+ Visit Cardiff FC for Latest News, Transfer Gossip, Fixtures and Match Results |
So no video evidence, just some sketchy versions of what might have been?
And you wonder why people are sceptical?
Don't get me wrong Mr Splott, I'm sure we can all agree that the people in charge are up to no end of dodgy dealings and there's plenty of nasty stuff going on behind the scenes by some despicable people. However even you have to admit that the amount of bollox posted on the internet does nothing to convince the doubters that 90% of this conspiracy stuff is full of holes?
Or perhaps that's the plan - post lots of nonsense so the real questions get lost amongst the nonsense?
If 9/11 was cut and dried there wouldn't be any controversy over it. You only have to look at the initial video that was posted on the issue to see that there are more questions than answers on the subject. Interestingly enough so far no one has found fault with that video, denied any of the claims, or rejected the account of what happened, or when it happened.
Unless I'm misinterpreting (apologies if so), you're implying it had to be a plane that hit the Pentagon, per the official line, and anyone who says differently is a nut. The fella in the video, a former US general, has tons of credibility. Worth a look as it's only 55 seconds duration.
The usual suspects with their sarcastic naysaying approach, won't say what they think happened. Aware of the controversy over the event, but content to sit on a fence rather than commit to the official line and a report which some members of the 9/11 Commission have already disowned.
The problem is a simple one. How can any sane person believe the official 9/11 Commission Report when the Commission's own members have expressed so many doubts about it?
"Six years after 9/11, the American public have still not been provided with a full and truthful account of the single greatest terror attack in US history.
What they got was a turkey. The 9/11 Commission was hamstrung by official obstruction. It never managed to ascertain the whole truth of what happened on September 11 2001.
The chair and vice chair of the 9/11 Commission, respectively Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, assert in their book, Without Precedent, that they were "set up to fail" and were starved of funds to do a proper investigation. They also confirm that they were denied access to the truth and misled by senior officials in the Pentagon and the federal aviation authority; and that this obstruction and deception led them to contemplate slapping officials with criminal charges.
Despite the many public statements by 9/11 commissioners and staff members acknowledging they were repeatedly lied to, not a single person has ever been charged, tried, or even reprimanded, for lying to the 9/11 Commission."
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...1thebigcoverup
By 1980, General Stubblebine commanded the Electronic Research and Development Command (ERADCOM). Stubblebine was strongly influenced by Lt. Col. Jim Channon's New Age document First Earth Battalion Field Manual (1979). Stubblebine became a proponent of psychic warfare and initiated a project within the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command (INSCOM), which he commanded from 1981 to 1984, to create "a breed of 'super soldier'" who would "have the ability to become invisible at will and to walk through walls". He attempted to walk through walls himself[2][3] — but failed, as he himself described in a 2004 interview.[4] (These activities feature prominently in Jon Ronson's 2004 book The Men Who Stare at Goats.[5][6])
We're going around in circles with this. The same questions came up in 2010 on here and again in 2012 when the debate went on for weeks.
A plane or no plane is not really relevant. A plane hit a building, but was it piloted or was it remotely controlled?
I repeat, the most interesting account, which attempted to deal with as many strands of connected information as possible comes from Christopher Bollyn.
Yes its relevant and no I don't remember what you said in 2012. So what happened to the hijacked plane full of passengers?
by Christopher C. Kelly
Public Affairs, Armed Forces Institute of Pathology
What some experts have called "the most comprehensive forensic investigation in U.S. history" ended Nov. 16 with the identification of 184 of the 189 who died in the terrorist attack on the Pentagon.
A multidisciplinary team of more than 50 forensic specialists, scientists and support personnel from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology played a major role in Operation Nobel Eagle investigations, officials said. AFIP is an executive agency of the Army surgeon general.
You'll never get a straight answer out of splotter,he doesn't know how to.
It's not about being 'pedantic' there is no proof whatsoever that any plane was hi-jacked. There is only a working assumption that they were hi-jacked. In other words the official line relies on a theory that planes were hi-jacked. Everything connected with those flights including the fictitious 'phone call' from one of the flights is pure speculation. It is unbelievable that so many people swallow the official line when people involved in the 9/11 Commission have already denounced it.
If fully qualified airline pilots say that a particular approach and descent is beyond the capabilities of most experienced pilots, then why should we be dismissive of their views that inexperienced people would find it impossible to carry out the same manoeuvre?
If we look at everything from a logical, evidenced based perspective, then it quickly becomes obvious that what the public have been told with regard to the whole events surrounding 9/11 simply do not add up.
"Although the adjustments required to maintain the shallow angle of descent may have challenged a human pilot, they would seem an easy task for a 757's autopilot, with its ability to read instruments and adjust control surfaces accordingly with great speed and accuracy."
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/