911. Do People Actually Believe This S**t?

[irocfan]

JPJPJP said:

New film on history channel

15 septembers later

The fighter jets deployed & authorised to shoot down airliners had no weapons!


https://twitter.com/history/status/772799460543827...

errrmmmm don't all modern US fighters have a machine gun (ever since they made an error with the phantom)?

[vonuber]

Regarding the media, i always joke with the missus whenever the news is on as to what they are calling the Syrian Government- the regime forces, government forces, forces loyal to assad.. it changes depending on the political winds.

[The Don of Croy]

vonuber said:

Regarding the media, i always joke with the missus whenever the news is on as to what they are calling the Syrian Government- the regime forces, government forces, forces loyal to assad.. it changes depending on the political winds.

Yesterday it was 'warplanes' bombing wherever, next it'll be 'Russian aircraft'...nasty 'barrel bombs' or targetted friendly 'Stinger missiles'...all depends on the emphasis. They're all lethal.

[Hugo a Gogo]

irocfan said:

JPJPJP said:

New film on history channel

15 septembers later

The fighter jets deployed & authorised to shoot down airliners had no weapons!


https://twitter.com/history/status/772799460543827...

errrmmmm don't all modern US fighters have a machine gun (ever since they made an error with the phantom)?

they had weapons, but not loaded weapons

[Faust66]

Hugo a Gogo said:

irocfan said:

JPJPJP said:

New film on history channel

15 septembers later

The fighter jets deployed & authorised to shoot down airliners had no weapons!


https://twitter.com/history/status/772799460543827...

errrmmmm don't all modern US fighters have a machine gun (ever since they made an error with the phantom)?

they had weapons, but not loaded weapons

I'm sure I read that they normally leave the cannon ammunition on board the aircraft in question as they are useful in setting up the trim (I don't claim to have any detailed knowledge of military aviation, so I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong).

As I alluded to earlier on the thread though, what is easier to believe:

That the US military was somehow involved in the plot and conspired to send up unarmed aircraft, and that the pilots/navigation officers, the ground crew and all the rest of the people involved with the day-to-day running of a military airbase have all been sworn to silence?

OR

That it was a chaotic scene, the chain of command failed to keep up with events and that professional military pilots might just blanch at the thought of shooting down an airliner full of citizens?

If you put the conspiracy bullst to one side, you'll probably realise that it was the latter option… but that won't satisfy the permanently deluded, and it won't please the yanks who need to believe that their military is all powerful, infallible and will protect them at all costs.

[Legacywr]

I have a conspiracy theorist on my FB, and have been having quite a few people on a thread of hers about 911! I just keep asking for proof!

Apparently, we will all be rounded up by the FEMA Gaurd next year!

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/FEMA_concentration_ca...

[ralphrj]

Faust66 said:

That it was a chaotic scene, the chain of command failed to keep up with events and that professional military pilots might just blanch at the thought of shooting down an airliner full of citizens?

If you put the conspiracy bullst to one side, you'll probably realise that it was the latter option… but that won't satisfy the permanently deluded, and it won't please the yanks who need to believe that their military is all powerful, infallible and will protect them at all costs.

Over the last few years some members of the President's entourage have spoken about how they found it near impossible to get up to date information on Air Force One on the day of the attacks.

The Secret Service are responsible for the President's safety and ruled that anywhere predictable was unsafe which restricted the communications methods available.

President couldn't contact Donald Rumsfield due to the Pentagon being hit.

President couldn't contact The White House to find out if his family were safe.

They kept getting phone calls cut off due to communications networks being overloaded.

The best information they could get was from TV broadcasts.

Vice President was finally able to get a call through to Air Force One and obtain authorisation from the President to shoot down unresponsive airliners but when they later heard that Flight 93 had crashed in Pennsylvania nobody could tell the President if it had been shot down as a result of his order.

Air Force One finally landed at an airbase and the President tried to contact the Cabinet for an emergency briefing only to discover that they had all been dispersed to safe locations and couldn't be contacted.


One of the big lessons they learned that day was that they didn't have anything like the ability to communicate and understand what was happening in the event of a crisis as they thought they did. In addition some of their crisis procedures actually worked against them.

As you say, some people really don't like the idea that the "most powerful person on earth" was helpless and cut out of the loop and somehow think that a conspiracy is more comfortable to believe.

[anonymous-user]

Faust66 said:

Hugo a Gogo said:

irocfan said:

JPJPJP said:

New film on history channel

15 septembers later

The fighter jets deployed & authorised to shoot down airliners had no weapons!


https://twitter.com/history/status/772799460543827...

errrmmmm don't all modern US fighters have a machine gun (ever since they made an error with the phantom)?

they had weapons, but not loaded weapons

I'm sure I read that they normally leave the cannon ammunition on board the aircraft in question as they are useful in setting up the trim (I don't claim to have any detailed knowledge of military aviation, so I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong).

I'll throw in a healthy dose of certainty by saying that there is precisely zero chance of any ammo being left anywhere other than a guarded and fortified building when not required by active members of the forces.

The great thing about these types are that they expose themselves for the rest of us to knowingly avoid and/or rip the complete Piss out of. I mean seriously, happy enough to accept the falling of the twin towers by jet crashing into the side of them but this other tower must have been masterminded by the government because of the way it fell. Jesus christ.....

Edited by anonymous-user on Monday 12th September 15:22

[anonymous-user]

ralphrj said:

As you say, some people really don't like the idea that the "most powerful person on earth" was helpless and cut out of the loop and somehow think that a conspiracy is more comfortable to believe.

From a subconscious stand point I think (hope) this to be true.

The denial of clear facts presented to these 'types' definitively highlights some syndrome. Or they are simply thick as fk.

[Laurel Green]

There's a programme on ITV at 9 o'clock this evening for anyone interested.

9/11: Truth, Lies & Conspiracies.

Victims' relatives, a senior politician and people working inside the intelligence agencies at the time of the 9/11 terrorist attacks discuss their belief of a cover-up.

[5ohmustang]

Because ITV is a beacon of truth, like the BBC.

[5ohmustang]

DELETED: Comment made by a member who's account has been deleted.

In your dreams.

[A44RON]

GreigM said:

scherzkeks said:

And, freefall is, as a scientific fact, indisputable. The question now is whether the crime will ever be treated as such and investigated properly.

NIST addressed this extensively. There were effectively 3 phases in the fall of the building, the middle of which approached the speed of "free fall" as you say, but the initial stage was not as quick, which indicates the buckling of structures underneath rather than any sort of explosion theory. Add to that the COMPLETE lack of sound - if the "freefall" theory had any merit whatsoever, the explosives involved would have to detonate simultaneously and that would generate a sound wave unmissable within a half mile radius (i.e. ear-bleeding loud), but there was absolutely no sound of that nature heard or recorded.

The theory has no merit whatsoever. Repeating easily disprovable stuff marks you out as a crackpot.

Complete lack of sound eh? Wouldn't be so sure about that if I were you. Plenty of eye witnesses to "heavy duty explosions" around WTC7:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xza7Vzb2VhM

Emotional to watch what NYFD went through that day too. Unless you were there next to them shoulder-to-shoulder I guess we'll never know

[Nickyboy]

A44RON said:

Complete lack of sound eh? Wouldn't be so sure about that if I were you. Plenty of eye witnesses to "heavy duty explosions" around WTC7:

I've seen plenty of videos with audio of WTC 7 going down and not one contains the noise associated with bringing down a building.

It sounds a bit like this (1/2 mile away)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9SPYLdEw6s

Have another

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpZqN-orAjk


WTC 7

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrnmbUDeHus

If you actually look at the windows on the left of the building as the roof begins to collapse inwards, the windows are blown out as the floors begin to collapse on themselves

Edited by Nickyboy on Saturday 1st October 15:12

Edited by Nickyboy on Saturday 1st October 15:15

[Legacywr]

It was a ball, how can we have been so stupid?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPKq2K2dh6k

[Vaud]

Faust66 said:

That it was a chaotic scene, the chain of command failed to keep up with events and that professional military pilots might just blanch at the thought of shooting down an airliner full of citizens?

I'm not even sure a military commander could (at the time, or now) order the shooting down of a civilian plane.

I remember when it was discussed in the UK that it had to be a prime ministerial decision?

[ralphrj]

Vaud said:

I'm not even sure a military commander could (at the time, or now) order the shooting down of a civilian plane.

I remember when it was discussed in the UK that it had to be a prime ministerial decision?

Certainly at the time it would have been necessary to get authorisation from the PM but I think that there might be some form of standing order now to avoid a potentially disastrous delay.

Last year a Latvian Antonov AN-26 cargo took an unauthorised detour over London which resulted in it being intercepted by a couple of Typhoons. The warnings from one of the Typhoons was picked up by someone (presumably somebody monitoring an emergency radio frequency).

Typhoon Pilot said:

MLA1605 from the L9T47, I’m instructed by Her Majesty’s government of the UK to warn you if you do not respond you will be shot down.

https://theaviationist.com/2014/10/30/you-will-be-...

Of course, that doesn't mean that the pilot wouldn't then have to wait for further authorisation but it would be a bit awkward if the PM were unavailable.

[scherzkeks]

A44RON said:

GreigM said:

scherzkeks said:

And, freefall is, as a scientific fact, indisputable. The question now is whether the crime will ever be treated as such and investigated properly.

NIST addressed this extensively. There were effectively 3 phases in the fall of the building, the middle of which approached the speed of "free fall" as you say, but the initial stage was not as quick, which indicates the buckling of structures underneath rather than any sort of explosion theory. Add to that the COMPLETE lack of sound - if the "freefall" theory had any merit whatsoever, the explosives involved would have to detonate simultaneously and that would generate a sound wave unmissable within a half mile radius (i.e. ear-bleeding loud), but there was absolutely no sound of that nature heard or recorded.

The theory has no merit whatsoever. Repeating easily disprovable stuff marks you out as a crackpot.

Complete lack of sound eh? Wouldn't be so sure about that if I were you. Plenty of eye witnesses to "heavy duty explosions" around WTC7:

He's off on the NIST bit, too. NIST revised its findings to include freefall after first pretending it didn't occur. In addition their 3-stage theory is nonsense when you see how it is calculated. All addressed extensively at A&E (who also can take credit for NIST reversing their claim on freefall to begin with).

[98elise]

Faust66 said:

Hugo a Gogo said:

irocfan said:

JPJPJP said:

New film on history channel

15 septembers later

The fighter jets deployed & authorised to shoot down airliners had no weapons!


https://twitter.com/history/status/772799460543827...

errrmmmm don't all modern US fighters have a machine gun (ever since they made an error with the phantom)?

they had weapons, but not loaded weapons

I'm sure I read that they normally leave the cannon ammunition on board the aircraft in question as they are useful in setting up the trim (I don't claim to have any detailed knowledge of military aviation, so I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong).

As I alluded to earlier on the thread though, what is easier to believe:

That the US military was somehow involved in the plot and conspired to send up unarmed aircraft, and that the pilots/navigation officers, the ground crew and all the rest of the people involved with the day-to-day running of a military airbase have all been sworn to silence?

OR

That it was a chaotic scene, the chain of command failed to keep up with events and that professional military pilots might just blanch at the thought of shooting down an airliner full of citizens?

If you put the conspiracy bullst to one side, you'll probably realise that it was the latter option… but that won't satisfy the permanently deluded, and it won't please the yanks who need to believe that their military is all powerful, infallible and will protect them at all costs.

I've worked on gunnery systems that require ammunition for balance. In that case you leave the drum full of dummy rounds when you're not intending to do a live shoot.

[anonymous-user]

This is the problem with the internet, instead of just sharing your delusions with those in close proximity and are unlikely to find another delusional loony with the same delusional leanings close by.

The internet allows a delusional loony to get in contact with others with similar delusions creating a deluded critical mass that slightly less deluded (but not normal) people give creedance to.