“This is a question that's been asked by many Americans, but especially by the widows of September 11th. How were we so asleep at the switch? How did a war targeting civilians arrive on our homeland with seemingly no warning?”
Rumsfeld: “There were lots of warnings. The intelligence information that we get, it sometimes runs into the hundreds of alerts or pieces of intelligence a week. One looks at the worldwide, it's thousands. And the task is to sort through it and see what you can find. And as you find things, the law enforcement officials who have the responsibility to deal with that type of thing — the FBI at the federal level, and although it is not, it's an investigative service as opposed to a police force, it's not a federal police force, as you know. But the state and local law enforcement officials have the responsibility for dealing with those kinds of issues.
the missile to damage this building [the Pentagon] and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them.”
0
Last one didn't paste correctly:
Parade:
“This is a question that's been asked by many Americans, but especially by the widows of September 11th. How were we so asleep at the switch? How did a war targeting civilians arrive on our homeland with seemingly no warning?”
Rumsfeld: “There were lots of warnings. The intelligence information that we get, it sometimes runs into the hundreds of alerts or pieces of intelligence a week. One looks at the worldwide, it's thousands. And the task is to sort through it and see what you can find. And as you find things, the law enforcement officials who have the responsibility to deal with that type of thing — the FBI at the federal level, and although it is not, it's an investigative service as opposed to a police force, it's not a federal police force, as you know. But the state and local law enforcement officials have the responsibility for dealing with those kinds of issues.
the missile to damage this building [the Pentagon] and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them.”
No idea why that's not pasting the right way. One more time:
the missile to damage this building [the Pentagon] and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them.”
0
No idea why that's not pasting the right way. One more time:
the missile to damage this building [the Pentagon] and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them.”
you know what i believe? i believe that the attacks were far
too simple for our gov't to perpetrate...we all know our gov't fucks everything
up...again, K.I.S.S. ..if the gov't was involved there wouldn't have been 3
different incidents at 3 different locations...too much that could have gone
wrong with too much culpability
so what...people slip up when speaking or in certain situations...i get nervous when a cop is behind me knowing i didn't do a damn thing wrong and have no contraband present...it just happens... many times i've said things completly opposite of what i was trying to convey...it happens....but not standing up for the donny rum...i think's he's a pos
0
you know what i believe? i believe that the attacks were far
too simple for our gov't to perpetrate...we all know our gov't fucks everything
up...again, K.I.S.S. ..if the gov't was involved there wouldn't have been 3
different incidents at 3 different locations...too much that could have gone
wrong with too much culpability
so what...people slip up when speaking or in certain situations...i get nervous when a cop is behind me knowing i didn't do a damn thing wrong and have no contraband present...it just happens... many times i've said things completly opposite of what i was trying to convey...it happens....but not standing up for the donny rum...i think's he's a pos
Hey smdio, so did those pieces of airplane that they found at the Pentagon -- were those planted there then I take it?
yes...they were planted/built into the walls years ago when Bush Sr was in office...this plot goes back some time ya know... and it worked out so perfectly and to a "T"...
0
Quote Originally Posted by kaponofor3:
Hey smdio, so did those pieces of airplane that they found at the Pentagon -- were those planted there then I take it?
yes...they were planted/built into the walls years ago when Bush Sr was in office...this plot goes back some time ya know... and it worked out so perfectly and to a "T"...
yes...they were planted/built into the walls years ago when Bush Sr was in office...this plot goes back some time ya know... and it worked out so perfectly and to a "T"...
Actually, my friend, any and all "wreckage" has never been seen by anyone except the US Government. It has been deemed "classified" under the highest level in the CIA. Same with the DNA discovery and bodily remains.
The only evidence we have from Flight 77 are the pictures to which all accounts point to being photoshopped, as I posted in the above
0
Quote Originally Posted by nuggins:
yes...they were planted/built into the walls years ago when Bush Sr was in office...this plot goes back some time ya know... and it worked out so perfectly and to a "T"...
Actually, my friend, any and all "wreckage" has never been seen by anyone except the US Government. It has been deemed "classified" under the highest level in the CIA. Same with the DNA discovery and bodily remains.
The only evidence we have from Flight 77 are the pictures to which all accounts point to being photoshopped, as I posted in the above
Hutch, is this guy a "rambling idiot" too? Maybe he just mis-spoke as well....
A 9/11 Commissioner ‘mis-speaks’ (September 11th 2006)
Partial transcript — “There were many times, Miles, that you were afraid. You were worried. Especially when I was standing in front of the Pentagon that night seeing one of our fortresses pried open by a missile, er, airplane...” — Tim Roemer (9/11 commissioner)
0
Hutch, is this guy a "rambling idiot" too? Maybe he just mis-spoke as well....
A 9/11 Commissioner ‘mis-speaks’ (September 11th 2006)
Partial transcript — “There were many times, Miles, that you were afraid. You were worried. Especially when I was standing in front of the Pentagon that night seeing one of our fortresses pried open by a missile, er, airplane...” — Tim Roemer (9/11 commissioner)
I'm also relying on common sense. If you would read this website, I find it hard to believe you can disagree that anything BUT a cruise missile hit the Pentagon on September 11th, 2001
I['m sure that you've seen the amount of content and calculated how long it would take you to read the entire thing (roughly 30-40 minutes, assuming you can read sufficiently and watch all the video), and you've decided against it.
Therefore, until you do, please refrain from insults and the "because I said so" argument. It holds no bearing whatsoever.
0
I'm also relying on common sense. If you would read this website, I find it hard to believe you can disagree that anything BUT a cruise missile hit the Pentagon on September 11th, 2001
I['m sure that you've seen the amount of content and calculated how long it would take you to read the entire thing (roughly 30-40 minutes, assuming you can read sufficiently and watch all the video), and you've decided against it.
Therefore, until you do, please refrain from insults and the "because I said so" argument. It holds no bearing whatsoever.
I'm also relying on common sense. If you would read this website, I find it hard to believe you can disagree that anything BUT a cruise missile hit the Pentagon on September 11th, 2001
I['m sure that you've seen the amount of content and calculated how long it would take you to read the entire thing (roughly 30-40 minutes, assuming you can read sufficiently and watch all the video), and you've decided against it.
Therefore, until you do, please refrain from insults and the "because I said so" argument. It holds no bearing whatsoever.
Authored by the same Peter Wakefield Sault who believes that Popular Mechanics is a CIA front organization? Who believes that the President and CEO of Hearst Publishing (allegedly) is part of an organization that is "Zionism Central"?
The same guy who is a large proponent behind Lizard Theory?
The same guy who is a Holocaust denier?
0
Quote Originally Posted by smdio:
I'm also relying on common sense. If you would read this website, I find it hard to believe you can disagree that anything BUT a cruise missile hit the Pentagon on September 11th, 2001
I['m sure that you've seen the amount of content and calculated how long it would take you to read the entire thing (roughly 30-40 minutes, assuming you can read sufficiently and watch all the video), and you've decided against it.
Therefore, until you do, please refrain from insults and the "because I said so" argument. It holds no bearing whatsoever.
Authored by the same Peter Wakefield Sault who believes that Popular Mechanics is a CIA front organization? Who believes that the President and CEO of Hearst Publishing (allegedly) is part of an organization that is "Zionism Central"?
The same guy who is a large proponent behind Lizard Theory?
You are discrediting his scientific evidence proving that a missile hit the Pentagon because he may or may not have an erratic theory on another unrelated concept?
That doesn't seem fair to me..
0
You are discrediting his scientific evidence proving that a missile hit the Pentagon because he may or may not have an erratic theory on another unrelated concept?
You are discrediting his scientific evidence proving that a missile hit the Pentagon because he may or may not have an erratic theory on another unrelated concept?
That doesn't seem fair to me..
Hearsay and claims of photoshopping =/= "scientific evidence". Seriously, show me one piece of evidence on that page that is "scientific" and is not based on hearsay.
You really want to hitch your horse to this freaking clown? Come on smdio, you're better than that, aren't you?
0
Quote Originally Posted by smdio:
You are discrediting his scientific evidence proving that a missile hit the Pentagon because he may or may not have an erratic theory on another unrelated concept?
That doesn't seem fair to me..
Hearsay and claims of photoshopping =/= "scientific evidence". Seriously, show me one piece of evidence on that page that is "scientific" and is not based on hearsay.
You really want to hitch your horse to this freaking clown? Come on smdio, you're better than that, aren't you?
1. you say that the pentagon has 150 cameras monitoring it and youve hired a team of lawyers to get 76 videos where the plane hit. so youre saying over half the cameras are focused on only one side of the building?
2. you say you think a jet fighter flew under radar, shot a missle, flew off, and people would only pay attention to the explosion? ive heard some fighters fly pretty low to the ground and theyre loud as shit. they seems like that would draw attention.
3. and to agree with you, flight 93 was shot down. in my opinion all the hero stuff was made up for good publicity and a feel good story. also, while watching news coverage that day, an ex-cia analyst was being interviewed when they said flight 93 could be headed for d.c. they scrambled fighters out, which could be heard in the background. after like 10-15 minutes they broke in on the interview saying flight 93 had crashed. the analyst said, "it looks like someone made the gut wrenching decision to shoot it down", and they immediately cut out of his interview.
0
1. you say that the pentagon has 150 cameras monitoring it and youve hired a team of lawyers to get 76 videos where the plane hit. so youre saying over half the cameras are focused on only one side of the building?
2. you say you think a jet fighter flew under radar, shot a missle, flew off, and people would only pay attention to the explosion? ive heard some fighters fly pretty low to the ground and theyre loud as shit. they seems like that would draw attention.
3. and to agree with you, flight 93 was shot down. in my opinion all the hero stuff was made up for good publicity and a feel good story. also, while watching news coverage that day, an ex-cia analyst was being interviewed when they said flight 93 could be headed for d.c. they scrambled fighters out, which could be heard in the background. after like 10-15 minutes they broke in on the interview saying flight 93 had crashed. the analyst said, "it looks like someone made the gut wrenching decision to shoot it down", and they immediately cut out of his interview.
1. you say that the pentagon has 150 cameras monitoring it and youve hired a team of lawyers to get 76 videos where the plane hit. so youre saying over half the cameras are focused on only one side of the building?
2. you say you think a jet fighter flew under radar, shot a missle, flew off, and people would only pay attention to the explosion? ive heard some fighters fly pretty low to the ground and theyre loud as shit. they seems like that would draw attention.
3. and to agree with you, flight 93 was shot down. in my opinion all the hero stuff was made up for good publicity and a feel good story. also, while watching news coverage that day, an ex-cia analyst was being interviewed when they said flight 93 could be headed for d.c. they scrambled fighters out, which could be heard in the background. after like 10-15 minutes they broke in on the interview saying flight 93 had crashed. the analyst said, "it looks like someone made the gut wrenching decision to shoot it down", and they immediately cut out of his interview.
1.) Yes and No. The 80 cameras were not of "direct view" on the impact point, but instead in "view enough" (for lack of a better term) for them to see a Boeing 757 striking the building. Yes, some cameras were much closer than others, but all of the 80 cameras would have caught at least a portion of the flight path that Flight 77 would have needed to travel in order to hit the Pentagon. And yes, we were legally denied request for these images, citing references to the Patriot Act
2.) It didn't have to be a fighter jet, although it could have been. If you watch the most recent video that I just posted, it explains very clearly how each of the witnesses that Hutch is describing saw a plane fly in the opposite direction of the "official government story". I apologize for the long video length, but when you have an hour to spare, it is very intriguing.
3.) Flight 93 either landed safely in Cleveland, or was shot down. I know one thing for sure: it did NOT crash land in Shanksville. Little Lie = Big Lie
0
Quote Originally Posted by thePDH:
1. you say that the pentagon has 150 cameras monitoring it and youve hired a team of lawyers to get 76 videos where the plane hit. so youre saying over half the cameras are focused on only one side of the building?
2. you say you think a jet fighter flew under radar, shot a missle, flew off, and people would only pay attention to the explosion? ive heard some fighters fly pretty low to the ground and theyre loud as shit. they seems like that would draw attention.
3. and to agree with you, flight 93 was shot down. in my opinion all the hero stuff was made up for good publicity and a feel good story. also, while watching news coverage that day, an ex-cia analyst was being interviewed when they said flight 93 could be headed for d.c. they scrambled fighters out, which could be heard in the background. after like 10-15 minutes they broke in on the interview saying flight 93 had crashed. the analyst said, "it looks like someone made the gut wrenching decision to shoot it down", and they immediately cut out of his interview.
1.) Yes and No. The 80 cameras were not of "direct view" on the impact point, but instead in "view enough" (for lack of a better term) for them to see a Boeing 757 striking the building. Yes, some cameras were much closer than others, but all of the 80 cameras would have caught at least a portion of the flight path that Flight 77 would have needed to travel in order to hit the Pentagon. And yes, we were legally denied request for these images, citing references to the Patriot Act
2.) It didn't have to be a fighter jet, although it could have been. If you watch the most recent video that I just posted, it explains very clearly how each of the witnesses that Hutch is describing saw a plane fly in the opposite direction of the "official government story". I apologize for the long video length, but when you have an hour to spare, it is very intriguing.
3.) Flight 93 either landed safely in Cleveland, or was shot down. I know one thing for sure: it did NOT crash land in Shanksville. Little Lie = Big Lie
You seriously want me to watch a video entitled "National Security Alert" that is 1.5 hours long?
National Security Alert is just the title, don't read too much into that. The video addresses your concerns, kaponofor. If you choose not to watch it, that's your decision. But you've asked me numerous questions, and I'm doing my very best to give you the answers. I apologize if the video is too long for you, but I guarantee that you'll be satisfied after watching it, since you want to immediately dismiss the other website
0
Quote Originally Posted by kaponofor3:
You seriously want me to watch a video entitled "National Security Alert" that is 1.5 hours long?
National Security Alert is just the title, don't read too much into that. The video addresses your concerns, kaponofor. If you choose not to watch it, that's your decision. But you've asked me numerous questions, and I'm doing my very best to give you the answers. I apologize if the video is too long for you, but I guarantee that you'll be satisfied after watching it, since you want to immediately dismiss the other website
If you don't want to watch the whole thing (I really suggest you should, actually, I'm begging you to), just fast forward to 17:00 and watch from there. We interview eye witnesses and give video animation of what they describe.
Are they lying too ?
0
Hutch
You wanted me to produce eye witness testimony to refute the quotes you posted, right? Here it is
If you don't want to watch the whole thing (I really suggest you should, actually, I'm begging you to), just fast forward to 17:00 and watch from there. We interview eye witnesses and give video animation of what they describe.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
