HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Offbeat » Creative Speculation (Group) » 11 years later...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 04:48 AM

11 years later...

I am definitely at leas tin the LIHOP camp now. Too many
coincidences and conveniences. Oh, those fuckers are pretty
bold. I just found that the infamous PNAC document is still in its original place.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf

Here's the thing:

If a guy brags on the net that if his wife bites the dust, he'll collect big on the
life insurance, he will be fingered as a suspect if she dies suspiciously a few months later.
So, by that same criteria, Cheney et al, and anyone else who signed this doc, should be
considered a suspect.

56 replies, 5372 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 56 replies Author Time Post
Reply 11 years later... (Original post)
PopeOxycontinI Sep 2012 OP
LARED Sep 2012 #1
truebrit71 Sep 2012 #2
zappaman Sep 2012 #3
truebrit71 Sep 2012 #5
zappaman Sep 2012 #6
truebrit71 Sep 2012 #7
zappaman Sep 2012 #8
terrafirma Sep 2012 #9
truebrit71 Sep 2012 #13
Flatulo Sep 2012 #51
LARED Sep 2012 #11
truebrit71 Sep 2012 #20
Politicalboi Sep 2012 #12
hack89 Sep 2012 #16
truebrit71 Sep 2012 #18
hack89 Sep 2012 #21
truebrit71 Sep 2012 #22
hack89 Sep 2012 #23
truebrit71 Sep 2012 #24
hack89 Sep 2012 #25
truebrit71 Sep 2012 #27
hack89 Sep 2012 #28
truebrit71 Sep 2012 #30
hack89 Sep 2012 #32
truebrit71 Sep 2012 #34
hack89 Sep 2012 #36
truebrit71 Sep 2012 #38
hack89 Sep 2012 #39
truebrit71 Sep 2012 #40
cpwm17 Sep 2012 #29
truebrit71 Sep 2012 #33
cpwm17 Sep 2012 #47
truebrit71 Sep 2012 #48
cpwm17 Sep 2012 #49
Flatulo Sep 2012 #53
William Seger Sep 2012 #55
cherokeeprogressive Sep 2012 #54
Flatulo Sep 2012 #52
dixiegrrrrl Sep 2012 #17
hack89 Sep 2012 #26
truebrit71 Sep 2012 #31
hack89 Sep 2012 #35
Flatulo Sep 2012 #50
LARED Sep 2012 #10
truebrit71 Sep 2012 #14
LARED Sep 2012 #15
truebrit71 Sep 2012 #19
snooper2 Sep 2012 #4
Shagman Sep 2012 #37
hack89 Sep 2012 #41
Shagman Sep 2012 #42
hack89 Sep 2012 #43
LARED Sep 2012 #44
Shagman Sep 2012 #45
hack89 Sep 2012 #46
cherokeeprogressive Sep 2012 #56

Response to PopeOxycontinI (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 06:06 AM

1. Did you actually read the paper?

 

If you read the paper and not cherry pick a sentence or two you may find there is nothing suspicious about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LARED (Reply #1)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 10:55 AM

2. Aaah look, how cute, someone that still believes that the government would never lie to them...

....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebrit71 (Reply #2)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 12:59 PM

3. Aaah look, how cute,

someone putting words in someone else's mouth.
Not believing the Bush administration orchestrated 9/11 is not the same as believing the government would never lie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #3)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 02:06 PM

5. Do you believe the official narrative though?

That 15 men armed with nothing more dangerous than some box-cutters and minimal flying skills brought the most militarily powerful country in the world to its' knees that day?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebrit71 (Reply #5)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 03:11 PM

6. Yes

unless you have a better explanation.
go on...lay it out for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to zappaman (Reply #6)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 03:26 PM

7. No point is there really?

You've already swallowed what you've been given with no room for argument or discussion.

Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone as well, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebrit71 (Reply #7)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 04:42 PM

8. Nope.

I'm open to ideas.
Let's hear a better scenario as to what happened that day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebrit71 (Reply #5)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 07:13 PM

9. "... some box cutters..."

I love how easily dismissed these things are. You could kill someone with a pencil if you wanted to. But truthers make it sound as if these box cutters were Nerf toys, suitable for ages 2 and up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to terrafirma (Reply #9)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 09:51 AM

13. Yup, box cutters are much more powerful than say, I dunno F-16's, or just about any assault rifle...

...You miss the point...the USA spends more than any other country on the planet on defense and yet they were ALL completely useless in ACTUALLY defending us that day...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebrit71 (Reply #13)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 04:37 PM

51. The pilots and flight crew didn't have access to assault rifles, or F-16s for that matter.

They were unarmed and easily killed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebrit71 (Reply #5)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 10:00 PM

11. What a load of horse pucky

 

At least get the count right. It was 19 men. And we were not exactly brought to our knees that day. Yeah it was a bad day, but other than attacking civilians in a most cowardly way and screwing up air passenger transportation for a few days it was a survivable moment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LARED (Reply #11)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:48 PM

20. Air transport ground to a halt. The Stock markets were closed for DAYS.

Panic buying in the supermarkets.

Knock-on effects include the TSA/Patriot ACT/ shredding of civil rights/ media censorship etc etc...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebrit71 (Reply #5)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 10:41 PM

12. And hit the Pentagon

Who had 35 minutes to arm themselves. I find it hard to believe also. And the ONLY evidence is a blurry video when the Pentagon has hundreds of cameras. But that is acceptable for some, but not for me. I want a clear video from another of the hundreds of cameras. This is after all, our defense building. It's a joke. How can so many accept their evidence?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #12)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 11:30 AM

16. You do know that there were hundreds of eyewitnesses at the Pentagon

and they all reported a large airliner?

There is a reason truthers are ignored - they have a habit of ignoring the mountains of evidence that don't support their CTs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #16)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:44 PM

18. So why not release the video-tapes?

I don't recall reading about these "hundreds" of eyewitnesses in the Commission Report...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebrit71 (Reply #18)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 01:19 PM

21. Here are the accounts

Omar Campo, a Salvadorean, was cutting the grass on the other side of the road when the plane flew over his head. 'It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane,' Mr Campo said. 'I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could never imagine I would see anything like that here.'"
- "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001

"'I saw the tail of a large airliner. ... It plowed right into the Pentagon," said an Associated Press Radio reporter who witnessed the crash. 'There is billowing black smoke.'"
- "America's Morning of Terror." ChannelOne.com, 2001

"'I saw the tail of a large airliner. ... It plowed right into the Pentagon," said an Associated Press Radio reporter who witnessed the crash. 'There is billowing black smoke.'"
- "America's Morning of Terror." ChannelOne.com, 2001

"Frank Probst, an information management specialist for the Pentagon Renovation Program, left his office trailer near the Pentagon's south parking lot at 9:36 a.m. Sept. 11. Walking north beside Route 27, he suddenly saw a commercial airliner crest the hilltop Navy Annex. American Airlines Flight 77 reached him so fast and flew so low that Probst dropped to the ground, fearing he'd lose his head to its right engine."
- "A Defiant Recovery." The Retired Officer Magazine, January 2002


Many more at link

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77w.htm

Now lets apply some logic here. The Pentagon is in a large urban area next to freeways that were packed for the morning commute. The plane flew over one of those freeways. The plane was seen by many people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #21)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:00 PM

22. So why not release the video-tapes?

....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebrit71 (Reply #22)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 02:10 PM

23. How would that negate all the eyewitness accounts?

are you saying that all those people didn't see what they said they saw?


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #23)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 03:46 PM

24. Release the videotapes. With that many witnesses they can't hold any surprises can they?

So why not release them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebrit71 (Reply #24)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 03:50 PM

25. Beats me.

but if this is your excuse to ignore the eyewitness accounts, isn't the government holding on to the tapes a good thing from your perspective? Wouldn't want you to actually look at all the evidence now, would we?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #25)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 05:17 PM

27. No it isn't a good thing.

And we know that eye-witnesses have NEVER been wrong before, and have always been believed, right?

Release the videotapes and solve the question once and for all. Very simple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebrit71 (Reply #27)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 06:55 PM

28. There were hundreds of witnesses that saw a plane

and not one that saw anything else. Think about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #28)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 09:29 AM

30. So release the videotapes..

...then

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebrit71 (Reply #30)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 09:34 AM

32. It will make no difference

if you can ignore the all the other evidence then it is clear you will find a reason to ignore the tapes if they don't support your CT.

There are mountains of evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon so don't tell me one more piece will make difference.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #32)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 09:37 AM

34. Of course it will. If it shows what these many many hundreds of witness accounts...

...why not release them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebrit71 (Reply #34)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 09:54 AM

36. Have you asked the Pentagon? nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #36)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 10:46 AM

38. No, but others have to no avail.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebrit71 (Reply #38)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 10:49 AM

39. Look at the bright side - now you have a life long hobby. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #39)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 02:27 PM

40. Oh trust me...I ALWAYS look on the bright side of life...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebrit71 (Reply #27)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 09:09 PM

29. Numerous witnesses described the aircraft

which matched the large amount of aircraft debris at the Pentagon and the missing plane.

There is no withheld video. One video showed a blurry image of the aircraft just before collision. They didn't have high-speed cameras surrounding the Pentagon. They had no reason to install such cameras.

You're grasping at straws. You've got nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #29)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 09:35 AM

33. "There is no withheld video"...."You've got nothing"...

Are you new here? The FBI confiscated video from several private businesses around the Pentagon that morning. It has never been seen. Try and keep up..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebrit71 (Reply #33)

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 12:30 AM

47. Alright, old-timer

Since you have been around here for so long you should have already seen on DU2 the massive evidence presented for the aircraft that hit the Pentagon. Why are you conveniently ignoring it? It only takes a few moments on Goggle to see pictures of large amounts of aircraft debris in and around the Pentagon.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cpwm17 (Reply #47)

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 11:10 AM

48. Then why not release the videotapes?

Want to shut the C/T'ers up? Show the tapes.

Very, very simple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebrit71 (Reply #48)

Thu Sep 20, 2012, 11:35 PM

49. I don't know about any videos, and I don't care

You're searching hard for reasons to not believe rather than following the massive evidence.

It's like creationists trying to find reasons to not believe evolution, despite the massive evidence for evolution. If a scientists finds a transitional fossil between two know species, as far as creationists are concerned, scientists now have one more gap than before: Give me the transitional fossils. Where are they?

People that are anti-science are impossible to satisfy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebrit71 (Reply #48)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 04:49 PM

53. Yeah, right - it will 'shut the CTers up'. Never gonna happen.

Despite mountains of videos and photographs and eyewitness accounts, some people still don't believe that any airplanes hit the towers. Despite mountains of evidence that WTC7 was on fire and had been badly damaged, people believe it was blown up. Despite eyewitnesses and hundreds of searchers digging up wreckage and human bits, some people believe that Flight 93 was something other than what it was.

There is no way on earth to satisfy those of a conspiratorial mindset. It's a pathological condition with no easy cure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebrit71 (Reply #48)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 06:57 PM

55. They did release the tapes

... from the Citgo and from the Doubletree hotel. They only show indirect evidence of the crash and don't show the plane, but it wouldn't matter if they did: There isn't any way to "shut the C/T'ers up" with evidence, because they just call it fake, as they already do with the massive amount of evidence we already have that AA77 crashed into the Pentagon. "Very, very simple" way to protect yourself from any nasty evidence-based reasoning.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebrit71 (Reply #18)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 06:23 PM

54. Out of deference to the sensibilities of the families maybe?

Let's say, hypothetically, someone in your life got killed in a traffic accident at an intersection where there were video cameras. Every time you see the tape you get a feeling in the pit of your stomach not unlike being kicked...

Days later, you find out that person in your life had a small camera mounted on the dashboard showing the interior of the car just for fun.

Do you want to see that tape as well?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Politicalboi (Reply #12)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 04:41 PM

52. So tell us how the Pentagon should have 'armed itself'. As far as I can tell, it's a really

big office building.

Do you think that like 50,000 Marines live there, rifles at the ready, and there are fighter jets waiting to take off from the roof?

All our national defenses were geared towards a Soviet air assault from the north. And if the Soviets or Chinese decided to strike first with ICBMs, then there's really no defense at all, is there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebrit71 (Reply #5)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:37 PM

17. I am still trying to figure out how 2 planes hit 2 buildings

and 3 buildings all collapsed in exactly the same way in their own footprint.
the only skyscrapers before or since to be on fire and collapse into pulverized rubble.
tis a puzzlement.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dixiegrrrrl (Reply #17)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 03:54 PM

26. How many buildings have been hit with fully loaded 767s traveling at a high speed?

are you saying there are more than 2?

And how else would they collapse other than straight down? Massive weight and gravity don't leave too many options.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #26)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 09:30 AM

31. Re-read the post...that's not what she is saying

Two planes hit two buildings. Three buildings fell down.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebrit71 (Reply #31)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 09:53 AM

35. WTC-7 burned for hours after huge chunks of the towers fell on it

the FDNY reported a 20 story gouge in the front of the building. They were monitoring a bulge in the side of the building hours before it collapsed. They had abandoned all firefighting efforts and let several massive fires burn out of control.


These are all documented facts - you need to look further than conspiracy sites for your information.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebrit71 (Reply #5)

Sat Sep 22, 2012, 04:34 PM

50. Well, it's not like those 19 guys beat us in a war. They hijacked some airplanes.

Your phrasing is ridiculous. All each team had to do was subdue some pilots and flight crew who, by the way, were all trained to never resist hijackers. The guys flying the planes had no space to retreat to, and had their backs to the attackers while strapped into really big seats.

Given a box cutter and the element of surprise, the attackers had a huge advantage over the pilots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebrit71 (Reply #2)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 09:55 PM

10. The fact youdid not anwer my question has not

 

escaped notice.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LARED (Reply #10)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 09:54 AM

14. And your defense of PNAC hasn't escaped notice either...

...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truebrit71 (Reply #14)

Wed Sep 12, 2012, 07:46 PM

15. Nice try. How is asking if you read the PNAC report defending the report? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LARED (Reply #15)

Thu Sep 13, 2012, 12:45 PM

19. This isn't a defense? "there is nothing suspicious about it"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PopeOxycontinI (Original post)

Tue Sep 11, 2012, 01:27 PM

4. truthers unite!

Someone will come forward one of these days with evidence of CGI planes!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PopeOxycontinI (Original post)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 10:13 AM

37. here's a theory

Yes, witnesses report an airliner flying into the Pentagon. Suppose, just suppose, that it was a missile disguised to look like an airliner. You wouldn't want people analyzing that video too carefully.

You can't tell me there are no cameras around one of the most sensitive areas on the planet. That should be laughably easy to check. The question is, where is the video from that morning? How hard would it be to run a "test" of the system at the appropriate time, or to confiscate the video in the name of national security? Military people are trained not to ask questions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shagman (Reply #37)

Fri Sep 14, 2012, 02:30 PM

41. Do you understand how small missiles are? How large 757s are?

try again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #41)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 10:19 AM

42. I'll use small words ...

Last edited Tue Sep 18, 2012, 11:04 AM - Edit history (1)

This missile would look like a large jetliner. It wouldn't be large.

You wouldn't know it was small unless you had something to compare it to, or unless you saw it up close. So no video allowed.

Other apparent holes in the theory are left as an exercise for the reader.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shagman (Reply #42)

Mon Sep 17, 2012, 10:52 AM

43. A Tomahawk missile is only 18 inches wide - it's wing span is less than 9 feet

This thing flew over people at low altitude - it hit a light pole on the freeway. I think people can tell the difference between a 9 foot and a 160 foot wing span.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #43)

Tue Sep 18, 2012, 04:58 AM

44. Some people can nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #43)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 12:16 PM

45. people see what they expect to see

you should be familiar with the abysmal record of eyewitness testimony.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shagman (Reply #45)

Wed Sep 19, 2012, 12:45 PM

46. Would you ever mistake a Fiat 500 for a semi-truck if it passed within 50 feet?

didn't think so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shagman (Reply #37)

Sun Sep 23, 2012, 07:16 PM

56. Here's a freight train headed for the huge hole in your "theory"...

Have you ever seen an HE (High Explosive) detonation? If you have, you know there is no huge orange fireball surrounded by thick black smoke, such as can be seen from the videotape that was released of the airliner hitting the Pentagon. That kind of fireball can only be created by tens of thousands of gallons of petroleum-based accelerant. Fireballs like that are only produced when there are secondary explosions which happen when a bomb or missile hits a target filled with accelerant. Had there been a "missile disguised to look like" an airliner, there would have been neither a large fireball created by the missile, OR the target (The Pentagon) because the Pentagon had no petroleum-based accelerant where the "missile disguised to look like" an airliner hit and most missiles are propelled by solid fuel.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread