I refuse to be one of those people who think our government would intentionally attack their own country for personal, political agendas -BUT- I think the truth about 9/11 is that we don't know the complete truth behind 9/11.
With all the conspiracy theories out there, there seems to be questions that need to be answered.
fastfingersfunk
all of these questions have been answered. they just don't want to hear the answers because it wouldn't fit their fantasy. for instance, the first picture they show is the backside of the WTC7, trying to say it was a controlled demolition. there is plenty of video of WTC7 but none of it has explosions, as a controlled demo would. they always leave that part out too, they show the building as it falls but not the 10 seconds before it where explosions would be heard.
why dont they show this pic that shows the HUGE gap cut out of 13 stories by WTC1 falling into it. see the giant hole down the center of the building that breached the supports of 13 floors. then notice how the building is CROOKED because of it. it's actually tilting inward (starting at around the "New York City" graphic, you can see the corner is straight then above it the corner is tilted).
I refuse to be one of those people who think our government would intentionally attack their own country for personal, political agendas -BUT- I think the truth about 9/11 is that we don't know the complete truth behind 9/11.
With all the conspiracy theories out there, there seems to be questions that need to be answered.
Once you are able to realize that "our government" is a huge beauracracy with hundreds of thousands of individuals, maybe then will you understand that a very small but powerful group within is able to steer the large majority of events.
x76
WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA SO MUCH?
KEEP SILENT AND CONSUME.
fastfingersfunk
Quote: Originally posted by x76 WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA SO MUCH?
KEEP SILENT AND CONSUME.
you forgot to add "FOX NEWS PWNZ YOU!!!"
BarkonCue
Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk you forgot to add "FOX NEWS PWNZ YOU!!!"
Those days are over!
Billyfromsphily
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman Once you are able to realize that "our government" is a huge beauracracy with hundreds of thousands of individuals, maybe then will you understand that a very small but powerful group within is able to steer the large majority of events.
So that is the connection?
Sheeesh! Keep streching!
x76
WTC7 was "pulled" according to Silverstein, the Zionist who had just purchased the WTC Center. He admitted to it being a controlled demolition. I mean, Christ, I could pile up a MOUNTAIN of facts but if you've been drinking the Official STory Kool-Aid it's not going to sway you.
Take the red pill, Neo...
Billyfromsphily
Quote: Originally posted by x76 WTC7 was "pulled" according to Silverstein, the Zionist who had just purchased the WTC Center. He admitted to it being a controlled demolition. I mean, Christ, I could pile up a MOUNTAIN of facts but if you've been drinking the Official STory Kool-Aid it's not going to sway you.
Take the red pill, Neo...
So where did the hole in the side of the building come from before they allegedly blew it up?
fastfingersfunk
Quote: Originally posted by x76 WTC7 was "pulled" according to Silverstein, the Zionist who had just purchased the WTC Center. He admitted to it being a controlled demolition. I mean, Christ, I could pile up a MOUNTAIN of facts but if you've been drinking the Official STory Kool-Aid it's not going to sway you.
Take the red pill, Neo...
lmao. silverstein said PULL IT meant to pull the rescue workers in the area because the building looked like it was going to collapse (as proven in my picture above), but here you say he admitted to a controlled demolition. show us where he agreed it was a controlled demo or be known as the red pill swallower.
Silverstein's Quote:
"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.'
HE NEVER SAID PULL IT WAS A CONTROLLED DEMO. this is why the "truth movement" has been buried. because people just make things up and never back it up.
Stickman
Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk lmao. silverstein said PULL IT meant to pull the rescue workers in the area because the building looked like it was going to collapse (as proven in my picture above), but here you say he admitted to a controlled demolition. show us where he agreed it was a controlled demo or be known as the red pill swallower.
Silverstein's Quote:
"I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, you know, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is just pull it.'
HE NEVER SAID PULL IT WAS A CONTROLLED DEMO. this is why the "truth movement" has been buried. because people just make things up and never back it up.
He never said it was a fire crew either, which had been "pulled" many hours earlier. According to your theory, if you pull a fire crew it makes the bldg collapse.
Had you included his next sentence you'll see that the bldg collapse is in the same context:
"And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
Billyfromsphily
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman He never said it was a fire crew either, which had been "pulled" many hours earlier. According to your theory, if you pull a fire crew it makes the bldg collapse.
Had you included his next sentence you'll see that the bldg collapse is in the same context:
"And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
Why don't you call Silverm,an and ask him what he meant?
Because all of your bullshit goes against convential practice in firefighting.
fastfingersfunk
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman He never said it was a fire crew either, which had been "pulled" many hours earlier. According to your theory, if you pull a fire crew it makes the bldg collapse.
Had you included his next sentence you'll see that the bldg collapse is in the same context:
"And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
nowhere is he saying that exactly at the time they "PULLED IT" that it fell. if he had said "we made the decision to pull it and we watched the demolition of the buidling" youd have a point.
and regarding the original post, HE NEVER SAID WTC7 WAS A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.
but lets be real. lets get off of words that you can misconstrue a million different ways because all one has to do is watch the videos and see that there are NO DEMOLITION SOUNDS and no evidence of a controlled demolition. simple as that.
Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk nowhere is he saying that exactly at the time they "PULLED IT" that it fell. if he had said "we made the decision to pull it and we watched the demolition of the buidling" youd have a point.
and regarding the original post, HE NEVER SAID WTC7 WAS A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION.
but lets be real. lets get off of words that you can misconstrue a million different ways because all one has to do is watch the videos and see that there are NO DEMOLITION SOUNDS and no evidence of a controlled demolition. simple as that.
There's only a few videos of 7 imploding. One is inside a bldg, the other two are a few blooks away. Not only were the cameras far, there's no guarantee that the mic was on or sensitive enough to pick up the sound.
Stickman
Quote: Originally posted by Billyfromsphily Why don't you call Silverm,an and ask him what he meant?
Because all of your bullshit goes against convential practice in firefighting.
Do you know the reason why the fire in 7 was not fought?
fastfingersfunk
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman Do you know the reason why the fire in 7 was not fought?
perhaps you would like to present to us the manufacturer of the explosives and wire that can withstand 8 hours of fire only to be ignited on queue. that should be interesting.
NCMike06
Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk perhaps you would like to present to us the manufacturer of the explosives and wire that can withstand 8 hours of fire only to be ignited on queue. that should be interesting.
It was an invisible missle, controlled by Cheney at his secret location......geez....don't you understand anything?? Its as plain as day, for heavens sake !!!
fastfingersfunk
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06 It was an invisible missle, controlled by Cheney at his secret location......geez....don't you understand anything?? Its as plain as day, for heavens sake !!!
i knew that.
Billyfromsphily
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06 It was an invisible missle, controlled by Cheney at his secret location......geez....don't you understand anything?? Its as plain as day, for heavens sake !!!
For once I agree with Mikey!
NoName
Quote: Originally posted by x76 WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA SO MUCH?
KEEP SILENT AND CONSUME.
;) :D Yeah minimum payments RULE!! The plastic card in your wallet is FREE $$$
Stickman
Quote: Originally posted by NCMike06 It was an invisible missle, controlled by Cheney at his secret location......geez....don't you understand anything?? Its as plain as day, for heavens sake !!!
Cheney's location wasn't secret on 9/11. He was in the PEOC acting as Commander in Chief while Bush was flying around the country awaiting his next order.
fastfingersfunk
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman Cheney's location wasn't secret on 9/11. He was in the PEOC acting as Commander in Chief while Bush was flying around the country awaiting his next order.
perhaps you would like to present to us the manufacturer of the explosives and wire that can withstand 8 hours of fire only to be ignited on queue. that should be interesting.
Billyfromsphily
Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk perhaps you would like to present to us the manufacturer of the explosives and wire that can withstand 8 hours of fire only to be ignited on queue. that should be interesting.
Thats one stick can't explain. Why would you wire a building with wire that would melt and then load Hi explosives in it before setting it on fire and waiting 8 hours to "PULL IT"
I think someone is PULLING IT!
Stickman
Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk perhaps you would like to present to us the manufacturer of the explosives and wire that can withstand 8 hours of fire only to be ignited on queue. that should be interesting.
a) you're assuming the bldg was entirely consumed by fire, which it wasn't.
b) you're assuming that wiring the bldg for demo would require charges throughout the entire bldg, which it doesn't.
Snoopyrules
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman a) you're assuming the bldg was entirely consumed by fire, which it wasn't.
b) you're assuming that wiring the bldg for demo would require charges throughout the entire bldg, which it doesn't.
Is this guy lying
"See where the white smoke is, you see this thing leaning like this. It's definately coming down, there's no way to stop it
The structural integrity is not there
He's basing his opinion on the damage he as a professional is seeing. This isn't a word of mouth thing. So, the only explanation is that he's lying....right there on the spot after 100's of firefighters died....so, is he lying?
Billyfromsphily
Stick has done his usual job of connecting truths.
The building wasn't consumed by fire and the entire building didn't have to be completely wired for a CD.
A couple of truths that have no connection to the reason the building fell.
Snoopyrules
This
causes this
which when this
is added. Can cause a building to collapse.
Stickman
Quote: Originally posted by Snoopyrules Is this guy lying
"See where the white smoke is, you see this thing leaning like this. It's definately coming down, there's no way to stop it
The structural integrity is not there
He's basing his opinion on the damage he as a professional is seeing. This isn't a word of mouth thing. So, the only explanation is that he's lying....right there on the spot after 100's of firefighters died....so, is he lying?
You always post the same video as if he was able to make a determination about the bldg's structural integrity. He's a firefighter not an engineer.
Snoopyrules
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman You always post the same video as if he was able to make a determination about the bldg's structural integrity. He's a firefighter not an engineer.
He's qualified enough to see it leaning
Stickman
Snoopy,
Simple question: why wasn't the fire in 7 fought?
Answer it or you will expose yourself as ill informed.
fastfingersfunk
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman a) you're assuming the bldg was entirely consumed by fire, which it wasn't.
b) you're assuming that wiring the bldg for demo would require charges throughout the entire bldg, which it doesn't.
in order to properly demo a building it certainly will have explosives in all zones, especially in the main supports, which is where the fire was.
it takes 4 weeks and a team of 10-15 guys to rig a building that size for a proper controlled demolition, which includes tearing down the dry wall, cutting support beams, drilling holes, planting the explosives and wiring. in your mind this all happened leading up to 9/11 but yet NOBODY saw anything like that? i suppose they tore the dry wall down and then put it back up each night before the workers got there? lol.
fastfingersfunk
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman You always post the same video as if he was able to make a determination about the bldg's structural integrity. He's a firefighter not an engineer.
any schmoe can see it leaning inward in this pic, towards the huge gaping section ripped out of the middle from WTC1 falling into it. the building is straight until the "new york city" graphics then its bent inward.
Stickman
Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk in order to properly demo a building it certainly will have explosives in all zones, especially in the main supports, which is where the fire was.
How do you know where the fire was?
Stickman
Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk any schmoe can see it leaning inward in this pic, towards the huge gaping section ripped out of the middle from WTC1 falling into it. the building is straight until the "new york city" graphics then its bend inward.
That "huge gaping section" is an amazingly symetrical "gash." Care to explain what part of the tower caused this, and what source you have that proves such a theory?
fastfingersfunk
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman How do you know where the fire was?
because the fire was on the side of the WTC1, which is where the main support beams are.
Snoopyrules
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman Snoopy,
Simple question: why wasn't the fire in 7 fought?
Answer it or you will expose yourself as ill informed.
Just stop, your questions are always pointless. Seriouls, If you have a point, just make it. Why does everything with you have to be a question about page 522 section B of the NIST report that you use and dismiss simultaneously. For fuck sake spit it out, what moronic statement do you have to make. Personally, I have no idea why it wasn't fought. You tell me what the point is of a question as to why an empty building that was leaning didn't have people running up the stairs with hoses. Whatever you come up with has no bearing (as always) on the story you've created.
fastfingersfunk
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman That "huge gaping section" is an amazingly symetrical "gash." Care to explain what part of the tower caused this, and what source you have that proves such a theory?
its not a theory that a WTC1 major upright scooped that out.
Stickman
Quote: Originally posted by Snoopyrules Just stop, your questions are always pointless. Seriouls, If you have a point, just make it. Why does everything with you have to be a question about page 522 section B of the NIST report that you use and dismiss simultaneously. For fuck sake spit it out, what moronic statement do you have to make. Personally, I have no idea why it wasn't fought. You tell me what the point is of a question as to why an empty building that was leaning didn't have people running up the stairs with hoses. Whatever you come up with has no bearing (as always) on the story you've created.
You have this very annoying combination of pretending to have all the answers and yet not knowing shit about the official story. This is why I ask you simple questions, because it's obvious that you never really researched this. Read.
Stickman
Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk its not a theory that a WTC1 major upright scooped that out.
Well, if it's a foregone conclusion than you should have no problem posting a source.
fastfingersfunk
and if you want a source, here is detail of the damage given by structure magazine, run by structural engineers.
Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk because the fire was on the side of the WTC1, which is where the main support beams are.
Here's the thing with WTC 7, and I've mentioned it only a couple of times because it's not really verifiable proof. There's so much of that, that I don't usually use my ace in the hole. I personally saw the building fall from the boat back to Hoboken. There were no explosions, and I was close enough that I would have heard them. There was dead silence while everyone on board stared waiting for it to fall, because 1010wins was reporting the structual issues. So, for me, there's no leap of faith (not that one is needed since common sense is all that is necessary) of any kind. I was close enough to see the windows slightly wobble and watch if fall during dead silence.
Stickman
Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk and if you want a source, here is detail of the damage given by structure magazine, run by structural engineers.
Those charts just refuted your dumbass claim that all the support beams are on the southside.
fastfingersfunk
Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk in order to properly demo a building it certainly will have explosives in all zones, especially in the main supports, which is where the fire was.
it takes 4 weeks and a team of 10-15 guys to rig a building that size for a proper controlled demolition, which includes tearing down the dry wall, cutting support beams, drilling holes, planting the explosives and wiring. in your mind this all happened leading up to 9/11 but yet NOBODY saw anything like that? i suppose they tore the dry wall down and then put it back up each night before the workers got there? lol.
all i need to know is do you think the above scenario happened?
Snoopyrules
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman You have this very annoying combination of pretending to have all the answers and yet not knowing shit about the official story. This is why I ask you simple questions, because it's obvious that you never really researched this. Read.
Nice deflection, now make your point and stop just continually asking questions that never have a point. You're like my 3 year old...why why why why why why.
fastfingersfunk
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman Those charts just refuted your dumbass claim that all the support beams are on the southside.
lmao, READ IT, YES IT DOES. LMFAO.
Stickman
Quote: Originally posted by Snoopyrules Here's the thing with WTC 7, and I've mentioned it only a couple of times because it's not really verifiable proof. There's so much of that, that I don't usually use my ace in the hole. I personally saw the building fall from the boat back to Hoboken. There were no explosions, and I was close enough that I would have heard them. There was dead silence while everyone on board stared waiting for it to fall, because 1010wins was reporting the structual issues. So, for me, there's no leap of faith (not that one is needed since common sense is all that is necessary) of any kind. I was close enough to see the windows slightly wobble and watch if fall during dead silence.
Oh yeah, you're ace in the hole. Holy fuck you're pathetic. Since you claim to be on a boat, you can say for sure how the bldg collapsed, when even NIST has not come out with a collapse theory.
Snoopyrules
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman Oh yeah, you're ace in the hole. Holy fuck you're pathetic. Since you claim to be on a boat, you can say for sure how the bldg collapsed, when even NIST has not come out with a collapse theory.
I can say there were no explosions. You on the other hand like every other conspiracy theorist 1000+ miles away only have your blogs and iMac movie software to rely on.
NCMike06
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman Cheney's location wasn't secret on 9/11. He was in the PEOC acting as Commander in Chief while Bush was flying around the country awaiting his next order.
Thats what you were supposed to believe...its an old Sith mind trick.... The force is weak with you.
Timmy
Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk in order to properly demo a building it certainly will have explosives in all zones, especially in the main supports, which is where the fire was.
it takes 4 weeks and a team of 10-15 guys to rig a building that size for a proper controlled demolition, which includes tearing down the dry wall, cutting support beams, drilling holes, planting the explosives and wiring. in your mind this all happened leading up to 9/11 but yet NOBODY saw anything like that? i suppose they tore the dry wall down and then put it back up each night before the workers got there? lol.
You contradict your stance. You're saying it takes a whole lot to knock a building down, YET building 7 fell down without a whole lot of effort (clipped corner of the building).
Is it easy or hard to knock down a building? Pick a side.
Stickman
Quote: Originally posted by Snoopyrules I can say there were no explosions. You on the other hand like every other conspiracy theorist 1000+ miles away only have your blogs and iMac movie software to rely on.
So stupid. It's not like you would have a clear, unobstructed view of 7 if you were heading to Hoboken which is a bit north of the financial district.
tourette_ticker
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman That "huge gaping section" is an amazingly symetrical "gash." Care to explain what part of the tower caused this, and what source you have that proves such a theory?
The part that fell on it. The source is seeing the tower fall and a gash show up. Do you have an alternate explanation?
Stickman
Quote: Originally posted by tourette_ticker The part that fell on it. The source is seeing the tower fall and a gash show up. Do you have an alternate explanation?
That's your scientific explanation? The "part"? What part? And how exactly did it make such a symetrical gash?
Or do you believe Silverstein when he said the antenna did that?
Snoopyrules
Quote: Originally posted by Timmy You contradict your stance. You're saying it takes a whole lot to knock a building down, YET building 7 fell down without a whole lot of effort (clipped corner of the building).
Is it easy or hard to knock down a building? Pick a side.
This is a clip?
try devestating strutual damaging direct hit.
Stickman
Quote: Originally posted by Snoopyrules This is a clip?
try devestating strutual damaging direct hit.
Wrong, buildings that took a more direct hit didn't suddenly collapse into a tidy pile.
Snoopyrules
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman So stupid. It's not like you would have a clear, unobstructed view of 7 if you were heading to Hoboken which is a bit north of the financial district.
On the open water on a dead silent boat? I would have absolutely heard an explosion, and we've been over this before. The view was absolutely unobstructed, should I get you the google maps again.
tourette_ticker
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman That's your scientific explanation? The "part"? What part? And how exactly did it make such a symetrical gash?
Or do you believe Silverstein when he said the antenna did that?
really stick, this is kinda crazy. If it wasn't the building falling on it what caused the gash? Do you have any other possible explanation?
Snoopyrules
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman Wrong, buildings that took a more direct hit didn't suddenly collapse into a tidy pile.
That buidling is taking the most direct hit, but that's not even the point. The effects of the damage of one buidling don't foretell the effects of the damage on another. Each building is going to suffer damager differently. That one collapsed, The Deutche Bank Building became structual unusable, and others were completely demolished by the falling debris.
Stickman
Quote: Originally posted by tourette_ticker really stick, this is kinda crazy. If it wasn't the building falling on it what caused the gash? Do you have any other possible explanation?
Honestly, I don't. The gash is so symetrical, I'd say a trick of light or some photographic effect before I'd say some part of the tower was able to rip into the entire facade of the building, so symetrically.
The question really is, can you say for sure what caused it? Any video, or a massive beam that was found at the base or among the rubble?
Seriously, Silverstein said it was caused by the antenna.
Stickman
Quote: Originally posted by Snoopyrules That buidling is taking the most direct hit, but that's not even the point. The effects of the damage of one buidling don't foretell the effects of the damage on another. Each building is going to suffer damager differently. That one collapsed, The Deutche Bank Building became structual unusable, and others were completely demolished by the falling debris.
Wrong again. 5 and 6 took a much more direct hit and their roofs didn't completely collapse.
fastfingersfunk
this guy is shown multiple pics of the structural damage and the fires of WTC1, which one shows clearly the top section of the building leaning inward toward the gap made by a beam from WTC1 and he doesnt believe it could have collapsed, but there isnt ONE PIECE of evidence to show a demolition and he believes that.
thats the "truth movement" right there.
fastfingersfunk
Quote: Originally posted by Timmy You contradict your stance. You're saying it takes a whole lot to knock a building down, YET building 7 fell down without a whole lot of effort (clipped corner of the building).
Is it easy or hard to knock down a building? Pick a side.
LMAO. the damage done by WTC1 wasnt a whole lot? weakest retort ive ever seen. your comparison doesnt even make sense. the amount of work it takes to rig a demolition compared to damage done by WTC1? WTF?
and once again, this is much more than a "clipped corner". see the vertical section in the middle that was scooped out. 13 stories were taken out by a vertical beam of WTC1 falling into it. YOU CAN SEE THE BUILDING LEANING (its straight up at the NEW YORK CITY lettering then it leans. this is massive damage.
Timmy
Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk LMAO. the damage done by WTC1 wasnt a whole lot? weakest retort ive ever seen. your comparison doesnt even make sense
Im replying to your logic thats all.
I prefer better conspiracies. Like shooting down the plane in PA. And the govt supression of video if the pentagon crash.
fastfingersfunk
just to add on.
here is more evidence of the damage done by the WTC1 beam hitting WTC7, huge gap starting at the top. again, building leaning.
and another showing the gap behind the smoke (since stickman was claiming a photoshop)
Timmy
BREAKING NEWS: Bay Area Muslims condem attacks!! :D That was fucking breaking news???
fastfingersfunk
Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk
and if stickman questions the authenticity of this photo, go here and at the very bottom is a link to the actual video this capture is taken from.
at 31:20 you can clearly see the scooped out section.
at 37:15 look at how much smoke is coming out. anyone that thinks explosives would survive that only to be blown on queue is kidding themselves.
yet no evidence of a demolition ever.
fastfingersfunk
Quote: Originally posted by Timmy BREAKING NEWS: Bay Area Muslims condem attacks!! :D That was fucking breaking news???
i LOL'd too.
Monster_Zero
I'm curious about the hijackers... haven't at least 4, and as many as 7, been identified as still alive (not to mention a bit pissed at being labeled Al Qaeda terrorists)? Why were they suspects in the first place? Isn't it true that none of the hijackers names ever appeared on any of the passenger lists? How were they identified?
Why hasn't the official list of hijackers ever been amended?
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman Honestly, I don't. The gash is so symetrical, I'd say a trick of light or some photographic effect before I'd say some part of the tower was able to rip into the entire facade of the building, so symetrically.
The question really is, can you say for sure what caused it? Any video, or a massive beam that was found at the base or among the rubble?
Seriously, Silverstein said it was caused by the antenna.
Yeah, special effects are a good response!
What time is your medication due?
Stickman
Quote: Originally posted by fastfingersfunk and if stickman questions the authenticity of this photo, go here and at the very bottom is a link to the actual video this capture is taken from.
at 31:20 you can clearly see the scooped out section.
at 37:15 look at how much smoke is coming out. anyone that thinks explosives would survive that only to be blown on queue is kidding themselves.
yet no evidence of a demolition ever.
Clearly? Just as in the still of the video, the image is very pixilated, you can't see anything clearly in that video.
Stickman
Quote: Originally posted by Monster_Zero I'm curious about the hijackers... haven't at least 4, and as many as 7, been identified as still alive (not to mention a bit pissed at being labeled Al Qaeda terrorists)? Why were they suspects in the first place? Isn't it true that none of the hijackers names ever appeared on any of the passenger lists? How were they identified?
Why hasn't the official list of hijackers ever been amended?
Here's a good question about the hijackers. When was the complete list of the 19 released?
Anyone know the answer?
BarkonCue
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman Here's a good question about the hijackers. When was the complete list of the 19 released?
Anyone know the answer?
The next day?
Snoopyrules
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman Here's a good question about the hijackers. When was the complete list of the 19 released?
Anyone know the answer?
Great, another question without making a point. why why why why why
Stickman
Quote: Originally posted by BarkonCue The next day?
No. It was actually 11 am that day. No shit.
(11:00 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Customs Claims to Determine the Names of All 19 Hijackers
Robert Bonner, the head of Customs and Border Protection, later testifies, "We ran passenger manifests through the system used by Customs—two were hits on our watch list of August 2001." (This is presumably a reference to hijackers Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, watch-listed on August 23, 2001.) "And by looking at the Arab names and their seat locations, ticket purchases and other passenger information, it didn't take a lot to do a rudimentary link analysis. Customs officers were able to ID 19 probable hijackers within 45 minutes. I saw the sheet by 11 a.m. And that analysis did indeed correctly identify the terrorists." [New York Observer, 2/11/2004] http://www.observer.com/node/48805 http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/...ne&startpos=600
Stickman
Quote: Originally posted by Snoopyrules Great, another question without making a point. why why why why why
Another question you don't know the answer to. But I know the reason why.
Snoopyrules
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman Another question you don't know the answer to. But I know the reason why.
Like you haven't made this stupid point before. Who cares how quickly they got the names. It wasn't that tough a mystery to solve. This is another pointless question asked by you that in no way helps explain your silly conspiracy story.
BarkonCue
Quote: Originally posted by Stickman No. It was actually 11 am that day. No shit.
(11:00 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Customs Claims to Determine the Names of All 19 Hijackers
Robert Bonner, the head of Customs and Border Protection, later testifies, "We ran passenger manifests through the system used by Customs—two were hits on our watch list of August 2001." (This is presumably a reference to hijackers Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, watch-listed on August 23, 2001.) "And by looking at the Arab names and their seat locations, ticket purchases and other passenger information, it didn't take a lot to do a rudimentary link analysis. Customs officers were able to ID 19 probable hijackers within 45 minutes. I saw the sheet by 11 a.m. And that analysis did indeed correctly identify the terrorists." [New York Observer, 2/11/2004] http://www.observer.com/node/48805 http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/...ne&startpos=600
I remember the names came out very fast after the fact.
fengshuihao
A passport of one 'terrorist,' mind you, was even found amongst the rubbish at the WCT site. That is a convenient finding!
Stickman
Quote: Originally posted by fengshuihao A passport of one 'terrorist,' mind you, was even found amongst the rubbish at the WCT site. That is a convenient finding!
The "evidence" that Atta left behind is also oddly convenient.
Kill Van Kull
"I wouldn't have bothered with all that plane flying and crashing stuff myself since we had the bldgs all wired to implode anyway. But that's what Osama wanted...hey, he's the boss...what's a terrorist to do?"
:D :D
Stickman
Quote: Originally posted by Kill Van Kull
"I wouldn't have bothered with all that plane flying and crashing stuff myself since we had the bldgs all wired to implode anyway. But that's what Osama wanted...hey, he's the boss...what's a terrorist to do?"
This website is not affiliated with the Howard Stern Show. It is produced by fans for fans. We share no connection with Howard Stern, Sirius Radio, On Demand, CBS Broadcasting, E! TV or Infinity Broadcasting.
All posts and attachments are the responsibilities of their owners and not of this site.
