Why the Planes Were Not Intercepted on 9/11

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Why the Planes Were Not Intercepted on 9/11

Postby fruhmenschen » Wed Apr 27, 2011 1:16 am

Why the Planes Were Not Intercepted on 9/11

April 26, 2011

http://911truthnews.com/why-the-planes- ... ed-on-911/
fruhmenschen
 
Posts: 4548
Joined: Thu Aug 12, 2010 7:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Why the Planes Were Not Intercepted on 9/11

Postby justdrew » Wed Apr 27, 2011 1:50 am

is there a Benedict Sliney and enron connection?

http://www.stockbrokerfraudblog.com/brokerage_firms/j_p_morgan_chase/
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Re: Why the Planes Were Not Intercepted on 9/11

Postby 8bitagent » Wed Apr 27, 2011 2:37 am

From pouring over the Vanity Fair NORAD piece in 2006 as well as listening to a lot of the released audio (as well as looking at what was being thought or said at the time)
I always thought that instead of a "stand down", the situation was more of an "intentional confusion".

To me the key to understanding the air defenses that morning relate not just to the "is this real world or exercise" confusion, but more importantly the situation with "phantom flights".
Why, even General Myers talked about "Phantom 11" before the commission. It seems there was not just a Phantom 11 and Phantom 93, but all sorts of real time hijacked blips that not only showed
up on both NORAD and FAA screens; but the few available fighter jets were being scrambled to intercept them. I always felt the phantom blips and "Angel is Next" scenario were key anomalies in the day itself; as much as my research has tended to more focus on pre 9/11 intelligence.
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12195
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Why the Planes Were Not Intercepted on 9/11

Postby elfismiles » Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:04 am

I think they were using the Palladium UFO Generator that morning:

UFOs and Radar Spoofing | TDG - Science, Magick, Myth and History
www.dailygrail.com/news/UFOs-and-radar-spoofing

Project PALLADIUM Had Cuban Pilots Chasing UFOs
http://www.topsecretwriters.com/2011/02 ... sing-ufos/

Declassified UFO Files Reveal Military Engagement, Near-Collision
http://gizmodo.com/#!5065747/declassifi ... +collision

Odd, intriguing and alarming UFO files released | UK news
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/oct/2 ... fo-roswell

... meanwhile...

The Many False Hijackings of 9/11
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-04-10/m ... ckings-911

Why the Planes Were Not Intercepted on 9/11: The Wall Street Lawyer and the Special Ops Hijack Coordinator
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-04-26/w ... oordinator

Yukoner tackles 9/11 Korean Air 'hijackings' mystery
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/201 ... stery.html
http://911blogger.com/news/2011-04-25/y ... gs-mystery


8bitagent wrote:From pouring over the Vanity Fair NORAD piece in 2006 as well as listening to a lot of the released audio (as well as looking at what was being thought or said at the time)
I always thought that instead of a "stand down", the situation was more of an "intentional confusion".

To me the key to understanding the air defenses that morning relate not just to the "is this real world or exercise" confusion, but more importantly the situation with "phantom flights".
Why, even General Myers talked about "Phantom 11" before the commission. It seems there was not just a Phantom 11 and Phantom 93, but all sorts of real time hijacked blips that not only showed
up on both NORAD and FAA screens; but the few available fighter jets were being scrambled to intercept them. I always felt the phantom blips and "Angel is Next" scenario were key anomalies in the day itself; as much as my research has tended to more focus on pre 9/11 intelligence.
User avatar
elfismiles
 
Posts: 8461
Joined: Fri Aug 11, 2006 6:46 pm
Blog: View Blog (4)

Re: Why the Planes Were Not Intercepted on 9/11

Postby swindled69 » Wed Apr 27, 2011 11:26 am

8bitagent wrote:From pouring over the Vanity Fair NORAD piece in 2006 as well as listening to a lot of the released audio (as well as looking at what was being thought or said at the time)
I always thought that instead of a "stand down", the situation was more of an "intentional confusion".

To me the key to understanding the air defenses that morning relate not just to the "is this real world or exercise" confusion, but more importantly the situation with "phantom flights".
Why, even General Myers talked about "Phantom 11" before the commission. It seems there was not just a Phantom 11 and Phantom 93, but all sorts of real time hijacked blips that not only showed
up on both NORAD and FAA screens; but the few available fighter jets were being scrambled to intercept them. I always felt the phantom blips and "Angel is Next" scenario were key anomalies in the day itself; as much as my research has tended to more focus on pre 9/11 intelligence.



Yeah it's kind of hard to know what the fuck is going on when you have all kinds of fake radar blips on the screen in front of you during a War Game and then all of a sudden...."OK folks we got a live one here".....Like what? You mean right now?

Seriously I wonder what the odds are that on the exact day your running terrorist war games based on hijacked airplanes a group of men hijack fucking airplanes, gotta be astronomical .
User avatar
swindled69
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 12:04 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Why the Planes Were Not Intercepted on 9/11

Postby StarmanSkye » Wed Apr 27, 2011 11:29 am

Goddamn ... EVERY time I dip my head into what has turned-into the stinking swamp-cesspool soup of 911 my brain gets buggered by the phenomenon of ever-widening concentric-circle ripples expanding the interstitial Mark Lombardiesque swirling linkages of people, spook-agencies, plots, financial entities, conspiracies and dark sinister deeds that gets bigger and bigger while constantly reflecting a tight-core of common suspects at the epicenter -- figures and entities like Rumsfeld, Cheney, The Carlyle Group, The Cohen Group, AIG, the CIA ...



To wit: Piqued by this latest mention of The Cohen Group above, I chanced on a google-search result re: the 6-part Anthrax Project by Alex Constantine which draws connections between the notorious mystery of post-911 Anthrax 'attacks', Bioport, Kroll Associates, World Bank, CDC, Center for Strategic and International Studies, aids vaccine research in Thailand, Anthrax-contaminated heroin ...

My head hurtz;

http://911review.org/Alex/PROJECT_ANTHRAX_5_.html
--quote--
The West Nile outbreak and the anthrax mailings began
with the 1998 BioVax meeting held in the Truman Room
of the White House, attended by SAIC's Jerry Hauer and
William Patrick. Another participant at the meeting
was William Cohen, who, as a Republican Senator,
signed off on the heavily-spun Cheney-Hamilton
Iran-contra report. In 2004, he was elected to the
American International Group's (AIG) Board of
Directors.

AIG is part owner of Kroll Associates, the infamous
private security firm. Kroll - run by former CIA, FBI,
British secret service, Scotland Yard and British
Special Air Service agents - was once known as the CIA
of Wall Street because the firm did everything from
corporate espionage to the training of foreign armies.
A Kroll partner provides counter-terrorism instruction
in Saudi Arabia.

Cohen is also a member of the Center for Strategic and
International Studies, the Cold War propaganda mill
and ultracon academic base of Ray Cline, John Hamre,
Admiral Crowe, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Kenneth Langone,
Henry Kissinger and others central to 911 and
subsequent profiteering through privatization.

Another attendee "of interest" at the 1998 Truman Room
conference was Thomas Monath, former chief of the
virology division at the SAIC-USAMIID facility at Ft.
Detrick, and VP/chief scientific officer at BioVax,
since renamed Acimbis.

Monath was a friend of Stephen Hatfill's. He was
introduced to Rudolph Giuliani by Jerry Hauer, SAIC
scientist and president of Rockefeller University -
the fruits of this relationship were the aerial
spraying of malathion, resmethrin or sumithrin in the
New York City area.9 Nevertheless, the mosquito-borne
disease has spread across the country.

The anthrax scourge also recurs from time to time. An
increasingly feasible theory for the origin of Gulf
War Syndrome is military experimentation with anthrax
vaccines. Were the following incidents further "tests"
of anthrax delivery systems by the
"counter-terrorists" at SAIC-Ft. Detrick? ...

--unquote--

Just a snippet. One could make a damn career out of trying to pierce the veil of secrecy that hides the truth of things and draw all the connections of who, what, when, where, why and the how of 911 as the (or ONE of several) lynchpin and rosetta-stone crystal balls distilling America Inc. Kleptocracy aka Autorepublocratic-demotechnocracy Imperialism, tracing its morphological emergence from the ashes of World War II thru the World Cold War III and into the current footnotes of World War IV.

Beware the voracious 911 labyrinthe!
StarmanSkye
 
Posts: 2670
Joined: Thu Nov 03, 2005 11:32 pm
Location: State of Jefferson
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Why the Planes Were Not Intercepted on 9/11

Postby 8bitagent » Wed Apr 27, 2011 4:12 pm

swindled69 wrote:
8bitagent wrote:From pouring over the Vanity Fair NORAD piece in 2006 as well as listening to a lot of the released audio (as well as looking at what was being thought or said at the time)
I always thought that instead of a "stand down", the situation was more of an "intentional confusion".

To me the key to understanding the air defenses that morning relate not just to the "is this real world or exercise" confusion, but more importantly the situation with "phantom flights".
Why, even General Myers talked about "Phantom 11" before the commission. It seems there was not just a Phantom 11 and Phantom 93, but all sorts of real time hijacked blips that not only showed
up on both NORAD and FAA screens; but the few available fighter jets were being scrambled to intercept them. I always felt the phantom blips and "Angel is Next" scenario were key anomalies in the day itself; as much as my research has tended to more focus on pre 9/11 intelligence.



Yeah it's kind of hard to know what the fuck is going on when you have all kinds of fake radar blips on the screen in front of you during a War Game and then all of a sudden...."OK folks we got a live one here".....Like what? You mean right now?

Seriously I wonder what the odds are that on the exact day your running terrorist war games based on hijacked airplanes a group of men hijack fucking airplanes, gotta be astronomical .


Absolutely. But on top of that, what are the chances there would be duplicate blips of actual craft(like Flight 11) that lead fighter jets in the wrong direction? While that story was never covered up, I'm not sure if it was fully explored.

I came across a lot of oddball stuff in that Vanity Fair article which was originally posted with tons of audio from NORAD. It seemed that the blips for some of these flights, like 93, kept going even after the real plane crashed...Flight 93's blip kept going onto Washington DC.(another reason I think the passenger revolt or whatever it was on board that flight wasn't planned)
From interviews with ATCs, pouring over reports, etc it also seems the "hijackers" turned on the transponders right before each plane crashed.

In 2005 Rupert wrote an intriguing article about the war games/flight inject phantom blips/Ptech/Saudi Arabia
pt 1 http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/w ... _pt1.shtml
pt 2 http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/w ... _pt2.shtml
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12195
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Why the Planes Were Not Intercepted on 9/11

Postby 8bitagent » Wed Apr 27, 2011 4:16 pm



And even more mysterious is why 2 Korean planes were transmitting a hijack "squawk" (a satellite code that can be discreetly set by a pilot to alert authorities on the ground of a hostile takeover), even though all was well on board the flights.


Exactly. A lot of the 9/11 theory memes I don't buy, simply because it goes against logic. Why "stand down" planes when you can have a lot of them doing some war games up north and the few available you send on phantom goose chases? Why send a missile or fake plane into the Pentagon, when you can send the real Flight 77 in there? And why the heck would you sabotage Flight 93 on purpose simply for a "hero" story, when decapitating the capital would have truly brought about the desired hardcore fascist state? This is why very little in the Loose Change movie phenomenon I felt was credible or made any sense.
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12195
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Why the Planes Were Not Intercepted on 9/11

Postby 8bitagent » Wed Apr 27, 2011 4:24 pm

StarmanSkye wrote:Just a snippet. One could make a damn career out of trying to pierce the veil of secrecy that hides the truth of things and draw all the connections of who, what, when, where, why and the how of 911 as the (or ONE of several) lynchpin and rosetta-stone crystal balls distilling America Inc. Kleptocracy aka Autorepublocratic-demotechnocracy Imperialism, tracing its morphological emergence from the ashes of World War II thru the World Cold War III and into the current footnotes of World War IV.

Beware the voracious 911 labyrinthe!


Owners of the tabloid who became the first victim of anthrax had rented the hijackers a place to live
(as well as was at the same flight school at the time Atta was there)
http://www.sptimes.com/News/101501/Worl ... to_t.shtml

Man connected to WTC 1993, OKC 1995 and 9/11:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/10/us/na ... -sept.html

The guy who rented the Heaven's Gate cult his mansion was wanted for questioning by the 9/11 commission for possibly helping the hijackers, and was
also the friend of Abdusattar Sheikh(the FBI informant who rented two of the hijackers their house)

The head of the paranormal research remote viewer army operations went on to train lead 9/11 hijacker Ziad Jarrah for six months in 2001.
Ziad Jarrah had a company email with Automated Rockwell, an industrial engineer company. Moussaoui was trying to get in with Blackwater Worldwide, and Mohammed Atta was in regular contact with defense
contractor companies via his email.


'Living Embodiment' of First Earth Battalion

At one point in his probe of the military's spoon-benders, author Jon Ronson asked Stuart Heller, the friend of Marilyn Ferguson and Jim Channon, if he could name one soldier who was "the living embodiment" of the First Earth Battalion. Without a second thought, Heller replied: "Bert Rodriguez." "Bert's one of the most spiritual guys I've ever met," Heller told Ronson. "No. Spiritual is the wrong word. He's occultic. He's like a walking embodiment of death. He can stop you at a distance. He can influence physical events just with his mind. If he catches your attention he can stop you without touching you."

As Jon Ronson reported, "In April 2001, Bert Rodriguez took on a new student. His name was Ziad Jarrah. Ziad just turned up at the US 1 Fitness Center one day and said he had heard that Bert was good. Why Ziad chose Bert, of all the martial arts instructors scattered around the Florida shoreline, is a matter of speculation. Maybe Bert's uniquely occultic reputation preceded him, or perhaps it was Bert's military connections. Plus, Bert had once taught the head of security for a Saudi prince. Maybe that was it."

Ziad Jarrah presented himself as a Lebanese businessman, who traveled a great deal and wanted to protect himself. "I liked Ziad a lot," Rodriguez later told Ronson. "He was very humble, very quiet. He was in good shape. Very diligent." Rodriguez taught Jarrah "the choke hold and the kamikaze spirit. You need a code you'd die for, a do-or-die desire." Rodriguez added, "Ziad was like Luke Skywalker. You know when Luke walks the invisible path? You have to believe it's there. And if you do believe it it is there. Yeah, Ziad believed it. He was like Luke Skywalker."

Rodriguez trained Ziad Jarrah for six months, and gave him copies of several knife-fighting books he had written. Jarrah shared them with a friend, Marwan al-Shehhi, who boarded with him at the Panther Motel and Apartments in Deerfield Beach, Fla.

On Sept. 11, 2001, Ziad Jarrah took control of United Airlines flight 93, and crashed it in a field in Pennsylvania. Marwan al-Shehhi commandeered United Airlines flight 175 and crashed it into the South Tower of the World Trade Center in lower Manhattan.
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12195
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Why the Planes Were Not Intercepted on 9/11

Postby justdrew » Wed Apr 27, 2011 4:28 pm

everyone now or then in any position of power/authority needs to be disqualified from ever holding power/authority again. anyone who's story doesn't add up, goes to the gallows. period. too damn bad if a few innocently incompetent go with them. I bet you'd have people telling the truth in no time then, but it's never going to happen, until a serious revolution happens, and that's most likely not possible until the cohesion and war fighting capability of the US military is dismantled and/or subverted. It would be a bloody mess at best.
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Re: Why the Planes Were Not Intercepted on 9/11

Postby swindled69 » Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:21 pm

8bitagent wrote:
swindled69 wrote:
8bitagent wrote:From pouring over the Vanity Fair NORAD piece in 2006 as well as listening to a lot of the released audio (as well as looking at what was being thought or said at the time)
I always thought that instead of a "stand down", the situation was more of an "intentional confusion".

To me the key to understanding the air defenses that morning relate not just to the "is this real world or exercise" confusion, but more importantly the situation with "phantom flights".
Why, even General Myers talked about "Phantom 11" before the commission. It seems there was not just a Phantom 11 and Phantom 93, but all sorts of real time hijacked blips that not only showed
up on both NORAD and FAA screens; but the few available fighter jets were being scrambled to intercept them. I always felt the phantom blips and "Angel is Next" scenario were key anomalies in the day itself; as much as my research has tended to more focus on pre 9/11 intelligence.



Yeah it's kind of hard to know what the fuck is going on when you have all kinds of fake radar blips on the screen in front of you during a War Game and then all of a sudden...."OK folks we got a live one here".....Like what? You mean right now?

Seriously I wonder what the odds are that on the exact day your running terrorist war games based on hijacked airplanes a group of men hijack fucking airplanes, gotta be astronomical .


Absolutely. But on top of that, what are the chances there would be duplicate blips of actual craft(like Flight 11) that lead fighter jets in the wrong direction? While that story was never covered up, I'm not sure if it was fully explored.

I came across a lot of oddball stuff in that Vanity Fair article which was originally posted with tons of audio from NORAD. It seemed that the blips for some of these flights, like 93, kept going even after the real plane crashed...Flight 93's blip kept going onto Washington DC.(another reason I think the passenger revolt or whatever it was on board that flight wasn't planned)
From interviews with ATCs, pouring over reports, etc it also seems the "hijackers" turned on the transponders right before each plane crashed.

In 2005 Rupert wrote an intriguing article about the war games/flight inject phantom blips/Ptech/Saudi Arabia
pt 1 http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/w ... _pt1.shtml
pt 2 http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/w ... _pt2.shtml



+1000 This is the nuts and bolts ladies and gentleman of 9/11. Somewhere in all that web that Ruppert/Hopsicker were looking at was the real frucking trail. Regardless of who they were, there is something there.

They must have some SERIOUS fucking state secret agreements for not onle of those controllers to have come forward.....or maybe there all dead?

I remember those day, when 9/11 truth was about the inconsistencies in the official account that are a mile long. Not speculation, conjecture, opinion and stretched thin half facts.

All I ever have to tell people about is the War Games, they get the clue, that shit doesn't happen on that day without someone knowing, period.

I accepted some years back that they got away with it.
User avatar
swindled69
 
Posts: 127
Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2010 12:04 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Why the Planes Were Not Intercepted on 9/11

Postby 8bitagent » Thu Apr 28, 2011 5:40 am

swindled69 wrote:


+1000 This is the nuts and bolts ladies and gentleman of 9/11. Somewhere in all that web that Ruppert/Hopsicker were looking at was the real frucking trail. Regardless of who they were, there is something there.

They must have some SERIOUS fucking state secret agreements for not onle of those controllers to have come forward.....or maybe there all dead?

I remember those day, when 9/11 truth was about the inconsistencies in the official account that are a mile long. Not speculation, conjecture, opinion and stretched thin half facts.

All I ever have to tell people about is the War Games, they get the clue, that shit doesn't happen on that day without someone knowing, period.

I accepted some years back that they got away with it.



I have to admit, at first I was one of those liberals who had the same reaction at people with 9/11 theories as most sane people do with the "birther" stuff. I think it was 2003, someone showed me the "Pentagon Missile" flash video, and I was like "yeah....ok". I was in that mindset that Masonic conspiracies, JFK, etc was all fair game...but daring to question any aspect or the guilt of those blamed for 9/11(or OKC, or any of it) was way out of bounds. But then I saw Aftermath 9/11 by GNN in late 2003, probably the first actual 9/11 documentary. (Yes, I know it has George Soros at the beginning) But it opened my mind. Strangely, Im surprised Fahrenheit 9/11 some time later never went into *actual* Saudi complicity, just muddled connections. By 2002, there had already been a mountain of mainstream evidence showing Saudi intelligence involvement.

Long story short, I always had trouble believing line for line a lot of the Loose Change/David Ray Griffin stuff. Loose Change Second Edition was entertaining and effective, but I wasnt buying
hardly any of it. Instead I felt myself strongly drawn to Paul Thompson and cooperativeresearch(now HistoryCommons), Nafeez Ahmed, PDS, Michel Chossudovsky, Hopsicker and especially Sander Hicks and
Michael Rupert. I was amazed by his Nov 2001 "Truth and Lies" presentation. I think it was hearing India Singh's 3 hour interview on 4acloserlook by Michael Corbin on streaming radio that really blew my noodle. I also got into the writings of Peter Lance whom I consider the ultimate "truther" writer(even tho he probably dislikes us and vice versa)

I had always heard about war games and "stand down hours". I think Webster Tarpley went into that a little bit at the 9/11 conference I went to, but the Rupert article I linked really piqued my interest.
But I really didn't have much of a primer for wading through the NORAD tapes, at that time the thinking was literally that some general "in on 9/11" was ordering a stand down. I never saw evidence of that, but I got goose bumps and an eerie feelings reading about all these phantom planes, existing as blips on *both* FAA and NOARD simultaneously. The eeriest was reading about Flight 93. I need to go back through the audio and article, but I remember how the blip didn't vanish after 10:15ish when it crashed, but as noted kept on going. I believe Delta 1989 was another one showing positive for hijacking, along with a number of other ones. I imagine how scary that is, that they thought up to 12 hijacking were going on at once. Once the "hijackers" were on board the four flights, I have no idea what happened. I've heard people say it almost looks as if Flight 175 auto corrects itself at the last minute. I've heard deep hypno programming can cause a Manchurian to make split second timing when triggered, as some speculate the Princess Diana driver was under. So I dont know if Atta was being mind controlled to fly the plane, tho that leaves room for error; or if some sort of auto controls took over and flew the plane into a beacon or source in the Fuji bank or Marsh and Mclellan area of the WTC. Im sure there's other possibilities, but it was absolutely crucial for fighter jets not to have a chance to intercept.
(I also remember an interview with an NFL player who saw passengers loaded from the tarmac to flight 93, and seeing a couple disgruntled passengers leave the flight due to the delay. I wonder if that delay helped ruin 9/11 from being completed)

Now some might ask "why would the government if they were in on 9/11, release the NORAD tapes if they contain strong clues" or "why would they release endless volumes of 9/11 data anyone working on research can make an appointment to pour over at the library of congress?" Sometimes I wonder...I wonder if some we think were in on 9/11 were in on it. Obviously the operation was sophisticated enough for multiple layers of plausible deniability and failsafes
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12195
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Why the Planes Were Not Intercepted on 9/11

Postby justdrew » Thu Apr 28, 2011 12:25 pm

has any info pointing to remote piloting of the planes ever come out? Other than old reports talking about the capability. we know such planes can be rigged for remote piloting for use as "target drones" but beyond that?
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Re: Why the Planes Were Not Intercepted on 9/11

Postby Hugh Manatee Wins » Fri Apr 29, 2011 12:08 am

OP source is KEVIN RYAN, formerly of Underwriters Laboratories, author of many physical evidence-based articles.

Please include the source in your thread. It matters.

...and 8bitagent...you just don't give a damn about evidence, do you? just your "feelings."
ae911truth.org.
CIA runs mainstream media since WWII:
news rooms, movies/TV, publishing
...
Disney is CIA for kidz!
User avatar
Hugh Manatee Wins
 
Posts: 9869
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: in context
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Why the Planes Were Not Intercepted on 9/11

Postby 8bitagent » Fri Apr 29, 2011 1:23 am

Hugh Manatee Wins wrote:OP source is KEVIN RYAN, formerly of Underwriters Laboratories, author of many physical evidence-based articles.

Please include the source in your thread. It matters.

...and 8bitagent...you just don't give a damn about evidence, do you? just your "feelings."
ae911truth.org.


I'm pretty sure we can all agree the NORAD/FAA situation was a key factor in the operation. Where you and I disagree, is that you believe there were no jihadist patsy's whatsoever which to me is like saying there was no elements of mafia or cubans in the JFK operation.
"Do you know who I am? I am the arm, and I sound like this..."-man from another place, twin peaks fire walk with me
User avatar
8bitagent
 
Posts: 12195
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 6:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)


Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests