9/11 Truth: Bush Admin. sets the towers to fall, raises military budget, Iraq for OIL

El_Kabong

trappedinmyradio wrote:

i thought the u.s. government use remotely controlled planes...you have to pick something and go with it...you're all over the place...was it a terror attack or not? if not, this is insignificant...if so, then it shows that, at least, there is a possiblity the the u.s. government knew that this could happen and used it as the catalyst to do what they wanted to do...expand the military, instill a culture of fear in the citizenry, develop a more comprehensive military world presence, and foster a take no prisoners and ask no questons situation (a blank check) for going to war with an ideology. so, what is it? do you understand how this really pokes holes in your "internal demolition" of WTC buildings 1 and 2?

i am sticking w/ it...i already stated it could have been the hijackers thought it was really a hijacking but were instead set-up...so they hijack the planes, as they planned, then control was taken over...and i never stated remote control planes were what i believed, i said it was possible.

El_Kabong

why do i have ot pick a single theory and stick w/ it? i don't know what happened any more than any of you do... i think the official story is bs. i have stated in past threads that i am torn between 3 options

-certain ppl in the govt pulled it off
-certain ppl in the govt helped pull it off
-certain ppl in the govt knew and let it happen

i don't pick 1 of those over the other, but there are possibilities to them. this does not take away from anything i posted. remote control planes COULD have happened, they ahve the technology and they could've easily have done this, just b/c i said i tcould have happened doesn't mean i 100% believe it did. and i don't understand why i'm asked what i *think* then have it turned into what can be proven...the nist theory is a theory just like the 3 above only 1 has an official governmental stamp on them.

and saturnal, i have posted several things to back up the theories.

El_Kabong

jlew24asu wrote:

national security. what did you want to see? do you believe a missile hit the pentagon?

why is it a matter of national security to see footage from a camera at a gas station and hotel????

jlew24asu wrote:

investors get lucky all the time.

ppl also profit from criminal acts all the time

jlew24asu wrote:

call me crazy but when a entire floor weighing thousands of tons crashes down on the floor below, it might, just might, sound like an explosion.

what about the ones who said they saw the explosion?

jlew24asu wrote:

they arent.

http://edition.cnn.com/2004/LAW/01/14/sept11.records/index.html
Her son was one of the 343 firefighters who lost their lives trying to help others caught in the twin towers of the World Trade Center after hijackers flew two jetliners into the buildings. At least 2,752 people died at Ground Zero in New York.

The group announced plans to ask the New York Court of Appeals to review a recent court decision that bars the release of certain documents related to the attack.

The group told reporters that all September 11 documents, including transcripts of internal fire department reviews and tapes of 911 calls, should be unsealed.

jlew24asu wrote:

who? what about it?

http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=211335&highlight=bitch

El_Kabong

69charger wrote:

Hmmm...

Pentagon being hit by a plane. Woman standing in hole apparently not being burnt. Debunking "Jenga Theory". WTC 7....

You name it. As I stated before, use the search function, it is your friend.

Handball against the curtains...

i don't want to use the search function...i'm asking you for the millionth time: why did building 7 fall?

Abookamongstthemany

El_Kabong wrote:

i am sticking w/ it...i already stated it could have been the hijackers thought it was really a hijacking but were instead set-up...so they hijack the planes, as they planned, then control was taken over...and i never stated remote control planes were what i believed, i said it was possible.

And also, if it wasn't flown by remote control then there had to be tampered software to pull off those sharp turning maneuvers. So that lays further doubt. Of course, we have no way of proving either but they are worth discussing. I, myself, don't know how easy it would be to tamper with software vs. fly planes via remote control so I can't really say which is more feasible. Also, just because one is more feasible doesn't mean that was the way it went down, either.

CorporateWhore

Look, everyone:

Anyone who denies what happened on 9/11 is completely and utterly insane.

Everyone saw the planes hit the buildings. Everyone saw them explode. Everyone saw them fall. There is zero evidence to support these conspiracy claims.

This is serious, serious insanity.

They sure are funny though. They devote so much time to it and it just makes them so mad when people call them nutjobs. They hate Bush so much they cannot possibly conceive that Islamic extremists INDEPENDENTLY destroyed our buildings because they ACTUALLY WANT US OUT OF THEIR LANDS. No, it makes more sense to blame Bush so that he could have a war with Saddam and leave a pathetic legacy for his presidency. THAT makes much more sense.

This is a product of idiots living in the present and not thinking past their own shadow.

CorporateWhore

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

And also, if it wasn't flown by remote control then there had to be tampered software to pull off those sharp turning maneuvers. So that lays further doubt. Of course, we have no way of proving either but they are worth discussing. I, myself, don't know how easy it would be to tamper with software vs. fly planes via remote control so I can't really say which is more feasible. Also, just because one is more feasible doesn't mean that was the way it went down, either.

Hahahahahahahahahaaha

::breathes::

Hahahahahahahaahahahaha

::breaths::

::burps::

::drinks beer::

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Abookamongstthemany

CorporateWhore wrote:

Hahahahahahahahahaaha

::breathes::

Hahahahahahahaahahahaha

::breaths::

::burps::

::drinks beer::

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Do you have anything to add?

Abookamongstthemany

CorporateWhore wrote:

Look, everyone:

Anyone who denies what happened on 9/11 is completely and utterly insane.

Everyone saw the planes hit the buildings. Everyone saw them explode. Everyone saw them fall. There is zero evidence to support these conspiracy claims.

This is serious, serious insanity.

They sure are funny though. They devote so much time to it and it just makes them so mad when people call them nutjobs. They hate Bush so much they cannot possibly conceive that Islamic extremists INDEPENDENTLY destroyed our buildings because they ACTUALLY WANT US OUT OF THEIR LANDS. No, it makes more sense to blame Bush so that he could have a war with Saddam and leave a pathetic legacy for his presidency. THAT makes much more sense.

This is a product of idiots living in the present and not thinking past their own shadow.

We are here debating this. If you have nothing but personal insults to sling around, just go away. All you're going to do is get yourself banned for acting like a hateful, little child. You really should work on some anger management.

trappedinmyradio

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

And also, if it wasn't flown by remote control then there had to be tampered software to pull off those sharp turning maneuvers. So that lays further doubt. Of course, we have no way of proving either but they are worth discussing. I, myself, don't know how easy it would be to tamper with software vs. fly planes via remote control so I can't really say which is more feasible. Also, just because one is more feasible doesn't mean that was the way it went down, either.

wouldn't the software be the same...so that even with remote control, the planes could not make those maneuvers...???

i've said it before...if the government could pull this off, what makes you, or anyone, believe that your efforts are worthwhile? if they can get away with that, can't they get away with anything?

El_Kabong

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

We are here debating this. If you have nothing but personal insults to sling around, just go away. All you're going to do is get yourself banned for acting like a hateful, little child. You really should work on some anger management.

careful, he might threaten to get some of his guy friends and beat you up again! :eek:

CorporateWhore

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

We are here debating this. If you have nothing but personal insults to sling around, just go away. All you're going to do is get yourself banned for acting like a hateful, little child. You really should work on some anger management.

I'm sorry but it's seriously hilarious. Like, this is like watching the South Park episode where they make fun of 911truth.org. You can't make this shit up! I'm sorry that you take it so seriously, but I don't.

Take a chill pill...

CorporateWhore

El_Kabong wrote:

careful, he might threaten to get some of his guy friends and beat you up again! :eek:

Haha, huh?

Hey it's cool: you keep believing that there was a massive conspiracy that killed 3,000 Americans (even though peanuts kill more Americans than that!) just so Bush could go to war with little chance of success and a brown spot on his presidential legacy the size of an elephant skid mark. Seriously, that's fine. Even though reason flies in the face of every single one of the arguments you're making, don't mind me. I'll sit here and watch the posts come, because they are getting damn good. DAMN good. This is better than South Park, in fact.

Abookamongstthemany

trappedinmyradio wrote:

wouldn't the software be the same...so that even with remote control, the planes could not make those maneuvers...???

Kabong already posted an article about this.....

"As well as fully autonomous flight capability, the 767 and 757 are the ONLY COMMUTER PLANES MADE BY BOEING THAT CAN BE FLOWN VIA REMOTE CONTROL. It is a feature that is standard to all of them, all 757's and 767's can do it. The purpose for this is if there is a problem with the pilots, Norad can fly the planes to safe destinations via remote. Only in this flight mode can those craft exceed their software limits and perform to their actual physical limits because a pre existing emergency situation is assumed if this mode of flight is used."

Norad no longer had the authority to control the planes via remote control to prevent the planes from hitting their targets. Two months before 9/11, Cheney had the authority switched from them to the Sec of Def.

trappedinmyradio wrote:

i've said it before...if the government could pull this off, what makes you, or anyone, believe that your efforts are worthwhile? if they can get away with that, can't they get away with anything?

Are we just supposed to ignore any questions we have and read Chicken Soup For the Soul, instead? It's interesting and I think it's worth sharing and discussing...if you don't then that's your own decision. Maybe if enough people start questioning it and demanding anwsers it would put a end to this kind of shit.

Abookamongstthemany

CorporateWhore wrote:

Haha, huh?

Hey it's cool: you keep believing that there was a massive conspiracy that killed 3,000 Americans (even though peanuts kill more Americans than that!) just so Bush could go to war with little chance of success and a brown spot on his presidential legacy the size of an elephant skid mark. Seriously, that's fine. Even though reason flies in the face of every single one of the arguments you're making, don't mind me. I'll sit here and watch the posts come, because they are getting damn good. DAMN good. This is better than South Park, in fact.

Again nothing to add.

The reason wasn't just about going to Iraq. It's about instilling fear into the populace in order to gain much more power. Over simplifying the points to make it seem like you have one isn't going to work for ya.

trappedinmyradio

the question about your efforts was to you - i didn't say what i thought, so, please, STOP ASSUMING THINGS.

i've seen it stated here that you cannot make those types of maneuvers with those planes...or that software doesn't allow you to do it...or...whatever...

the inconsistency of the conspiracy theorists is what makes me think they are full of shit.

anyway, as before, you people bore me...same shit...different day...

who's afraid here? i'm not afraid of anything...least of all, my government...don't forget, as long as you live here, it's YOUR government too.

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Kabong already posted an article about this.....

"As well as fully autonomous flight capability, the 767 and 757 are the ONLY COMMUTER PLANES MADE BY BOEING THAT CAN BE FLOWN VIA REMOTE CONTROL. It is a feature that is standard to all of them, all 757's and 767's can do it. The purpose for this is if there is a problem with the pilots, Norad can fly the planes to safe destinations via remote. Only in this flight mode can those craft exceed their software limits and perform to their actual physical limits because a pre existing emergency situation is assumed if this mode of flight is used."

Norad no longer had the authority to control the planes via remote control to prevent the planes from hitting their targets. Two months before 9/11, Cheney had the authority switched from them to the Sec of Def.



Are we just supposed to ignore any questions we have and read Chicken Soup For the Soul, instead? It's interesting and I think it's worth sharing and discussing...if you don't then that's your own decision. Maybe if enough people start questioning it and demanding anwsers it would put a end to this kind of shit.

CorporateWhore

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

The reason wasn't just about going to Iraq. It's about instilling fear into the populace in order to gain much more power.

Ok, so how did he gain more power? The Patriot Act??? Are you seriously going to tell me that the Patriot Act is "much more power?" Wire tapping? Is that powerful? You have NO IDEA how much power the president can have during times of war.

You want to talk about "much more power?" FDR locked up 110,000 Japanese during WWII. Truman ended WWII by dropping a nuke on 214,000 civilians! Abe Lincoln took the habeus corpus rights of journalists who "spoke against him!"

And Bush is going to kill a measeley 3,000 people so he can spy on my phone sex chats and look at my porn? Is that right?

Hahahaha

Abookamongstthemany

CorporateWhore wrote:

Ok, so how did he gain more power? The Patriot Act??? Are you seriously going to tell me that the Patriot Act is "much more power?" Wire tapping? Is that powerful? You have NO IDEA how much power the president can have during times of war.

You want to talk about "much more power?" FDR locked up 110,000 Japanese during WWII. Truman ended WWII by dropping a nuke on 214,000 civilians! Abe Lincoln took the habeus corpus rights of journalists who "spoke against him!"

And Bush is going to kill a measeley 3,000 people so he can spy on my phone sex chats and look at my porn? Is that right?

Hahahaha

Are you kidding me? You guys are fine with giving up more and more of your liberty in order to 'keep us safe'. Where does it end and you finally say 'no more'?

Abookamongstthemany

trappedinmyradio wrote:

the question about your efforts was to you - i didn't say what i thought, so, please, STOP ASSUMING THINGS.

i've seen it stated here that you cannot make those types of maneuvers with those planes...or that software doesn't allow you to do it...or...whatever...

the inconsistency of the conspiracy theorists is what makes me think they are full of shit.

anyway, as before, you people bore me...same shit...different day...

who's afraid here? i'm not afraid of anything...least of all, my government...don't forget, as long as you live here, it's YOUR government too.

What did I assume? I asked you a question then I said 'if' in another sentence.

So the official theory has been consistant? Far from it. We've been pointing those inconsistancies out but I guess it's ok to excuse them since they are the official ones. And it's not so much inconsistancy as it is discussion of possibilities because NONE of us have any way of knowing for sure what happened. If it's so boring then by all means, don't let me hold you up.

CorporateWhore

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

Are you kidding me? You guys are fine with giving up more and more of your liberty in order to 'keep us safe'. Where does it end and you finally say 'no more'?

You are failing to see my point:

Bush did not "blow up the twin towers" to gain more power. If he had done it for that reason, then he failed. In comparison to prior presidents, he has gained NO power.

Bush did not blow up the twin towers. Both of your motives make no sense: Iraq is a failure and blot on his presidency. And, he has gained no power and he leaves the office in disgrace. Did he just fail? Was he expecting more power than he got? Nah. He didn't blow up the twin towers. It's completely unreasonable.