What can anybody here tell me about 9/11/01 war games?

[Ant10708]

Originally Posted by Preechr

I'd find it much more likely that, since the damage done to the Pentagon was so relatively minor, there were explosives planted ahead of time in the Towers, possibly by a contractor working on a remodeling project.

I just find the idea that our government, or anybody else's, could pull off any sort of massive conspiracy without detection silly, especially when I figure in for all the obviously stupid things various "plugged-in" folks have tried to get away with and been caught at.

The first paragraph confuses me just because it doesnt seem like the different parts of the sentence fit properly together.

And it hasn't gone undetected! Ran and others have discovered.

I do think Burbanks theory is more probable then Cheny and his oil buddies doing it.

I also don't think the FBI confiscating tapes is really suspicious. I mean our government likes to keep incidents kinda secret. I mean for gods sake Lincolns assassination files are still classified so theres no chance we will ever see kennedys. But I am interested in these types of theories but right now the US story makes the most sense when put together so that why I asked Ran on what he thinks about each thing.

Maybe Lincoln never died and was frozen and the terrorists got him and 911 was his idea.

[Preechr]

1st parargraph:

The damage done to the Pentagon was much less than that to the WTC towers, though the Pentagon was also struck with a plane. I'd find it much more likely that there were explosives planted ahead of time in the Towers than I would the Pentagon was hit by a missle. It's possible that a "contractor" working on a "remodeling project" within the WTC snuck in a bunch of explosives, kinda like the terrorists did at that Russian School.

[ranxer]

is it likely that there were terrorists planning to hijack planes but we knew of it in advance and took advantage of the situation and attacked ourselves.

i do have theories about what actually happened but they are just theories.. i don't really want to go off too far into what i think happened, my point is that the official story is a lie. the ideas that that lie leads to go off in all kinds of directions.
we have information like the northwoods documents that actually discuss attacking ourselves with blame being placed on enemies that we would like to get rid of etc. so there is precedence for this stuff but again.. i'm trying to stick to breaking down the lie that the administration has been telling.

much of what i think will be written off as conspiracy theory.. but just like racism or anti-semitism the conspiracy card is used to shut people up. even the anti-bushite left is keeping a lid on 9/11 by calling questioners conspiracy nuts and refusing to look at the questions. we've got a loong way to go before these questions are even thought about in the mainstream press and i find it a damn shame because the questions are so blaringly obvious to many people.

why would the bush administration refuse investigations or questioning about 9/11? just to mess with suspicious people? i don't get it. why did bush appoint henry kissenger to head the investigation? why wouldnt bush testify by himself? why was his and cheneys testimony not recorded and notes by the questioners confiscated after the interview? do you really think that 9/11 investigations open holes in our national security? it sure stinks to my nose. but then again i come from a background of not trusting 70% of what comes out of our corporate governments press releases because as we all know they are politicians and as some of us know they are beholden to large corporations. Why is it that the right wing can't trust the government to dish out healthcare yet they can trust the government to keep a suitcase nuke out of the country? oh yea, and why do 49% of New Yorkers believe that the bush admin knew of the attack and consciously did nothing?
damn, what a mess. [/quote]

[davinxtk]

Yeah, nobody's paying attention to the post I linked.

Originally Posted by Wed Sep 08, 2004 7:53 pm, I

Punch some key words into google on this one. There's a whole host of sites arguing in both directions, and both of them have alarmingly weak evidence.

All of the security camera footage that could have covered this was confiscated. Eyewitnesses report a huge jet, but I don't think many people have been so close to a commuter jet. They could be completely mistaken about the style/size.
When asked to produce debris, the sites arguing that a 757 hit the building all show the same piece of debris on the ground over and over again, as though it was the only one there. On one site it's argued that the reason not as much damage was done to the building as you'd expect a 757 to do is because it hit the ground first. There are, however, no marks on the ground at all. The same site says that at the speed it hit, the engines probably smashed and shattered themselves against the outside of the building; while later on in the page they point out a 14-foot-hole on the fourth wall of the building that was apparently caused by one of the engines forcing itself through the walls. Where's the shot of the engine resting inside the Pentagon?
The sites that support the jet theory claim that the remains of all but one of the passengers was found. Which passenger? Could that be significant? Or really, are any of those passengers real people whose remains can actually be confirmed?
Could it be that the jet hit first, and the missile scream and second explosion heard was a missile that was fired in an attempt at defense, from a fighter jet, that didn't make contact soon enough?
If so, could much of what happened to the Pentagon be collateral damage?

These sites all raise questions that I don't think we're ever going to find the answers to. At least not until some b-rate Zapruder comes around. And I can almost promise you the first one won't be authentic.

Not that I expect anyone to pay any more attention to me NOW.

[Dole]

So if that plane didnt hit the pentagon, where is it? what happened to it?

[ranxer]

good question dole. i suggest you ask the bush administration, or write your local paper. but you won't get an answer either way. If it didn't reach it's destination, it didn't hit the pentagon, and it wasn't just arab hijackers but partly inside job then we're dealing with something akin to terrorism but something much more cold blooded than a suicide bomber.
it's a massive crime that we need to unravel but many people are trying to stick to analyzing the official story and avoiding the 'well then, what happened to the passengers?' questions.

[Spectre X]

Originally Posted by Dole

So if that plane didnt hit the pentagon, where is it? what happened to it?

Even if it DID hit the Pentagon, where was it? Did you see any wreckage belonging to a 757? I sure as hell didn't, and a plane as large as a 757 would at least have left huge chunks of hull littered around the crash site.

[Ant10708]

So what is the theory behind the one that crashed in penn?