911: What makes you suspicious - now with added extra poll option!

[goldenecitrone]

Well, since ya wanna go fight in the war against the U.S. why dont you go?
hop a flight to Beruit then Bagdad,
QUOTE]

Wouldn't he be better off hopping on a plane to the US? And taking a bus to Hicksville or wherever you live.

 

[editor]

I would have liked to watch that program but can't get channel 5 here.

Being a US production, the sentimental syrup was slapped on thick and fast, but the testimony from the relatives who spoke to their loved ones on the plane was deeply moving, making those moronic claims from conspiraloons that the calls were all miraculously faked all the more sickening.

 

[Major Tom]

I didn;t see the programme - didn;t even know it was on - but my suspicion was that the plane was shot down - and rightly so - but that the fact that the passengers on board had managed to overpower the hijackers made it embarrasing for the government to admit they'd done it. Hence the cover-up.

I'm surprised that early witness reports don;t support the shooting down theory - because the ones I saw from local news sources in the hours after the event did entirely seem to back up that idea.

Still - I haven;t made up my mind - I didn;t see the programme - and I don;t think its particularly important really. When you compare it to the crimes of Washington that can be substantiated, its nothing.

 

[squeegee]

Please don't post up swathes of cut and paste from sites without adding any comment of your own.

Can you explain why you went into my post and cut out all the relevant questions from an American investigating Flight 93?

Is that acceptable to everyone here? What about you Editor? You afraid of the basic, you know, questions, that you needed to censor it?

Almost all of the eye witness accounts on that site (well that ones that are attributed) match the description of events as given by passengers.

"Almost" all. And I suppose all the others were tin-foil nut jobs.

If it was shot down, why weren't all the eye witnesses reporting a huge trail of smoke across the sky as the aircraft plummeted to the earth?

There was debris scattered for miles around as the website mentions. But readers to this site will never know about it, because you decided to get into my post and cut out information.

Now why was there need to do that? Was it taking up valuable bandwidth?

I say I'm not convinced. You, on the other hand, are totally convinced that the official story is true, at least that's how it seems. Maybe I'm wrong about that but that's how it seems.

And as for the other poster who earlier asked for people to not have any suspicions without facts, I mean, do we need to get a dictionary out and explain what a suspicion is?

The official story has plenty of holes in it, any reasonable person can see. What's unreasonable is to jump to aliens, remote control planes, or even George Bush's master plan with the neo-cons as a CONCLUSION.

But what is equally unreasonable is to try and stall any questioning of this incident, and subsequent terrorist atrocities, simply because the answers might be uncomfortable and to CONCLUDE that the official story is correct.

Fortunately there are reasonable people both in the States and over here, who are willing to ask these questions. In the US it involves people who lost family in the 911 attack. Do they not have a right to ask these questions?

I totally agree that reason should prevail. But it is imperative that we all continue to ask these questions. Right now all the legitimate questions have been swamped by a barrage of nut-job theories.

Knowing the power of the internet, and the fact that both the FBI and CIA admit to using propaganda on the airwaves and web, it is entirely plausible that this is part of the smokescreen.

But all the conspiraloon fantasies cannot obscure the fact that governments are capable (operation northwoods) of allowing and even causing their own citizens to die in the cause of some perceived strategic objective.

This is not fantasy it is FACT. The Reichstag fire and its aims can be considered made up if you want to twist it. But most historians admit it was Hitler's way of securing total control of Germany.

In time this may well be proved to be the case with the British, American and Israeli secret services. Just who is responsible, whther these are rogue elements within the services, whether government leaders knew, is all conjecture.

What I firmly believe:

Government and secret service officials in high places, using the corporate media and the unwillingness of the majority to go against the grain and challenge existing paradigms of thought, have covered up the truth behind the terrorist atrocities of the last four years

They covered it up. Who did what and why? Yes, that's still "open to question". Now are we allowed to ask this question without having our character assassinated?

 

[squeegee]

This seems to be an attributable eye-witness account. Is American Free Press a nut-job site? Is this quote made up? Which is the more conspiratorial question to ask?

Eyewitness account Flight 93

 

[tarannau]

Here's a tip buckaroo - you can't expect to put up reams of cut and pastes without any comment, particularly when the same issues have been debated here endlessly. The onus is on you to make some comments and back them up with some supporting evidence, not to lazily post up the same stuff others have done before in a scattergun approach.

I have my doubts over aspects of the official versions too, but (imo) there's a distinct lack of logic in swapping one version of events for a less plausible one with even less evidence, simply because you don't think it 'feels' right or because you have a suspicion. People are eager to pick minute holes in official documentation, yet seem to subject their own pet theories to a laughably poor standard of scrutiny.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Moreover, none of the passengers reported seeing a jet and I would have thought that flying up close to take a look would have been an obvious first step for fighter jets..

I agree with everything else in your post, but I have a few mild criticisms of the above, which are;

1) contrary to what we see on TV and in cinemas it's apparently actually quite difficult for a fighter to match velocity and vectors with another plane, let alone one which may have been flown erratically by an undertrained pilot.

2) given that the fighters would have been given the transponder codes for the plane's radar, they'd have known which plane to go after so wouldn't have needed a "look-see" even if they could have tried for one.

3) air to air missiles have enough range that they'd have only needed to get within 10-15 miles to get a weapons lock on the flight with a modern-generation sidewinder, or 20-30 miles for an AIM120, so passengers seeing military jets would have been unlikely IMHO.

Apart from that I reckon you're spot-on!

 

[WouldBe]

2) given that the fighters would have been given the transponder codes for the plane's radar, they'd have known which plane to go after so wouldn't have needed a "look-see" even if they could have tried for one.

Except that all the transponders were turned off or so the conspiracists claim.

Squeegie in that link you gave it reports the 'A10-A' flying off at high speed and producing a 'sonic boom'. The A10 is capable of a max 450Kts which is no where near fast enough to create a sonic boom.

 

[tarannau]

Misinformation! There's a gaping great hole in Squeegee's official version of events - He's a federal narc, working on behalf of the USG.

Or something....

 

[editor]

2) given that the fighters would have been given the transponder codes for the plane's radar, they'd have known which plane to go after so wouldn't have needed a "look-see" even if they could have tried for one.

Acording to last night's programme, the transponder on Flight 93 was turned off mid flight.

 

[editor]

Squeegie in that link you gave it reports the 'A10-A' flying off at high speed and producing a 'sonic boom'. The A10 is capable of a max 450Kts which is no where near fast enough to create a sonic boom.

Curse those pesky laws of nature getting in the way of an exciting conspiracy theory!!

 

[editor]

Can you explain why you went into my post and cut out all the relevant questions from an American investigating Flight 93?

Is that acceptable to everyone here? What about you Editor? You afraid of the basic, you know, questions, that you needed to censor it?

Try reading the FAQ on comment-free cut'n'paste before making a bigger arse of yourself on this subject

Thanks!

 

[ViolentPanda]

Except that all the transponders were turned off or so the conspiracists claim.

In which case military ground radar would have still "seen" the plane and vectored the fighters in.

Squeegie in that link you gave it reports the 'A10-A' flying off at high speed and producing a 'sonic boom'. The A10 is capable of a max 450Kts which is no where near fast enough to create a sonic boom.

In fact one of the "selling points" for the A10 was that it was "slow" enough to chew up ground targets (as British armourded troop carriers have found out again and again. ).

 

[neilh]

Editor, i'd appreciate in any further discussions between us if you refrained from editing posts long after i've replied to them and you've read my reply, apart from obviously spelling/grammar and stuff. Obviously i can't in any way make you do this, and it does remain your choice, just thought i'd let you know my dislike for that kinda thing, and for appearing on a thread like i've been replying to something other than i have been.

 

[editor]

Editor, i'd appreciate in any further discussions between us if you refrained from editing posts long after i've replied to them and you've read my reply, apart from obviously spelling/grammar and stuff.

No idea what you're on about. What post, please?

And why didn't you send this by PM?

 

[neilh]

sorry about that, i was a bit vague; in this case it happened with post #195; certainly it wasn't a major addition but still is a post i would have reacted to differently in the first place than what i saw, and it's as much the principal/the fact i'd rather not have it happen again.

and i didn't really see any great need to send it by PM, as i'm sure you get more than enough PM's about moderation stuff, and i'm making the point to you the poster, not you in your role as moderator;

 

[Yogi Bear]

It was hardly reams and reams of cut'n'paste. Five or six paragraphs, if I remember right. I didn't comment cos I didn't want to inflame the situation unnecessarily, just wanted to provide some relevant information vis a vis the Channel Five programme.

Damned if I do, Damned if I don't I suppose.

I even edited the cut'n'paste down and provided the link. Why get rid of the link? It seems reputable enough. I don't see any wild claims on there. Just alot of unanswered questions.

Flight 93 Questions

Out of interest, did the Channel Five programme actually state that the passengers overpowered the crew? Cos according to this website, even the FBI deny evr having stated this.

 

[squeegee]

Oops, looks like I posted on my lurking name (Yogi Bear) by mistake. You see I haven't posted on here for a while because of the kind of personal abuse that gets bandied about on one of the few subjects that has any importance in the world we live. So I have taken to lurking under an assumed name (and I know my IP address can be checked as well but it makes me feel better.)

Looks like my cover is blown

 

[squeegee]

Great first post Yogi

 

[butchersapron]

You could, of course, lurk under your original name.

 

[neilh]

Oops, looks like I posted on my lurking name (Yogi Bear) by mistake. You see I haven't posted on here for a while because of the kind of personal abuse that gets bandied about on one of the few subjects that has any importance in the world we live. So I have taken to lurking under an assumed name (and I know my IP address can be checked as well but it makes me feel better.)

Looks like my cover is blown

that made me laugh.

 

[squeegee]

You see if I sign on as squeegee, I have this vision of editor getting his hunting boots, his 12 bore and screaming to the other moderators

"I'm gonna catch me a conspiraloon, yeee haaa"

 

[neilh]

You see if I sign on as squeegee, I have this vision of editor getting his hunting boots, his 12 bore and screaming to the other moderators

"I'm gonna catch me a conspiraloon, yeee haaa"

but how would he do that if you were just lurking?
and is there not an option to remain invisible?

 

[bristol_citizen]

Government and secret service officials in high places, using the corporate media and the unwillingness of the majority to go against the grain and challenge existing paradigms of thought, have covered up the truth behind the terrorist atrocities of the last four years

Could you give us a brief description and overview of these 'existing paradigms of thought' so we know what we should be challenging?

 

[Jazzz]

I agree with everything else in your post, but I have a few mild criticisms of the above, which are;

1) contrary to what we see on TV and in cinemas it's apparently actually quite difficult for a fighter to match velocity and vectors with another plane, let alone one which may have been flown erratically by an undertrained pilot.

Yet... should we not raise eyebrows at the breathtaking rapid descent with 270-degree hairpin to hit the Pentagon, with an approach that skimmed the ground in front? And bear in mind that Hani Hanjour, the man reckoned to have managed this, didn't have an F-16, he had the aerial equivalent of an oil tanker, and was reckoned to be such a hopeless pilot that they wouldn't give him the keys to a basic Cessna...

The Washington Post, September 12, says this: "Aviation sources said that the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm, possibly one of the hijackers. Someone even knew how to turn off the transponder, a move that is considerably less than obvious."

...

"Hanjour had his pilot's license, said Bernard, but needed what is called a 'check-out' done by the airport to gauge a pilot's skills before he or she is able to rent a plane at Freeway Airport which runs parallel to Route 50.

Instructors at the school told Bernard that after three times in the air, they still felt he was unable to fly solo and that Hanjour seemed disappointed ...

http://www.public-action.com/911/robotplane.html

2) given that the fighters would have been given the transponder codes for the plane's radar, they'd have known which plane to go after so wouldn't have needed a "look-see" even if they could have tried for one.

every single transponder on the four flights was turned off (there are four on each plane). Not one member of a flight crew managed to enter a 'hijack' code. An astonishing feat of control by the hijackers, and why bother? It's not as if they had reason to believe that they wouldn't be well tracked by radar anyway. However, with other foul play from the inside this would be crucial part of hampering the intercept response.

 

[gurrier]

Yet... should we not raise eyebrows at the breathtaking rapid descent with 270-degree hairpin to hit the Pentagon, with an approach that skimmed the ground in front? And bear in mind that Hani Hanjour, the man reckoned to have managed this, didn't have an F-16, he had the aerial equivalent of an oil tanker, and was reckoned to be such a hopeless pilot that they wouldn't give him the keys to a basic Cessna...

The Washington Post, September 12, says this: "Aviation sources said that the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm, possibly one of the hijackers. Someone even knew how to turn off the transponder, a move that is considerably less than obvious."

...

"Hanjour had his pilot's license, said Bernard, but needed what is called a 'check-out' done by the airport to gauge a pilot's skills before he or she is able to rent a plane at Freeway Airport which runs parallel to Route 50.

Instructors at the school told Bernard that after three times in the air, they still felt he was unable to fly solo and that Hanjour seemed disappointed ...

http://www.public-action.com/911/robotplane.html

If you can hit a runway (and even shit pilots can do this or they die) you can hit the pentagon - easily - it's a much bigger target.

every single transponder on the four flights was turned off (there are four on each plane). Not one member of a flight crew managed to enter a 'hijack' code. An astonishing feat of control by the hijackers, and why bother? It's not as if they had reason to believe that they wouldn't be well tracked by radar anyway. However, with other foul play from the inside this would be crucial part of hampering the intercept response.

So what you're saying is that turning off the transponders was useless to the hijackers attempts to hamper the intercept response but was crucial to the 'insiders' attempts to hamper the intercept response. Is it just when this subject comes up, or is your brain permanently on holidays?

 

[squeegee]

Could you give us a brief description and overview of these 'existing paradigms of thought' so we know what we should be challenging?

Governments generally have our best interests at heart. The media generally reports the truth, and corporations, whilst investing alot of money in media, do not generally try to interfere with the stories the media publish.

Conspiracy equates with people who are mentally unbalanced. Any conspiracy. Facts are concrete entities that cannot be questioned. If the government says something is a fact then it cannot be questioned. Governments do not alter or twist facts using language against itself.

Thus 911 happened more or less as the media and Western governments say. Anyone attempting to question this, is somehow mentally unbalanced and a threat to the natural order of things.

Something like that...

 

[editor]

sorry about that, i was a bit vague; in this case it happened with post #195; certainly it wasn't a major addition but still is a post i would have reacted to differently in the first place than what i saw, and it's as much the principal/the fact i'd rather not have it happen again.

Try looking closer and you'll see that your reply came under two minutes after mine, meaning my edit was done in the minute that everyone else has to immediately edit their post.

While it may be mildly annoying, to have you publicly accusing me of being in the habit of editing posts "long after" I'd replied to them and "read your reply" is not only wildly inaccurate, it's rather more annoying.

 

[butchersapron]

Thus 911 happened more or less as the media and Western governments say. Anyone attempting to question this, is somehow mentally unbalanced and a threat to the natural order of things.

Something like that...

Some of the people questioning the 'official narrative ' are mentally unbalanced though aren't they?

 

[editor]

Out of interest, did the Channel Five programme actually state that the passengers overpowered the crew? Cos according to this website, even the FBI deny evr having stated this.

They said they'd never know for sure although there seemed ample evidence that they were trying to break down the door. And there were some big guys on that flight.