategic failure as complete as that.

    But whats really wierd, is that nobody was upset about it. I started wondering, am I the only American who thinks some overpaid USAF heads should roll for this?

    I mean the biggest, most expensive air force in history -- couldn't find one armed fighter jet for "several hours" after the WTC towers got blasted????????
  15. Dave

    Dave New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2007
    Messages:
    364
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Like I said before, it doesnt matter how many planes there were out there, or what resources were where. If it took them an hour and twenty-two minutes to intercept Payne Stewart's plane when it had its transponder turned on, there isn't a chance in hell of catching these things when their transponders were off.

Share This Page