how many people would be needed?

Welcome!

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.

Join our community!

how many people would be needed?; and what would each have to do?
Topic Started: Feb 6 2008, 03:00 PM (323 Views)
defaultdotxbe	Feb 6 2008, 03:00 PM Post #1
Posts: 91 Group: Members Member #49 Joined: 01/15/08	to carry out 9/11 as you believe it happened ill go first, since its only fair 4 planes were hijacked, 2 were crashed into each of the WTC towers, which collapsed, damaging WTC7 to the point of it collapsing as well, 1 was crashed into the pentagon and one crashed in pennsylvania in order to carry this out the terrorists needed at least 4 people to learn to fly the aircraft, this was done in public commercial piloting schools, after this they had to purchase tickets and board the 4 aircraft, and at some point during the flight the men hijacked the planes and the "pilots" took control of the aircraft and flew them to their targets, 1 of the aircraft was crashed in a field in pennsylvania to prevent the passengers from regaining control of the cockpit in total it would take the 19 hijackers and an addition half-dozen or so people for planning and coordination, none of which are required to hide their invovlement after the fact funding came from money already available to al-qeada so there was no reason to divert funds from anywhere else or mask where the money was going to i would liek this thread not to be filled with debate, i would prefer people simply post what they feel happened, rather than trying to debunk what someone else has posted, that can be done in another thread
Posts: 91 Group: Members Member #49 Joined: 01/15/08


Headspin	Feb 6 2008, 03:11 PM Post #2
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	It would never happen - Norad would intercept you within minutes.
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


defaultdotxbe	Feb 7 2008, 11:33 PM Post #3
Posts: 91 Group: Members Member #49 Joined: 01/15/08	would you like to answer the question in the OP?
Posts: 91 Group: Members Member #49 Joined: 01/15/08


Stundie	Feb 8 2008, 07:22 AM Post #4
Posts: 890 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08	defaultdotxbe Feb 6 2008, 03:00 PM funding came from money already available to al-qeada so there was no reason to divert funds from anywhere else or mask where the money was going to Hilarious stuff Default, You can't even get the official story straight that you debunkers are have all agreed on! So if the funding came from money already available to Al-Qaeda, then why was $100,000 transferred to Attas account from the ISI? Is this the reason why it's of no importance to the 9/11 commission as to how they are funded...because according to you, Al-Qaeda already had the money? lol
Posts: 890 Group: Members Member #78 Joined: 01/16/08


Headspin	Feb 8 2008, 09:09 AM Post #5
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	Stundie Feb 8 2008, 07:22 AM defaultdotxbe Feb 6 2008, 03:00 PM funding came from money already available to al-qeada so there was no reason to divert funds from anywhere else or mask where the money was going to Hilarious stuff Default, You can't even get the official story straight that you debunkers are have all agreed on! So if the funding came from money already available to Al-Qaeda, then why was $100,000 transferred to Attas account from the ISI? Is this the reason why it's of no importance to the 9/11 commission as to how they are funded...because according to you, Al-Qaeda already had the money? lol you are both correct - the ISI are Al Quaeda, and the ISI is a front for the CIA, so by proxy Al Queada is a wing of the CIA.
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


defaultdotxbe	Feb 8 2008, 10:23 AM Post #6
Posts: 91 Group: Members Member #49 Joined: 01/15/08	well i guess no one on the truther side has any idea what they think happened, so this thread may as well be closed
Posts: 91 Group: Members Member #49 Joined: 01/15/08


JFK	Feb 8 2008, 10:51 AM Post #7
Posts: 4,226 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	May I ask what you believe these terrorists motives were ?
Posts: 4,226 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


defaultdotxbe	Feb 8 2008, 11:22 AM Post #8
Posts: 91 Group: Members Member #49 Joined: 01/15/08	causing terror, killing americans, guaranteeing a place in paradise would you like to answer my question?
Posts: 91 Group: Members Member #49 Joined: 01/15/08


William Rea	Feb 8 2008, 12:14 PM Post #9
Posts: 319 Group: Members Member #149 Joined: 01/20/08	defaultdotxbe Feb 8 2008, 10:23 AM well I guess no one on the truther side has any idea what they think happened, so this thread may as well be closed Well I guess that no one on the "Truther" side is that interested in your very poorly framed post. The only purpose of this post is to invite speculation so that you can you can do a typical JREF job on it, just like you would normally do alongside your Sog with Ibets friends on either of those pseudoskeptic forums you frequent. It doesn't matter what people "feel" happened, it's what actually happened that matters. One thing I agree with you on is that this thread may as well be closed down. If you're really lucky you could get banned so you can win one of Oliver's "I was banned at LC" medals. Anyone else thinking Mutley?
Posts: 319 Group: Members Member #149 Joined: 01/20/08


Headspin	Feb 8 2008, 12:18 PM Post #10
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	seriously - how would you ensure that there would be no intercept for nearly 2 hours after they knew you had hijacked the aircraft, as what happened on 911? you would know during your planning that an intercept would be attempted, the procedures are well rehearsed and well known and the historical record shows it to occur very quickly. This would factor into your planning wouldn't it? so in order to avoid the chances of being intercepted wouldn't you hijack the airplanes when they were close to their targets? but we see the opposite, flight 77 took off from dulles 9 miles from the pentagon, then flew for 77 minutes until it hit the pentagon. flight 93 takes off from new york at around the same time flight 175 hits wtc2, then flys for 40 odd minutes away from new york before being hijacked.
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


Headspin	Feb 8 2008, 12:24 PM Post #11
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08	defaultdotxbe Feb 8 2008, 11:22 AM causing terror, killing americans, guaranteeing a place in paradise Atta's drinking and cocaine habit would have barred him from paradise, probably his gambling and leching at strip bars too.
Posts: 975 Group: Members Member #252 Joined: 01/31/08


JFK	Feb 8 2008, 12:56 PM Post #12
Posts: 4,226 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08	defaultdotxbe Feb 8 2008, 11:22 AM causing terror, killing americans, guaranteeing a place in paradise would you like to answer my question? Those are not motives, nice try though.
Posts: 4,226 Group: Admins Member #108 Joined: 01/17/08


defaultdotxbe	Feb 8 2008, 01:35 PM Post #13
Posts: 91 Group: Members Member #49 Joined: 01/15/08	William Rea Feb 8 2008, 12:14 PM The only purpose of this post is to invite speculation so that you can you can do a typical JREF job on it, just like you would normally do alongside your Sog with Ibets friends on either of those pseudoskeptic forums you frequent. the speculation has already come from your side, you claim verty few would be required to carry out the 9/11 attacks, some have even gone so far as to say only 7 would be required, more rational folks have said a few dozen, IVXX in a thread just a few down from this one said only a few would be required surely you arent simply pulling that out of your collective posteriors, you must have some idea what each person had to do, right?
Posts: 91 Group: Members Member #49 Joined: 01/15/08


look-up	Feb 8 2008, 02:06 PM Post #14
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08	how would we know how it was pulled off if there has never been an investigation. If you want to prove your theory of what happened, support a new investigation that doesn't include the accused. Intelligence professionals agree that 9/11 was an inside job, and that in their circles, this is widely known to be the case.
Posts: 1,642 Group: Admins Member #63 Joined: 01/15/08


defaultdotxbe	Feb 8 2008, 02:20 PM Post #15
Posts: 91 Group: Members Member #49 Joined: 01/15/08	look-up Feb 8 2008, 02:06 PM how would we know how it was pulled off if there has never been an investigation. If you want to prove your theory of what happened, support a new investigation that doesn't include the accused. these two statements would seem contradictory, how would you know who the "accused" are if you no clue what happened?
Posts: 91 Group: Members Member #49 Joined: 01/15/08


William Rea	Feb 8 2008, 06:46 PM Post #16
Posts: 319 Group: Members Member #149 Joined: 01/20/08	defaultdotxbe Feb 8 2008, 01:35 PM William Rea Feb 8 2008, 12:14 PM The only purpose of this post is to invite speculation so that you can you can do a typical JREF job on it, just like you would normally do alongside your Sog with Ibets friends on either of those pseudoskeptic forums you frequent. the speculation has already come from your side, you claim verty few would be required to carry out the 9/11 attacks, some have even gone so far as to say only 7 would be required, more rational folks have said a few dozen, IVXX in a thread just a few down from this one said only a few would be required surely you arent simply pulling that out of your collective posteriors, you must have some idea what each person had to do, right? I asserted nothing and I have no side, as you very well know, but hey, don't let facts get in the way of your Sog tendencies. YOU are inviting speculation when YOU should know better than to do so. If you're a "Skeptic" then follow the evidence NOT speculation. Edited by William Rea, Feb 8 2008, 06:47 PM.
Posts: 319 Group: Members Member #149 Joined: 01/20/08


William Rea	Feb 8 2008, 06:48 PM Post #17
Posts: 319 Group: Members Member #149 Joined: 01/20/08	defaultdotxbe Feb 8 2008, 02:20 PM look-up Feb 8 2008, 02:06 PM how would we know how it was pulled off if there has never been an investigation. If you want to prove your theory of what happened, support a new investigation that doesn't include the accused. these two statements would seem contradictory, how would you know who the "accused" are if you no clue what happened? And bingo! In no less than 6 posts further on we find the true default.motivation. Edited by William Rea, Feb 8 2008, 06:49 PM.
Posts: 319 Group: Members Member #149 Joined: 01/20/08


defaultdotxbe	Feb 8 2008, 07:06 PM Post #18
Posts: 91 Group: Members Member #49 Joined: 01/15/08	William Rea Feb 8 2008, 06:46 PM defaultdotxbe Feb 8 2008, 01:35 PM William Rea Feb 8 2008, 12:14 PM The only purpose of this post is to invite speculation so that you can you can do a typical JREF job on it, just like you would normally do alongside your Sog with Ibets friends on either of those pseudoskeptic forums you frequent. the speculation has already come from your side, you claim verty few would be required to carry out the 9/11 attacks, some have even gone so far as to say only 7 would be required, more rational folks have said a few dozen, IVXX in a thread just a few down from this one said only a few would be required surely you arent simply pulling that out of your collective posteriors, you must have some idea what each person had to do, right? I asserted nothing and I have no side, as you very well know, but hey, don't let facts get in the way of your Sog tendencies. YOU are inviting speculation when YOU should know better than to do so. If you're a "Skeptic" then follow the evidence NOT speculation. if you have no theory then the question is not directed at you, its directed at those who claim "only X number people are needed to carry out 9/11" "it would not take very many people" and those who have already decided who to charge with treason (because in order to charge them they must have some idea of what they did)
Posts: 91 Group: Members Member #49 Joined: 01/15/08


William Rea	Feb 9 2008, 08:37 AM Post #19
Posts: 319 Group: Members Member #149 Joined: 01/20/08	Simple question default.xbe. How many people do you know as a fact were involved? If you don't know as fact then you are speculating. You are then inviting speculation from other people in order to debunk them with your own speculation combined with incredulity. JREF to the core. Edited by William Rea, Feb 9 2008, 08:40 AM.
Posts: 319 Group: Members Member #149 Joined: 01/20/08


defaultdotxbe	Feb 9 2008, 09:06 AM Post #20
Posts: 91 Group: Members Member #49 Joined: 01/15/08	William Rea Feb 9 2008, 08:37 AM Simple question default.xbe. How many people do you know as a fact were involved? If you don't know as fact then you are speculating. You are then inviting speculation from other people in order to debunk them with your own speculation combined with incredulity. JREF to the core. lets narrow it down then, lets take a look at what headspin said Quote: Norad would intercept you within minutes. how many people would required to prevent an intercept? certainly only one would have to give an order, but more than one would have to carry out that order, and anyone as familiar as headspin is with SOP should be able to tell something was wrong on 9/11 correct? EDIT: clarification, yes, i am incredulous as to how something like this (preventing intercepts) could be done and covered up without a prohibitively large number of people being involved, so im asking someone here to please dispel my incredulity, and yet everyone seems unwilling or unable to do so how did you yourselves come to the conclusion that it wouldnt take many people? Edited by defaultdotxbe, Feb 9 2008, 09:17 AM.
Posts: 91 Group: Members Member #49 Joined: 01/15/08


William Rea	Feb 9 2008, 11:59 AM Post #21
Posts: 319 Group: Members Member #149 Joined: 01/20/08	defaultdotxbe Feb 9 2008, 09:06 AM William Rea Feb 9 2008, 08:37 AM Simple question default.xbe. How many people do you know as a fact were involved? If you don't know as fact then you are speculating. You are then inviting speculation from other people in order to debunk them with your own speculation combined with incredulity. JREF to the core. lets narrow it down then, lets take a look at what headspin said Quote: Norad would intercept you within minutes. how many people would required to prevent an intercept? certainly only one would have to give an order, but more than one would have to carry out that order, and anyone as familiar as headspin is with SOP should be able to tell something was wrong on 9/11 correct? EDIT: clarification, yes, i am incredulous as to how something like this (preventing intercepts) could be done and covered up without a prohibitively large number of people being involved, so im asking someone here to please dispel my incredulity, and yet everyone seems unwilling or unable to do so how did you yourselves come to the conclusion that it wouldnt take many people? I'm no more interested in headspins's speculation than I am yours, but as you are offering to debunk everyone else I'm really quite interested in your qualification to do so, aside that is from your personal incredulity. So the question still stands... How many people do you know as a fact were involved? PS it's much more difficult to sustain this nonsense when you haven't got your buddies Quad, Beachnut Horatius et al around to flame and divert everything isn't it. Edited by William Rea, Feb 9 2008, 12:03 PM.
Posts: 319 Group: Members Member #149 Joined: 01/20/08


defaultdotxbe	Feb 9 2008, 01:19 PM Post #22
Posts: 91 Group: Members Member #49 Joined: 01/15/08	William Rea Feb 9 2008, 11:59 AM I'm no more interested in headspins's speculation than I am yours, but as you are offering to debunk everyone else I'm really quite interested in your qualification to do so, aside that is from your personal incredulity. So the question still stands... where have i offered to debunk anything? im asking how many people it would take to do this if you dont have an answer and arent interested in either sides why do you continue to post in this thread? why do you post about 9/11 at all?
Posts: 91 Group: Members Member #49 Joined: 01/15/08


William Rea	Feb 9 2008, 01:56 PM Post #23
Posts: 319 Group: Members Member #149 Joined: 01/20/08	defaultdotxbe Feb 9 2008, 01:19 PM William Rea Feb 9 2008, 11:59 AM I'm no more interested in headspins's speculation than I am yours, but as you are offering to debunk everyone else I'm really quite interested in your qualification to do so, aside that is from your personal incredulity. So the question still stands... where have i offered to debunk anything? im asking how many people it would take to do this if you dont have an answer and arent interested in either sides why do you continue to post in this thread? why do you post about 9/11 at all? I will quote directly from your OP in this thread with the spelling mistakes corrected... "I would like this thread not to be filled with debate, I would prefer people simply post what they feel happened, rather than trying to debunk what someone else has posted, that can be done in another thread" Why do I post? Because I dislike people like you and your JREFian cohorts.
Posts: 319 Group: Members Member #149 Joined: 01/20/08


HeyLeroy	Feb 9 2008, 02:12 PM Post #24
Posts: 51 Group: Members Member #267 Joined: 02/03/08	William Rea Feb 9 2008, 11:59 AM (to defaultdotxbe) but as you are offering to debunk everyone else... I missed that offer, Billy Ray. Can you link to it?
Posts: 51 Group: Members Member #267 Joined: 02/03/08


defaultdotxbe	Feb 9 2008, 02:38 PM Post #25
Posts: 91 Group: Members Member #49 Joined: 01/15/08	William Rea Feb 9 2008, 01:56 PM I will quote directly from your OP in this thread with the spelling mistakes corrected... "I would like this thread not to be filled with debate, I would prefer people simply post what they feel happened, rather than trying to debunk what someone else has posted, that can be done in another thread" that was not an offer to debunk anything, it was done in hopes someone like headspin would read it, comprehend it, and not make the post he made, but instead start a new thread to address it, i felt it was a polite request but clearly i overestimated the politeness of the average "truther" Edited by defaultdotxbe, Feb 9 2008, 02:38 PM.
Posts: 91 Group: Members Member #49 Joined: 01/15/08


1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)


« Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic »