What REALLY happened on 9/11, the truth of 9/11... carry an open mind. Options

[Too Exclusive]

o yea, and cruise speed for a jumbo jet is 180 MPH???????????????????????????? so you're telling me it's going to take me 16 hours and 40 mins to fly from PA to CA? you obviously know nothing about flying.

[Silver]

OMFG dude USE the 3 IQ points u clam to have...if ur a lets say in a car looking for a house how fast do you go while looking? the speed limit or slow? the senerio was the guy was looking for the air port so hes going slow....looking for a airport....

[Too Exclusive]

w/e the impacts werent even important. you guys still havent explained how a building with small fires scattered through it collapsed perfectly straight down as was the case with building 7, and how it didnt tip in any way shape or form

[Silver]

seriously i thought (according to the program, the same one as the clip u showed us) that was how if the structure was to fall it was to collapse. thats what the program said.

[Druid]

philip berg? if im not mistaking, that lawyer's name was Stanley Hilton, former advisor to Bob Dole and went to school with Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld.

Not sure what your talking about but the Lawyers name is listed on the lawsuit.
"NOW COMES the Plaintiff, Ellen Mariani, on information, belief and established facts, by and through her counsel of record, Philip J. Berg, Esquire, and for her causes of action against all named and unnamed Defendants states the following:"
Linkage
http://www.nancho.net/911/mariani.html


Too Exclusive
o yea, and cruise speed for a jumbo jet is 180 MPH???????????????????????????? so you're telling me it's going to take me 16 hours and 40 mins to fly from PA to CA? you obviously know nothing about flying.
Don't be silly, go back and re-read my post about this.
I was only stating the website Penny linked to was misleading because the person used the cruise speed of a 707 (607 mph ) in his calculations when he should of used the speed of 160-180mph because the claim about the WTC towers being able to withstand a direct hit from an aircraft was based on the scenario of a plane lost in the fog while preparing to land. There was no other common sense reason why a plan would be that low except in a pre-landing or emergency situation, neither of which would the pilot be flying at cruise speed. He would be flying 20 or so miles faster than stall speed, i.e. closer to 180mph.
Also as I said the whole point was moot seeing as how the building didn't collaspe when the plane crashed into it, it was only used as another example of how sites like that bolster thier opinion with misleading information.

[Too Exclusive]

here's the transcript of the interview:

http://www.rense.com/general57/aale.htm

in the introduction:
"Keep in mind when reading this, that the man being interviewed is no two-bit internet conspiracy buff.

Stanley Hilton was a senior advisor to Sen Bob Dole ® and has personally known Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz for decades. This courageous man has risked his professional reputation, and possibly his life, to get this information out to people."

[Druid]

Nothing more than simple media grandstanding.
From his interview he claims the order for the attack was personally signed by Bush and the hijackers where undercover FBI agents.
Yet from his lawsuit he claims they where Al-Qaede but the Bush administration chose to look the other way.
Can this guy not make up his mind?

On another note several of your conspiracy sites your so fond of, claim there were mock hijacking exercises that day or in the days leading up to it. As proof of this they commonly bring up a USA today article but never seem to link to it.
Well now I know why they didin't link to it
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/20...-18-norad_x.htm
BTW this also again contridicts your 1st post about NORAD.
From the article
"Until Sept. 11, NORAD was expected to defend the United States and Canada from aircraft based elsewhere. After the attacks, that responsibility broadened to include flights that originated in the two countries."

Or how about this also from the USA today article the conspiracy sites always claim as proof of the goverments knowledge of impending attacks.
"Maj. Gen. Craig McKinley, a NORAD official, told the 9/11 commission. No exercise matched the specific events of Sept. 11, NORAD said.
We have planned and executed numerous scenarios over the years to include aircraft originating from foreign airports penetrating our sovereign airspace," Gen. Ralph Eberhart, NORAD commander, told USA TODAY. "Regrettably, the tragic events of 9/11 were never anticipated or exercised."

While we are on this subject how about this from the Stanley Hilton interview you linked to. Both Alex Jones and Stanley Hilton talk about 35 drills over at least two months before September 11th. and 5 drills planned on 9-11.
They both talk about an AP article which dozens of conspiracy sites talk about.
Again the question is why can I not find a single site willing to link to this article they keep bringing up?


It's getting very hard not to find everything from the conspiracy sites that doesn't fit nicely in the misleading catagory.

[Silver]

hey Druid...run for president...ill vote for ya!

[Too Exclusive]

i dont get what u guys believe then... what about all the recent MAINSTREAM news reports about the numerous warnings from israel and other countries? you won't believe mainstream either... you'll only believe anything that supports the government had no prior knowledge...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/fema_clip.mp3

clip from dan rather from CBS... fema was in place the night before.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2...tcontroller.htm

and prior knowledge is a fact. i can't believe u guys dont realize that there is NO WAY that kind of attack could be planned, ppl trained in flight schools here, and the CIA (with it's extra funding from the OKC bombing in 95) didn't find it out.

[holden_caulfield]

i dont get what u guys believe then... what about all the recent MAINSTREAM news reports about the numerous warnings from israel and other countries? you won't believe mainstream either... you'll only believe anything that supports the government had no prior knowledge...

http://www.prisonplanet.com/fema_clip.mp3

clip from dan rather from CBS... fema was in place the night before.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/july2...tcontroller.htm

and prior knowledge is a fact. i can't believe u guys dont realize that there is NO WAY that kind of attack could be planned, ppl trained in flight schools here, and the CIA (with it's extra funding from the OKC bombing in 95) didn't find it out.

a) I think you're seriously underestimating the occasional ineptitude of our intelligence agencies.
B) Money alone does not improve the quality of our intelligence.
c) It seems that your conspiracy mosaic comprises too many extremely questionable pieces. Most "legitimate" conspiracies hinge on one or two premises whose chances of possibility are not neglible. There's a difference.

[Too Exclusive]

alright well search around. i GARUNTEE you that prior knowledge to 9/11 is 100% fact by this point. EVERY news agency is talking aout warnings and prior knowledge... so you don't believe the "conspiracy theories" sites, you don't believe MAINSTREAM news... what do u believe... only the news that says they had no prior knowledge to 9/11?? how many news agencies still say that? 1 maybe? fox news? and personally, i wouldn't get my info from a news source SOOOOOOOO right-winged that it says spongebob promotes homosexuality... :/ im sorry but if they were to take their heads out of their asses for 2 seconds they'd realize that you can't "promote" homosexuality... would any of u guys here ever screw a guy? no, because that's not how you're made. now if that sounded offensive i didnt mean it to be. i was talking with somebody one time who's met a homosexual stage performer part of like a play or a musical or somethin and he asked the guy when he knew he was gay and the guy replied by saying when'd you know you were straight? sorry to run off on a tangent but godamn that shit pisses me off.

[ScarFace]

Yea our government knew about a possible hijacking. They have known about it for years. You know why? Because your government gets thousands of threats every year. Who would have known that this time those lunatics were serious. I mean we can't just stop everything we are doing everytime some towelhead says he's planning on blowing shit up. Could some measures have been taken to prevent this, yes. But then again people can't just say "why didn't they just shoot the planes down or why didn't this or that happen." Things aren't that simple.

One thing is for sure though, those people on the airplanes could have done something. Even if the terrorist would have taken the planes to another country, I mean I wouldn' let those fucks hijack my flight especially when they are holding a couple of pussy ass box cutters.

[Silver]

THANK YOU SCARFACE!!!!

[Too Exclusive]

yea i know... box cutters and knives... i mean cmon if all the ppl on those planes banded together they'd have fucked up the hijackers... and they DID have prior knowledge of hijacked airplanes being used as weapons into the world trade center and the pentagon. they say they never THOUGHT of that. bullshit. in eric harris' diary he detailed a plot to hijack aircraft and crash it into new york city... they never thought of that? bullshit.

[=AFA=Napoleon]

whooa! I'm just gonna jump in on this one here. How can any of you think that the building was blown up from the inside?

NOT POSSIBLE! First off, the claims that the builing blew outward are correct, the floors blew out, reason: When the upper part of the towers collapsed, the top started to fall down ontop of the lowwer half that was less damaged, the top falling put pressure on the lowwer half causing the inside of the building's pressure to increase greatly, if you were in that tower alive during the collapse you would have felt your ear drums pop. The pressure created needed to go somewhere so it went out, almost like and explosion, this happend on each floor as the building crashed down, floor by floor. This is the reason for the massive dust cloud that swept outward after the tower fell. If it had fallen over sidways, it would not have created such large cloud. I can assure you there were no bombs that went off in the towers after the crash. It is inconceviable. The fire created by the planes alone was enough to melt the metal structure of the tower. The melting structure caused the collapse, not a "bomb".