Posted:
#1076
0
September 11, 2001 (long read)
Posted:
#1077
Quote Originally Posted by boberts427:
smdio even if you had a team of lawyers, it's the Internet its going to look like bullshit, no matter whats true with your personal life lets only deal with what we can show with links about the topic, most of the research about 9/11 has been on the Internet unfortunately credibility is hard enough to find on the topic, so lets not add insult to injury
You're right, I probably should have never mentioned that fact. Although it is true, I shouldn't have expected anyone to believe me, especially over the internet. This subject is tedious as it is, and telling people I've retained representation to fight the government makes it even more unbelievable.
My bad. Wish I could take it back, but it's not really relavent to the fact that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, and I've proved that fact in this thread.
0
Posted:
#1078
Also, there is only ONE PERSON on record saying that they say the plane actually hit the Pentagon. When under oath, all of the people that tillyo quoted above would not admitt to seeing the plane strike. Why you ask? Because they didn't see it. The only person to go on record saying that he saw the plane fly INTO the building was Mike Walter. I can get into another 3-4 pages of debate as to why Walter is a lying sack of shit, if you want. I've spent hours picking his story apart, starting with the fact that he ALSO says the plane take a NoC approach, but then goes on to say that he witnessed the light poles being hit (impossible). under oath? Dont they only do that in court? Cant wait til I see your proof (since you posted it ) that these people testified in court. Bet you cant eye witness testimony is only good when it suits you? Looks that way. Will be doing other things while you and YOUR TEAM OF LAWYERS dig that up.
0
Posted:
#1079
you guys have all the answers here are some legitimate questions
was the plane hi-jacked?
if yes - then where did it go ? and why didnt it hit the pentagon or some other target - if it was hijacked and didnt hit the pentagon it must have been shot down - where did it crash?
if no - then it was flown over the pentagon to look like it was going to crash - then what was the next step? the pilot would have to be in on the conspiracy - why would he agree to do this? someone said the plane was made to disappear - how is this possible?
you all have said you won't speculate on these questions - yet you speculate on every other thing that happened
so easy question - was flight 77 hi-jacked?
0
Posted:
#1080
Quote Originally Posted by tillyo:
Also, there is only ONE PERSON on record saying that they say the plane actually hit the Pentagon. When under oath, all of the people that tillyo quoted above would not admitt to seeing the plane strike. Why you ask? Because they didn't see it. The only person to go on record saying that he saw the plane fly INTO the building was Mike Walter. I can get into another 3-4 pages of debate as to why Walter is a lying sack of shit, if you want. I've spent hours picking his story apart, starting with the fact that he ALSO says the plane take a NoC approach, but then goes on to say that he witnessed the light poles being hit (impossible). under oath? Dont they only do that in court? Cant wait til I see your proof (since you posted it ) that these people testified in court. Bet you cant eye witness testimony is only good when it suits you? Looks that way. Will be doing other things while you and YOUR TEAM OF LAWYERS dig that up.
Yes, they all testified before the Library of Congress just a few short weeks after 9/11/2001. This would be under oath, since anytime you speak to a Congressional Committee, you get sworn in
Is that the best you can do?
0
Posted:
#1081
Quote Originally Posted by swahili:
you guys have all the answers here are some legitimate questions
was the plane hi-jacked?
if yes - then where did it go ? and why didnt it hit the pentagon or some other target - if it was hijacked and didnt hit the pentagon it must have been shot down - where did it crash?
if no - then it was flown over the pentagon to look like it was going to crash - then what was the next step? the pilot would have to be in on the conspiracy - why would he agree to do this? someone said the plane was made to disappear - how is this possible?
you all have said you won't speculate on these questions - yet you speculate on every other thing that happened
so easy question - was flight 77 hi-jacked?
No, the plane was never hijacked
What happened to the plane? Was the pilot in on it? Where are the passengers?
I cannot answer those questions, as I've stated before. It is safe to assume that the pilot, passengers, and crew are all safe somewhere. Keep in mind that 34 out of the 66 passengers supposedly on Flight 77 worked for the Government. 12 were AA crew, and the others were supposedly civilians. You are not talking about hundreds of people disappearing, just 66, and more than half of them were employed by the Government.
I believe that the plane which dozens of witnesses saw take a NoC approach to the Pentagon landed at the nearby Reagon Int'l airport. I believe this plane was indeed Flight 77. I also believe that something other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. There have been very good cases made for both a cruise missile, and also a drone Global Hawk aircraft which fired a cruise missile before it intentionally crashed itself.
What I do know is this: Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. I have proved that in this thread. I have a feeling that if more of you watched this video, you would be in agreement with me about how the NoC approach made it physically impossible for Flight 77 to hit the Pentagon and cause the very specific damage to both the building, and the downed light poles.
0
Posted:
#1083
Quote Originally Posted by swahili:
actually now you have these 66 and another plane full that landed in Cleveland
actually now you have these 66 and another plane full that landed in Cleveland
I always said that I was not 100% sure about Flight 93. Did it land in Cleveland? Very possible. Was it intentionally shot down by F16 Fighter jets? Even more possible.
What didn't happen to Flight 93? Everything the government told us. That's for sure.
0
Posted:
#1085
So we've arrived at page 45 and nearing 1100 posts on this subject. Where do we stand? Well, I know where I still stand.
1.) WTC7 fell at freefall speed for over half the time of it's collapse. This is not a claim that I'm making to justify the reasons why I believe 9/11 was a Black Ops, False Flag operation. This is claimed by the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST for short), which was hired by our government to obtain an official investigation of the events on 9/11/2001.
FEMA, upon it's initial investigation into the WTC collapse, found the presence of a highly explosive material known as Nano-Thermite (or Super Thermite) in the rubble and debris of WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7. This military grade explosive chemical could have easily destructed the steel columns in each tower.
NIST immediately disregarded FEMA's claims and have yet to give a reason for their dismissal.
2.) Flight 93 did not crash land in Shanksville Pennsylvania. Donald Rumsfeld is on record referring to Flight 93 being "shot down". Our government would lead us to believe that the passengers of Flight 93 formed a union which overtook the terrorists and crash landed the plane. This has been proven to not be the case.
There have also been multiple reports that Flight 93 landed safely in Cleveland on the morning of 9/11, due to a bomb threat. The passengers were evacuated shortly afterwards moved to a NASA research facility. What happened after that still remains a mystery.
3.) Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. Dozens of witnesses have collaborated the flight path of Flight 77 on that day. If a Northern Approach (referred to as NoC - "North of Columbia Pike") was taken on the morning of 9/11/2001, the plane could have not possibly caused the highly specific damage to the building, as well as the supplemental damage to the downed light poles outside of the Pentagon.
There is at least 1 witness who saw Flight 77 fly directly over the Pentagon. His name is Roosevelt Roberts, and he is a Pentagon employee. Please refer to the first post on the forum page highlighted in grey text. It is a full excerpt of Roosevelt's interview (under oath, tillyo! Imagine that?) with the Library of Congress. He refers to seeing a plane fly over the Pentagon after the explosion, and after the building had already started to be evacuated.
No one in this thread has successfully dis-proven any of the above 3 statements. Use of pseudo-science and straw-man arguments do not count towards disproving my claims.
Does anyone care to tackle any of the above 3 arguments? Or have I essentially convinced everyone that 9/11 was not what our government has told us it was, and many people should be tried for Obstruction of Justice, Misprision of Treason, Misprision of a Felony, and a tantamount of other charges.
I lost my father on this day due to our governments need for a False-Flag operation in order to invade Iraq for oil and weapons contracts, and I will not rest until someone pays for the anguish and suffering that my mother has gone through. 
0
Posted:
#1086
Quote Originally Posted by swahili:
shot down now - so how does one shoot down an airliner with no trace?
shot down now - so how does one shoot down an airliner with no trace?
There have been multiple sources that have claimed the wreckage from Flight 93 was found up to 3 miles away from it's alleged impact point. You can research this on your own. Simply google or yahoo search will produce tons of results.
But I'm not necessarily a believer in the "shot down" theory. I do believe Flight 93 landed safely in Cleveland. What am I basing my decision on? The lack of evidence that an aircraft crashed anywhere near Pennsylvania on 9/11/2001.
I often go back and forth on whether it was shot down, or whether it landed. Right now I believe it landed. More importantly though, what didn't happen? Flight 93 did not crash land in Shanksville on 9/11/2001.
Little Lie = Big Lie
0
Posted:
#1087
Quote Originally Posted by smdio:
Yes, they all testified before the Library of Congress just a few short weeks after 9/11/2001. This would be under oath, since anytime you speak to a Congressional Committee, you get sworn in
Is that the best you can do? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!! ARE YOU A READING THIS REILLY HUTCH KAMPO THEY TESTIFIES BEFORE THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS i AM LAUGHING SO HARD I CANT BREATHE THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS IS A LIBRARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ENOUGH SAID YOU COULD OF NOT SAID ANYTHING DUMBER THATS PERFECT SMIDDYO THEY TESTIFIED BEFOR A LIBRARY DID YOU GRADUATE THE 10TH GRADE? NO NEED TO ANSWER YOU POST ARE YOUR PORTRAIT YOU WILL NEVER RECOVER FROM THIS. LEAVE PLEASE PEOPLE CHIME IN YOU MAY NEVER GET THIS CHANCE AGAIN.
0
Posted:
#1089
Quote Originally Posted by Spitfire15:
Fuck off tillyo
Agree or disagree smdio is trying to have an intelligent discussion, you are typing in caps, can't spell, and can't figure out how to quote a post.
Fuck off tillyo
Agree or disagree smdio is trying to have an intelligent discussion, you are typing in caps, can't spell, and can't figure out how to quote a post.
YOU POST ARE YOUR PORTRAIT
ARE YOU A READING THIS
THEY TESTIFIES
BEFOR A LIBRARY
DID YOU GRADUATE THE 10TH GRADE?
Hey Tillyo....That noise you hear in your head is your last 2 brain cells trying to escape because of lonliness. 
But your government needs more like you. 
0
Posted:
#1090
Quote Originally Posted by smdio:
Testified in front of the library of congress. Enough said. Game over.
Yes, they all testified before the Library of Congress just a few short weeks after 9/11/2001. This would be under oath, since anytime you speak to a Congressional Committee, you get sworn in
Is that the best you can do?
0
Posted:
#1097
By far the most significant factor in the recent
rise of conspiracy theories is the existence of real conspiracies.
We know that the Vatican really did cover up the rape of children – so many more people suspect they are covering up the "true lineage" of Christ.
We know that President Lyndon Johnson really did fake the 1965 Gulf of Tonkin "attack" to give himself a pretext to start bombing North Vietnam – so many more people suspect the Roosevelt or George W Bush administrations did the same.
We know that the Vatican really did cover up the rape of children – so many more people suspect they are covering up the "true lineage" of Christ.
We know that President Lyndon Johnson really did fake the 1965 Gulf of Tonkin "attack" to give himself a pretext to start bombing North Vietnam – so many more people suspect the Roosevelt or George W Bush administrations did the same.
0
This isn't any better GBP.
Posted:
#1099
Smdio # 1088
Donald Rumsfeld is on record referring to Flight 93 being "shot down
please note Sarah Palin is on record saying "But obviously, we've got to stand with our North Korean allies. We're bound to by treaty,
0
Hot Forum Topics
