egafd.com

Flat_Eric wrote:


>
> Even if they knew that a plane was heading for Washington (as
> they apparently did), they couldn't have known its precise
> target. My understanding is that Mineta said that that some guy
> entered the situation room and said that a rogue plane was
> heading for DC and that Dick Cheney, when asked, confirmed that
> orders still stood.
>

Do you realise what you are saying here? 'they don't know it's precise target'....? LOL

Have you heard of R-A-D-A-R? it will give them a big idea. And the actual statement was "30 miles out, 20 miles out, 10 miles out." If they didn't know the target as you say, how could they calculate what it's X miles out from?

...and also they were watching the WTC attacks on the news underneath the eastwing of the white house, so the likelyhood of it being a plane that had honestly strayed of it's flight plan it's rather unlikely.

lukeolson wrote:

>>>


Yes luke, I've heard of R-A-D-A-R (usually people just write "radar" though).

And you're right that it would have given them a "big idea" about where the plane was headed (i.e. DC).

But luke, that's what radar does - it tells you where things are and what direction they're moving in. What is doesn't do is give you a definitive final destination.


>>>

Rrrrrriiiiiiight. And your point is?

Flat_Eric wrote:

> lukeolson wrote:
>
> it's precise target'....? LOL Have you heard of R-A-D-A-R? it
> will give them a big idea ....... (ramble, ramble - snipped for
> brevity)>>>>
>
>
> Yes luke, I've heard of R-A-D-A-R (usually people just write
> "radar" though).
>
> And you're right that it would have given them a "big idea"
> about where the plane was headed (i.e. DC).
>
> But luke, that's what radar does - it tells you where things
> are and what direction they're moving in. What is doesn't do is
> give you a definitive final destination.

So, just what was the plane 10/20/30 miles out from? unless of course the secretary of Transport is lying?

>
> underneath the eastwing of the white house, so the likelyhood
> of it being a plane that had honestly strayed of it's flight
> plan it's rather unlikely.>>>>
>
> Rrrrrriiiiiiight. And your point is?

You know planes been hijacked and crashed into the WTC, another plane is heading towards the pentagon. With this information at the front of your mind, If you were in charge I guess you'd just hang tight and see where it ends up?

gimme a break

I always read these threads in sad silence wondering if it really matters who was responsible - the end result is the same, the man/woman in the street is the one that suffers.

Whether it's international terrorism or international governments - the victims are always the same ; the office worker in the tower, the london commuter on the bus or the person standing in the overseas market that has a bomb go off in their face.

I'm quite looking forward to the cockroaches taking over the planet.

lukeolson wrote:
>>>


Luke, there is a MOUNTAIN of evidence that supports the official theory. Far too much for me to list here. I suggest that you do what the CTs are always imploring people to do an "google it".

There is on the other had absolutely no HARD EVIDENCE that supports the conspiracy theories. None at all!!!

There are accusations, speculations, suggestions, musings, what-ifs, maybes, theories and plenty of fanciful ideas based on very vivid imaginations and the presumption that "if the government says something, always believe the opposite to be true".

But not a single solitary scrap of real evidence to support the so-called "alternative" theories.



lukeolson again:
>>>>


Pre 9/11, airline and airspace security in the US was far more lax than it is today. It was all geared towards military attacks by foreign powers, not towards the unprecedented multiple suicide hijackings of civilian airliners. And the hijacked planes weren't idly circling round, as you seem to be suggesting. My God where Do you get these ideas from??!!


lukeolson goes on (and on, and on ..... !boring! ):
>>>


True, accounts vary. But many people say they saw an airliner. Others say that they heard what sounded like a large aircraft, followed by an explosion. But to the best of my knowledge, not a single one said they saw a missile, or indeed anything other than a plane. You however APPEAR to be convinced that it was a missile - or at least not a plane.

It's a good job that the Naudet brothers just happened to be on hand in NYC filming a fire service documentary very close to the WTC, and so clearly caught on film the only known video footage of the first airliner hitting the North Tower. Otherwise no doubt the conspiracy theorists would be insisting that was a missile as well.



luke again (on another flight of fancy ....)
>>>


Once again - your point is??

I have no idea why WTC7 collapsed and other nearby buildings didn't. And neither do you. You're speculating and jumping to conclusions: "It was further away and collapsed, but other buildings closer by didn't collapse - so it MUST all be one big sinister conspiracy".

There may be many perfectly rational reasons for this. Maybe WTC7 had some structural flaw, maybe it suffered more fire damage - who knows?! I believe a final report on it is due in January so why not just wait for that?

But then again, if the report says that there's no evidence of controlled explosions etc., no doubt the conspiracy theorists will just scream "WHITEWASH" and carry on merrily as before.

It won't make a blind bit of difference - because the CTs WANT to believe it was all one big conspiracy. It doesn't matter what evidence gets put in front of them.

Flat_Eric wrote:

> lukeolson wrote:
> official theory, against the evidence that supports other
> theories....>>>>
>
>
> Luke, there is a MOUNTAIN of evidence that supports the
> official theory. Far too much for me to list here. I suggest
> that you do what the CTs are always imploring people to do an
> "google it".
>
> There is on the other had absolutely no HARD EVIDENCE that
> supports the conspiracy theories. None at all!!!

Funniest thing you've said all thread.

I just googled, on your suggestion 'fire collapse steel' which is the official story. Perhaps you should do the same and see what results you get. :-/

lukeolson wrote:

>>>

I'll never match you in the comedian stakes, Old Son !wink!


>>


Thanks for reminding me about another CT favourite! It had almost slipped my mind!!

"Aha!" say the conspiracists. "It MUST have been a conspiracy because no other steel-framed building that caught fire has ever (completely) collapsed, ergo it must have been controlled explosions that brought them down".

The problem with this cosy little notion is that ignores (among many other things) not just the height of the WTC but also the unprecedented stresses and traumas that the Towers were subjected to as a result of large airliners carrying almost full loads of explosive jet fuel flying into them at high speed.

These were no ordinary fires. Yet for some reason, the CTs choose to treat them as such in order to try and make what happened fit in with their theories.

So I repeat - where is your HARD EVIDENCE of a conspiracy?

Flat_Eric wrote:

> Luke, there is a MOUNTAIN of evidence that supports the
> official theory.

Erik, I can only assume you have not read the 9-11 Commission Report, if you had you will clearly know the evidence they provide to back up their theories is some between slim and none in most cases.

Whilst I don't subscribe to any particular alternative theory, I will say that some of the alternative explanations have far more evidence to support them than those outlined in the 9-11 Commission Report.

Don't take my word for it, find out yourself which to be honest, it doesn't sound like you have done at all. Read the Report, then ask the questions, then look at the evidence for/against the various theories in it. And whilst on the subject as you like dishing out the CT label the Report itself is one huge CT, by definition. So the question is not actually the Facts vs the Theory but the Theory vs Theories. It's all about evidence which sadly the official theory lacks in many places.

> We don't know what these orders were or what they referred to.
> Yet the CTs have seized upon this of "solid evidence" that
> there must have been some sort of conspiracy.

Just because we don't know what the order was doesn't mean we should ignore it. Again you're lumping everyone under the CT banner

> It may well be a cover-up, mark. A lot of people are unhappy
> with the report. And no doubt more details will emerge over
> time. But as I said above - a "cover-up" afterwards isn't the
> same as a "conspiracy" beforehand.

I can understand them covering up their incompetence, that certainly explains certain parts of the Report. But other parts that are ignored can only raise questions of foul play, I don't see how any rational soul can deny that.

Let us not forget also how the subsequent "Patriot Act" has affected worldwide banking, totally destroying the concept of banking privacy and confidentiality, giving both a lot more power and responsibilty to banks, all of course to the absolute delight of not only the US governments but all states worldwide. The "prevention of terrorism" bullshit has enabled government to demand that banks report ALL "untypical" transaction and worldwide banking is now at the beck & call of the US and given them greater powers to freeze bank accounts and seize assets. And, mark my words, the first thing they crow whenever any "terrorist suspects" are caught/rounded up etc is that their assets have been frozen, as if to convince people further that this is their main agenda. This doesn't just apply to high-profile newsworthy cases, this legislation basically allows them to freeze'n'seize and then ask question later, guilty til proven innocent.
This alone makes 9/11, whether it was a security cock-up or an out&out conspiracy, worthwhile. Dictators have dreamed for centuries of the liberty-destroying legislation brought about in the aftermath of this "disaster", nothing I have seen in the name of this so-called "war on terror" have convinced me that it is anything other than good old fashioned asset pillaging on a massive scale, in particular Money & Oil.

mark wrote:
>>


That's the whole point though, Mark. The Commission Report may be far from perfect, but equally there is no EVIDENCE to back up the "alternative explanations". Only theories and speculation - nothing more.

Ask a CT to provide "evidence" and he'll direct you to "alternative theory" Web sites, where all manner of "experts" are scrabbling about picking holes in the official version and seizing on any anomaly or unexplained detail that they can dig up as "evidence" that "it must be a conspiracy".

Some people will be waffling on at great length about steel stresses and such like.

Others will post blurry photos like the ones higher up in the thread that are supposed to "prove" that "it was a missile and not a plane".

And others still will be pointing to the business interests of people like Dick Cheney, or to nebulous financial transactions as "proof" that was all one big, sinister plot:

"Shares in such and such a company were sold only 2 days before 9/11 and this resulted in the transfer of X amount of Dollars to some bank in the Cayman Islands to an account in the name of so-and-so who was once a non-executive director on a Wall Street-listed company with which George Dubya's wife's cousin twice removed also had business links".

Oh well - obviously it WAS all a big conspiracy then!! (Okay that was a bit of a frivolous example off the top of my head, but it's not too far removed from some of the fanciful stuff you do read on some of these "alternative" sites that gets put forward as "evidence" that 9/11 must have been some evil Machiavellian plot by "the NeoCons").


mark continued:
>>


I smiled when I read that.

Because it paraphrases beautifully what I said in my first extended post in this thread about the "logic" of the conspiracy theorists, namely that the aim to create "equivalence" between their beliefs and the "offical" version":

"You cannot prove 100% that the official story is correct. Therefore it might be incorrect. Therefore our case could be correct. If both cases might or might not be correct then they are equally valid".

9/11 CTs are, if you like, the evangelists of the "Truth Movement".

I now rest my case - as this thread is starting to make me dizzy from going round in circles.

- Eric