Mainstream news questions Osama Bin Laden's death

First topic message reminder :

http://yournewswire.com/mainstream-media-question-osama-bin-ladens-death-bbc-documentary/

The documentary, The Bin Laden Conspiracy, examines the popular conspiracy theory that Osama had died years before the U.S. allegedly ‘caught’ him and ‘killed’ him.

As reported extensively by alternative News websites such as ours, Osama is believed to have died in 2007, as admitted by Benazir Bhutto, former Prime Minister for Pakistan, in a television interview with the BBC.

In May 2011, when a team of US Navy SEALs stormed a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan and killed the world’s most wanted terror target, it became a definitive moment in Barack Obama’s presidency. Over the past four years, though, doubts about the official account of Osama bin Laden’s death have been raised – to the point where veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh has alleged that the whole story was fabricated.

The Pulitzer Prize-winner last month published a 10,000-word report, attempting to discredit the White House’s version. Far from the US acting alone and the raid being an act of American derring-do, Hersh suggests that Pakistan knew about it at the highest level, had been holding Bin Laden prisoner and struck a deal.

Now reporter Jane Corbin – who was on the ground in Abbottabad that night – examines the evidence. Corbin heads to Washington to meet Mike Morrell, CIA deputy director at the time, and uses a stash of newly released documents to reconstruct Bin Laden’s extraordinary life in the custom-built compound, where he lived for six years with his three wives and nine of his children. How did he remain under the radar and maintain security? Did he wear a cowboy hat to shield his face from satellite surveillance? Was an extensive collection of pornography seized, as the Americans have hinted? And was he still running al-Qaeda from his secret bunker?

The Bin Laden Conspiracy? is tonight on BBC Two at 10.00pm

( not sure if this was last nights TV? But you can watch it on catch up)

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:So it can mean the following:

It translates to "the peace be upon you (plural)",


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/As-salamu_alaykum

So as seen you being immature Zack.

That just shows you want to continue to act silly between us and it shows you lack maturity. So no hypocrisy what so ever and to be honest I am bored with your little tantrums now when something polite is said to you.

The peace is plural. Not God. D'UH!

Not being immature. Just factual. How am I suppose to trust a hypocrite (says something he doesn't believe). It shows a lack of genuine intent.

So peace to many, again not hypocritical.
What facts?
It just proves you are being utterly immature.

Nems wrote:

Tommy Monk wrote:And how the lower hanging engines never managed to scrape large grooves out of the grass either...!?

Exactly   95% of damage was to the ground floor - the ground floor was  12 feet high (and recently reinforced to prevent attacks such as this)- the plane was more than 12 feet high yet it managed to fly so low as to hit that low down but didnt touch the grass?! And this was flown by someone who had had flying lessons! Yeah right

Look how low the engines are hanging down in the picture above...


Dodge has previously posted a video claiming that the plane came in low enough for wing edges to clip lamp posts so why didn't the bottom of engines also carve large grooves into the grass area?

Tommy Monk wrote:

Nems wrote:


Exactly   95% of damage was to the ground floor - the ground floor was  12 feet high (and recently reinforced to prevent attacks such as this)- the plane was more than 12 feet high yet it managed to fly so low as to hit that low down but didnt touch the grass?! And this was flown by someone who had had flying lessons! Yeah right

Look how low the engines are hanging down in the picture above...


Dodge has previously posted a video claiming that the plane came in low enough for wing edges to clip lamp posts so why didn't the bottom of engines also carve large grooves into the grass area?

I have gioven you all the dimensions and you still offer nothing scientific.
best you put up evidence as hearsay counts for nothing.

Well why don't you try doing that about zimmerman!?






Just answer the engine question dodge!


Wing edges low enough to clip lamp posts but engines not low enough to be dragging up grooves in the grass?



You must know that you can't have one without the other...

Tommy Monk wrote:Well why don't you try doing that about zimmerman!?






Just answer the engine question dodge!


Wing edges low enough to clip lamp posts but engines not low enough to be dragging up grooves in the grass?



You must know that you can't have one without the other...

I have answered your question and given the dimensions for you Tommy Blooper.
You are just making me laugh with your desperation now.
You need to disprove my points not keep acting the forum clown as you always do.

In your own time

Cuchulain wrote:

Nems wrote:


Exactly   95% of damage was to the ground floor - the ground floor was  12 feet high (and recently reinforced to prevent attacks such as this)- the plane was more than 12 feet high yet it managed to fly so low as to hit that low down but didnt touch the grass?! And this was flown by someone who had had flying lessons! Yeah right

Gobbldygook
The Pentagon is 24 meters high.

http://www.britannica.com/topic/Pentagon

The height of a Boeing 757 from the top of the tail is 13.56m

http://www.airliners.net/aircraft-data/stats.main?id=101

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_757







Looking alone at this height of the body of the plane is far less than the tail, which would explain why it only hit the lower floors and not all of them. It also puts paid to rest Tommy Bloopers poor claim on the engines, which he has still yet to offer up any scientific claim to show they would put groves in the grass. As seen most of the height is taken up by the tail. Remeber the body of the plane has to be no more than a few feet off the ground and the body of the plane is no where near 13 meters high including the engines. The height of the lamp posts are nearly as high as the pentagon, see below. So on all counts the conspiracies around this are utter nonsense:

Here you are again Tommy

In your own time

How tall are lamp posts dodge?

Tommy Monk wrote:How tall are lamp posts dodge?

Tall Tommy
You want to disprove me, the onus is on you now sunshine.
Best you get to work lol.

How tall are lamp posts dodge!?


Look at the plane pictures and see how the engines hang lower than the rest of The plane when undercarriage is up?

Tommy Monk wrote:How tall are lamp posts dodge!?


Look at the plane pictures and see how the engines hang lower than the rest of The plane when undercarriage is up?

I presented a scale model video already which shows you which is on the link again.
You are talking nonesense about the engines, as how high are the engines off the ground when the wheels are extended?
You are just making poor gueses based off no evidence




http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/911_pentagon_eyewitnesses.html


How do you explain all the eyewitnesses as well Tommy Blooper?
You are clutching at straws

Wheels were up weren't they?


Or they would have torn huge grooves out of The grass!



Doesn't add up dodge...

Tommy Monk wrote:Wheels were up weren't they?


Or they would have torn huge grooves out of The grass!



Doesn't add up dodge...

With the wheels up further proves my point on height dimensions lol

Again take on the evidence.
You are just badly stalling.

In your own time

Wheels were up... engines hang down lower than the rest of plane and would have carved huge grooves out of grass if plane was coming in that low.

Tommy Monk wrote:Wheels were up... engines hang down lower than the rest of plane and would have carved huge grooves out of grass if plane was coming in that low.

I have shown you the plane dimensions, you need to disprove my point scientifically.
You need to prove your point scientifically that groves would occur in the grass.
Not offer babble.

Look at your own post of dimensions dodge...



Look at the picture...


If the plane was flying so low as for wing edges to clip a number of lamp posts and for the nose to be hitting the bottom few floors of lie building... then the engines would have been dragging up large grooves in the grass.



Simple as that!

Tommy Monk wrote:Look at your own post of dimensions dodge...
Look at the picture...
If the plane was flying so low as for wing edges to clip a number of lamp posts and for the nose to be hitting the bottom few floors of lie building... then the engines would have been dragging up large grooves in the grass.
Simple as that!

That is all speculative babble.

Try again.

Ok dodge...

There are lots of pictures and "facts" on both sides, looking at the pictures sassy out up - it begs questions.

It is safe to assume that there are question marks regarding what happened on 9/11

I think some of us are happy to know that we might never know the truth, but for others, the idea of never knowing, isn't enough so they choose to believe one avenue and won't open their mind to any other avenue.

That's closer to the truth.

eddie wrote:There are lots of pictures and "facts" on both sides, looking at the pictures sassy out up - it begs questions.
Are there from the conspiracy side? News to me

It is safe to assume that there are question marks regarding what happened on 9/11

I think some of us are happy to know that we might never know the truth, but for others, the idea of never knowing, isn't enough so they choose to believe one avenue and won't open their mind to any other avenue.

That's closer to the truth.

The facts are this Al Qaeda had already devised a similar attack before this one.
They were successful the next time.
If anything and what needs to be asked is if intelligence was ignored.
Question should always be asked but in the vast majority of the conspiracy claims, they are just plainly absurd and even worse people buy into them. The problem is when something is debunked, the people who claim this do not admit they are wrong but then move on to the next hair brained idea that has no validity.
Yes Questions need always answering, but where they have been answered to false accusations, people need to accept that claim was wrong.

Military planes were told not to fly that day.
The previous attack on the WTC was also under suspicion.

Watch the video sassy put up

eddie wrote:Military planes were told not to fly that day.
The previous attack on the WTC was also under suspicion.

Watch the video sassy put up

Where is your evidence to this claim Eddie
I suggest you look at the evidence Eddie, which again you have not, which I have posted countless on here.
You are just putting your fingers in your ears going la la la la la la la la.

Here is more for you.


http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/

http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon.html

Cuchulain wrote:

eddie wrote:Military planes were told not to fly that day.
The previous attack on the WTC was also under suspicion.

Watch the video sassy put up

Where is your evidence to this claim Eddie
I suggest you look at the evidence Eddie, which again you have not, which I have posted countless on here.
You are just putting your fingers in your ears going la la la la la la la la.

Here is more for you.


http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/

http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon.html

Watch the video
It contains "evidence"
How is your "evidence" more real than what anyone else says?? The woman on the video is not a woman who works in Walmart who does conspiracy on the side!!

Perhaps you won't give it a go because you've pre-judged the author?

Perhaps you're going "la la la la la"??

After all, I've seen most of your evidence - it's been on the news and pumped into us for years.

Watch the video.

eddie wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


Where is your evidence to this claim Eddie
I suggest you look at the evidence Eddie, which again you have not, which I have posted countless on here.
You are just putting your fingers in your ears going la la la la la la la la.

Here is more for you.


http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/

http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon.html

Watch the video
It contains "evidence"
How is your "evidence" more real than what anyone else says?? The woman on the video is not a woman who works in Walmart who does conspiracy on the side!!

Perhaps you won't give it a go because you've pre-judged the author?

Perhaps you're going "la la la la la"??

After all, I've seen most of your evidence - it's been on the news and pumped into us for years.

Watch the video.

Post the evidence.
The claim to no military aircraft is completely false and shows you did not read or watch anything on here did you Eddie. If you did you would know of one of the eye witnesses was a pilot from a military aircraft.
You have only watched conspiracy videos and read conspiracy claims.
So how about you read the evidence that refutes the claims in the video or are you too scared you will be easily shown to be wrong?
Take your fingers out of your ears, it will help.

Everything you have just said I've read and seen the opposite

Perhaps you need to sometimes not have opinions fixed in stone?

I am saying that there are questions but I don't know for sure what happened. You are claiming you k ow exactly what happened.

Watch the video

In your words:
Take yor time

Reagan Airport controllers asked a passing Air National Guard Lockheed C-130 Hercules to identify and follow the aircraft. The pilot, Lt. Col. Steven O'Brien, told them it was a Boeing 757 or 767, and its silver fuselage meant it was probably an American Airlines jet. He had difficulty picking out the airplane in the "East Coast haze", but then saw a "huge" fireball, and initially assumed it had hit the ground. Approaching the Pentagon, he saw the impact site on the building's west side and reported to Reagan control, "Looks like that aircraft crashed into the Pentagon, sir.


Eddie claim number 1
False

eddie wrote:Everything you have just said I've read and seen the opposite

Perhaps you need to sometimes not have opinions fixed in stone?

I am saying that there are questions but I don't know for sure what happened. You are claiming you k ow exactly what happened.

Watch the video

In your words:
Take yor time

No you have not because you would know there was a military aircraft in the air.
You just got caught out lying.

No Stand-Down Order

Claim: No fighter jets were scrambled from any of the 28 Air Force bases within close range of the four hijacked flights. "On 11 September Andrews had two squadrons of fighter jets with the job of protecting the skies over Washington D.C.," says the Web site emperors-clothes.com. "They failed to do their job." "There is only one explanation for this," writes Mark R. Elsis of StandDown.net. "Our Air Force was ordered to Stand Down on 9/11."

FACT: On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. "They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked—the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5654/debunking-911-myths-planes/

Can you post up the link please Eddie, save me searching through for it?


Thank you! x

Tommy Monk wrote:Can you post up the link please Eddie, save me searching through for it?


Thank you! x

How many of the vids did you watch that I posted Tommy out of interest?

The post where you made an unwarranted attack on me, to be found on this thread:

MAINSTREAM NEWS QUESTIONS OSAMA BIN LADEN'S DEATH

eddie wrote:
Dodge there are enough "facts" on both sides - so I'll say it again, it depends on whom you believe.

Isn't it possible that the "facts" you read are "facts" made up by the American powers that be?

Why do you assume that everything you're told by government, media and "powers that be" is true?

Ps why did you change your name again! Bloody trying to confuse me!! Lol

Cuchalain wrote:
Dodge?
What the fuck?
No you are a fucking idiot easily gullible to other idiots swayin you with bullshit.
What facts?
I do not assume anything I look at the evidence which again only a idiot like yourself has not done and only an idiot would just go off conspiracy idiots and insult the victims by not explain how the people who carried out this atrocity did this because they hated America. Sorry Eddie I like you but you are one dumb idiot easily taken in by bullshit. Like I said if you have really looked at the evidence which is plain you have not, you would not be coming out with the bullshit you are .
I will change my username as I wish and has fuck all to do with you or the debate, so stop trying to deflect and grow the fuck up with your stupidity buying into conspiracies.
Use the brain you were given, because its not stupid

eddie wrote:
The I is next to the O on the qwerty keypad so that was a slip,of the finger?!!!!!
I did not mean to call you "dodge"!!!!

Fucking hell! The last part of my post was a joke about you changing your username!!!

As for the rest of your post - it was rude and uncalled for

So fuck off you prick. There was no need to talk to me like that!!!!!

Don't bother replying, you're ignorant and rude and I won't be reading your posts.
by eddie
on Tue Jun 23, 2015 7:22 am

Search in: General News: U.K. and Republic of Ireland
Topic: Mainstream news questions Osama Bin Laden's death
Replies: 178
Views: 1105


Unwarranted and uncalled for and it made me very upset as you can see by my reply.

So no. I will not "suck it up"

You're rude, arrogant and sometimes downright abusive.
You suck that up.

risingsun wrote:If you really want to blow your mind Eddie, watch this:



It's long but worth every second.

For Tommy

(She states that the order was for no military to fly that day)

It's three hours long Tommy but a very good watch from a very reputable source!

eddie wrote:The post where you made an unwarranted attack on me, to be found on this thread:

MAINSTREAM NEWS QUESTIONS OSAMA BIN LADEN'S DEATH

eddie wrote:
Dodge there are enough "facts" on both sides - so I'll say it again, it depends on whom you believe.

Isn't it possible that the "facts" you read are "facts" made up  by the American powers that be?

Why do you assume that everything you're told by government, media and "powers that be" is true?

Ps why did you change your name again! Bloody trying to confuse me!! Lol

Cuchalain wrote:
Dodge?
What the fuck?
No you are a fucking idiot easily gullible to other idiots swayin you with bullshit.
What facts?
I do not assume anything I look at the evidence which again only a idiot like yourself has not done and only an idiot would just go off conspiracy idiots and insult the victims by not explain how the people who carried out this atrocity did this because they hated America. Sorry Eddie I like you but you are one dumb idiot easily taken in by bullshit. Like I said if you have really looked at the evidence which is plain you have not, you would not be coming out with the bullshit you are .
I will change my username as I wish and has fuck all to do with you or the debate, so stop trying to deflect and grow the fuck up with your stupidity buying into conspiracies.
Use the brain you were given, because its not stupid

eddie wrote:
The I is next to the O on the qwerty keypad so that was a slip,of the finger?!!!!!
I did not mean to call you "dodge"!!!!

Fucking hell! The last part of my post was a joke about you changing your username!!!

As for the rest of your post - it was rude and uncalled for

So fuck off you prick. There was no need to talk to me like that!!!!!

Don't bother replying, you're ignorant and rude and I won't be reading your posts.
by eddie
on Tue Jun 23, 2015 7:22 am

Search in: General News: U.K. and Republic of Ireland
Topic: Mainstream news questions Osama Bin Laden's death
Replies: 178
Views: 1105


Unwarranted and uncalled for and it made me very upset as you can see by my reply.

So no. I will not "suck it up"

You're rude, arrogant and sometimes downright abusive.
You suck that up.

As you have been yourself at times Eddie.
Again I do not make excuses.
To me you were underhanded.
Take that as you will, but you clearly want to drag this out.
That is your business.
So yes suck it up and move on.
Again if you cannot move on that is your issue.
At least the above proves you were lying that you claim not to be abusive towards me.
So I am rude sometimes and sometimes arrogant and can be abusive.
Call the Police Eddie, guilty as charged.

Cuchulain wrote:

No Stand-Down Order

Claim: No fighter jets were scrambled from any of the 28 Air Force bases within close range of the four hijacked flights. "On 11 September Andrews had two squadrons of fighter jets with the job of protecting the skies over Washington D.C.," says the Web site emperors-clothes.com. "They failed to do their job." "There is only one explanation for this," writes Mark R. Elsis of StandDown.net. "Our Air Force was ordered to Stand Down on 9/11."

FACT: On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. "They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked—the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/a5654/debunking-911-myths-planes/

So here is a good example Rags.

Eddie claimed:

Military planes were told not to fly that day.

The evidence and from the Hercules plane as well disprove this claim.

Will Eddie admit she was mistaken?

Underhanded?

You're paranoid. You think everyone is as nasty as you.
I've never been nasty to you, only in retaliation

Think about that didge.

eddie wrote:Underhanded?

You're paranoid. You think everyone is as nasty as you.
I've never been nasty to you, only in retaliation

Think about that didge.

You said you had never been.
You lied.
No problem you now change it to retaliation, which still does not make it right does it Eddie. The better person rises above. I make no excuses for when I lash out. You then make another false claim stating I thin everyone is nasty to me?
Have never claimed that at all. I get plenty thrown at me by some here, its part and parcel of the forum life I have come to expect.
There was a time a few years back when I never abused anyone and it got me nowhere. In the end you get fed up with it and you hit back.
So there is no need to thin about anything Eddie.
You just want a fight tonight, and I am not going to give you the chance to have one.



So that is my last point on the matter.

Are you going to admit you were mistaken about the military planes?

Thanks Eddie, will have A look later maybe...



I seem to remember that there was supposedly a military/security exercise being run that day playing out a scenario of planes being hijacked and flown into buildings... just like there was also one being run in London on 7/7 playing out the scenario of bombs on trains...



Funny that... isn't it...!?


And I don't mean ha ha funny either...



Dodge, I watched the first cartoon you posted and you have since failed to answer the question of The plane being low enough for wings clipping lamp posts but bottom of engines not then therefore being low enough to carve grooves into the grass so I didn't bother after then... besides... we are all well aware of The official story and you are just posting up stuff designed to support that.

Again.
Watch the video
I am repeating what a very valid source says about the planes - I think she knows more than you.

Tommy Monk wrote:Thanks Eddie, will have A look later maybe...
I seem to remember that there was supposedly a military/security exercise being run that day playing out a scenario of planes being hijacked and flown into buildings... just like there was also one being run in London on 7/7 playing out the scenario of bombs on trains...
Funny that... isn't it...!?
And I don't mean ha ha funny either...

Dodge, I watched the first cartoon you posted and you have since failed to answer the question of The plane being low enough for wings clipping lamp posts but bottom of engines not then therefore being low enough to carve grooves into the grass so I didn't bother after then... besides... we are all well aware of The official story and you are just posting up stuff designed to support that.

Than you for proving my point.
You are not interesting at any real evidence presented to you Tommy.
You are really only interested in what other conspiracy theorists say.
So we are backed to your unfounded claim again.
You need to prove it would be impossible for the plane to be that low and fly into the building of which at every turn you have failed to do.
You have offered no scientific evidence there would be groves in the grass and keep repeating this unfounded claim.
You need to back up your claims with evidence and at every turn you have failed to do so.
I have given plenty of information about the dimensions all of which you have not again posted any counter evidence.

eddie wrote:Again.
Watch the video
I am repeating what a very valid source says about the planes - I think she knows more than you.

No you are just believing what she is saying Eddie.
The evidence is irrefutable about planes flying.
You just prove my point to Rags.
You do not want to believe the truth.
You said to me you looked at the evidence but all you have done is watched this one video and others no doubt and sites that are just conspiracies.
That is not looking at the evidence
Post up some real evidence. That would be a start

What is your real evidence didge?
It's photos and statements by people - same as what you'll see on the video - except the woman who's made the film has actually worked with bush and was THERE.

Were you there?

Watch the video didge.

And right back at you!
You are basing your views on one set of evidence.

How did you arrive at your opinion?


Oh yes, by believing in everything that was laid out for you.......

eddie wrote:What is your real evidence didge?
It's photos and statements by people - same as what you'll see on the video - except the woman who's made the film has actually worked with bush and was THERE.

Were you there?

Watch the video didge.

And right back at you!
You are basing your views on one set of evidence.

How did you arrive at your opinion?


Oh yes, by believing in everything that was laid out for you.......

The countless scientific evidence Eddie.
The evidence presented from the scenes.
Witnesses.
The evidence of Al Qaeda even attempt an attack before
The evidence from Al Qaeda and those involved.
The countless times claims have been made and have been thoroughly refuted.
So no Eddie not just believing, but looking objectively at the evidence

Here Eddie, this is about your video maker, makes quite amusing reading:




Now this is some good stuff.  We all know how insane these truthers are but take a look at this exchange between Barbara Honegger, the lady who wrote paper after paper alleging that Reagan dealt with the Iranians so they would delay releasing the hostages in 1980, who declared that she was a munchkin and Ronald Reagan was the Wizard of Oz, and who spoke to computers 100 years in the future via a medium, is now saying that she has proof that it was not a plane that struck the Pentagon but it was bombed.

You see it was bombed to hide a huge theft of funds from the United States Government by Donald Rumsfeld.   Here she is on a truthers internet radio show: (via Screw Loose Change)

   Honegger: The people who are following the $2.3 trillion that Rumsfeld himself admitted in a press conference before 9/11, September 10th that they couldn’t find $2.3 trillion, that is half the GNP of the United States, the Gross National Product of the United States. You don’t just lose half the Gross National Product out of the Pentagon budget.

   Barrett: Yeah. It was well timed.

   Honegger: They said the day before 9/11 they were going to track the money and on 9/11, the Army auditors, the financial management area of the Army offices were the very ones taken out by the explosions, which in my paper, the Pentagon attack paper, go read it, proves was the result of bombs inside the building to take out the Pentagon auditors who were following that 2.3 trillion.

   Caller: Oh my Goodness.

   Barrett: 2.3 trillion will buy quite a few bombs I would imagine. That would buy a lot of cordite.

Of course they fail to mention that the press conference giving by Rumsfeld was to complain about the antiquated book keeping programs.  Here is James from Screw Loose Change setting the record straight:

   it was not a press conference where Rumsfeld "admitted" this, it was mentioned in passing during a speech to a conference of DoD logisticians titled rather boringly "DOD Acquisition and Logistics Excellence Week Kickoff A –Bureaucracy to Battlefield ". Furthermore, the reason they couldn’t "find" the money, was not because it was stolen, but because of the antiquated accounting and IT systems, which is what Rumsfeld was complaining about in the speech! Anyway, read our previous posts if you want more on this subject.

Want more of the kooky Honegger?  Here she is a little later in the broadcast:

   Honegger: The real question is what the hell were they doing and had they been doing with half the GDP of the United States? That’s the real question.

   Barrett: Yeah. Where are they putting all that money?

   Honegger: Well I think it is huge numbers of underground bases and in particular we know that Osama bin Laden father’s company drilled the tunnels into the hills of Afghanistan when the CIA was paying them to do it to fight the Soviets there.

   Barrett: You think they are using this money on underground bases?

   Honegger: Yes, in part.

   Barrett: Umm what’s your, well you see I don’t know too much about that, can you give me sources of information?

   Honegger: Well that is a different program. The general question I want to get out here is what the hell have they been doing with one half the GDP 2.3 trillion, half the Gross National Product of the United States?

Of course the GDP at that time was over 10 trillion but who’s counting I suppose.

Wow……just wow.


http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/01/17/truthers-think-rumsfeld-bombed/


She is a right wackadoodle lol

Watch
The
Video



Or don't.
I think we've arrived at the conclusion we are not going to agree nor change each others minds.

I am open to thinking that not is all as it seems in the 9/11 attacks.

eddie wrote:Watch
The
Video



Or don't.
I think we've arrived at the conclusion we are not going to agree nor change each others minds.

I am open to thinking that not is all as it seems in the 9/11 attacks.

You did not watch any of mine Eddie did you and you want me to watch the video of some deranged loon?
I agree there is questions that still need to be asked, but you are not presenting evidence to me Eddie.

Perhaps the video will answer your questions.
And why would you think someone was loon without knowing them???
That's a bit biased!

Perhaps the American government (or higher powers) are loons??? Ever wonder about that?

And I have watched countless videos about 9/11 didge.
And I still think we are and have been, lied to.

eddie wrote:Perhaps the video will answer your questions.
And why would you think someone was loon without knowing them???
That's a bit biased!

Perhaps the American government (or higher powers) are loons??? Ever wonder about that?

And I have watched countless videos about 9/11 didge.
And I still think we are and have been, lied to.

Yes but no videos that show many of the claims made to be false do you Eddie.
Just read my last post I posted up to what she said.
I can read for myself what people say.
Now you want people to watch the video of this person yet I have posted many without you watching any.
So I will watch yours at some point, but after doing some research on her I can draw my own conclusions.


Again you need to watch this as you fit nicely into what he says about people who buy into conspiracies:

Ah a random bloke doing a video about other people he thinks are stupid?

So his opinion is valid is it?

Perhaps I'll find a video about people who are so narrow minded and brain washed that they have to do videos about people they deem to be psychologically damaged?

Oh hang on, I'll find a video about people who've been brainwashed by media and government and videos down by random people......

eddie wrote:Ah a random bloke doing a video about other people he thinks are stupid?

So his opinion is valid is it?

Perhaps I'll find a video about people who are so narrow minded and brain washed that they have to do videos about people they deem to be psychologically damaged?

Oh hang on, I'll find a video about people who've been brainwashed by media and government and videos down by random people......

A psychologist Eddie which he backs up with evidence.
Oh my goodness
Do you want to see some studies on this?
Again Eddie I look objectively because I have been trained to so with History.
So I am sorry to burst your bubble but I loo at the evidence and like here with 9/11 there is just so many things you need to refute which have not been done.
People want to believe in these things because they have issues as he proves as you do with higher authority. I mean why is it you at times like with the Paris attack allowed yourself to fear going to Paris?


Please take your pick:


https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/naturally-selected/201412/why-our-brains-are-hardwired-conspiracy-theories


http://www.open.edu/openlearn/body-mind/psychology/psychological-studies/the-psychology-conspiracy-theories


http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/insights-into-the-personalities-conspiracy-theorists/

American brainwashing.
Admitted to by Clinton (clip at the end)

Telling me they've stopped doing this?

eddie wrote:American brainwashing.
Admitted to by Clinton (clip at the end)

Telling me they've stopped doing this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_MKUltra