Jump to content
By fans, for fans. By fans, for fans. By fans, for fans.

September 11th 2001


adayinthelife

Recommended Posts

Its the surrounding story that really intrigues me. The fact that Bin Laden's older brother was Bush's friend from their teenage years and his first business partner in an oil company that George W set up.

 

Maybe you have to read the story backwards to make any sense of it. American soldiers in baghdad were able to stop Iraq trading in Euro's and revert to US dollars. That potentially stopped the US dollar from collapsing and allowing the US millitary to continue on such an incredible scale. Can you imagine just how far the US government would go to stop the dollar fallingfrom its position as the number 1 global currency. They needed justification to get into Iraq and we know they did all they could to present a convincing case for WMD's and all the rest, but what could turn public opinion so sharply against Iraq and give them a reason to go to war in Iraq ? Don't forget that it wasn't long after 9/11 that George W Bush was making speeches claiming Saddam could get WMD's into the US.

 

I've little doubt that the planes caused the collapse, I've little doubt that the perpetrators were inspired by religious fanaticism, but I think there was a wider conspiracy behind it involved with maintaining and widening US supremacy across the globe.

 

Its not as far fetched as it sounds, its the stated aim of many in the US millitary and right wing political elite to establish full spectrum dominance over the globe. As early as the 50's American politicians declared the middle east a strategic resource that they would have to protect, by military force if necessary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 782
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Given events earlier that day, the collapse doesn't actually sound that strange.

 

Firefighters would, to a degree, be demolition experts, surely.

 

It could be judged safer to pull a building down that leave it standing in a state where it could fall down anyway.

 

There may be holes/inconsistencies in the story, but what alternative explanation has been proposed that doesn't have at least as many dubious aspects?

 

So that building collapsing would make it the only the third steel-framed building in history and on that day to collpase due to fire?

 

It would takes experience to work with explosives and weeks of planning to demolish a building that big and firefighters just don't work with explosives(as fire and explosives don't mix).

 

Yes,it was safer to pull down that massively reinforced building which housed the Secret Service, SEC, DoD, IRS, CIA and also housed Rudy Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management (OEM).

 

The following is evidence given under oath to the 911 commission by secretary of transportation Norman Mineta.

 

Vice President Cheney as the plane approached the Pentagon: ?The orders still stand?

 

Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta provided provocative testimony before the 9-11 Commission. He testified that he went down to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center under the White House at about 9:20 on 9/11/01. Vice President Cheney was there and in charge as President Bush was not in Washington, DC. Secretary Mineta related:

During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, "The plane is 50 miles out." "The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to "the plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the Vice President, "Do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"

 

 

You admit there is holes or inconsistencies in the story so it is only natural to ask questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given events earlier that day, the collapse doesn't actually sound that strange.

 

Firefighters would, to a degree, be demolition experts, surely.

 

It could be judged safer to pull a building down that leave it standing in a state where it could fall down anyway.

 

There may be holes/inconsistencies in the story, but what alternative explanation has been proposed that doesn't have at least as many dubious aspects?

 

But the building was not hit by any impact, there was a single "fire". It was supposed to be a bomb proof building, containing as it did the mayors bunker. Even despite that, its impossible for a fire to destroy that kind of building.

 

All i'd say is watch the whole video before dismissing it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So that building collapsing would make it the only the third steel-framed building in history and on that day to collpase due to fire?

 

It would takes experience to work with explosives and weeks of planning to demolish a building that big and firefighters just don't work with explosives(as fire and explosives don't mix).

 

Yes,it was safer to pull down that massively reinforced building which housed the Secret Service, SEC, DoD, IRS, CIA and also housed Rudy Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management (OEM).

 

The following is evidence given under oath to the 911 commission by secretary of transportation Norman Mineta.

 

Vice President Cheney as the plane approached the Pentagon: ?The orders still stand?

 

Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta provided provocative testimony before the 9-11 Commission. He testified that he went down to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center under the White House at about 9:20 on 9/11/01. Vice President Cheney was there and in charge as President Bush was not in Washington, DC. Secretary Mineta related:

During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, "The plane is 50 miles out." "The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to "the plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the Vice President, "Do the orders still stand?" And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?"

You admit there is holes or inconsistencies in the story so it is only natural to ask questions.

 

Is this a further conspiricay that the passenger aircraft was allowed to fly into the Pentagon to further justify a war on Iraq?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Firefighters reguarly pull down a building if they think it's going to collapse.

 

As has been said before, if the Pentagon was hit by a missile, or whatever,then what happened to the aircraft, it's passengers and crew, that were supposed to have crashed into it. And I've seen probably every show on 9/11 and have heard plenty of witnesses who talk of the passenger aircraft hitting the Pentagon.

 

The controlled demolition of a building that size takes days if not weeks to prepare.

 

So if a plane hit the pentagon then why did the FBI arrive within minutes and take CCTV tapes from a nearby gas station and hotel?

 

All the US government have to do is release a few seconds of footage from any of this tapes showing a plane hitting the building which would clearly disprove the missile theory.

 

 

 

Is this a further conspiricay that the passenger aircraft was allowed to fly into the Pentagon to further justify a war on Iraq?

 

Where is the proof that a plane even hit the pentagon?

 

Can you see a plane in the 5 frame video the US government released?

Edited by adayinthelife
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Where is the proof that a plane even hit the pentagon?

 

Can you see a plane in the 5 frame video the US government released?

 

Then the question remains. If a plane didn't fly into the Pentagon, what happened to the plane (and it's passengers and crew) that we are told did fly into it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where is the proof that a plane even hit the pentagon?

 

Can you see a plane in the 5 frame video the US government released?

 

Erm.. the 50 or so eye-witnesses who said they saw a passenger plane hit the pentagon. There was some undercarriage remaining when they cleared the debris away afterwards too.

 

But the witnesses were all stooges of course, and all the real witnesses who saw a cruise missile hit the Pentagon have been silenced. All of them.

 

5 frame video? 300mph plane?? You've answered your own question there...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then the question remains. If a plane didn't fly into the Pentagon, what happened to the plane (and it's passengers and crew) that we are told did fly into it?

 

Nobody in the public has all the answers(we never do)but I guess the following is just another huge coincidence.

 

 

Who is Raytheon you ask? Raytheon is a very important player of our 400 billion per year corporate military complex. According to the table in this link (http://www.dior.whs.mil/peidhome/procstat/p01/fy2004/top100.htm), Raytheon was the 5th biggest government contractor in 2003 and 2004. (of interest are the other companies listed as well).

 

As one the the biggest militaty contractor both in America and in the world, Raytheon develloped and introduced the very first remotely controlled and pilot-less Airliner just a couple of months before 9-11according to an August 2001 article in the USA Today (http://http//www.usatoday.com/life/cyber/tech/review/2001/10/2/remote-pilot.htm#more)

(by the way, the said article may have been removed from the USA Today archives as of one month ago, for a free copy contact pepelapiu@msn.com )

Interestingly enough, on 9-11 Raytheon lost five of their high ranking employees. As details of the passengers on the four hijacked flights emerge, some are shown to have curious connections to the defense company Raytheon, and possibly its Global Hawk pilotless aircraft program (see 1998 (D) and August 2001).

 

1) Stanley Hall (Flight 77) was director of program management for Raytheon Electronics Warfare. One Raytheon colleague calls him "our dean of electronic warfare." [AP, 9/25/01]

 

2) Peter Gay (Flight 11) was Raytheon's Vice President of Operations for Electronic Systems and had been on special assignment to a company office in El Segundo, Calif. [AP, 9/25/01] Raytheon's El Segundo's Electronic Systems division is one of two divisions making the remote controlled Global Hawk. [iSR Journal, 3/02]

 

3) Kenneth Waldie (Flight 11) was a senior quality control engineer for Raytheon's electronic systems.

 

4) David Kovalcin (Flight 11) was a senior mechanical engineer for Raytheon's electronic systems. [CNN, 9/01]

 

5) Herbert Homer (Flight 175) was a corporate executive working with the Department of Defense. [CNN, 9/01, Northeastern University Voice, 12/11/01]

 

Raytheon employees with possible links to Global Hawk can be connected to three of the four flights. There may be more, since many of the passengers' jobs and personal information have remained anonymous.

A surprising number of passengers, especially on Flight 77, have military connections. For instance, William E. Caswell was a Navy scientist whose work was so classified that his family knew very little about what he did each day. Says his mother, "You just learn not to ask questions." [Chicago Tribune, 9/16/01]

 

So, now we have a major player in the military which stands to make millions, if not billions with the wars resulting from 9-11, we also know Raytheon to be responsible for the devellopement of Global Hawk and remotely piloted airliners. But so it happens, five of their employees were allegedly all on board the four airplanes. But it gets better, much better. You remember those Saudi royalties and Bin Laden relatives flown out of the country just a couple of days following 9-11 when no one else was allowed to fly? They were flown out of the country directly from a Raytheon owned airfield according to The St-Petersburg Times. Just as coincidence would have it, 15 of the 19 alleged terrorists were Saudi nationals according to The Washington Times . That's right my friends, none from Iraq or Afghanistan but mostly from Saudi Arabia.

 

Did Raytheon have any involment with the 9-11 events?

It should be added that Raytheon has gained over $8.5 billions in government military contracts in 2004, nearly double that of pre 9/11 years!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was talk about the CCTV footage from a gas station not too far from the Pentagon being confiscated by the FBI within minutes of the crash. Why that was never released puzzles me. I also think that the 4th plane may have been shot down. Apart from that little of the other conspiracy theories seem plausible.........to me at least.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So have I got this right?

 

- There are apparent holes in the official story, therefore the government is lying and there must be an alternative explanation.

- There are bigger holes in the alternative explanation, but that's because we can't be expected to know everything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the building was not hit by any impact, there was a single "fire". It was supposed to be a bomb proof building, containing as it did the mayors bunker. Even despite that, its impossible for a fire to destroy that kind of building.

 

All i'd say is watch the whole video before dismissing it.

 

I'm not really dismissing it and I haven't seen it.

 

What alternative explanations have been suggested?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...