Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Let me see if I understand the "no planes" theory correctly

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU
 
ShaneGR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 08:15 AM
Original message
Let me see if I understand the "no planes" theory correctly
Basically in order to believe that there were no planes used on 9/11, I'd have to believe the following:

1. Teams of demolition experts would of had to plant explosive devices as well as fire accelerant in both towers and the Pentagon without one person reporting suspicious activity. You can't do that in a day, it would take days and days if not weeks to carry the explosives in, hide them inside the walls, wire them, etc etc

2. All of the people with cameras on the ground, helicopters flying in the air, and on top of NY buildings had there camera footage faked. Presumably this was done before the attacks, because a lot of the live footage showed planes. So all the camera holders were in on it too.

3. The people on the planes did not really exist.The government just made them up, and their "families" were in on it too. How else do you account for a couple hundred people just disappearing from society. And oh ya, Flight 93 wasn't real either, that wasn't a real plane either.

I got all that right? Missing something?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
WillowTree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 11:28 AM
Response to Original message
1. You forgot about the people.
I'm talking about the hundreds of people who would have had to have been in on the caper. At the WTC alone it would have taken scores of technicians and days, if not weeks, to rig the supposed "controlled demolition" with countless explosive packs and miles of detonation cord. How on Earth did the "cabal" recruit all these people, people who had the requisite expertise and not one of them talked? Ever? In six-and-a-half years, the so-called "Truthers" haven't been able to scare up a single credible person who would have been part of the crew who set the charges. Not a single credible person who would have been involved in faking the little blips the guys at ATC were watching on their screens or the phony transmissions they were hearing. Not one who was part of creating the few dozen ersatz phone calls between people on the planes (including at least one person who wasn't supposed to be on flight 93 and switched flights just that morning in order to get home earlier than planned) and friends and family members on the ground. Or those who would have had to create and manipulate the "holograms" of airplaines that so many thousands of people saw.

NOT ONE!

Of course, I suppose that those behind this whole scam just had all those people killed so they couldn't talk, but again, how did they find all those people with the knowledge and skills to pull it off who also had no family or friends whatsoever who would notice they weren't around anymore. It's not as if there just happened to be a big awards breakfast for CD and hologram and voice simulation experts taking place in the Windows on the World restaurant on the morning of 9-11 which would have explained their disappearance. We'd have heard about that. Their families would have done the math. I guess all of the families and friends could have been "disappeared" too, and then their families and friends and so on but gee, the ripples on that pond get really wide really fast.

That's the bottom line of the whole thing for me. Leaving out all of the other factors, there just would have had to have been way too many people involved for none of them to have talked yet six-and-a-half years later. No way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 11:43 AM
Response to Original message
2. No, no. Slightly more complicated.
Edited on Sun Jan-27-08 11:52 AM by JackRiddler
1) Official story of 9/11 itself implicates "Al Qaeda," a construction of the U.S. covert apparatus used for foreign policy purposes in the past, as ample evidence comes forward of official advance knowledge of the attacks and obstruction of investigations that might have uncovered the plot.

2) Most people in world (94 percent of whom are not daily consumers of the U.S. news media) don't believe official story and expect it was some kind of inside job or complicity, especially when they see how the gangsters in charge of the U.S. seize the 9/11 pretext with every slimey tentacle to put through a host of irrational policy reactions, shift trillions in budgeting priorities, declare global war on all enemies unseen, invade two countries, put an end to constitutional government, etc. etc.

3) Relatives of victims themselves reject government cover-up and demand real disclosure.

4) Actual whistleblowers step forward with pieces of the puzzle and must be gagged, attacked, or have their existence denied. Even the official investigators, after publishing their lies, later shrug and admit they don't know shit and their investigation was corrupted and obstructed from the start.

5) Skeptics don't shut up and successfully spread varying levels of doubt about the official story to most Americans, although often in inchoate and ill-informed form.

6) At the same time, however, disinformation specialists (presumably) and independent idiots generate 1,001 peripheral ideas pretending to "solve the case," some realistic, most totally unfounded. Some of them sow division by peppering anyone who doesn't express full allegiance to their ideas with accusations of agenthood.

7) Someone finally hits on a "non-plus ultra" in absurdity - a parody. Obviously fabricated or laughably interpreted "evidence" is used to support the most ridiculous possible theory (short of "no buildings") that others might still remotely believe isn't meant as a joke (even if it is usually taken as an indicator of mental illness).

8) Official conspiracy crowd (and media), expressing their neurotic need to dismiss all 9/11 skepticism, gratefully focus on the obviously parodic "no-planes at WTC" theory, to which they regularly beat off (by pretending it has been seriously advanced and needs to be refuted, and by using it to ignore the 9/11 cover-up) in a ritual confirmation of their superiority.

9) As two parts of what is in effect a pincer action (regardless of intent), ScrewLooseChange and Nico Haupt come to feel an undying love, that cannot be denied. Marriage bells ring...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RUMMYisFROSTED Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. 10) Rinse and repeat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 12:30 PM
Response to Reply #2
5. Did Nico Haupt make Loose Change???
Really, the things you learn in a Jack Riddler post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fainter Donating Member (499 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. Did Jack Riddler Say He Did? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 01:07 PM
Response to Reply #6
8. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #6
11. No, but he did depict Nico and ScrewLooseChange locked in a PR spiral
Edited on Sun Jan-27-08 01:43 PM by boloboffin
Since ScrewLooseChange's namesake is Loose Change, it seems odd for Jack to pick Nico and SLC as particularly paired up.

ETA: I just checked http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com / and found, oddly enough, that the "no-plane" argument isn't mentioned at all on the front page, much less the name of Nico Haupt. For a group that is so symbiotically attached to Nico, you'd think he'd be in every other post. Hmm.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 02:01 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. "Nico Haupt" on ScrewLoose gets 82 hits on google
Edited on Sun Jan-27-08 02:07 PM by JackRiddler
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22nico+haupt%22+site:ht...

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2007/02/nico-haupt...

Outright lies in his defense:



Anyway, I'm going to do my best to remove the phony Nico's posts.

If you're wondering why I handle the real Nico so gently, it's because he's actually quite a bit more reasonable than many other 9-11 Deniers. He doesn't insult people here, he doesn't insult the firefighters or the passengers or their families or the pilots or Edna Cintron, or engage in Holocaust Denial. I can point out many, many instances of the more prominent, supposedly more mainstream 9-11 Deniers who cannot say the same. His news aggregator is one of my regular stops looking for bloggable content.

And I think he's dead on the money when he talks about the movement and the efforts by various cults to subvert it to their own ends.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 02:06 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Aww, how cute.
Edited on Sun Jan-27-08 02:20 PM by boloboffin
You think 104 references in a blog with daily+ updates since May 2006 means they're gonna get married!

And you thought up the term "9/11 Truth Movement", right? You're just too precious for words!

ETA: Is there a limit to how cute you get?? Most of those 82 references are links to a previous post on a page that really has nothing to do with Nico. You know how some blogs have a list of previous posts that update automatically? That's what's happened here. It's on the page, so it shows up on the Google search. However, if you go to the site and search for the "Nico Haupt" label, you find about 10 posts in a year. 10 posts.

LOL! Jack, please stop.

EATA: Since you say that Nico actually does insult people at ScrewLooseChange, you must have some examples. You will be so kind as to produce.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 05:41 PM
Response to Reply #6
19. That needn't stop anyone from using untrue non-sequitirs as a device.
Edited on Sun Jan-27-08 05:45 PM by JackRiddler
(Earlier comment making this point was deleted, apparently for being too snarky, so here's the watered down version that I hope is acceptable.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bolo Boffin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 07:23 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. LOL!
Have you checked the message I edited after you edited the message I was responding to?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 01:14 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. "varying levels of doubt"
One thing that's, um, interesting about the "truth movement" is that it always seems to be totally focused on how many people believe whatever "inside job" theory, and never about the actual truth of any of it. You seem to be really upset about debunkers calling bullshit for what it is, but your distress seems to be simply because it gets in the way of propagating those "varying levels of doubt" to as many people as possible, regardless of whether or not they're basing their "various levels of doubt" on total bullshit. But what it comes down to is that unless and until the "truth movement" can actually prove any one of their versions the truth, you're stuck with measuring your "success" with polls, not by the truth you've uncovered. Have you ever seen polls for how many people believe in astrology? What percentage should it take before I should start believing it myself?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 01:42 PM
Response to Reply #9
12. once again ignoring the actual history
9/11 skepticism arose immediately after September 11th in the same weeks and months that the official mythology was developed, albeit without the same media coverage. The initial reaction of the corporate media and dominant political culture was to ignore it, or else to ridicule it as a fringe phenomenon of a handful of crazy people.

Even better, the U.S. corporate media and RW outlets displayed the temerity to cite polls showing very high levels of 9/11 skepticism in places like Greece (Oct. 2001), Germany (June 2003) and the Arab world as evidence of "anti-Americanism" or irrationality among the people in those nations. Thus by official doctrine "Americans" were implicitly a united population of believers in their government's story.

For this reason, I am proud to say that I proposed and later managed to get funding for the original Zogby 9/11 poll of New York State residents (June 2004). It demonstrated substantial doubts about the official story among New Yorkers. 49 percent of City respondents, a plurality, agreed that officials "consciously failed" to take action on foreknowledge - phrasing that Zogby had insisted upon, by the way, so as not to sound too radical. 66 percent endorsed a new investigation by Congress or the New York attorney general. These results have been borne out since in other polls, also nationwide at slightly lower levels, including one finding 80 percent of Americans don't believe the Commission told the whole story ("varying levels of doubt").

This is certainly not to say I think the number of people believing in a proposition makes it more true. Hardly. In fact, I wanted to knock out the official side's use of the false argument that 9/11 skepticism is a fringe phenomenon and therefore dismissible.

Interestingly, you only seem to decry the fallacy of popularity-as-truth when it is employed by those with whom you disagree.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShaneGR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 05:33 PM
Response to Reply #12
16. The problem is that you typed all that, and you have no facts
Not one fact in that post, just some polls about who believes one thing or another. Guess what, I bet 50% of Americans believed Saddam had something to do with 9/11 too. That doesn't make it "true."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 05:39 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. No, my problem is I typed all that, and you didn't really read it.
But I'll get over it!

And at the bottom of every single one of my posts there are links to extensive collections of facts (as well as logical speculations) that you may not follow, either.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
William Seger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-28-08 01:39 AM
Response to Reply #12
23. Once again missing my point
> "Interestingly, you only seem to decry the fallacy of popularity-as-truth when it is employed by those with whom you disagree."

Absolutely not true. Simple question: Do you or do you not care about the truth of what happened on 9/11? Or are you satisfied if X percent simply believe anything at all, as long as it's not the "official story?" You seem to be completely and totally oblivious to the fact that I (like most people, I think) believe the "official story" -- not because it's "official" or "popular" -- but because at this point in time, it's the most credible account of the available evidence. You have every opportunity to present a more credible story, anytime you're ready. Hand-waving and insisting that a more credible theory will emerge sooner or later ain't gonna cut the mustard.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 01:21 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. If they're disinformation specialists, and obviously parodic...
why do the "real" truthers never counter the crap that they post here?

Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #10
13. First of all, "truther" is your term.
Many 9/11 skeptics have devoted a great deal of writing to the debunking of no-planes and other fallacies. There are endless pages on this by the Salter brothers, Eric and Brian (who preceded all others in taking on in great detail the VonKleist/Holmgren/Webfairy/Nico Haupt strand of pods-to-noplanes). Jim Hoffman, Victoria Ashley and Michael Green were also ahead of ScrewLoose and all others in deconstructing Loose Change 1-2 and In Plane Site, and you also have Arabesque, Emanual Sferios, most of the folks at the discussion board at truthaction.org, etc. etc.

It was as a result of efforts such as these that so much of the bullshit was dropped by Loose Change in its "final edition," and it's how most people finally saw through Fetzer and then Tarpley.

Search and ye shall find. I know my own pieces on these topics preceded most any of the ones from the debunkers, and I've been on Truth Action radio discussing this stuff as well.

Many 9/11 truth activists repeat certain fallacies that I find wrong ("living hijackers") or on which I am agnostic (demolitions), or fall for the wrong leaders (Alex Jones). But the overwhelming number of 9/11 truth activists and researchers completely reject no-planes at WTC, space-beams, Fetzer, Judy Wood, Holmgren, Nico Haupt, etc. These really are the tiny minority who simultaneously accuse all others of being agents (a tip-off that their interest is in division and chaos more than in truth).

Even mainstream outlets regularly admit that this no-planes shit really is fringe, although they all love to mention it. (They like doing stories about the 9/11 truth movement, instead of investigating 9/11, which is the problem in a nutshell.)

So please, before you display your ignorance, do the research to back or falsify your beliefs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #13
17. I'm talking about here at DU...
and when you provide a link to your post calling bullshit on our resident no-planers, I'll offer my apologies to you.

But I count 6 of the first 18 threads on the DU 9/11 forum front page advocating no planes and video fakery, and I don't see much of anything in the way of rebuttal from "mainstream truthers". Shouldn't you be responsible for cleaning your own house here at DU?

Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JackRiddler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 05:44 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. Your illogic and moral bullying may not be worthy of a response...
Edited on Sun Jan-27-08 05:55 PM by JackRiddler
but I can't stand your untruths.

There are several posts on current threads where I call "no planes" ridiculous - oh my GOD, including THIS ONE! And there have been dozens and dozens of these items by me. Don't assume if you don't search first! It's not my obligation to patrol the board looking for the next one and immediately rush in to "distance myself."

The point with these parody theories that posit physical impossibilities is - they ARE parody theories. While some of those pushing them may be sincere, without a doubt their appeal is as desecrations of the very idea of truth. They are obvious sabotage items, and usually come with a subtext of jokes about post-modernism.

When these no-planes bozos come here, I tend not to feed the trolls. There is no need to keep that stuff kicked, is there?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 07:49 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. Alright then...
Edited on Sun Jan-27-08 08:11 PM by SidDithers
if you're comfortable allowing earlier rebuttals to give your opinion, who am I to question your reasoning.

Me? I'll keep calling bullshit.

Sid

Edit: Now that I've found it, you won't mind if I post a link to your reply here http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...
in future no-plane threads?

Edit2: Also, I don't subscribe to the shadowy disinfo theory that you peddle here. The pincer movement by those who post such ridiculous theories and those who reasonably debunk them. I just think the no-planers are freakin' insane.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrgerbik Donating Member (652 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-28-08 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. that may very well be (in regards to crazy no-planers)
but all that is needed with the 1000's of misguided people out there would be to plant a few 'good' no-planer youtubes, some posts in various forums and and a blog or two. The rest takes care of itself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mrgerbik Donating Member (652 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-28-08 10:11 PM
Response to Reply #13
24. The thing I find
is that the theories postulated regarding space beams, mini-nukes, even some no-planers are just the logical next steps of inquiry for some people trying to fill the black hole left after the official investigation's obvious failure to show the truth as best they could. It seems to have left a mark on alot of people -- to me, it's not unlike like when you eat a fast food meal... you've completely filled your stomach - you shouldn't be hungry for quite some time... but damnit! you're hungry an hour later.

I always try and hold the view that the honest people (as best as I can tell) with the most outlandish theories are just people looking for answers. It's really just human nature expressing itself in its myriad of forms. It's too bad the MSM and the average Joe can't show the same respect and courtesy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CGowen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 02:30 AM
Response to Reply #13
26. I think you are wrong on some of these people,

for example when I listened to an interview of Naomi Wolf by Alex Jones, I cringed when he said that the CIA was running a drill on 911 involving a plane crashing at the exact same time into exact the same targets. He was wrong and the NRO had a drill scheduled, which included their buildings and not the twin towers.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/cia-simulation.htm

I don't think this is deliberate, but those people have come to their conclusions regarding 911 and they don't want to restudy it ad infinitum to perfection.
They see 911 as a symptom and they were there before 911 started and 911 is not their main focus.


Everybody makes mistakes and I think sometimes people on message boards are really too pedantic, but letting it slide is also not an option .



just my 2 cents
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 11:45 AM
Response to Original message
3. Perhaps you should include the fact that the technology for faking video footage...
... allowed numerous "fake" videos (a few of them on live TV) to be manufactured to fool the masses into believing that actual planes hit the Twin Towers, yet this same video technology for some reason doesn't work in Washington D.C. - there is not a single video that clearly shows a commercial jet striking the Pentagon. Maybe there were budget constraints....

- Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WillowTree Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-27-08 12:51 PM
Response to Reply #3
7. "Fake videos".
Is that what the thousands of people in the streets of NYC were seeing when they "thought" they saw an airplane fly into the side of Building #2 just before it exploded right in front of them, too? "Fake videos", all being projected onto.......what?.......and shot from every conceivable height and angle with every conceivable potential for lighting and weather conditions on that day taken into account when they were made beforehand?

Ooooooo...KAY then! Hallelujah! I can see Lord! I can SEE!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 04:39 PM
Response to Reply #3
29. I'd add to this: since there were going to be war games on Sept 11th 2001
Edited on Tue Jan-29-08 04:42 PM by truedelphi
Several of which were going to involve the WTC and the Pentagon, it would have been easy enough to have people in the DOD or elsewhere do graphics of the planes hitting.

You are told say mid-August 2001 that you need to do a moque up of planes hitting both towers. You are told it is for a war game. You don't question it - it's for a war game.

Where are you now? If you were black ops at the time you created the graphic, your job has moved you on to more black op positions.

If not maybe you were aboard the comemrcial jet that flew into the "whiplash current" of the jet in front of you, crashing in a New York City Queens' neighborhood with all aboard killed shortly afte the "no Fly" restriction was taken down.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 07:41 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. Is this real world or exercise?
 
Posted by truedelphi:
... since there were going to be war games on Sept 11th 2001, several of which were going to involve the WTC and the Pentagon, it would have been easy enough to have people in the DOD or elsewhere do graphics of the planes hitting.

I haven't seen information about war games involving either the WTC or the Pentagon on 9/11/01.

There was a simulated aircraft accident drill at the NRO offices (post #26), and a simulation of a hijacked aircraft in NEADS airspace (source) - but it wasn't planned to simulate it crashing.

Perhaps some information has been released that I haven't seen or heard yet. Where did you hear about the war games you are referring to?


The basic point of my previous post was that if numerous videos/graphics of the planes hitting the WTC were produced, why did they neglect to produce a single clear video/graphic of a plane crashing into the Pentagon?

Why manufacture video/graphic evidence that would convince people of a plane at one location but not do the same for the other location?

- Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 09:41 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. I think it was Myers who said that he was passing by othr's offices and saw a TV screen with
The image of the World Trade Center Tower on fire and he wondered "Is this real or is it part of the war game scenarios planned for today?"

That is what I am referring to (I have tape recordings of the 9/11 testimony from C Span and it is on those - if I ever get a chance to slog through them I can clarify who actually said this.)

Remember if you are a graphic artist/black op specialist, and you are told to create a video, and the explanation is that it is for a war game, that doesn't mean that that particular war game will or won't be part of the game plan.

There often are contingency plans in terms of military exercises. Some get carried out and some don't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Make7 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-30-08 03:29 AM
Response to Reply #31
32. Don't look it up on my account...
... I was just curious. Usually when I see something about the war games having been planned for the locations of the actual events that day it turns out to be based on something like the Alex Jones claim given in CGowen's post. Of course if you decide to look it up to satisfy your own curiosity, please post what you find.

- Make7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truedelphi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-30-08 01:29 PM
Response to Reply #32
33. I do know the remark was made, because at that point in time I did not even know that there
Were war games that day. It was the first statement that ever referenced those events, so it stuck in my consciousness.

Just can't remember which General said it.

BTW, prior to this C SPAN observed 9/11 testimony, I had interviewed the top spokesman for NORAD, and that spokesman never mentioned war games.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deen Donating Member (54 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 12:16 PM
Response to Original message
27. Almost all wrong and missing a lot.
Instead of starting a thread that makes you look ignorant, you should have asked about what this theory entails first.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jan-29-08 12:16 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. Please, enlighten us...nt
Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Sep 20th 2014, 09:15 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » September 11 Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC