What evidence of lslamic Terrorist complicity exists in 911 attacks?

geistkeisel, I question your sincerity. You recently began a thread in which you offered an identical hypothesis. I and others took the time to engage you in a reasonable exploration of the available evidence. Yet you have so far not given even passing consideration to verifiable, corroborating information that conflicts with your vague theory. Instead, you have added to the considerable clutter on this board by beginning yet another repetitive thread on the same topic.

"This thread will not strain the mental faculties of anyone reading."

But it can insult them. If I'm all wrong about you, then you can clear things up by returning to your original thread, to rebut or disprove points of evidence that I linked there for you (supporting the commonly-understood version of the basic events of 9/11- that commercial B-757 airliners caused the deaths and damages that day).

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Thanks Hypewaders, i remember seeing that thread a while back. These people will not be happy until they've won... which means they'll never be happy.

Nieldo, your idea has merit but given the circumstances surrounding 9-11 and the Radar evidence crazy151drinker has repeatedly stated, just not possible. Under the radar is extremely difficult especially in the US, as there are a large amount of Civil and military airports, radar coverage especially in the Baltimore/New york region is absolute. To achieve the Under the radar effect, then you would need to fly dangerously close to the ground. No matter how experienced a pilot is, flying a jumbo jet that close to the ground would need a very low speed, and would still be difficult...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"These people will not be happy until they've won... "

The superficial, ego-driven idea of "winning" or losing in these interactions destroys the value of discussion boards like this IMO. I enjoy and gain from encountering differing points of view. But when it is discovered after considerable investment of valuable time that a participant's drawn-out opinions are driven more by a desire for sensationalism and attention than by a sincere desire to seek understanding, then I realize that I've been had.

There is a palpable difference between the expressions of someone sincerely interested in discussion, and the words of a person who is only simulating grounded opinion, in order to get attention and revel in an illusion of smartness, without bothering with any disciplined thought or research.

While there is plenty to question about the US government's response to 9-11, the basic facts of what occured on that day are well-established with compelling evidence.

It saddens me when healthy scepticism is diverted into vacuous talk. There is so much we urgently need to process in the collective American consciousness about terrorism. With the compounding failures of our foreign policies under this Bush Administration, we are extremely likely to experience more blowback. Without coherent debate we will continue to have whole societies stymied into catastrophic misreactions by endless elaborations on terrorist incitement. This stuff really matters: What and how we think and communicate on these issues means nothing less than life and death to thousands of people just like you and me. Let's please get real.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, but the point where the aircraft turned around weren't New York or Baltimore. Wasn't it somewhere more towards the Midwest or something?

It wouldn't be difficult or dangerous flying low to the ground if near a landing strip. There are numerous old, closed down airports that litter this country that can still be used to land. All aircraft A would have to do is land as aircraft/drone B was taking off. That would allow em to swap positions and would also account for the crazy "sharp turn" that happened when it turned around to head towards the WTC.

- N

 

Neildo: Like i said it has merit.

But... The sharp turn you are talking about is possible in all types of aircraft. Doesn't matter about size and whatnot an aircraft can bank to a very high angle and pull back on the yoke. Larger aircraft have difficulty doing this because of the G load and risk possibly stalling one wing but it is still possible. I've seen a B-52 do a 180 Degree turn at a near 90 degree bank. Lost alot of height but managed it. This will look like a sharp turn on radar as the turn is being conducted quickly and the refresh rates on radar screens is pretty slow...

Radar coverage over the US is almost complete, with exception to certain area's in the Rockies. This is due mainly to the large amount of Civil and Commercial aircraft that fly within the states. Dropping an aircraft "under the radar" would raise many questions in Air Traffic Control centres around the US. Firstly if it did so, it would have to break its flight plan and begin its descent. Then it would go under the radar in which case an emergency would be declared as it would be assumed that the aircraft had crashed. They would then realise that it would have landed in the vicinity of a dis-used landing strip (i'll raise another point about that second), and sent emergency crews out there to look for it. When the aircraft magically re-appeared their would be a large amount of questions regarding to its behaviour and this would have come up during subsequent investigations after 9-11

About the dis-used landing strip. It would have to be large enough so's that a boeing 757 could land on it. This requires a lengthy runway aswell as a wide one. It could not be grass. To my knowledge no airstrips that fit the criteria are available.

Landing the aircraft, still doesn't account to where all the people went? I mean sure you could hide them on an Island or another place, But extremely unlikely. Hiding that many people... something is sure to look odd. Doesn't account for the fact that they managed to find body bits from the WTC matching them is the hard bit, but pieces were found

 

Unintentionally funny sentence of the day.​

 

Whatever it is that was done with the people on the plane, the Cuban invasion plan that I originally cited mentioned that, but gave no specifics as to what would be done with them, but they said it was doable. So whatever happened to em, they're gone.

I'm not doubting you, but I'd be curious as to that information. Do you have any to cite?

- N

 

I do.

Radiology Magazine
Disaster Mortuary Operational Response Teams
Screw Loose Change
911 Research - Caution: Grisly

And some more photo evidence of AA 77 wreckage:
911 Myths
Moussaoui Trial Exhibits- Caution: This link also contains photos of burned corpses

(sigh) It's tiresome. Mainly because finding this stuff online you have to wade through so much conspiracy hype. But I hope that all serious participants in this discussion can now get past the most ridiculous, thoroughly-debunked conspiracy theories, and move on to the serious questions that still remain even with the certain knowledge that American Airlines Flight 77 did indeed hit the Pentagon:

What are the specific, verifiable identities of the pilots who flew the attacks? Who were their accomplices? What does the known organizational diagram of the 9-11 perpetrators look like? It is the Constitutional duty of Federal Law enforcement to fully provide this information to the American public.

Edit: Apologies for posting in the wrong geistkeisel 911 conspiracy thread. The discussion in the other one has lately centered more on the Pentagon attack, and apparently this one has now veered more toward the WTC. I failed to notice before I went digging in the dank dirt, brought what I found here. Hopefully the post is worthwhile anyway, since the forensic evidence from the Pentagon has been more under wraps than that from the WTC.