9/11 - The Fairy Tale From Hell

If a person can murder another person with their bare hands, as has happened on countless occasions in our history and will happen countless times more, why is it so hard to believe that men who are trained fighters could overtake a couple pilots while wielding small blades?

What do you think...airline pilots are like Maverick and Iceman from Top Gun?

The jihadists you believe to be magical cut the throats of stewardesses on their way to doing the same to the pilots. Sorry, but no amount of hatred for Americans will ever allow me to cheer those terrorists thugs.

Agreed, but many (here) are under the impression it was all a sham, a hoax, a lie.

Some (here) will argue that the entire day was orchestrated by the Bush regime as a pretext to the imperialist agenda of global domination. Bush’s war for oil, you see, needed a pretext, and allowing (or even planning!) for 4 planes to be hijacked and thousands murdered was just what the neocon doctor ordered.

Bush, you see, is both a borderline retarded smirking chimp with a drinking problem *and* the mastermind of the largest, most complex “stunt” in the history of history.

As far as those “thugs” go, people here generally don’t “do” Jihadists. It doesn’t come up as a real possibility. Just take a look at the Toronto Terror threads. Angry, violent Muslims, if such a thing even exists, are just boogey-men created by the powers that be in order to frighten us “sheeple” in to submission, until we are living an Orwellian nightmare.

<a href="http://www.lookingglassnews.org/viewstory.php?storyid=6380">Flying a Plane Into the World Trade Center?</a> <br><br> <i>Here is a new, and so far unasked question about the badly debunked official explanation of the events of September 11th 2001. If you spend years planning a spectacular attack on the World Trade Center in New York City, and you are a less than adequate pilot, and you wanted to ensure the attack would be completed without giving the U.S. air defense apparatus the chance to follow their normal procedures and intercept your plane, why would you choose to fly out of Boston? Why would you choose to risk getting lost or stopped as you try to fly 190 miles to your target when you can hijack a plane from one of three airports within sight of the target?</i> <br><br> The list of observations that just don't add up is almost endless, unless you think that the whole affair is a lie, then suddenly it all makes sense.

Once again, I will bring up the 757 crashing into the pentagon, which if you buy into the "official story" was an event that defies the laws of physics as I understand them.

Tire rims and engines magically shrink in size.

Impact holes considerably smaller that the diameter of the fuselage that hit the building.

No trace of wing impact along the fascia where the leading edges and wings would have hit.

All of this being the result of a commercial jet airliner flying at under 10 feet of altitude at better that 400 miles per hour with a pilot of questionable ability at the controls.

Now please, tell me that believing that it happened as officially stated doesn't require me to buy into a completely unreal mindset of fantasy and wishful thinking.

I could use the laugh.

---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

"The Weapon" - Rush

"which if you buy into the"

should read as "which if you don't buy into the"

my bad

---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

"The Weapon" - Rush

There is a story called The Three Sillies that may be more appropriate here. To discount the obvious is not just childish its the cornerstone of living in denial. But you would know that like you know about the silly, countless, pointless plots we pull on ourselvers.
What do you call this awful affliction? Be brave but be more vague. You will thank me for the advice.

<br><br> <a href="http://www.911podcasts.com/files/video/Italiandebateshow-WTC7.wmv">Video: Side by side comparison of WTC 7 collapse and a controlled demolition</a> <br><br>

"What do you think...airline pilots are like Maverick and Iceman from Top Gun?"
"Agreed, but many (here) are under the impression it was all a sham, a hoax, a lie."
"Some (here) will argue that the entire day was orchestrated by the Bush regime as a pretext to the imperialist agenda of global domination. Bush’s war for oil, you see, needed a pretext, and allowing (or even planning!) for 4 planes to be hijacked and thousands murdered was just what the neocon doctor ordered."


Bino let's be fair here, O.K.. Support for the 911 official fable requires every bit as much blind faith in the impossible as what you deem a "conspiracy" theory. Why not talk about why the planes flew around for so long without being intercepted, then delve into the depth of that failure alone, concentrating on just how many parties had to simutaneously fail in a perfectly sycronized fashion to make it all happen. Ask yourself how the terrorists made that happen or the grand coincidence of the systemic stand down and the terrorist attack occuring at exactly the same time. What's the probability there I'd love to know. Then tackle the physically improbable pentagon strike and shed some light on how that pilot not a bit like Ice man or Maverick, and pretty much a washout at flight school flew that flight path which was described by ATC personnel as looking like a military manouver. Here's a thought: Do they pick flakey, conspiracy theorist types for Air traffic control, that would explain much. What about all the firefighters that survived twin towers collapse that heard and saw evidence of multiple explosions and in places like the lobby where there should not have been explosions before the collapse. Do you think that the firefighters are a tad flakey too? When they screen for firefighters do you suppose they go for the candidates with a loose association with reality who can't focus properly in caotic conditions? You criticize people who deem the official 911 report as fiction when you offer little more than the throw away lable of "conspiracy theorists". You haven't done your homework. In your posts you embrace the legal model and appear knowledgable, so how about using one of those "reasonable" yard sticks. What constitutes "reasonable" doubt and just what should a "reasonable" person conclude from what is known?

Good comments rearguard, DL and Deacon.

Bino and Kingston, consider the following:
Why was a gag order put on the firefighters so that they could no longer talk about the explosions that they witnessed?

Where did Rudy Giuliani get this information:
“I went down to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75 Barkley Street, which was right there with the police commissioner, the fire commissioner, the head of emergency management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building, so we were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit and got out, walked north, and took a lot of people with us.” -- Rudy Giuliani

Why did the South Tower collapse first and does the fact that the Battalion Chief radioed that he needed only two hose teams to knock down the fires have anything to do with it?


---

"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth."
(Albert Einstein)

Going back to the "pulling down" of building seven......

How could they do it right there and then, when the most experienced demolition teams sometimes spend weeks and months on preparing a building and setting the charges for correct implosion ?

How did the explosives get into that 47 story building within a few hours and who put them there, according to Silverstein's own words, making the "pulling down" of the building possible?

Ed Deak.

The evidence indicates that the buildings were prewired for demolition well in advance. <br><br> <a href="http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html">Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?<br> By Steven E. Jones<br> Department of Physics and Astronomy<br> Brigham Young University</a>

Sorry, but no amount of hatred for Americans will ever allow me to cheer those terrorists thugs<<

I'm sorry but I don't think american pilots bombing villages or any unseen target as being any better. The US was attacked by people who has no means to provide a "decent modern" war. The US has shown over and over again that they are capable of killing and destroying anyone they are not pleased with. They just spend more money on it and better at being sneaky about it.

---
Expect little from life and get more from it.

This is exactly my point!

We spent 6 hours on the TV on the day of that horrible tragedy, and have seen the collapse of the buildings time after time. When the first one collapsed, I couldn't believe my eyes and the only thing I could say was : "What the hell is going on here?"

Anybody who believes the official version of this crime, regardless who committed it, killing 3,000 then and another 100,000 more in "revenge", must have the intelligence level of and horse's ass.

Ed Deak.