The Truth about 9/11

So you would say that there was no terrorist involvement? If the planes didn't crash—what about the people who died? Anthony Perkins widowed wife died on the plane. It was real, she died. So did lots of others. If they aren't dead, where are they? There have to be some answers, and what your saying, while it may be true, leaves more questions than before.

YoungStonewall wrote:Also, in the weeks leading up to the attack, several wealthy individuals including the OWNER of the WTC, made financial descisions and purchases, that indicated that they at least had knowledge of the impending event.

Like what? I didn't know about this.

Thousands of Put Options were written on United Airlines and America Airlines stock, in the days leading up to 9/11.

To understand what this means see this link Put Options - Wikipedia

what about the people who died?....So did lots of others. If they aren't dead, where are they?

This is an excellent question, that I'm not sure I WANT to know the answer to. There are reports that a plane made an emergency landing in Clevland and 200 people exited and were taken into NASA Glenn Research Center's large hanger (that had been evacuated earlier that morning) to be "interviewed" by the FBI. The plane was identified by United Airlines as Flight 93. If you add up the passenger lists of the three 767s the number is approx 200. These people were loaded into military buses and driven away.

In 1997 the Project for a New American Century was established. The Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit organization's stated goal is to promote American global leadership. Its membership roster reads like the invitation list for President Bush's birthday bash: Dick Cheney, John Bolton, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Jeb Bush.

In 2000, the Project for a New American Century issued a report titled Rebuilding America's Defenses. Here's a snippet: "Further, the process of transformation [to worldwide American dominance], even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor."

The morning of 9/11, the Department of Defense was conducting a training exercise to test America's air defenses in response to a simulated Russian attack. A co-sponsor of this annual exercise was the Air Force Space Command. When the hijackings began to occur, according to the 9/11 Commission Report, FAA controllers were confused. They wondered if it was part of the ongoing military drill.

The best evidence against this mind-blowing theory is the phone calls made by passengers and crew of the hijacked flights. In real time, they relayed what was happening on the planes to relatives and friends on the ground.

Therefore the government must have faked the phone calls coming from United 93.

On February 1, 1999, the Washington Post Web site published an incredible story about a new trick up the military's sleeve. Scientist George Papcun, of the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, claimed that he could clone speech patterns from a 10-minute digital recording of anyone's voice. To demonstrate, Papcun's team cloned then-Secretary of State Colin Powell's voice using clips from public speeches.

Powell's voice was heard, clearly saying: "I am being treated well by my captors."

Another test mimicked Gen. Carl Steiner, former commander of U.S. Special Operations Command. This is what Papcun had Steiner say: "Gentlemen! We have called you together to inform you that we are going to overthrow the United States government."

This software was probably used on 9/11 to mimic the voices of those passengers who contacted their families from the hijacked planes. Studies show that at that time, most cell phones would not have worked onboard airplanes, unless at low alltitude.

The only civilians who have been allowed to listen to the voices captured by the data recorder of United 93 are the families of the victims. And that happened only once. No one was allowed to take notes, and they first had to sign an agreement not to discuss what they heard.

Before United 93 crashed smack-dab into his jurisdiction, Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller was probably most known for being a local Civil War buff. But today, he's known nationally as the official who implied that there were no bodies on the plane that crashed into a Shanksville, Pennsylvania field.

"This is the most eerie thing," he told a Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reporter for an article on the first anniversary of the attacks. "I have not, to this day, seen a single drop of blood. Not a drop."

If you look at pictures of the crash site in Shanksville, there's no evidence of a crash. No parts from an airplane. No body parts. Just a hole in the ground with some tiny bits of metal. Then the government shows the media a bandana that one of the hijackers wore, which they said was recovered from the crash site. It's folded perfectly. No blood on it. It looks like the government is manufacturing evidence.

Yet somehow government labs were able to positively ID every single person on the flight.

I don't claim to know all the answers to these very disturbing questions, but what we have been told is a pack of lies.

YoungStonewall wrote:As for the now famous cellphone calls made by the people on United 93?
At the altitudes recorded on radar, cellphones do not work. They could not have been made by the people who reportedly made them. Absolutly no reception.

My Dad says he's talked to Marshal Joiner who flies for US Airways, and he says that's not true. The only reason cell phones were prohibited was that they wanted you to use the "$7 a minute" air planes phones. They now allow them. I admit what I'm citing is 3rd party evidence still...... I don't know where you got that tidbit but I'm more inclined to believe a pilot for US Airways rather than some conspiracy theory.

In 2001 most cellphones would not work unless at lower altitude. Remember that happened 7 years ago.

I guess the biggest thing I have with this "evidence" (it's in quotes because it could be true, it might not) is that can you imagine how many millions and millions of dollars it would cost to shut thousands and thousands up people up? Sooner or later, someone is going to squeal is all this is true. Not just within the government are there thousands of people who know the secret, but within the people involved in the crashes and blown-up buildings—the number must be 100,000 thousand ore more, easily. How do they keep them quiet?

Who says they are quiet? Where do you think all this evidence comes from. As long as most americans believe the official story, the government doesn't care. None of the mainstream media is going to report this stuff, because they are owned by the same powerful people that orchestrated these atrocities. Several million americans at least question what happened.

YoungStonewall wrote:In 2001 most cellphones would not work unless at lower altitude. Remember that happened 7 years ago.

Where do you get this? Is this off the same site with the rest of the conspiracy theory stuff?

This one http://www.elliott.org/technology/2001/cellpermit.htm

And this one http://telephonyonline.com/wireless/ar/wireless_final_contact/

Several tests were conducted after 9/11, at the altitudes we are told they flew. The flight that sent and recieved the most cellphone calls (Flight 93) was also flying at the highest altitude, and less than 1% of the calls attemped at that height were successful.

This says nothing of the extremely odd nature of some of the calls.

Who talks to their mom like this: "Hi, mom, this is Mark Bingham... you believe me, don't you?"

From what I read on those links its questionable whether or not they called. There is only some questioning and surprise. They said it was very likely that they could have called. They also said that since the planes were flying low enough to hit sky scrapers its not very surprising that they could call. I don't see where you get the idea that they couldn't use them.
If those links are your evidence your speculating quite a bit if you ask me.

See my above *edited* post.

Who talks to their mom like this: "Hi, mom, this is Mark Bingham... you believe me, don't you?"

YoungStonewall wrote:Several tests were conducted after 9/11, at the altitudes we are told they flew. The flight that sent and recieved the most cellphone calls (Flight 93) was also flying at the highest altitude, and less than 1% of the calls attempted at that height were successful.

This says nothing of the extremely odd nature of some of the calls.

Who talks to their mom like this: "Hi, mom, this is Mark Bingham... you believe me, don't you?"

Do you know where you found this information? Considering the last 2 links you sent disproved your point more than prove it I'm a little sceptical of this other information.
What is "who talks to their mom like this....." supposed to mean? Are you saying that's one of the calls?

Who says they are quiet?

For one thing, no one with conclusive evidence has come forward saying what really happened. No one in the know has stepped up to tell us why and how it all happened. All we have are people questioning that the WTC were blown up by aeroplanes and that it was an aeroplane that crashed into the Pentagon. We don't know why they did it, how they did it, who was involved, etc.

Alexa Graf, AT&T spokesperson, said systems are not designed for calls from high altitudes, suggesting it was almost a fluke that the calls reached their destinations.

“On land, we have antenna sectors that point in three directions — say north, southwest, and southeast,” she explained. “Those signals are radiating across the land, and those signals do go up, too, due to leakage.”

From high altitudes, the call quality is not very good, and most callers will experience drops. Although calls are not reliable, callers can pick up and hold calls for a little while below a certain altitude, she added.

How does this disprove anything, unless you believe in flukes.

Of course the cellphones companies are not going to say "There is no way these calls were made." because they would look like nutjobs.

"Hi, mom, this is Mark Bingham... you believe me, don't you?"

This is a direct quote from Mark Bingham's (a man on Flight 93) call to his mother.

It doesn't disprove but I think it hurts your case more than harms (**Mod Edit** I think you mean Help) it.

What about the other stuff though?

What other stuff?

Why have these phone conversations never been released to the public?

Why was the FBI confiscating video tapes from the security cameras around the Pentagon MINUTES after the attack. If a plane hit the Pentgon then why take the footage proving that it was a plane, and not a bomb or a missile.

TheWylff wrote:I guess the biggest thing I have with this "evidence" (it's in quotes because it could be true, it might not) is that can you imagine how many millions and millions of dollars it would cost to shut thousands and thousands up people up? Sooner or later, someone is going to squeal is all this is true. Not just within the government are there thousands of people who know the secret, but within the people involved in the crashes and blown-up buildings—the number must be 100,000 thousand ore more, easily. How do they keep them quiet?

Good question. If all this is true, what are all the family members of the "deceased" doing? How are they trying to get to the bottom of this?

Some of them are lobbying etc trying to find out the truth, but of course the government isn't going to tell them what really happened.

There is no doubt in my mind that the people on those planes are all dead. How they died and who killed them and where their bodies are I don't know, and frankly I don't think I want to know the answers.

Coroner Wallace Miller said, "This is the most eerie thing," he told a Pittsburgh Tribune-Review reporter for an article on the first anniversary of the attacks. "I have not, to this day, seen a single drop of blood. Not a drop."

If you look at pictures of the crash site in Shanksville, there's no evidence of a crash. No parts from an airplane. No body parts. Just a hole in the ground with some tiny bits of metal. Then the government shows the media a red bandana that one of the hijackers wore, which they said was recovered from the crash site. It's folded perfectly. No blood on it. It looks like the government is manufacturing evidence.

And another thing.....Why did the hijacker supposedly wear red bandanas? Green in the islamic color of choice for Jihad and martyrs.

I am not claiming to have the answers to any of these questions. I am just telling you that everything does not add up.

If you are content to believe what the government told you then fine, I can't stop you.
But there are way to many inconsistancies and unanswered questions for my mind.

YoungStonewall wrote:Why have these phone conversations never been released to the public?

Why was the FBI confiscating video tapes from the security cameras around the Pentagon MINUTES after the attack. If a plane hit the Pentagon then why take the footage proving that it was a plane, and not a bomb or a missile.

If they haven't how do you know what they are?

I do admit that if those photos I've seen of the Pentagon hole are real I'm a little sceptical of that story. It does seem unlikely that a plane would go that deep and leave no trace of the wings. I mean the wings make up at least half the airplane. It doesn't make sense. I'm also under the impression in this instance that there is not much public footage of that incident. So I do have some unanswered questions about that incident.

The Two Towers are different matter in my mind. I mean there were hundreds of people in New York and they had video it all over TV. I don't think they have confiscated video of The World Trade Center. So I'm less willing to believe something was amiss.

If they haven't how do you know what they are?

The only one I quoted was what Mark Bingham's mother told reporters. The recording were screened privately to family members, and they were not allowed to take notes and they were forced to sign agreements never to discuss what they heard. Why make them sign such a document unless there is something to hide?

As for the Two Towers, have you watched the video of both "collapses"? Carefully and in slow-motion. You can see the explosions farther down the building just like in a controlled demolition.

Whatever.
I don't really care who it was. Ok there's some questions in your mind. That's fine with me.

Why do you not care? If the US government was really involved somehow in these tragedies, you need to know and care.

Yes I need to know but I'm not interested in sorting through all the evidence. I'm just not concerned enough about it. Besides that though what good does it do me to know?

Whatever.
I don't really care who it was. Ok there's some questions in your mind. That's fine with me.

This makes me sick.

This is exactly what those responsible want you to think.

SHAME SHAME SHAME

Your government had a hand in the murder of thousands of innocent people, and all you can say is I DON'T CARE.

Pathetic.

YoungStonewall wrote:
Your government had a hand in the murder of thousands of innocent people, and all you can say is I DON'T CARE.

He's not convinced of that. Don't state it like it's a fact that everyone knows and then condemn him for it. I'm not convinced either.

Edit: I'm not convinced, but I do want to look into this. So, Stonewall, could you please post more links? So far there have been three links posted in this thread (unless I missed some), and I'm going to look at those, but could you tell me where you're getting the rest of your information? Show us the experts, please.

Edit: OK, I just looked at the Wikipedia article about Put Options. I hesitate to use Wikipedia, but since you linked to it: one of the links at the bottom of the page points to an article specifically about 9/11, and that article says
The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the "9/11 Commission") investigated these rumors and found that although some unusual (and initially seemingly suspicious) trading activity did occur in the days prior to September 11, it was all coincidentally innocuous and not the result of insider trading by parties with foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks:
I don't see the support for your theory there...