Mystery of WTC 7 - Conspiracy

[Zingari]

Well at that time a DOMESTIC attack was unimaginable due to their arrogance and slack security checks - it was more like catching a bus than a plane.

watch the vid i posted earlier , this is just not true

[marko]

watch the vid i posted earlier , this is just not true

OK, lets skip to the bit about the exercises and planes being flown into the WTC. It has been acknowledged that attacks emanating from the former Soviet Union were simulated but NOT, I repeat NOT simulated in domestic attacks.

[Zingari]

OK, lets skip to the bit about the exercises and planes being flown into the WTC. It has been acknowledged that attacks emanating from the former Soviet Union were simulated but NOT, I repeat NOT simulated in domestic attacks.

sorry but you must have misheard , they were talking about simulation exercises against "HIGHJACKED planes as weapons" (ie commercial planes) ., this in no way would involve military strikes from the soviets

[marko]

sorry but you must have misheard , they were talking about simulation exercises against "HIGHJACKED planes as weapons" (ie commercial planes) ., this in no way would involve military strikes from the soviets

It was a range of attacks coming from the SU not just military, i.e "HIGHJACKED planes as weapons"

[Zingari]

You getting laid is 'unimaginable' but you still prepare for it, and it very rarely happens!!!!!!

it is unimaginable and i don't prepare for it anymore

[Zingari]

It was a range of attacks coming from the SU not just military, i.e "HIGHJACKED planes as weapons"

i think most people would consider "highjacked" planes to be commercial planes from anywhere not soviet military ones and if they were highjacked soviet planes they would be shot down in the normal way without any differing exercises

[marko]

i think most people would consider "highjacked" planes to be commercial planes from anywhere not soviet military ones and if they were highjacked soviet planes they would be shot down in the normal way without any differing exercises

Yes, hence they practised for hijacked commercial planes originating from the SU - which is what their defence system was set up to look for.

[Zingari]

Yes, hence they practised for hijacked commercial planes originating from the SU - which is what their defence system was set up to look for.

So they were only preparing for attacks from high-jacked planes emanating from the former soviet union ?

that's beyond ridiculous !

You’re not really suggesting that US airspace was only being defended by attacks from one direction are you ?

Were NORAD really that stupid ?

[marko]

So they were only preparing for attacks from high-jacked planes emanating from the former soviet union ?

that's beyond ridiculous !

You’re not really suggesting that US airspace was only being defended by attacks from one direction are you ?

Were NORAD really that stupid ?

Ignorant and arrogant are probably better descriptions.

[Babylon]

Were NORAD really that stupid ?

Well they are stupid enough to plant the wrong passport sooooooo....

It seems as though they government are allowed to be stupid when making mistakes that help your argument, but not allowed when idiocy or poor planning is part of the reason the attacks weren't stopped.

[Zingari]

Well they are stupid enough to plant the wrong passport sooooooo....

presumably lots of heads at norad rolled after this fiasco then ?

So the US top brass are stupid when they need to be such as being bumbling fools in allowing the attacks to happen , and not stupid when they shouldn't when it comes to messing up small the details

[Babylon]

presumably lots of heads at norad rolled after this fiasco then ?

Probably not, but that's a different argument all together.

Did they plan and carry out the attacks, not a chance in hell. Were there a chain of errors by lots of departments that meant the hijackers were able to do it without being stopped, probably. Were there errors by building designers and health and safety people that meant the strikes proved to be so fatal, probably. Have some of those tried to be covered up or just ignored, most probably. Have some people tried to make money off the back of the disasters, probably.

People will try and cover their own arse or make money from any situation. I don't believe it would or could stretch as far as what you do though.

[Zingari]

Probably not, but that's a different argument all together.

Did they plan and carry out the attacks, not a chance in hell. Were there a chain of errors by lots of departments that meant the hijackers were able to do it without being stopped, probably. Were there errors by building designers and health and safety people that meant the strikes proved to be so fatal, probably. Have some of those tried to be covered up or just ignored, most probably. Have some people tried to make money off the back of the disasters, probably.

People will try and cover their own arse or make money from any situation. I don't believe it would or could stretch as far as what you do though.

maybe you're just too trusting of governments

maybe i'm just not trusting enough

[Babylon]

I'm not sure believing the government of a civilised western country wouldn't slaughter 3000 odd of it's own civilians in cold blood is "too trusting".

[Zingari]

I'm not sure believing the government of a civilised western country wouldn't slaughter 3000 odd of it's own civilians in cold blood is "too trusting".

don't let's go over the whole "gulf of tonkin" thing again .

there really is no difference between stage managing a scenario that ends with the wholesale slaughter of their own soldiers( and millions of innocents) in the vietnam war and doing it themselves first hand

i'm sure many will see it differently but i don't and won't

edit;

oh and let's not forget that Hitler rose to power in a western democracy

[Babylon]

oh and let's not forget that Hitler rose to power in a western democracy

I said civilised... Germany hadn't been that for some time really.

[Zingari]

I said civilised... Germany hadn't been that for some time really.

there were many in the UK that believed it was including some of our royalty

[Babylon]

there were many in the UK that believed it was including some of our royalty

[Zingari]

Please don’t be offended by this but just because you and nighty and many others on here do not believe governments to be capable of treasonous and barbaric acts of enormous scale does not make it so.

History is littered with false flag operations designed to inflame the population as a pretext to war

Maybe 911 isn’t one of them , but it’s worth bearing in mind that it could be .

i'd sooner be on the cautious side

[Rincewind]

[Zingari]

i'm fairly sure that just like the last one i posted , no-one will actually watch this pilots for 911 truth video as at 50 mins it probably is too long and it does not have all the answers nicely gift wrapped for you and it will probably seem like petty nitpicking of the official story , but i'm not giving up hope that people will realise that as in all crimes , the devil is in the detail .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcXPbKkf5h8

[marko]

i'm fairly sure that just like the last one i posted , no-one will actually watch this pilots for 911 truth video as at 50 mins it probably is too long and it does not have all the answers nicely gift wrapped for you and it will probably seem like petty nitpicking of the official story , but i'm not giving up hope that people will realise that as in all crimes , the devil is in the detail .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcXPbKkf5h8

Hang on, you're now posting a video in which police officers saw a plane hit the Pentagon. A week ago you claimed it was a drone dressed up in AA livery.

I'm confused. Please just stick to one conspiracy rather than make a patchwork of several different ones.

Does the fact that there are so many contradictory theories out there not raise your suspicions? After all, they can't all be right, can they? At least the official story has the decency to stick with one consistent version of events.

[Zingari]

Hang on, you're now posting a video in which police officers saw a plane hit the Pentagon. A week ago you claimed it was a drone dressed up in AA livery.

I'm confused. Please just stick to one conspiracy rather than make a patchwork of several different ones.

Does the fact that there are so many contradictory theories out there not raise your suspicions? After all, they can't all be right, can they? At least the official story has the decency to stick with one consistent version of events.

Jesus wept !

I've tried to say many times that I've absolutely no idea what actually happened ( i don't have any access to the any of the evidence , i live in the UK remember ? ), or any answers as to who did it , why they did it , or how they did it, and all I've tried to do is offer alternative explanations that "others" have postulated . and of course they may be wildly wrong . but that does not mean the official version is true either . do you really have such a problem understanding this ?

they really are not my theories ok ?

either watch the video or not , but please don't keep asking for gift wrapped all embracing answers , i really don't have them

i'm merely trying to bring to attention the anomalies that various groups are continuing to question

can you please try to remember that from this point on

[Zingari]

Disclaimer ;

If I’ve given anyone the impression that I have all or even any of the answers as to what may or may not have happened during any of the events of the day now known as 911 please be aware that I haven’t a fookin clue as to what really happened

[marko]

Jesus wept !

I've tried to say many times that I've absolutely no idea what actually happened ( i don't have any access to the any of the evidence , i live in the UK remember ? ), or any answers as to who did it , why they did it , or how they did it, and all I've tried to do is offer alternative explanations that "others" have postulated . and of course they may be wildly wrong . but that does not mean the official version is true either . do you really have such a problem understanding this ?

they really are not my theories ok ?

either watch the video or not , but please don't keep asking for gift wrapped all embracing answers , i really don't have them

i'm merely trying to bring to attention the anomalies that various groups are continuing to question

can you please try to remember that from this point on

Well you've been pretty adamant that the official story is a load of pap. You've clearly stated it wasn't a plane that hit the Pentagon and that WTC 7 was brought down with a controlled demolition. For someone with "no idea" you argue pretty vociferously that the official line is lies; again, for someone with "no idea" you dismiss every piece of evidence that supports the official story out of hand. To me, as i'm sure it does to many, it appears that your mind is very much made up.

I started watching and as soon as they started talking about altering altitudes and hypothetical scenarios, I turned off. It's psychobabble in the extreme. Anyway, who are these pilots? Commercial pilots? or more likely some sad acts with a PPL that think they've sussed it? I know where my money is.

Instead of focusing on the anomalies in the official story, you should focus on the ridiculous anomalies and inconsistencies in conspiracy theories. If the official party line was riddled with as many gaping holes as the theories I could understand your insistence it was in some way an inside job.