Learn the Truth about 9/11!

123468

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 152
    We could go and interview all the kids and the teacher and the media people and the parents and the staff who were there on that day... but that really won't be necessary because they would all probably be lying anyway. Was anybody else watching the news? It was late night for me but I was watching all night and I recall videos from the school, which were live.



    Maybe they were a fake feed from some safe location, but that would only fuel the conspiracy possibilities even more.



    The guy was at the school. There are plenty of videos and photos showing this. One even appears here:



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_E....mentary_School



    This article claims AFO had no fighter escort.



    You can also read up on the visit to the school by the president at the school's homepage:

    http://www.sarasota.k12.fl.us/Emma/9....01.index.html



    Photos here:

    http://www.sarasota.k12.fl.us/Emma/9...ogallery6.html



    and trhe bad news is announced:

    http://www.sarasota.k12.fl.us/Emma/9...ogallery7.html
  • Reply 102 of 152
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by franksargent View Post




    And were you in a plane chasing AF1 to confirm that it never had a fighter escort? Or that you have better surveillance and counter measurements than the U. S. Federal Government?



    If the feds had such great stuff, 9/11 might not have happened. Nor would a lot of other bad things.
  • Reply 103 of 152
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post


    If the feds had such great stuff, 9/11 might not have happened. Nor would a lot of other bad things.



    I'm talking about security measures used for the POTUS, not J6P! \
  • Reply 104 of 152
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by franksargent View Post


    ... let's just go ahead and make up stuff!



    Are you sure Bush was in that classroom? I mean I wasn't there, were you?



    And since Bush's whereabouts were precisely known, everyone knew where he was, it must be super easy to just walk right in wearing an IED, nah that won't work, you'd have to get one of the kid's to wear it!



    How about we fly something in there, nah that won't work, for obvious reasons anywhere Bush would be would have to be a no fly zone like the White House, you think?



    And were you in a plane chasing AF1 to confirm that it never had a fighter escort? Or that you have better surveillance and counter measurements than the U. S. Federal Government?



    Oh c'mon! You know as well as I do what security is like around Bush these days. Any official function he attends attracts protesters 100s or even 1000s, but Secret Service makes damn sure they dont get anywhere near him, sometimes by as much as 4 miles, about the same distance NASA keeps spectators at bay during a Space Shuttle launch (!). It's getting to the point where 'we the people' are regarded as the enemy. Perhaps they should organize a moving hologram of the president to make speeches...? (j/k).
  • Reply 105 of 152
    Amazing silence on the movements of POTUS that morning.



    That he was at the school is very well documented by, well, live TV feeds seen around the world.

    Nobody is making this up.



    The country is under attack.



    That he was there is well documented.

    That he just sat there is well documented.

    That the SS let him sit there is well documented by their inaction.





    Why?
  • Reply 106 of 152
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post


    Amazing silence on the movements of POTUS that morning.



    That he was at the school is very well documented by, well, live TV feeds seen around the world.

    Nobody is making this up.



    The country is under attack.



    That he was there is well documented.

    That he just sat there is well documented.

    That the SS let him sit there is well documented by their inaction.





    Why?



  • Reply 107 of 152
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post


    Amazing silence on the movements of POTUS that morning.



    That he was at the school is very well documented by, well, live TV feeds seen around the world.

    Nobody is making this up.



    The country is under attack.



    That he was there is well documented.

    That he just sat there is well documented.

    That the SS let him sit there is well documented by their inaction.





    Why?



    Why not? What could he do at that point anyway. Make a public announcement, "Run for your lives!" \
  • Reply 108 of 152
    The world should worry.



    Thanks for the answers.
  • Reply 109 of 152
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post


    The world should worry.



    Thanks for the answers.



    [CENTER][/CENTER]
  • Reply 110 of 152
    Death to all 911 zombies!
  • Reply 111 of 152
    Yeah, this is over. Seems the original poster never returned and now we have another truther troll here. Let. It. Go.
  • Reply 112 of 152
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    OK.. before this thread is locked.. some material about Dick Cheney and his role on 9/11:



    Why did Cheney, a politician with zero military experience, (who also dodged the Vietnam draft on a multiplicity of occasions) do the following:



    Altered the NORAD scramble protocol in the months leading up to 9/11. All scramble orders, rather than being routine protocol that happened automatically by default, had to have specific authorization?



    If the normal scramble protocols had still been in place on 9/11, there is no way, (especially considering that the previous system had worked almost flawlessly for many years), with an average of 70 to 100 emergency scrambles per annum, that any of those 4 hijacked flights would have reached their destinations without a very prompt challenge. SOP would have made sure that the Air Force would have intercepted the rogue flights within a few minutes of being commandeered. And considering that the 4 flights took place over the most heavily monitored airspace on earth, and within a few minutes flight time of as many as 20 Air Force bases...



    Secondly: Why did the hijackers of AA 77 allow so much time to hit their target (the Pentagon) by heading out as far as the Kentucky border before turning back and arriving back at their point of departure? Knowing the scramble routine, from all their research and mock runs, the hijackers would have made sure that they got control of the plane ASAP, and headed straight to their proposed target ASAP to avoid certain interception.... whuch under normal circumstances would have happened within a few minutes, considering all the alert AFBs in the region. But no... they took their sweet time and dawdled .. being in control of a hijacked plane for some 50 minutes.... c'mon folks.. common sense dictates that something is clearly messed up here.



    As a result of Cheney's decision, 3 of the 4 flights succeeded in their mission. If this represents a case of off-the-scale ineptitude and incompetence on the part of the Vice President (at the very least), why has no action been taken against him? Nobody has even been permitted to ask him about this.



    Then, consider the fact that Cheney lied to the 9/11 Commission regarding his whereabouts on the morning of 9/11. His testimony (he refused to testify under oath btw) conflicts with that of many others, including former transportation Secretary Mineta, who placed Cheney in the PEOC some 35 minutes before Cheney himself claimed he was there.



    And what were those orders that Cheney was referring to when challenged by a young staffer who kept reminding Cheney... "the plane is 50 miles out... the plane is 30 miles out.. the plane is 10 miles out... do the orders still stand", Cheney barked "of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary?"



    What else could that order have been, other than "that plane is not to be intercepted". Also, by refusing to warn those in the Pentagon that a rogue plane was headed their way and likely to attack, Cheney has some culpabililty (perhaps as an accessory before the fact) to the murder of 189 people in that building.



    There is so much more to Cheney's possible role in allowing the 9/11 attacks to happen, at the very least. But this thread might get locked soon... (such is the degree of mass denial and psychological dysfunction afflicting so many people re. this subject). And it is appropriate that Cheney be subject to some harsh questioning, under oath, with nothing barred, when and if the American people and the world is permitted to have some closure on this, courtesy of a real 9/11 investigation, as opposed to that ugly hairball that got sicked upon us all.



    If Cheney is innocent, then I have confidence that a non biased investigation will find him such. But here is the 2.3 trillion dollar question? Would he (and his cronies) ever submit to such examination?



    Forget about the Twin Towers and "controlled demolitions". Forget about "devices under planes". Forget about the "hole in the Pentagon being too small". These are distractions, and although anomalous, they cannot be used to prove that 9/11 was an inside job, especially considering that the salient evidence was removed from the crime scenes and disposed of ASAP.



    If it was all about "incompetence", I leave you all with this question:

    WHY HAS NOBODY BEEN FIRED?



    And if there is any evidence that our officials had any part in allowing the attacks to happen for political gain, then they should be brought to trial as accessories before and after the fact to the mass murder of 3000 people (and other crimes).



    If they let it happen, then they made it happen.

    Same end, just a different course... but both equally guilty.
  • Reply 113 of 152
    Sammi Jo. Not that this might mean anything. But Cheney has been in the Washington scene for over thirty years and was Secretary of Defense under George H. W. Bush from March 1989 to January 1993. He does know what he's doing. Believe me.
  • Reply 114 of 152
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post


    Sammi Jo. Not that this might mean anything. But Cheney has been in the Washington scene for over thirty years and was Secretary of Defense under George H. W. Bush from March 1989 to January 1993. He does know what he's doing. Believe me.



    Then that possibly implies even greater potential guilt.



    My questions remain unanswered, Perpetually. Are the implications too uncomfortable in the playpen?



    If the thread gets locked, then I guess A.O. joins the realm of Bill O'Reilly and Fox News, where "if we don't like the message, then we attack the messenger". Turn off the mic, shout someone down, kill the thread, impose "free speech zones"... its all the same BS... a symtpon of creeping Goebbels like fascism.



    One of these days, we are going to stop going out of reason-and-logic's way to protect BushCorp, their cronies, and likemoded successors. Then things might start to improve.



    Until we stop excuses for serial criminals in high places, the US becomes a lost cause.



  • Reply 115 of 152
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post


    Forget about the Twin Towers and "controlled demolitions". Forget about "devices under planes". Forget about the "hole in the Pentagon being too small". These are distractions, and although anomalous, they cannot be used to prove that 9/11 was an inside job, especially considering that the salient evidence was removed from the crime scenes and disposed of ASAP.



    How can we forget about them when that's exactly the kind of nonsense you people have been arguing proves something. If you've got something other than "watch the video of the plane in slo-mo" and "buildings can't collapse without explosives inside of them," I'd love to see it.
  • Reply 116 of 152
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post


    One of these days, we are going to stop going out of reason-and-logic's way to protect BushCorp, their cronies, and likemoded successors. Then things might start to improve.



    439 DAYS 5 Hrs 27 Min 18.0 Sec
  • Reply 117 of 152
    shetlineshetline Posts: 4,695member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post


    Until we stop excuses for serial criminals in high places, the US becomes a lost cause.



    Why would I bother making excuses for the Bush administration? I loathe the Bush administration. I think that various members, up to and including the President, should be held criminally accountable for their conduct in things like misleading a country into war, treasonous outing of a CIA operative, illegal surveillance, and torture, and that's before we get to more mundane matters of fiscal corruption.



    There's plenty of culpability to go around without venturing into fantasyland to find more.
  • Reply 118 of 152
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post


    OK.. before this thread is locked.. some material about Dick Cheney and his role on 9/11:



    Why did Cheney, a politician with zero military experience, (who also dodged the Vietnam draft on a multiplicity of occasions) do the following:



    Altered the NORAD scramble protocol in the months leading up to 9/11. All scramble orders, rather than being routine protocol that happened automatically by default, had to have specific authorization?



    If the normal scramble protocols had still been in place on 9/11, there is no way, (especially considering that the previous system had worked almost flawlessly for many years), with an average of 70 to 100 emergency scrambles per annum, that any of those 4 hijacked flights would have reached their destinations without a very prompt challenge. SOP would have made sure that the Air Force would have intercepted the rogue flights within a few minutes of being commandeered. And considering that the 4 flights took place over the most heavily monitored airspace on earth, and within a few minutes flight time of as many as 20 Air Force bases...



    Secondly: Why did the hijackers of AA 77 allow so much time to hit their target (the Pentagon) by heading out as far as the Kentucky border before turning back and arriving back at their point of departure? Knowing the scramble routine, from all their research and mock runs, the hijackers would have made sure that they got control of the plane ASAP, and headed straight to their proposed target ASAP to avoid certain interception.... whuch under normal circumstances would have happened within a few minutes, considering all the alert AFBs in the region. But no... they took their sweet time and dawdled .. being in control of a hijacked plane for some 50 minutes.... c'mon folks.. common sense dictates that something is clearly messed up here.



    As a result of Cheney's decision, 3 of the 4 flights succeeded in their mission. If this represents a case of off-the-scale ineptitude and incompetence on the part of the Vice President (at the very least), why has no action been taken against him? Nobody has even been permitted to ask him about this.



    Then, consider the fact that Cheney lied to the 9/11 Commission regarding his whereabouts on the morning of 9/11. His testimony (he refused to testify under oath btw) conflicts with that of many others, including former transportation Secretary Mineta, who placed Cheney in the PEOC some 35 minutes before Cheney himself claimed he was there.



    And what were those orders that Cheney was referring to when challenged by a young staffer who kept reminding Cheney... "the plane is 50 miles out... the plane is 30 miles out.. the plane is 10 miles out... do the orders still stand", Cheney barked "of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary?"



    What else could that order have been, other than "that plane is not to be intercepted". Also, by refusing to warn those in the Pentagon that a rogue plane was headed their way and likely to attack, Cheney has some culpabililty (perhaps as an accessory before the fact) to the murder of 189 people in that building.



    There is so much more to Cheney's possible role in allowing the 9/11 attacks to happen, at the very least. But this thread might get locked soon... (such is the degree of mass denial and psychological dysfunction afflicting so many people re. this subject). And it is appropriate that Cheney be subject to some harsh questioning, under oath, with nothing barred, when and if the American people and the world is permitted to have some closure on this, courtesy of a real 9/11 investigation, as opposed to that ugly hairball that got sicked upon us all.



    If Cheney is innocent, then I have confidence that a non biased investigation will find him such. But here is the 2.3 trillion dollar question? Would he (and his cronies) ever submit to such examination?



    Forget about the Twin Towers and "controlled demolitions". Forget about "devices under planes". Forget about the "hole in the Pentagon being too small". These are distractions, and although anomalous, they cannot be used to prove that 9/11 was an inside job, especially considering that the salient evidence was removed from the crime scenes and disposed of ASAP.



    If it was all about "incompetence", I leave you all with this question:

    WHY HAS NOBODY BEEN FIRED? Methinks, you're asking the wrong people, ask those who were responsible yourself.



    And if there is any evidence that our officials had any part in allowing the attacks to happen for political gain, then they should be brought to trial as accessories before and after the fact to the mass murder of 3000 people (and other crimes).



    If they let it happen, then they made it happen.

    Same end, just a different course... but both equally guilty.



    ... at least provide a link (or two).



    Oh, and I'd prefer something from the public record, you know, actual factual data, that is referenced and/or sourced. You know, SOP like from time established peer reviewed literature. or at least something from the written public record.



    BTW, could you please refrain from asking your "truth pooper troopers" spamming the AO/PO forums, I mean seriously, you people are really starting to sound manic.



    It's actually kind of sad, because the louder you scream, the less people are willing to listen to whatever it is you're trying to say. \
  • Reply 119 of 152
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by franksargent View Post


    ... at least provide a link (or two).



    Oh, and I'd prefer something from the public record, you know, actual factual data, that is referenced and/or sourced. You know, SOP like from time established peer reviewed literature.



    BTW, could you please refrain from asking your "truth pooper troopers" spamming the AO/PO forums, I mean seriously, you people are really starting to sound manic.



    It's actually kind of sad, because the louder you scream, the less people are willing to listen to whatever it is you're trying to say. \



    Look. I believe that Cheney has been trying to reach this zenith of power since he was a buddy with Rummy for the Ford administration. He was despondent watching the powers of the president removed one by one after Nixon. He believed the president should have more powers exceeding Nixon's. He wanted the neo-conservatives to be a major force in all forms of government policy.



    It's documented. Watch Frontline's "Cheney's Law" or "The Dark Side". All there.



    As far as implications to 9|11, neither report points to this. But it would accelerate the doctrine and the purpose he needed after 9|11 to get them done.



    For the whole NORAD thing, try reading Vanity Fair's 9-11 Live the NORAD Tapes.
  • Reply 120 of 152
    sammi josammi jo Posts: 4,634member
    [QUOTE=BRussell;1169618]How can we forget about them when that's exactly the kind of nonsense you people have been arguing proves something.



    I have never stated that the Twin Towers were destroyed as a result of a controlled demolition. I have asked questions, for sure.. but what is so wrong with that?



    Quote:

    If you've got something other than "watch the video of the plane in slo-mo" and "buildings can't collapse without explosives inside of them," I'd love to see it.



    Again, that is not what I have said. Please, if you want to defend the Bush Administration and its story, please don't misquote me, out words into my mouth, or attribute non-existent material and comments to me.



    ~



    If it was just incompetence, with no element of an "inside job", why are you people still defending the Bush Administration's incompetence? Do you think they should get away with allowing such a huge and deadly breach of national security with ZERO accountability? That is what it looks like! Are they so honest and truthful and transparent ... so Christlike that just to ask a leetle question or two is inappropriate? Or are you people so scared of upsetting the applecart that you just want things (corruption) to continue as normal, and just forget about it all?



    I spend time in here asking questions.... (the media won't ask them) hoping that this would be a reasonably open-minded forum in which to posequestions which have not been answered. The fact that some of you people try slap down people who just ask questions (I'm not even talking of alternative theories here, just simple questions)... is incredibly sad, a reflection of these bizarre times we live in.



    When the realization and subsequent execution of our administration's entire (and extreme, unsellable) agenda depended upon that event or a similar devastating incident, which happened allegedly "out of the blue with no warning", according to BushCorp... and then they lied as regards not envisaging hijackers crashing planes into buildings), it is appropriate that we challenge our leaders into providing us with a fuller and more complete story and defense, other than, or in addition to what we have been given. Over 50% of the American people want a real investigation into the attacks (as opposed to that quarter-assed exhibition of BS masquerading as a real inquiry). That is a democratic majority.. and the we the people are their bosses (allegedly). Give us, the majority what we want. If a fair and unbiased investigation into the attacks eventually got the Bush Administration off the hook and dispelled the widespread doubts and suspicion that has divided the country, this would at least provide a sense of closure for everyine, not least the relatives of those who died, many of whom think the official story stinks. Common sense has been stretched to such limits by the Bush Administration's claims of total innocence, that even despite the blanket taboo that exists within the mainstream media, material is evident that is making Joe Public bristle.



    The amount of time some of you people spend in here, defending the indefensible, is staggering. Frank?
Sign In or Register to comment.