Was 9/11 a conspiracy??

[rider]

9/11-PNAC, 9/11-PNAC
SHOULD BE THE #1 TOPIC OF DISCUSSION
A WAKE-UP CALL THE ALTERNATIVE AND LIBERAL MEDIA:
TO STOP IGNORING 9/11 AND THE PROJECT FOR A NEW AMERICAN CENTURY
Jesse, TvNewsLIES.org Editor, 12, July, 2005

We must open PNAC and 9/11 to public discourse because all roads may very well lead to or from 9/11.

9/11 is not the reason the Bush/PNAC agenda took shape, it is the
excuse for implementing it.

9/11 gave these men everything they could possibly ask for including unlimited power to implement their otherwise unacceptable plans for global domination. Nothing else would have enabled them to go ahead with their plans. 9/11 was the greatest thing that ever happened to these men. If that does not make you suspicious, nothing will. What are the odds that all of this is nothing more than a historical coincidence? Do these facts, at the very least, merit public discourse?

http://tvnewslies.org/html/stop_ignoring_9_11...

[rider]

The following PNAC members were appointed to serve in the George W. Bush administataion following the 2002 appointment of Bush by the Supreme Court.

http://911review.com/motive/pnac.html

[rider]

Another technology devised by the U.S. military for remote control of huge airplanes is named Global Hawk. On April 24, 2001, four months before "'9/11,'" Britain's International Television News reported: "A robot plane has made aviation history by becoming the first unmanned aircraft to fly across the Pacific Ocean."

Britain's ITN continued: "The Global Hawk, a jet-powered aircraft with a wingspan equivalent to a Boeing 737, flew from Edwards Air Force Base in California and landed late on Monday at the Royal Australian Air Force base at Edinburgh, in South Australia state... It flies along a pre-programmed flight path, but a pilot monitors the aircraft during its flight via a sensor suite which provides infra-red and visual images."

According to the Australian Global Hawk manager Rod Smith:'"The aircraft essentially flies itself, right from takeoff, right through to landing, and even taxiing off the runway."'

Now, who or what would you trust for aerial missions as demanding as those of "'9/11'" (or trust to fly an airliner from one airfield in California to another in Australia): The Arab students who are described above, or the Global Hawk or Home Run technologies?

site: www.sfcall.com page: www.sfcall.com/issues%202002/10.7.02/paul_10_...

See this English translation of Von Buelow's interview with Tagesspiegel.

The 'Home Run' theory skeptically mentioned by Von Buelow is certainly intriguing: it both contradicts the official account's presumption that officials had no way to abort the attack, and provides a made-to-order means by which the same officials could have covertly piloted the planes their targets. But in the years since Fascist State no evidence of it has emerged. If Home Run is a hoax, as suggested by the 9-11 Research analysis of it, it actually adds weight to the theories of the crime involving remote or programmed control of the jetliners: hoaxes presented as alternative theories of the 9/11 attack are most often advanced to conceal realities of the crime behind similar sets of observations.

Carrying out a robotic takeover of some or all of the jetliners destroyed on 9/11/01 need not have required anything as elaborate as special equipment installed covertly on fleets of jetliners. Since modern jetliners are capable of being flown by their flight control computers, no special equipment is required, necessarily, to turn the aircraft into 'suicide bombs'. In 2003 Jerry Russell debunked the idea that specially outfitted planes were required:

e x c e r p t
title: Remote control: built-in or bolt-on?
authors: Jerry Russell

Advocates of the theory that remote control might have been used to guide the 9/11 aircraft to their targets, have been troubled by a debate over whether the necessary remote controls were actually built-in to the aircraft, or whether they were bolted-on as a retrofit for the specific tasks of 9/11. Both theories have been viewed as having difficulties: building the system as standard equipment would require too many people to know about the system (causing security difficulties), while a retrofit of the system would also be too complex and expensive with excessive risks of discovery.
A review of Boeing documentation shows that in fact, the 757/767 flight computer has nearly all of the required capabilities as standard equipment, including guidance, communications, GPS navigation, and traffic control functions.
http://911review.com/means/remotecontrol.html

[Charlie Sheen]

Dr_Zorderz wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry charlie
.
No. Obviously because it would endanger national security.

LOL, So pilots for 9/11 truth don't post their name?

That's funny Ehhh!

[Dr_Zorderz]

Whaaat's so funny about endangering national security?
.
Jet Fuel ha ha ha ha ha ha h aha h hah
.
Now THAT'S Funny Huh eh !

[Charlie Sheen]

rider wrote:

Another technology devised by the U.S. military for remote control of huge airplanes is named Global Hawk.

Try again, it's not a operating system, it's a drone.

The Northrop Grumman (formerly Ryan Aeronautical) RQ-4 Global Hawk (known as Tier II+ during development) is an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) used by the United States Air Force and Navy and the German Air Force as a surveillance aircraft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman...

[Insults Are Easier]

Good morning American's!

Heres a great vid about how foreign citizens shouldn't lecture us about our Constitution.

http://youtu.be/kjNwMOLulUQ

And a cool vid about our air defense on 9/11 from Pilots for 9/11 Truth

http://youtu.be/f6WSDxErgBE

For those not prone to heavy spamming of course

Insults Are Easier

[Charlie Sheen]

rider wrote:

A review of Boeing documentation shows that in fact, the 757/767 flight computer has nearly all of the required capabilities as standard equipment, including guidance, communications, GPS navigation, and traffic control functions.

Wrong, only the spoilers could be controlled, everything else is cable and pully, to set up a remote control system would require these endless cables and pullys to be hooked to motors and control units that would fill the planes passenger compartment!

All right here! Debunk the paper.

http://www.911myths.com/Remote_Takeover.pdf

The Boeing 757 and 767 do have autopilot, but turn it off and you can do what you like. What's more, the 757 and 767 do not have "fly by wire" capabilities (their control systems are mechanical, not electronic, with cables and hydraulics to move the control surfaces). The only plane that did at the time was the 777, and even this could be overridden by the pilot.

[Charlie Sheen]

Dr_Zorderz wrote:

Whaaat's so funny about endangering national security?

Pilots for truth are endangering national security by claiming 20 of their members can not fly a plane?

With those tin foil nutters that would be bolstering national security.

20 Pilots, That's a good one Eh!

[Charlie Sheen]

rider wrote:

The parallels between the Reichstag Fire and the 9/11/01 attack on New York City and Washington are striking.

Any evidence of this, NOPE!

[Charlie Sheen]

So in Laden's brother helped out and this proves and inside job, try to keep up!

rider wrote:

Bin Laden and Bahama Casinos &#65533; When news broke last week that European authorities suspect Yeslam bin laden has been lying about his supposed lack of contact and involvement with his famous terrorist brother&#65533; &#65533; We immediately thought of Wally Hilliard, who&#65533;d been doing business with Yeslam bin Laden as well. Yeslam has admitted funneling an unknown number of Arab pilots to Huffman Aviation in Venice, supposedly for pilot training. &#65533; But its Hilliard&#65533;s involvement with ADNAN KHASHOGGI, THE SAUDI BILLIONAIRE and international fugitive, which is most intriguing. We learned of it from a business rival of the two men, both vying for rights to build a casino on a remote island in the Bahamas

[Charlie Sheen]

Insults Are Easier wrote:

And a cool vid about our air defense on 9/11 from Pilots for 9/11 Truth

Pick your favorite claim in it since you "claim" you want to debate and not spam!

[Insults Are Easier]

Charlie Sheen wrote:

<quoted text>Pick your favorite claim in it since you "claim" you want to debate and not spam!

I don't want to debate you... You have no ability, nor the character to debate.

And I have other stuff to do.

Have a nice day.

Insults Are Easier

[Charlie Sheen]

Insults Are Easier wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't want to debate you... You have no ability, nor the character to debate.

Right, LMAO, Thought so!

[Say the Truth]

Klink wrote:

<quoted text>
That's because a plane hit the towers.
It was a military tanker fly-by-wire mote-controlled. Some believe the entire thing was ran from Homeland Security offices in WTC7. They had an entire floor with bulletproof glass to watch as it all went down.

"Some..."?

You mean other kooks like yourself?

BTW, there was no such thing as "Homeland Security" on 9/11/01.

[Say the Truth]

Insults Are Easier wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't want to debate you... You have no ability, nor the character to debate.
And I have other stuff to do.
Have a nice day.
Insults Are Easier

LMAO!!!

Oh the IRONY!!!

You guys post a bunch of crap, with unsupported (by reliable sources) claims, then when we reply with resons that you are, shall we say "misinformed," you call us shills and change the subject and/or move the goalposts.

[Say the Truth]

Dr_Zorderz wrote:

No piece of any alleged 9/11 airplane wreckage was ever identified by serial number back to the airplane maintenance records.

How do you know that, eh? From reading some twooer "report"?

[Say the Truth]

Insults Are Easier wrote:

<quoted text>
So, she is in Denmark after all... I knew you were being catfished...
You just f*cked up. You know that don't you? Not from, but in. You're not even smart enough to lie well, so of course it makes sense why you hold the dishonest positions that you do, and associate with the type of people you do.
Rad and Pie, the perfect couple. Throw in WasteOfWater and it's quite a ménage á lie, huh?
Now you know none of these jokes on you would have been necessary had you not brought your imaginary girlfriend or made up job into the debate to attempt to smear other posters in the first place, right?
If you only had logic and character.
Now lets see you stutter and stammer your way out of this RADKET.
You f*ckin dishonest joke of a person.
http://youtu.be/T59x5o8wS6Y
Insults Are Easier

Why do you hide your ISP, socky?

[Say the Truth]

RADEKT wrote:

I know you Twoofers are Stupid and can't get girls, but she is here in the States working at our firm and I have gone to Copenhagen with her to visit her family .... try to smarten up dufus
<quoted text>

Skål!

[Say the Truth]

Insults Are Easier wrote:

<quoted text>
Look at how he fidgets, scratches his nose, takes a drink of water to quench his tightening throat because his pulse has just risen, then looks away thinking of a story to tell as he smugly tries to summon a fake smile to act as if he thinks the question itself is a joke... All of his previous mannerisms betray that smug smile.
I play poker for a living, when I see a person acting like that after making a big bet, I put them all in because they are bluffing. John Gross in that video is a man about to bluff. And as is clearly shown when he says he's aware of "no witness" who claims to have seen molten steel, he bluffs big.
Just another reason why
Insults Are Easier

"I play poker for a living"

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!