Amidst the hullabaloo of the US paving the way to attack yet another 3rd world country Iran, this video may help put into perspectives issues that we need to raise and debate.
hell- Get one on Dr Phil and ASK him-they even found one of their passports at ground zero so all he needs is airfare.(probably cost less than Dr Phil paid to bail out that YouTube attack girl) "Our next guest hijacked a plane that flew into tower one" "What motivated you ? ".."yes...and how does that make you feel?"
So obviously remote controlled.
How is it that 9 of the "hijackers' are alive and well today?
To finish the job... demolition explosives.
The NORAD Stand-down
If you don’t get it by now, then you probably never will.... until you see it on Fox or CNN that is.
Glenn Beck: "No plane hit the Pentagon on September 11th; instead, it was a missile fired by elements from inside the American state apparatus. Yes or no?"
Ron Paul: "No. It's preposterous."
Beck: "The planes that hit the World Trade Center towers were remotely controlled."
Paul: "[Shaking his head no and shugging his shoulders] I mean this is just bizarre. I've not even heard these challenges before."
A couple of years ago I went to Honduras for two months. I was completely out of the "news" loop. Upon my return, I had to re-orient myself, you know, like listening to stuff about UFO's and chemtrails, and GMO and poison and 9/11 and the destruction of the planet and dumbed down people . . . well, it is very depressing. For two weeks I was in "re-entry mode".
But through the maze, comes my perception of the truth. The outcome after two weeks of paranoia, I become better at sorting through the propaganda and began seeking out the cure. However, it is an on going process of enlightenment, but after two weeks of painfully opening your eyes and ears, a person should become active and donate your time, money and skills. . . and become happy you are part of the cure. This is your reward! That's why I read the Daily Paul . . . daily. I congratulate all, for your courage and individual investigation of truth.
They attacked us because they were upset about our troop presence on their "holy lands." The WTC attack was an attempt by the radical Islamic terrorists to terrorize Americans to demand that our government pulling our troops out of the region. As Dr. Paul pointed, out Bin Landen cited our bases in Saudi Arabia as a reason for the attack. There may have been other reasons for them not to like us, but what took them over the edge of going through the trouble of coming over here was our presence there. They view us as trying to eliminate Islam over there, so it's easy to recruit hijackers to give their lives to save Islam by coming here and killing innocent Americans in order to send a message.
If it is OUR Govts. policy to NEVER DEAL or make deals with "terrorists".
Why is it that we are LOSING our freedoms if they(the terrorists) hate us for them??
Why are we having to give up liberty for security? Because of tyranny. The SAME tyranny that existed when our forefathers were alive. Hence the birth of the Constitution,and Bill of Rights.
We are faced with the same choices they were in their day,as I see it.
The demolition of the three (3) WTC buildings on 9/11 is so obvious that if enough people insist on a public viewing of WTC7 building falling at freefall speed, we might have a few neo-cons indicted before September.
The "cough" "cough" terrorists wouldn't have had the free access (free roaming of the buildings) to set demolition charges as would others less conspicuous.
Its my understanding that it takes weeks to set 'em up. Unlike the actual bombing of one of the Towers way back when.
would they have any less free access than people from the government? The WTC was not government property, you know?
And whether it would be people from the government or someone else, why would it take any less time for the government, if that's what you're suggesting?
I take it you disagree with Dr. Paul's explanation, that it was blowback? That's a pretty huge element of his campaign, so it's odd that you would disagree with him on this and still support him.
Determining WHO did the deed is a matter for thorough investigation. The fact is that the "offical" nonexplanation is not plausable. The "blowback" explanation is a comment on American interventalism. Paul is distancing himself from any 9/11 "conspiracy" stuff because it is too hot. Soon a majority may see the falacy of the "official myth". Marvin Bush (George's younger brother) provided security for the WTC complex.
I don't know what he believes. He appears to evade the isuue, as he did on one of the debates. The only time I've seen Paul dance around an issue, I might add.
Noam Chomsky, is intelligent enough to dismiss 9/11 Truth and gives a great explanation of why it is so ridiculous (Note to Truthers who have problems with reading: this link is a VIDEO!).
He didn't answer anything directly. Bunch of blabber about his own personal beliefs.
It would be nice if we were all perfect all of the time. Paul is wrong on this point, for whatever reason. The 3 WTC buildings were brought down by planned demotition devices. To not recognize this is to deny gravity, physics, and chemical composition of explosive residue. Follow the evidence, not what someone says.
There was security inside the building, by the way. I went to a few job interviews in there and had to go through a security process to go in the elevator. And, these were private security guards, by the way, not government employees, before your mind starts wondering into more conspiracy theory.
I didn't come here to convert anyone. A person is either ripe for the message or their not.
Laugh, escaped that didn't I.
Actually its true, its a waste of effort to try 'n convince someone when there are others who have been prepared and are receptive to it.
...........................
Don't you think that the security process considered (included) a terrorist watch list and of course criminals.
they received big paychecks to pose for video and photos for the security and bank shots, got free lessons to learn to "sortof fly" and got new identities and free tickets to Saudi Arabia before the planes (missiles, remote controlled whatevers) hit.
BTW for those who are interested I was flying from Toronto to Vancouver last week and I saw a metallic whitish blueish plane with no passenger windows (and could not make out cockpit windows but can't say if there were any) and a red checkmark like insignia on the tail that looks most like that for the Abu Dubia airlines (I spent hours looking) spewing chemtrails like there is no tomorrow (oops sorry)
We were at over 34K feet high so I estimate they were between 33 and 34K feet up heading east. No this is not a consipiracy theory but an eyewitness report. Sorry to those who say it does not belong here. I tend to believe what I see.
From 911, my greatest concern is for the passengers and crew of the planes that supposedly hit. What happened to them if they did not hit the towers... pentagon... dirt....
I personally believe that there were "no terrorists".
But, we have a serious problem in the Country!
We don't want to know the truth!
..............................................................
I don't think that the Islamic people are that big of fools to attack the USA, no matter how radical they appear. But if they have\had a true motive, it would be our support of Israel. But, if this is the case, why not attack Israel instead. Because it would be an attack upon the USA as well, thats why. They did not attack the USA.
Laugh, have you, I, we forgotten who this Country is. Our Government is making a mountain out of the ole ole mole hill routine so they can have WAR!
May actually be the truest motive before our support for Israel. First and foremost that is.
"They attacked us because they were upset about our troop presence on their "holy lands."" Yep, I snatched this from BillyDee's post, not like he (?) owns it.
But why wouldn't they just attack the Stations (Bases) on their land instead of the Towers if this was the case.
Why the Towers and not the Bases on their land if this is the case. Cause it would be an "act of war"?
... ... ... ... ...
And how come "that Clinton guy" didn't insist upon a Resolution of War when the Naval Ship was attacked in whatever port that it was, way back yonder. That was an "act of War"!
... to smoke marijuana. No wait!
... to sell raw milk. No wait!
... to live in peace with our plural wives. No wait!
... to keep the fruits of our labor. No wait!
... to fill in that annoying sinkhole on our own property. No wait!
... to allow tobacco fans to smoke in our commercial bars. No wait!
... to lie naked in the sun at the beach! No wait!
Okeh, I give up. What WAS their motive?
Sic Semper Tyrannis!
Professor Bernardo de la Paz
Atheist Pothead
The named 9/11 "hijackers" were either patsies who were simply paid cash money to get on the planes, or were taking part in a war game exercise.
The real hijackers on the planes had guns and were some type of special agents and parachuted out of the planes, or else they were killed when the planes were remote controlled into the WTC/Pentagon (or in the case of FL93 shot down).
It is not believable that the "hijackers" could just take over a cockpit with boxcutters and fly the planes so precisely, and in the cases of FL175, FL77, and FL93 take over the plane after the pilots had been warned.
you wrote "The real hijackers on the planes had guns and were some type of special agents and parachuted out of the planes, or else they were killed when the planes were remote controlled into the WTC/Pentagon (or in the case of FL93 shot down)."
If the planes were controlled remotely,why would you have to have these parachuting super agents?
Where did you get this information?
I believe from my research that planes CAN be controlled remotely,but the flying super agents is a bit of a stretch for me.
Stick to the verifiable evidence of controlled demolition,hindered investigation,eyewitness testimony,video evidence, etc.
This speculation of super agents parachuting from the planes just hurts the cause of seeking the truth in a logical manner. Not that I am NOT open minded about these things. It just sounds like too much ahhnold movie watching.
Same with laser beams,or micro nukes. Granted there were some strange events that day. But stick with what can be proven so far.
Amidst the hullabaloo
Amidst the hullabaloo of the US paving the way to attack yet another 3rd world country Iran, this video may help put into perspectives issues that we need to raise and debate.
apparently 9 of them are alive and well- ask THEM
hell- Get one on Dr Phil and ASK him-they even found one of their passports at ground zero so all he needs is airfare.(probably cost less than Dr Phil paid to bail out that YouTube attack girl) "Our next guest hijacked a plane that flew into tower one" "What motivated you ? ".."yes...and how does that make you feel?"
Its obvious...
They "HATED" Rudi :-P
What you believe too be true, is true too you...
No hijackers
So obviously remote controlled.
How is it that 9 of the "hijackers' are alive and well today?
To finish the job... demolition explosives.
The NORAD Stand-down
If you don’t get it by now, then you probably never will.... until you see it on Fox or CNN that is.
Preposterous
Glenn Beck: "No plane hit the Pentagon on September 11th; instead, it was a missile fired by elements from inside the American state apparatus. Yes or no?"
Ron Paul: "No. It's preposterous."
Beck: "The planes that hit the World Trade Center towers were remotely controlled."
Paul: "[Shaking his head no and shugging his shoulders] I mean this is just bizarre. I've not even heard these challenges before."
http://paulitesagainsttru...
You are forgiven...
I am sure Ron Paul would forgive you for having doubts about the impossible and crazy "official" conspiracy theory.
If I were in Dr. Paul’s position I too would stay WELL CLEAR of any 911 debate. He has some pretty big fish to fry as it is.
Good luck in your search for the truth BillyDee, I am sure the light will turn on for you eventually :)
I agree with Dr. Paul, focus on the cure, not the apathy.
A couple of years ago I went to Honduras for two months. I was completely out of the "news" loop. Upon my return, I had to re-orient myself, you know, like listening to stuff about UFO's and chemtrails, and GMO and poison and 9/11 and the destruction of the planet and dumbed down people . . . well, it is very depressing. For two weeks I was in "re-entry mode".
But through the maze, comes my perception of the truth. The outcome after two weeks of paranoia, I become better at sorting through the propaganda and began seeking out the cure. However, it is an on going process of enlightenment, but after two weeks of painfully opening your eyes and ears, a person should become active and donate your time, money and skills. . . and become happy you are part of the cure. This is your reward! That's why I read the Daily Paul . . . daily. I congratulate all, for your courage and individual investigation of truth.
Occupation!
Occupation!
I agree with Dr. Paul's explanation
They attacked us because they were upset about our troop presence on their "holy lands." The WTC attack was an attempt by the radical Islamic terrorists to terrorize Americans to demand that our government pulling our troops out of the region. As Dr. Paul pointed, out Bin Landen cited our bases in Saudi Arabia as a reason for the attack. There may have been other reasons for them not to like us, but what took them over the edge of going through the trouble of coming over here was our presence there. They view us as trying to eliminate Islam over there, so it's easy to recruit hijackers to give their lives to save Islam by coming here and killing innocent Americans in order to send a message.
USA Military Officers Challenge Official Account of September 11
IF you can't get the news here, go to Pakistan
http://www.daily.pk/world...
(courtesy of Rense - he does get some good ones)
The hijackers hated our
The hijackers hated our freedoms and wanted us to pass the Patriot Act. They succeeded.
That leads to the REAL question..Galileo
If it is OUR Govts. policy to NEVER DEAL or make deals with "terrorists".
Why is it that we are LOSING our freedoms if they(the terrorists) hate us for them??
Why are we having to give up liberty for security? Because of tyranny. The SAME tyranny that existed when our forefathers were alive. Hence the birth of the Constitution,and Bill of Rights.
We are faced with the same choices they were in their day,as I see it.
WELL said
.
Its like our President says,
Its like our President says, They hate freedom, thats the one and only reason..... bahahahaahah (sorry couldn't keep a straight face while saying it)
He needs to be required to define "Freedom"
before he's allowed to leave the US
What 9-11 hijackers? Until
What 9-11 hijackers?
Until there's a real investigation, I'm not making assumptions. In case you haven't noticed the US government doesn't have very much credibility.
Official story: Sinking of the Maine--Cover-up
Official story: Sinking of the Lusitania--Lies.
Official story: Pearl Harbor--Suspicious Cover-up
Official story: Gulf of Tonkin--Lies
Official story: JFK Assassination--Lies
9/11 jury time
The demolition of the three (3) WTC buildings on 9/11 is so obvious that if enough people insist on a public viewing of WTC7 building falling at freefall speed, we might have a few neo-cons indicted before September.
What if it is discovered that WTC 7 was detonated?
Why would you then first assume that the government did it, instead of the radical Islamic terrorists?
nah baby it was the easter bunny
billydee, you bad bad boy, back to stirring up troubles on DP hey? ive a mind to turn you over my knee.
Access
The "cough" "cough" terrorists wouldn't have had the free access (free roaming of the buildings) to set demolition charges as would others less conspicuous.
Its my understanding that it takes weeks to set 'em up. Unlike the actual bombing of one of the Towers way back when.
Why
would they have any less free access than people from the government? The WTC was not government property, you know?
And whether it would be people from the government or someone else, why would it take any less time for the government, if that's what you're suggesting?
I take it you disagree with Dr. Paul's explanation, that it was blowback? That's a pretty huge element of his campaign, so it's odd that you would disagree with him on this and still support him.
Well maybe...
because...
http://www.wtc7.net/backg...
Excellent
"Why would they have any less free access than people from the government?"
Excellent question!
Marvin Bush and his cousin,
Marvin Bush and his cousin, Walker.
Yeah, Good Point
I've seen a report of that on one of the movies or documentaries rather.
Is this just oh-so-too-obvious or what, that it throws us off.
Determining WHO did the deed
Determining WHO did the deed is a matter for thorough investigation. The fact is that the "offical" nonexplanation is not plausable. The "blowback" explanation is a comment on American interventalism. Paul is distancing himself from any 9/11 "conspiracy" stuff because it is too hot. Soon a majority may see the falacy of the "official myth". Marvin Bush (George's younger brother) provided security for the WTC complex.
Your assumption appears to be that
Dr. Paul secretly believes it was an inside job. Is that your position? If so, do you have any evidence at all that he believes it was an inside job?
I don't know what he
I don't know what he believes. He appears to evade the isuue, as he did on one of the debates. The only time I've seen Paul dance around an issue, I might add.
He doesn't evade it here:
http://paulitesagainsttru...
He explicitly says over and over that 9/11 was not an inside job.
Nothin'
Noam Chomsky, is intelligent enough to dismiss 9/11 Truth and gives a great explanation of why it is so ridiculous (Note to Truthers who have problems with reading: this link is a VIDEO!).
He didn't answer anything directly. Bunch of blabber about his own personal beliefs.
It would be nice if we were
It would be nice if we were all perfect all of the time. Paul is wrong on this point, for whatever reason. The 3 WTC buildings were brought down by planned demotition devices. To not recognize this is to deny gravity, physics, and chemical composition of explosive residue. Follow the evidence, not what someone says.
So I assume you're an
So I assume you're an engineer?
Nope, just a human that
Nope, just a human that recognizes cow pies fall from under the tail, down to the earth
Bomb
One of the Towers was hit by a bomb or more, way back whenever it was.
Don't you think maybe that they (the Towers) were on a higher security watch after being bombed once before.
More Like Blowup
The only blowback in this case is that we allow ourselves to have this Corrupt Government.
And, its called "reap what you sow".
As in what?
Cannons atop the WTC?
Again, the WTC, was a privately owned building.
There was security inside the building, by the way. I went to a few job interviews in there and had to go through a security process to go in the elevator. And, these were private security guards, by the way, not government employees, before your mind starts wondering into more conspiracy theory.
Convert
I didn't come here to convert anyone. A person is either ripe for the message or their not.
Laugh, escaped that didn't I.
Actually its true, its a waste of effort to try 'n convince someone when there are others who have been prepared and are receptive to it.
...........................
Don't you think that the security process considered (included) a terrorist watch list and of course criminals.
Cannons on top of WTC would be a new on me.
What motivated the 9/11 hijackers?
They were probably motivated by remote controls.
Seriously, which is simpler? Remote controlling planes or convincing 19 highly specialized muslim boxcutter ninjas to commit suicide?
I would bet an ounce of silver that
they received big paychecks to pose for video and photos for the security and bank shots, got free lessons to learn to "sortof fly" and got new identities and free tickets to Saudi Arabia before the planes (missiles, remote controlled whatevers) hit.
BTW for those who are interested I was flying from Toronto to Vancouver last week and I saw a metallic whitish blueish plane with no passenger windows (and could not make out cockpit windows but can't say if there were any) and a red checkmark like insignia on the tail that looks most like that for the Abu Dubia airlines (I spent hours looking) spewing chemtrails like there is no tomorrow (oops sorry)
We were at over 34K feet high so I estimate they were between 33 and 34K feet up heading east. No this is not a consipiracy theory but an eyewitness report. Sorry to those who say it does not belong here. I tend to believe what I see.
From 911, my greatest concern is for the passengers and crew of the planes that supposedly hit. What happened to them if they did not hit the towers... pentagon... dirt....
Good Subject
I personally believe that there were "no terrorists".
But, we have a serious problem in the Country!
We don't want to know the truth!
..............................................................
I don't think that the Islamic people are that big of fools to attack the USA, no matter how radical they appear. But if they have\had a true motive, it would be our support of Israel. But, if this is the case, why not attack Israel instead. Because it would be an attack upon the USA as well, thats why. They did not attack the USA.
Laugh, have you, I, we forgotten who this Country is. Our Government is making a mountain out of the ole ole mole hill routine so they can have WAR!
Another Good Point
May actually be the truest motive before our support for Israel. First and foremost that is.
"They attacked us because they were upset about our troop presence on their "holy lands."" Yep, I snatched this from BillyDee's post, not like he (?) owns it.
But why wouldn't they just attack the Stations (Bases) on their land instead of the Towers if this was the case.
Why the Towers and not the Bases on their land if this is the case. Cause it would be an "act of war"?
... ... ... ... ...
And how come "that Clinton guy" didn't insist upon a Resolution of War when the Naval Ship was attacked in whatever port that it was, way back yonder. That was an "act of War"!
Somethin' fishy goin' on here.
very well could BE "no terrorists"
We only know what we are/were told by Govt/MSM
I believe truth is derived from several different sources.
Wait!
I thought they were holograms! Someone's lying! I'm Pissed!
Boring.
Long Live the Revolution!
conned by the neo-cons
The hijackers were used by the neo-cons as a diversion for the planned demolitions of three WTC buildings.
Because They Hate Our Freedom...
... to smoke marijuana. No wait!
... to sell raw milk. No wait!
... to live in peace with our plural wives. No wait!
... to keep the fruits of our labor. No wait!
... to fill in that annoying sinkhole on our own property. No wait!
... to allow tobacco fans to smoke in our commercial bars. No wait!
... to lie naked in the sun at the beach! No wait!
Okeh, I give up. What WAS their motive?
Sic Semper Tyrannis!
Professor Bernardo de la Paz
Atheist Pothead
I love that excuse. 'They
I love that excuse. 'They hate our freedom.' That's one of those excuses that polls well and everyone will buy without putting much thought into it.
Loved the sarcasm! :)
Hey, the Moon is a Harsh
Hey, the Moon is a Harsh Mistress...
Good post!
SUPPORT OUR FOUNDERS' AMERICA
Support the Constitution of the United States
The named 9/11 "hijackers"
The named 9/11 "hijackers" were either patsies who were simply paid cash money to get on the planes, or were taking part in a war game exercise.
The real hijackers on the planes had guns and were some type of special agents and parachuted out of the planes, or else they were killed when the planes were remote controlled into the WTC/Pentagon (or in the case of FL93 shot down).
It is not believable that the "hijackers" could just take over a cockpit with boxcutters and fly the planes so precisely, and in the cases of FL175, FL77, and FL93 take over the plane after the pilots had been warned.
huh?
you wrote "The real hijackers on the planes had guns and were some type of special agents and parachuted out of the planes, or else they were killed when the planes were remote controlled into the WTC/Pentagon (or in the case of FL93 shot down)."
If the planes were controlled remotely,why would you have to have these parachuting super agents?
Where did you get this information?
I believe from my research that planes CAN be controlled remotely,but the flying super agents is a bit of a stretch for me.
Stick to the verifiable evidence of controlled demolition,hindered investigation,eyewitness testimony,video evidence, etc.
This speculation of super agents parachuting from the planes just hurts the cause of seeking the truth in a logical manner. Not that I am NOT open minded about these things. It just sounds like too much ahhnold movie watching.
Same with laser beams,or micro nukes. Granted there were some strange events that day. But stick with what can be proven so far.
Point taken. Here's a few
Point taken.
Here's a few well written articles that may interest you:
Attack Scenario 404 *
How the Attack Might Have Been Engineered (But Probably Wasn't)
http://911research.wtc7.n...
Is This What Happened on 9/11?
by GeorgeWashington
http://www.911blogger.com...
"Mayday! Mayday!"-- What Really Happened in the Cockpit of United 93?
by Andrew Kornkven
http://www.911blogger.com...
Was 10:45 a.m. the Originally Planned Demolition Time of WTC 7?
by shoestring
http://www.911blogger.com...
Another Air Traffic Controller Supports 9/11 Truth
by Andy Kornkven
http://www.911blogger.com...