9/11 conspiracy- Don't know what to think.

This wasn't trillions of dollars that turned up missing on September 10th. It was military spending that had been unaccounted for every year, since Reagan died.

Way before that too. Since WW2, but since the 1980's the money has just been out of control.

Rumsfeld's priority before the attacks were some more accounting of who's spending this money on Columbian militias and such. It's not the Secretary of Defense. He knows in what way's it being spent of course. Has an Idea.

If Rumsfeld's priorities changed, isn't that evidence he didn't have prior knowledge of the attacks?

The only reason you find this particularly sinister (The dates, not the money disappearing every year, which is sinister) is because you already believe it is.

 

That is true. However some sources such as ones that came from Dylan Avery's flick, can be proven as fallacious.

Many people just aren't willing to fact check because they believe the information isn't out there, or they prefer their own preconceived version of events.

Real information is out there. Not completely but you've already repeated two things from Loose Change that aren't true.

Of course everyone believes what they want to believe. But that still doesn't answer the question of if the 9/11 claims are true.

 

Or because there's so, so many facts to check and they don't know where to look anyway.

Loose change? ... never heard of it. perhaps you could point out the two things i repeated which aren't true.

 

One fact is true for 100% - there was no Boeing in Pentagon. That most probably was a long distans missile. If one fact is feak - that put shadow on everything that has happened. So I don't belive in anything... We are constanty lied and manipulated. The question is on how large scale?

 

It might need to be 100% true for you (although I don't believe you really believe it, no one can be THAT deluded), but it most certainly isn't true for the majority of the free thinking world. And thanks to democracy we win. What a sad desperate existence you must have, poor you.

You are a sad, desperate moron, deal with your inferiority complex.
9/11 was an act of terrorism, deal with it.

 

It's still most likely the source of the information your repeating. Not necessarily though. I'm not patronizing you or anything. It was a movie made about the September 11th attacks.

The two things you said here...

Point one is just patently untrue. There was wreckage all around the Pentagon. It didn't all 'vaproise'. And the planes vaporised much more when they hit the trade centers.

Point two is also wrong. The engineers who built it believed it could survive an airplane crash, and they were using the b-25 crash into the empire state building as a reference.

Firstly, the building did survive the crash, and secondly the engineers saying they believed it could survive a plane crash doesn't mean it was designed to survive plane crashes.

You're picking disparate facts and using them to prove that the story doesn't make sense. But everything you're saying is out of context or just untrue.

Say that I did believe what you're saying about there being no wreckage at the pentagon. What does that prove? That there was no plane crash?

Then what happened to flight 77? Did they land safely and all those people are secret agents? Did the government gas those people? That sounds ludicrous to most people.

Rather than the logical explanation that from certain angels of pictures taken that airplane fragments aren't as obvious.

Heres some video footage of the plane hitting the pentagon.

http://www.judicialwatch.org/flight77.shtml

All these alternative 'theories' and I'm using the term loosely... require giant leaps in logic, and a lot that nobody even tries to explain.

Occam's Razor. The simple answer is usually right.

 

My issue with this is that it is typically vague - "the government" said it was vaporised, and then "the government" turns out to be "the media said" and even that seeems to boil down to "some guy on the internet says". You seem shocked that people haven't "got real" yet you don't seem to have much of anything to back up this claim - how real is that?

I disagree with lode on this point - the lead designer did say it was supposed to survive the impact of a 707, which is close enough to a 757 to be relevant. But there was never any study or calculations to back this up, just a claim by the designer. And to me the important point is (as lode points out) that it did survive the impact of a 757, that's why everyone below the impact point escaped and survived.

 

The White House is not the highest military headquarters (supposedly) in the whole country. They are not going to let people just fly into the Pentagon's airspace. There are automated systems in existence which will prompt the pilot to enter a code, and if it is not done, the plane will be shot down. The Parliament Buildings in Australia have this system installed. Yet you think the Pentagon has no such defenses?

Anyway man, regardless, you said straight out that that article proved that the Pentagon's airspace was violated all the time, even though the article has nothing to do with the Pentagon. That, as far as I'm concerned, is an outright lie, told because you assumed no one would actually read the article.

 

Pentagon "airspace" - even assuming it doesn't extend 1 foot past the pentagon's walls - is ten seconds from, and directly in the flightpath of, a major airport. They would be shooting down planes every single day if your claims were true.

Well why don't you show us evidence that these automated shootdown systems exist? You've made the claim enough times, isn't it time to back it up? Show us this hair trigger anti aircraft system which they located right next to a major civilian airport?

Now I know you don't read conspiracy websites, but since everything you are saying seems to be word for word in line with standard conspiracy theory claims, you better save yourself a little embarassment and read this before you start telling me that the Pentagon has missiles and guns.

 

Hiptastic and Rayoflight110 should meet up... They could have great douchebag sex together... LMAO...

Inferiority Complex? So, why are you going around the "internet" attacking people with words like "moron" and "desperate"... Fucking Cockroach... Say that to my face and see what happens...

Ward, I think you were a little hard on the Beaver
So was Eddie Haskal, Wally, and Ms. Cleaver
This guy keeps screamin', he's paranoid!
Quick, someone get his ass another steroid!
"Blahbity bloo blah blah blahbity blooh blah!"
I ain't hear a word you said, "hipidy hooblah!"
Is that a tank top, or a new bra?
Look Snoop Dogg just got a fuckin' boob job!
Didn't you listen to the last round, meat head?
Pay attention, you're saying the same shit that he said!
Matter fact, dog here's a pencil
Go home, write some shit, make it suspenseful,
And don't come back until something dope hits you
Fuck it! You can take the mic home with you!
Looking like a cyclone hit you,
Tank top screamin', "Lotto, I don't fit you!"
You see how far them white jokes get you?
Boys like “How Vanilla Ice gonna diss you?”
My motto: Fuck Lotto!
I’ll get the 7 digits from your mother for a dolla' tomorrow!

 

Planes taking off from Reagen are accounted for. They are not hijacked passenger jets. Obviously if a plane is supposed to be flying over, it's not going to be shot down. But if a hijacked plane enters the Pentagon's airspace, of course it will be shot down. There's a huge difference. I really don't think you're as stupid as you pretend, that you can't understand that.

 

It's called NORAD, if i'm not mistaken... NORAD had a 100% mission success rate until 9/11 of course... That's the day they failed to intercept, what was it, 4 highjacked jumbo jets... LMAO... Talk about a bad day... Open your fucking eyes...

 

Sorry, missed the part where you showed that these plane identification/anti-aircraft systems exist at the Pentagon.

Oh wait you didn't.

Its not that complicated. You don't put a hair trigger anti aircraft system right next to a busy civilian airport. The white house is farther away from Reagan airport than the Pentgaon, yet it had 94 unauthorised overflights in a decade. How many shootdowns would that have led to if such a system existed?

Anyway, enough of that. Prove this system exists.

 

Really? Name one NORAD intercept over the continental United States. NORAD points outward, they weren't waiting for Soviet bombers to come springing out of the ground around Washington DC.

 

Then why the fuck were they conducting WAR GAMES on 9/11 for the very thing that happened... Coincidence?

 

You said NORAD had a 100% success rate - now you can't name a single example? Typical conspiracy theorist.

 

He just posted a paper that states that there is no missile defense (which are missiles) at the pentagon, and you call him stupid for that? He posted evidence.

So yes, obviously they would have been shot down if the ability existed. All that they could do was send fighters to intercept, which we know happened, though tragically happened much too late.

 

100% mission success rate of what? When have 757's been stolen from Airports and successfully intercepted before?

As far as I know, that's the only time it's ever happened before. And since it failed, that means NORAD had 100% failure rate.

 

They were also conducting attacks for things that didn't happen.

Hypothetically, f it was supposed to be a secret attack committed by the government, wouldn't the war games ignore the type of attack that the government was planning?

That's the only thing that makes sense from a subterfuge standpoint.

 

I mean, NORAD has 0% success rate besides tracking Santa every year.