9/11
It is about time we found out what the 911 attack was all about. There are too many unexplained details, leading many citizens to speculate on all sorts of conspiracy theories, which only serve to further muddy the waters. Lets take another look, and open up the entire dialog. Let’s get to the truth and stop the speculation!
This letter has not been edited.
Troofers unite, all we have to lose is our tin foil hats!
Seriously, if the government really could blow up the WTC, the Murrah building (Oklahoma), and build secret death camps in Mississippi like the troofers claim---wouldn't all the troofers be fertilizing a cotton farm in Mississippi now?
Posted by Late Night Radio on September 24, 2007 02:10 PMJordan, you too? We had four nut jobs yeaterday and now you've jumped on the bandwagon
Posted by on September 24, 2007 03:05 PMThose who refuse to even investigate anything else but the "official story" of 9/11, are just like those who deny German atrocities to Jews in WW2.
It happened and the story of those in charge just doesn't add up.
Just google "FEMA Camps".
Posted by What A Laugh on September 24, 2007 03:17 PMOkay,,,I admit it, I caused the attacks on 9/11. Islamo fascists are too stupid to fly modern jet aircraft so I did it all from my Atari joystick. My killing is not over...I am now going to go after and kill all those people who are trying to expose me by saying there are "too many unexplained details." Thanks to this left-wing paper, I have your name!
Posted by Buff Driver on September 24, 2007 03:57 PMKeep asking,
Keep asking the questons, thats all people are doing because it is not resolved for many of us how this actually happened and what really happened, Sorry to disappoint you sheep that believe they (the highjackers) were so clever that no military was dispatched. Do I believe Bush is clever enough to pull this off? NO, however I believe he know about it and let it happen so he could further his agenda of invading Iraq. Really how long did it take after this for Iraq to be brought up. Keep up the courage people and keep asking the questions!!!!
Posted by Karl Cheney on September 24, 2007 04:06 PMThe government (9/11 Commission)investigated...found a bunch of Islamic terrorists crashed the planes. We arrested Khalid Sheikh Mohammad (KSM) the mastermind of the attacks who confirmed as much. Osama bin Laden has communicated the same on numerous occasions from the comfort of his cave in Pakistan. Popular Mechanics magazine debunked the kooky notion that there were controlled explosions that brought down the buildings.
Just because you want to believe something (ie President Bush and the Joooos brought down the Twin Towers) doesn't make it true. That said, No facts I share with the "TROOFERS" on this blog will change their belief that the evil GWB and the JOOOS took out the towers. You people are pathetic! Alas, I now need to get back to my job benefitting from the President's benevolent tax cuts and getting rich while the middle class suffers and the environment reaches the point of no return.
Do people actually believe the same government that couldn't cover up a minor burglary or a stained dress is suddenly able to masterfully cover up something as complex as 9/11? I think some folks have their tinfoil hats on a little too tight.
Posted by wolf on September 24, 2007 04:50 PMKarl said, “Keep up the courage people and keep asking the questions!!!!”
OK, here is mine, Karl, are you always this stupid, or you stupidity intensifies with the outrageousness of the topic.
Another one; if the Clinton administration warned Bush about the imminent dangers of a terrorist attack, just like they claim they knew, how come they didn’t do anything about it?
Karl, you are wise for not taking this seriously, and Uno , Clinton is not responsible for all things imagined and/or real.
You people need a new scapegoat. Bill dosen't care what you think
Nor do I.
Karl, you are wise for not taking this seriously, and Uno , Clinton is not responsible for all things imagined and/or real.
You people need a new scapegoat. Bill dosen't care what you think
Nor do I.
Dmz, that why did you answer? Who was talking to you?
And Clinton is responsible for everything under his term, including all the things he neglected.
the only conspiracy I wonder about is,
"Did Monica swallow?"
Posted by on September 24, 2007 06:52 PMI suppose we can include these alternative 9/11 theories into our schools history lessons, just like the Bush admin/'conservatives' sneak creationism into the the science class, as "teaching the controversy" instead of teaching evolution. Same as how Iran last year hosted a Holocaust denial conference...also 'teaching the controversy' whether it even happened.
Posted by on September 24, 2007 08:25 PMI believe we can all concur that publicans obsession with other peoples sex lives stems from the fact that "They aint gettin' none."
(Well, with the notable exception of prostitutes, public toilets and internet porn, in which they obviously partake with gusto.)
"Your countrymen have been murdered and the more you delve into it the more it looks as though they were murdered by our government, who used it as an excuse to murder other people thousands of miles away.
If you ridicule others who have sincere doubts and who know factual information that directly contradicts the official report and who want explanations from those who hold the keys to our government, and have motive, means, and opportunity to pull off a 9/11, but you are too lazy or fearful, or ... to check into the facts yourself, what does that make you?"
Full Statement of Lt. Col. Shelton F. Lankford, US Marine Corps (ret)
Retired U.S. Marine Corps Fighter Pilot
February 20, 2007
Pretty damn applicable to this forum!
Here is the truth: Filthy mohammedans hijacked airplanes full of innocent people and flew them into buildings full of innocent people. The filthy mohammedans that committed the attacks were funded and supported by other filthy mohammedans in the Middle East. Those filthy mohammedans and those who support them must be eliminated, or they will perpetuate further attacks on the United States.
Posted by on September 24, 2007 09:58 PMYep, that MUST be what happened, because that's what we are told, right? All right, you don't want to listen to my opinion. How about these others questioning the explanation of events on 9-11:
1. Families of the Victims
Ex- www.911independentcommission.org/questions.html
2. Professional Pilots
Ex- www.pilotsfor911truth.org
3. Architects and Engineers
Ex- www.ae911truth.org
4. Government Officials/Liasons Involved in 9-11>
Ex-
David Schippers, former Lead Counsel for the House- Took specific warnings he'd learned from FBI agents in New York of an impending attack John Ashcroft's office; even naming the proposed dates, names of the hijackers and the targets, and the fact that the investigations had been stymied and the agents threatened.
5. Military Personnel
Ex- Commander Ralph Kolstad, former Navy Top Gun- says he couldn't pull off manuevers and flight path described in order to hit Pentagon, even with his experience as a Navy fighter pilot, Air Combat Instructor, and time flying low altitude, high speed aircraft.
Wow... I only listed an example for each category, not all... must be alot of "loonies", "crockpots", and "conspiracy nuts" out there...
Or your closed mind is wrong. Are you more educated and qualified to pass judgment vs some of the professionals with the expertise and experience in their fields to know enough to question what's being said?
Which is more likely?
Posted by fiesty on September 24, 2007 10:43 PMThe 9-11 attacks were carried out by Islamic extremists in response to US policies in the Middle East.
I know that sounds crazy, but hey truth is stranger than fiction huh? The above theory, although complex and confusing, should be studied more.
I realize that most attacks of this nature are usually carried out by national governments, but what if this was a fluke?
What if, now stay with me, the hijackers were young Saudis that planned the attack and carried it out? I know, I know, now you think I'm crazy. But even a theory bordering on science fiction like this on could happen? No?
Possible but extremely unlikely... for example, how was the flight that hit the Pentagon able to transmit the friendly signal needed to disable the Pentagon’s anti-aircraft missile batteries? (Only a military aircraft, not a civilian plane flown by al Qaeda, would have given off the "Friendly" signal needed to disable the Pentagon’s anti−aircraft missile batteries as it approached the building.) Hijacker's miraculously retrofited the plane mid-air and acquired the signal?
[Note: 9-11 Myths tries to claim these don't exist, yet Mrs. Barbara Honegger, former White House Policy Analyst and Special Assistant to the Assistant to President Ronald Reagan, has confirmed them. Further, in a declassified memo from hostile/friendly war games in 1961, there were seventeen units of Army Air Defense Artillery with ground-to-air anti-aircraft missiles near New York. That was 1961- how many more now and in other places?]
The current administration has been raked over the coals for just about everything and deservedly so!
The next administration will be raked over the coals for just about everything and deservedly so!
The American people will continue to be duped by our so-called leaders. We always have, and always will, and in most secretive and atrocious ways.
What can the American people do? Charge Bush and his entire administration with war crimes?? Haul their butts in front of the people and try to prove it?
I certainly believe in "open dialogue" but if the result of "open dialogue" is nothing.... then what has been accomplished?
This conspiracy theory has been going on for years about Bush why has it been ignored if it is so obvious?? The Dems LOVE to use anything they can against Bush why have they been silent concerning the 9-11 conspiracy?? Why haven't they called for an investigation???
FYI I am neither Rub or Dem. I do not adhere to any political party.
Truthy, one other thought- in order for that (official explanation) to be the truth, in really would have to be "stranger than fiction". Aviation precedents and the laws of physics would have to have taken a holiday on that day. Just a few examples-
1. Somehow all eight flight recorders on the four flights were unrecoverable or essentially unreadable- previously, flight recorders were recovered in most crashes and are sometimes the only item able to be recovered from a crash.
2. No pilot or co-pilot on any of the four planes was able to switch on their transponders in a hijack situation- despite pilots being trained on a simple code that you put in if you suspect that your plane is being hijacked which literally takes a split-second put your hand down on the center console and flip it over.
3. Pilots (including a former naval Top Gun and a civilian pilot who had previously flown two of the actual planes involved) state that the flight path and plane manuevers are flat impossible due to aeronautical physics and actual experience.
4. A 757 was able to crash into the Pentagon right at the wall/ground interface when it would be nearly impossible for even a small slow single engine airplane- and without touching the lawn.
5. Contrary to the experience of aircraft accident investigators, these four crashes had such unique circumstances that metal engines, luggage, the miles of wiring that make up any aircraft, etc all vaporized, leaving a dearth of wreckage compared to any other accident scene investigated.
6. The WTC, a steel and concrete building, collapsed after being hit by a Boeing 767 when the engineers designed it to withstand a direct hit from a Boeing 707 (approximately the same size and weight of the 767.
7. Regarding the WTC, the second building collapsed before the first one, which had been burning for 20 minutes longer after a direct hit, when the second one hit was just a glancing blow.
8. If the fire was so hot at the WTC, then why were people [survivors] looking out the windows and in the destroyed areas?
That's an awful lot to swallow... Once again I ask- isn't it plausible that pilots, aircraft accident investigators, etc have the experience to recognize serious flaws with the official explanation?
Posted by fiesty on September 25, 2007 08:42 AMFiesty,
Many people who are professional are also very gullible. I know quite a few people who are extremely book smart and proficient at their job, but don’t have the common street smarts of a door knob.
If you are so eager to ask questions, you ought to be willing to answer a few.
If our government allowed the 9/11 attack to happen, how have they been able to keep it a secret? It has been said that three people can keep a secret as long as two of them are dead. Does Fiesty consider that hundreds of people would have had to be involved in this conspiracy and that there would also be thousands who would have known about it who would have to remain silent to keep it a secret? Sure, that’s not impossible. But knowing it is human nature to blab what is the probability?
Fiesty, what are the so-called “orders” that you claim were deliberately ignored to allow the attacks to take place? Who ignored those orders?
What military base did you work at on active duty which was directly involved during the 9/11 attacks and what was your job?
What do you believe should have been done or what could have been done to thwart the 9/11 attacks? Keep in mind that never before had hijackers done more than force a plane to fly to an unscheduled destination. So the conventional wisdom was NOT that Air Force jets should be scrambled to shoot down a commercial airliner simply because it had been hijacked. How do you suppose the public would feel if our government had blasted a commercial airliner out of the sky without knowing if it had simply been hijacked? Our government did not know the planes were going to be flown into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Or will Fiesty come back to say that they did know exactly that?
If our government knowingly allowed the 9/11 attacks what is your version of their motive?
Some say that Bush should have done more to protect us from the 9/11 attacks. But those same people don’t like the security measures he has enacted AFTER 9/11. How ballistic would Fiesty have gotten if they had their baggage so thoroughly inspected, shoes taken off, scissors and finger nail clippers confiscated, and not allowed beyond the security check point without a boarding pass when we had never seen a reason to do that before?
To prevent the 9/11 attacks, President Bush would’ve had to have pretty specific information such as knowing just which date the attack was to take place. He would have had to know that in order to know on which date to shut down the entire U.S. airline industry. He would have had to know to keep the airports open on September 10 and he would have had to know not to wait until September 12. He would have had to know at which airports the terrorists were in order to have law enforcement find and arrest them. He would have had to know just which 19 men to have arrested. Bush would have had to know the terrorists were going to use box cutters to slit the throats of airline attendants and crew members, so he would have had to enact standard security measures that the ostriches of our society say are contrary to our civil liberties now even after 9/11.
To this day, there are people who believe that the attack on Pearl Harbor was also allowed by our government. My father-in-law is convinced of it. After WWI there was a popular belief that it was the war to end all wars, thus our military strength was diminished greatly. Knowing that, why would President Roosevelt purposely let our Pacific fleet of Navy ships to be depleted even further by allowing the Japanese to attack what few ships we had left?
Likewise, knowing our economy was going through difficult times as it was, why would President Bush allow the attacks of 9/11 take place which would further cripple our economy? People want to believe that he will not do anything unless it helps corporations. So, why would he allow something that would harm corporations?
Many on this blog know that I am no fan of our government. However, it is not the root of all evil. Whether it’s out of juvenile cynicism or out of bigoted hatred for George Bush, or out of the idea that America is to blame for everything wrong in the world even to the point of attacking itself and killing a few thousand innocent people to thrust an agenda, for some strange reason many people so desperately want to believe the worst about our government that they pass along these conspiracy theories that our government just sat back and let the Pearl Harbor and 9/11 attacks take place.
They some dumb motherfu**ers out there. Dayyyyyymmmm!
Posted by truthy on September 25, 2007 09:54 AMdmz & Karl,
If Clinton was not culpable in the attacks, why did his National Security Adviser, Sandy Berger, risk imprisonment at Leavenworth to steal and destroy classified documents on terrorism that were pertinent to the 9/11 Commission's investigation?
The conspiracy theories exist because we are human. It is difficult to believe that our powerful country, our aircraft, our cities or our government can be attacked so easily by simple individuals working from within their hate. Declaring it a conspiracy makes it more comfortable, makes us feel safer because conspiracies can be discovered and stopped. The alternative is to accept that we are vulnerable to the haters, the destroyers and those who hate us because we exist as a free, powerful society. We are mortal. Reality is uncomfortable.
Posted by momma y on September 25, 2007 12:28 PMMountainCat, I don't mind answering questions at all, as long as it doesn't involve speculation. I'll have to answer in chunks though.
"Fiesty, what are the so-called “orders” that you claim were deliberately ignored to allow the attacks to take place? Who ignored those orders?"
IF you've bothered to read the official version, here is but one example regarding the Langley Jet Scramble:
OFFICIAL VERSION: “After consulting with NEADS command, the crew commander issued an order at 0923: ‘Okay… scramble Langley. Head them towards the Washington area…’… That order was processed and transmitted to Langley Air Force Base at 0924. Radar data shows the Langley fighters airborne at 0930… The heading of the Langley fighters was adjusted to send them to the Baltimore area… At 0936…He [mission crew commander] then discovered, to his surprise, that the Langley fighters were not headed north toward the Baltimore area as instructed, but east over the ocean.
The Langley fighters were heading east, not north, for three reasons. First, unlike a normal scramble order, this order did not include a distance to the target or the target’s location. Second, a “generic” flight plan- prepared to get the aircraft airborne and out of local airspace quickly- incorrectly led the Langley fighters to believe they were ordered to fly due east (090) for 60 miles. Third, the lead pilot and local FAA controller incorrectly assumed the flight plan instruction to “090 for 60” superseded the original scramble order.” [9-11 Commission Report, pg 27]
ISSUE 1: Why does this page-long account contradict itself? The official version states that the order did not include the “target’s location”; however, it also states that in the generation of the original scramble order, the NEAD commander specifically directed pilots to head to the Baltimore area.
ISSUE 2: Why would pilots disobey a direct NEADS Commander order, not once, but TWICE? Who authorized this? Were the pilots interviewed, and what was their rationale? In this case, the scramble order included an initial order to head to the Washington D.C. area; since the pilots knew where to go before they even stepped in the plane, there was absolutely no reason to follow the generic flight plan. Even supposing they didn't receive the information on heading (extremely unlikely) and started to use the generic flight plan, they received in-flight instructions (which they would have been waiting for) to change their heading from Washington to Baltimore. Yet this second order was also ignored, and they continued to fly east over the ocean. (Thus why the NEADS Commander was so "surprised" [per the official report] when he went to change them back to Washington and discovered they were still heading out to sea.) The bottom line is that the pilots simply weren’t where they were ordered to go, and that as a result, they were just a little over a minute too late to intercept the crashed flight.
ISSUE 3: Why would the lead pilot and FAA controller believe that the generic flight plan overrode the original scramble order? Were these individuals interviewed, and what was their rationale? It simply doesn’t make sense. Speed is of the essence when scrambling. The whole focus is to get the pilots in the air as fast as possible; often they might not know what's going on or where they're supposed to go. Rather than having pilots flying around aimlessly while waiting for further directions, it is standard to create a generic flight plan to follow while waiting for further in-flight instructions. Believing a generic flight plan overrides the stated “real” destination is ridiculous, and continuing to do so after you have received further changes/instructions is unfathomable. At the very least, they should have asked for clarification, yet there is no record they did.
What military base did you work at on active duty which was directly involved during the 9/11 attacks and what was your job?
RIght now I'm a disabled veteran working for the Gov't, with an active clearance, so I'll try to answer as much as possible WITHOUT naming my previous units. At the time of 9-11, I was working at Los Angeles AFB- we originally thought we might be a target since all the planes were heading that way (in hindsight, we know it's because cross-country flights have the most fuel). I was on duty before 0600, right before the base was closed; I did security. Some of my previous postings included base ops on active runways and one of the space affiliated programs. Enough to verify that I know a little about the events that day as well as flight procedures, along with the standard stuff all military know? If you want to see some really qualified military personnel with insights on that day, you should really check out http://patriotsquestion911.com - I haven't seen that much brass in one spot in awhile.
What do you believe should have been done or what could have been done to thwart the 9/11 attacks?
Oh, I don't know- how about act on the actionable intelligence provided in advance?
Former lead counsel for the House, David Schippers, says he’d taken to John Ashcroft’s office specific warnings he’d learned from FBI agents in New York of an impending attack – even naming the proposed dates, names of the hijackers and the targets, and the fact that the investigations had been stymied and the agents threatened:
“There was going to be a massive attack in Washington... The targets were going to be Washington, the White House and the Capitol Building. And that they were going to use airliners to attack them… The original report that I got was that they had arranged for three attacks on the United States - one, they were going to take down an airline; two, they were going to attack a federal facility in the heartland of the United States; and the third one was going to be a massive attack in lower Manhattan.
“Got a call from the office of the Speaker of the House, who happens to be an Illinois Republican, said we understand you've got some information, etc. I said, yes I do, I would really like to share it with somebody. I have at least two and maybe three witnesses that should be subpoenaed to come out there and testify in executive session and tell you what I was talking about. Ok. We'll get back to you. Never heard from them. Couple of days later, I got a call from the Senate Intelligence Committee. We hear that you've got information, etc. Yes, I have information and I'd be perfectly willing to bring it out to you. I'd be perfectly willing to have my witnesses go in there and testify but they have to be subpoenaed... Ok, we'll get back to you. That was last week, I still haven't heard from them... Strangely enough, the one group I haven't heard from is the FBI intelligence people.”
momma y-
I have to disagree, I think you have it backwards. I believe folks are more "comfortable" believing the neat, pat story, and as a bonus, don't have to bother opening their minds to consider contrary evidence.
As someone who was injured while defending this country, it certainly does not make me comfortable that the possibility of the government I gave my oath to is implicated in the events of that day. Further, as several patriots on the referenced link state, our oath was against "all enemies, foreign or domestic" and that oath is still binding.
I don't believe in conspiracies per se; I think all the JFK, Pearl Harbour, etc conspiracy nuts are wacko. But in this case, it's not so much as conspiracy, but the fact that the offical explanation has blatant fallacies.
Posted by fiesty on September 25, 2007 12:45 PMStill no actual proof! Just theory!! Where's the Democrats in all of this????? They could have had a field day with this and put Bush behind bars! Where the hell are they on this!!
What??? The Dems don't have the power to look into this??
Cmon! What next??? Osama flies his magic carpet into Sears and buys a new black beard and wig?
911 was a tragic event it is cruel to the families of 9-11 victims to keep insisting that the horrendous satan Bush and THOUSANDS of accomplices carried this out!
The terrorists must be laughing under their filthy beards!!
Then please feel to address some of the points raised above. Maybe you can explain some of the aviation firsts, how physics didn't apply to a plane trying to descend 7000 feet in 2 minutes while doing a 270 degree bank without stalling, why specific intelligence wasn't acted on etc.
I'm waiting...
Posted by fiesty on September 25, 2007 01:18 PMFiesty,
Where did you get the “Official version” that you copied and pasted here? Did you get it off of one of the conspiracy blogs?
What you wrote all sounds impressive and you probably think you answered my questions. But you really didn’t. I asked some very direct and specific questions, and you were pretty vague with your answers. I asked you, “What do you believe should have been done or what could have been done to thwart the 9/11 attacks?” Your answer was, “Oh, I don't know- how about act on the actionable intelligence provided in advance?” That wasn’t really answering my question, now was it? Then what you did was put out some speculative information that David Schippers had warnings he had taken to Ashcroft. I am not convinced that your source is reliable. It does not make sense that none of this has ever come out before. What is particularly suspicious is the supposed list of the names of the terrorists and the targets.
You also avoided some of my main questions: If our government allowed the 9/11 attack to happen, how have they been able to keep it a secret? If our government knowingly allowed the 9/11 attacks what is your version of their motive? Knowing our economy was going through difficult times as it was, why would President Bush allow the attacks of 9/11 to take place which would further cripple our economy?
I’m having difficulty believing that people at LAAFB thought the terrorists were headed there for an attack for two reasons. 1) Why would they take a plane all the way from the east coast to attack a base on the west coast, burning all that fuel they needed for optimal effectiveness? Wouldn't they use a plane from an airport in the western portion of the country, like say, California if they were headed to Los Angeles AFB? 2) What would make anyone at that time think that the terrorists were going to do anything but hijack the planes since that is all that terrorists had done prior to 9/11? You cannot tell me with a straight face that anyone thought that the planes were going to be used as missiles. So, it's very likely that nobody thought that the terrorist were headed to LAAFB.
"Where did you get the “Official version” that you copied and pasted here? Did you get it off of one of the conspiracy blogs?"
Nice try. Nope, got it from my hardcopy "9-11 Official Commission Report"- can get from Amazon for under $14 (www.amazon.com/Commission-Report-Terrorist-Hardcover-Authorized/dp/0393060411/ref=sr_1_1/104-5158186-8783140?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1190753825&sr=8-1) or it's available online (www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm) I provided you verbatim verbiage and with page references, so look it up yourself.
So, have YOU bothered to actually read the report? If you haven't, how can you argue against contradictions contained in it?
"I asked you, “What do you believe should have been done or what could have been done to thwart the 9/11 attacks?” Your answer was, “Oh, I don't know- how about act on the actionable intelligence provided in advance?” That wasn’t really answering my question, now was it? Then what you did was put out some speculative information that David Schippers had warnings he had taken to Ashcroft. I am not convinced that your source is reliable. It does not make sense that none of this has ever come out before. What is particularly suspicious is the supposed list of the names of the terrorists and the targets"
Once again, nice try. I answered the question, albeit sarcastically. You asked what could have been done to thwart the attacks- and I answered that we could have acted on intelligence provided that named suspects, method of attack, dates, etc from a creditable source. It was all right there- what more could you want?? The whole situation was completely avoidable! And there's nothing "speculative" or "questionable source" regarding Schippers- you can either listen to his interview online, or read the transcript (infowars.com/transcript_schippers.html is just one, and several news agencies too) Further, Schippers wasn't the only one with Intel naming this info. There were members from Operation Able Danger (who were ordered to discontinue 4 months prior) as well as others. I can give you mucho links that showed we had actionable, specific intelligence from creditable sources, most intelligence agencies.
"If our government allowed the 9/11 attack to happen, how have they been able to keep it a secret?
God, not this strawman argument again.
First, most of the participants in the operation had no idea they were participating in it. Instead, they thought they were involved in one of the six war games scheduled for that day (NRO, Global Guardian, Vigilant Warrior, Operation Northern Vigilance, Operation Northern Guardian, Tripod II- all described in the official report. Look it up). For example several fighter wings had been flown out of the area as part of the games, providing scant air cover in the event. Later, when 911 itself resulted in the call down of all commercial aircraft, this would have made it possible to land three of the hijacked flights in the confusion, while substitute aircraft took over. Thus, 911 acted as its own cover, in effect, as well. Since one of the war games specifically was simulating a hijacking for a plane to be used as a missle, that sort of shoots down your whole "no one imagined hijackers would use a plane that way".
Second, many of the key participants in the operation already belonged to intelligence agencies from one of the participating countries, principally (at a guess) the CIA, MI6, and Mossad. All three agencies are known to have black ops and Mossad, in particular, has a very long history in explosive ordnance disposal (EOD, as it is known in the trade. (This branch of special operations has little to do with “disposal” and much to do with “explosives.”) No intelligence officer is likely to blow the cover on an operation to which he/she is fully committed. Even if an intel type decided to tell all, he or she would be scheduled for immediate “extreme prejudice” treatment, not to mention the barrier he or she would face in the next paragraph.
Third, stories that directly contradict the spin are unwelcome, to say the least, even from undercover agents. The extremely sensitive nature of the story would trigger a series of consultations up the chain of ownership to the top, from which a flat “no” would be issued.
If our government knowingly allowed the 9/11 attacks what is your version of their motive?
This is a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" question. If I say I don't, you attack me regardless of the fact it's not my responsibility to come up with an explanation for the anamolies/contradictions in the official explanation- it's THEIRS. And if I say I do have an explanation, you ridicule it or rightfully state I can't prove it. I'm not falling for this trap.
Knowing our economy was going through difficult times as it was, why would President Bush allow the attacks of 9/11 to take place which would further cripple our economy?
That's pretty obvious. Although this falls under the previous question scenario, I'll answer it. The attack was the basis for forming Homeland Security, and to get willful Americans to accept losses of civil liberties/freedoms that they would otherwise never allow. Illegal wire taps, illegal and uncontestable transportation databases rating (and refusing to release) private citizens, the Real ID Act of 2005, etc.
"I’m having difficulty believing that people at LAAFB thought the terrorists were headed there for an attack for two reasons... You cannot tell me with a straight face that anyone thought that the planes were going to be used as missiles. So, it's very likely that nobody thought that the terrorist were headed to LAAFB."
Sheer B.S. First, we already addressed how "not using planes as missiles" is a fallacy. Second, the first two planes, American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175, left Boston within minutes of each other, around 8 am. Both were Boeing 767s bound for Los Angeles. American Airlines Flight 77, meanwhile, took off from Washington Dulles International Airport outside Washington, D.C., at about 8:20 am with 6 crew members and 58 passengers. Like the Boston flights, the airplane was bound for Los Angeles. The fourth aircraft hijacked on September 11, United Airlines Flight 93, took off from Newark, New Jersey, at about 8:40 am, bound for San Francisco. So, 3 of the 4 planes were headed for Los Angeles. After the first crash, when the other planes couldn't be located, OF COURSE they would be looking for possible targets and would have noticed that 3 of 4 were headed for Los Angeles, so why wouldn't you think the only base in that vacinity might be a target? Duh! We were locked down in Force Protection Delta- look it up, it means that actionable intelligence against a specific location is imminent or has occurred.
Okay, I've answered your latest questions. Why don't you start addressing mine?
You know, I must admit I am amazed by the sheer obtuseness being displayed on this blog. I can emphasize with disbelief, but cannot understand a complete refusal to even consider contradictory information but rather dismiss it out of hand.
When I was active duty, we use to laugh at some of the conspiracy nuts, like the ones who thought Pearl Harbour was an inside job. When the same "nuts" started claiming the same about 9-11. we laughed too. However, when someone pointed out the info about the Langley jet scramble and some other military inconsistencies, we weren't laughing anymore because something was smelly. I had to research it HARD before I came to the conclusion that the official version was full of holes, and that idea HURT. Fortunately, I'm not the only one; there are some very creditable Generals and aviators on the Patriots link.
So I can understand the doubt, but not the closed minds. I guess it's more "comfortable" to laugh off folks rather than contemplate the alternative, and easier since most are too lazy to review the material.
Posted by fiesty on September 25, 2007 03:39 PMDude, you are articulate and you put a lot of work into it, but you are dead wrong.
Instead channel all that energy curing cancer or designing a new type of thruster. Even if any of what you say is true (Which it ain't.), What the hell are we going to do about it?
We all know the government sucks and we are trying to change it. It takes time. At least issues are being talked about that were underground 7 years ago.
Use your energy and CREATE something with it. Making things is better than destroying things. ALWAYS!
Posted by truthy on September 25, 2007 05:30 PMbtw, "dudette" would be more appropriate.
If I'm dead wrong, show me where.
What the hell are we going to do about it? You answered that it your next statement- gradually change the government! Use this info to stop the unconstitutional actions that are being committed in the name of "homeland security".
I'm working on creating a list of discrepancies, carefully researching verified information from creditable sources. That's why, unlike Mountain Cat's assumptions, I actually got a copy of the official report to examine it, rather than go off some conspiracy blog. That's why I go to the experts, to explain why certain things are or aren't possible. That's why I research previous situations of similar circumstances and their outcomes (historical precedents), to see how this situation varies. That's why I substantiate claims, rather than cut and paste from some conspiracy blog. And so on.
Posted by fiesty on September 25, 2007 05:53 PMKarl, first you said
“however I believe he know about it and let it happen so he could further his agenda of invading Iraq.” – thus id you believe that, than you are stupid. And next time you say something stupid like that, than you get the same treatment.
Than you said “Bush did nothing about it because he was mostly on vacation on his ranch, he didn't take that or anything else seriously unless it effects his corporate cronies.” – that’s another of your version, this time different. What happened to, “he known” about it?
Get your story right.
Feisty,
If a group of simple renegades from a tiny group of extremists can cause such death and destruction we are not safe. We are at risk. Anyone can hurt us. Anyone can turn our lives upside down. We have no way to be safe. No proof will be enough. No logic will hold water.
Labeling it a conspiracy allows us to use the "smallness" of our selves to deflect fear. We are not in danger because it would take so many people and so many plans.
No one will ever convince these people. The conspiracy is their "Linus Blanket." They'll never give it up. It protects their safety and their peace of mind. It's more than tinfoil hats. It's tinfoil reality shelters.
Momma y-
Just a thought- It's others on this blog who label any dissenter with the official explanation of the events of 9-11 as conspiracy advocates...
We've also addressed the fallacy of the "it would take so many people it couldn't be kept secret"; also, are all the military personnel and pilots who dissent "small-minded"?
For the third time, if this is so easy to dismiss, why isn't anyone on this blog addressing some of the items I've posted?
Posted by fiesty on September 25, 2007 10:44 PMFiesty,
It’s really not important, but why do you insert the letter “u” in the word harbor, as in “Pearl Harbour” rather than Pearl Harbor?
Please at least admit that the media has not been exactly kind to George Bush. If Mr. Schipper and others had credible proof about a scandal of this magnitude the media would be all over it. They would be licking their chops at the prospect of getting the scoop on this story.
If you are so certain about your theory and if you think you have the goods on ‘ol Georgie Boy and his gang of thugs, why don’t you take that information to the media yourself? If it’s as worthy of the attention you think it deserves, then the press will spread it all over the place!
Who is this “we” you keep referring to? Twice you said, “We’ve already addressed…” No, there was no “we” that addressed certain aspects of this discussion; only you.
You said, “Since one of the war games specifically was simulating a hijacking for a plane to be used as a missle…”
Now you’re just making stuff up as we go along.
It IS your responsibility to come up with a motive since it is YOU who has brought up this claim on this blog. And you still would not address the question about motive, claiming it’s a damned-it-you- do-and-damned-if-you-don’t scenario. What a coward. Don’t you have the strength of your convictions or do you really not have any clue about what the motive might have been? I wasn’t trying to trap you, Fiesty. I was trying to see if you had a plausible motive in mind. And you don’t.
I know your base was in lock down, so I don’t have to “look it up.” I also work at a military base and we were also locked down on 9/11, just as was every military base across the nation. The fact that your base was locked down means very little, or nothing regarding targets. I think you were throwing in the part about LAAFB being a possible target for dramatic effect.
My point was that it makes no sense for the terrorists to take a plane they were intending to use as a missile all the way from Boston or Washington D.C. when they had hundreds to choose from on the west coast to use against Los Angeles.
Oh, well. There are people who believe that the lunar landing was completely staged because what really happened is beyond their comprehension. It must be beyond your comprehension to believe that terrorists from the Middle East were clever enough to pull off 9/11 without help from the U.S. government. It is NOT at all beyond my comprehension to believe that our government assisted. It’s just not at all very likely.
"You said, “Since one of the war games specifically was simulating a hijacking for a plane to be used as a missle…”
Now you’re just making stuff up as we go along."
Nice try. You should know by know that I don't say anything unless I can back it up. In the offical report, it specifically mentions Vigilant Guardian-
“On 9/11, NORAD was scheduled to conduct a military exercise, Vigilant Guardian, which postulated a bomber attack from the former Soviet Union. We investigated whether military preparations for the large-scale exercise compromised the military’s response to the real-world terrorist attack on 9/11. According to General Eberhart, ‘it took about 30 seconds’ to make the adjustment to the real-world situation. Ralph Eberhart testimony, June 17, 2004. We found that the response was, if anything, expedited by the increased number of staff at the sectors and at NORAD because of the scheduled exercise. See Robert Marr interview (Jan 23, 2004).” [9-11 Commission Report, page 458]
Further, you can find numerous news releases for the various agencies running the below war games that day:
• A National Reconnaissance Office exercise on September 11, in which a small corporate jet would crash into one of the four towers at the agency's headquarters building after experiencing a mechanical failure. According to its spokesman Art Haubold: "No actual plane was to be involved -- to simulate the damage from the crash, some stairwells and exits were to be closed off, forcing employees to find other ways to evacuate the building." He further explained: "It was just an incredible coincidence that this happened to involve an aircraft crashing into our facility, as soon as the real world events began, we cancelled the exercise." Most of the agency's personnel were sent home after the attacks. (See news story: http://www.boston.com/news/packages/sept11/anniversary/wire_stories/0903_plane_exercise.htm)
So, kind of shoots down your comment that I was "making up" a story about a war game planned that day about hijackings using planes as missiles...
• Global Guardian, an annual exercise that would pose an imaginary crisis to the United States Strategic Command. It had been running for several days. The exercise allegedly involved a simulated Russian bomber attack. Global Guardian is performed in conjunction with Vigilant Guardian, the annual training exercise (usually occurring in October) conducted by NORAD as well as exercises under the direction of Air Combat Command (Crown Vigilance) and US Space Command (Apollo Guardian). "Vigilant Guardian" is a HQ-sponsored CPx (Command Post Exercise), meaning it is conducted in offices and with computers, but without actual planes in the air. All of NORAD was involved in "Vigilant Guardian."
• Vigilant Warrior, a NORAD live-fly (confirmed by its second name 'warrior') exercise mentioned in Richard Clarke's Against All Enemies page 4-5 (possibly the same as Vigilant Guardian, or possibly the complementary "offense" or "red team" portion of the drill involving real planes acting as simulated hijacked plane)
Once again, simulated hijacked planes...
• Operation Northern Vigilance, which involved deploying fighter jets to locations in Alaska and northern Canada. According to the Toronto Star: " Part of this exercise is pure simulation, but part is real world: NORAD is keeping a close eye on the Russians, who have dispatched long-range bombers to their own high north on a similar exercise." Planned on September 11, it was called off when the Federal Aviation Administration had evidence of a hijacking.
• Operation Northern Guardian- In late August 2001, two-thirds of the 27th Fighter Squadron are sent overseas. Six of the squadron's fighters and 115 people go to Turkey to enforce the no-fly zone over northern Iraq as part of Operation Northern Watch. Another six fighters and 70 people are sent to Iceland to participate in Operation Northern Guardian.
• TRIPOD II, a joint FEMA and Department of Justice bio-warfare vaccination exercise, scheduled for September 12 at New York's Pier 29, and revealed in testimony by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani at the 9/11 Commission. The command center assembled at Pier 29 was used for FEMA response to the events of 9/11 after Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management offices were evacuated and later destroyed in WTC 7.
WELL, you just kind of got burned....
Posted by fiesty on September 26, 2007 11:30 AMMountain Cat says "Well, there are people who believe that the lunar landing was completely staged because what really happened is beyond their comprehension".
I realize that this is not the topic of the letter but can't resist challenging your lunar landing comment. Many people do not believe that American Astonauts ever went to the moon for a lot of plausible reasons. Just because it was shown on TV does not make this myth true. And what was shown on TV was not 'Live TV".
There is an excellent book, written by Structural and Mechanical Engineer, R. Rene, titled "Nasa Mooned America" that shows that the the moon mission photographs are bogus. He proves beyond a reasonable doubt that nobody can survive in space beyond the Van Allen Belt and so on. The astronauts would have had to survive day time moon temperatures of 250 degrees with nowhere enough power to run the cooling system needed. The astronauts reported that the LEM blasted a deep crater in landing on the moon and yet not one photo has ever been released by NASA that shows any hint of this crater. They just show undistrurbed dirt, under the LEM complete with footprints.
There are many holes in the NASA production, including not quite hidden power cords in some photos supposedly taken on the moon, lighting angles that do not match and no stars in any of the photos.
Rene provides a book full of proof that the whole moon deal was a fake put together by NASA and the CIA. It is a very well-written and researched book that reduces the right stuff heroes to mere actors who have gone along with a hollywood production. And those who caused any problems were killed! Did the "accidents" which killed 11 astronauts in 1967 raise any questions in your mind?
This book is available at many libraries.
Posted by Willy on September 26, 2007 11:35 AM"It IS your responsibility to come up with a motive since it is YOU who has brought up this claim on this blog. And you still would not address the question about motive, claiming it’s a damned-it-you- do-and-damned-if-you-don’t scenario. "
First off, I'm not making any claims. Second, if the government is going to make an official claim of what happened that day, they have to be prepared to prove and defend it. (You know, how in academia you have to defend your thesis/position.) Third, I did address motive when addressing your next argument, or didn't you read that? I specifically stated that I thought the reason ("motive") was to rally the US (like what happened after Pearl Harbor) so they could form Homeland Security and use the attack as the basis for some of the resultant legal actions.
"The fact that your base was locked down means very little, or nothing regarding targets."
Wow, you have most more intimate knowledge that the senior leadership at my base, who specifically instructed those of us on the base in security that we were considered a high possibility target...
"It must be beyond your comprehension to believe that terrorists from the Middle East were clever enough to pull off 9/11 without help from the U.S. government. It is NOT at all beyond my comprehension to believe that our government assisted. It’s just not at all very likely."
For the fourth and final time, if that's true, please address some of the problems I have posted. I keep answering your questions, yet YOU keep dodging mine. Let's see if you can answer mine as conclusively (and with creditable sources) as I've answered yours.
Posted by fiesty on September 26, 2007 11:38 AMFiesty,
I think it’s probable that the senior leadership at your base said something to the effect that LAAFB was a possible target. Duh, as was every piece of property across America at that time. On that day, suddenly everybody considered everything a possible target.
You wrote: “Nice try. You should know by know that I don't say anything unless I can back it up. In the offical report, it specifically mentions Vigilant Guardian- “
“On 9/11, NORAD was scheduled to conduct a military exercise, Vigilant Guardian, which postulated a bomber attack from the former Soviet Union. We investigated whether military preparations for the large-scale exercise compromised the military’s response to the real-world terrorist attack on 9/11. According to General Eberhart, ‘it took about 30 seconds’ to make the adjustment to the real-world situation. Ralph Eberhart testimony, June 17, 2004. We found that the response was, if anything, expedited by the increased number of staff at the sectors and at NORAD because of the scheduled exercise. See Robert Marr interview (Jan 23, 2004).” [9-11 Commission Report, page 458]
Then you wrote: “So, kind of shoots down your comment that I was "making up" a story about a war game planned that day about hijackings using planes as missiles...”
And where did you back up what you said about a war game exercise including the use of an airplane used as a MISSILE?
Okay, help me with my reading comprehension: Where in the above paragraph (or any of the other paragraphs you wrote, for that matter) does it say ANYTHING about airplanes USED AS MISSILES? From what my college level reading taught me I only see statements regarding Soviet bombers, but they say NOTHING at all about them used as missiles. If anything, it reveals that we were darn lucky to have had those exercises taking place since it expedited the response to the real world situation of 9/11. I’ve read that paragraph at least five times very carefully and have found nothing to indicate that the exercise had included a planes-as-missiles scenario.
The only plausible explanation to your twist is that you looked at the paragraph about a small corporate jet crashing into a building, but that was for a MECHANICAL FAILURE, not a purposeful and intentional use of a plane as a missile.
Later you wrote another post saying: “First off, I'm not making any claims. Second, if the government is going to make an official claim of what happened that day, they have to be prepared to prove and defend it.”
Yes, Fiesty, you certainly are making claims here. You are claiming that 9/11 was an attack that was allowed by the U.S. government and that the military were willing accomplices. Coming back with a denial of that claim now makes you a liar. And the ACCUSER of a crime must prove their claim, not the people being accused of a crime. You are the one accusing the government of allowing the attacks of 9/11 to go unchallenged. Now it is your responsibility to prove that they are guilty. Trying to equate that to a thesis/position is absurd.
You must think that everybody reading your posts is a ding-dong. Sorry to disappoint you, but we are not as gullible as you must be.
No, I didn’t get burned. I won’t say “Nice try” because it was a pathetic try at best.
Target has a special on tin foil hats. Get yours today while quantities last.
"does it say ANYTHING about airplanes USED AS MISSILES?"
Sorry, but if a plane is crashed into a building (deliberate or otherwise), it's being used as a missile. To argue anything else is semantics. Even in the official report, the FAA admits to confusion, with one of the Air Traffic Controllers asking if the real hijacking was part of the war game scenario.
"Yes, Fiesty, you certainly are making claims here. You are claiming that 9/11 was an attack that was allowed by the U.S. government and that the military were willing accomplices. "
Baloney. You did EXACTLY what I knew you would. I started out making no claims, but challenging the official version of events- which they DO have a responsibility to defend. That's it, no conspiracy theory etc. You asked me to speculate as to why the attacks were allowed to happen, so I did, and you twisted that into a "conspiracy claim"- the exact reason I didn't want to speculate.
I noticed how you dodged, yet again, answering my questions. Instead, you're relying on ridicule, debating symantics, etc. Seems like all you have is personal opinions and hot air; compared to my postings showing sources. Didn't you think folks on the forum wouldn't notice that you still have answered some of the questions raised here?
Oh, and the insulting comments (conspiracy nuts, tinfoil etc) is rather immature.
Posted by fiesty on September 26, 2007 02:55 PMOh, and there's a big difference between a "possible" target with low probability and one with high probability. You know, "low risk" vs "high risk". We were told we were high risk; as you state, everyone might have been considered a target, but an air force base in the end destination flight path is a LOT more likely than the high school down the street.
Although this is a minor point, and I suspect, a diversion in this debate so you can avoid the real issues.
Posted by fiesty on September 26, 2007 02:59 PMFiesty,
You are so evasive. You come on here and “challenge the official version” as you put it, throwing out assertion after accusation after conjecture after inference, and then state that you are not making any claims that the government allowed 9/11 to happen??!!??!! What a weasel. What a lying little weasel.
If you are no longer in the military, it’s for the betterment of our country not to have someone who so lacks integrity and virtue.
Take a hike, you punk-ass little lying weasel.
Posted by Mountain Cat on September 26, 2007 03:57 PMYou accused me time and time again of making things up from conspiracy blogs, yet no response when I give you page references from the official report [example, contradictions in Langley Jet Scramble] or listed the source of my information. Why, couldn't you just admit that you were wrong- that I wasn't making things up and had a basis for "allegations"? Well, small-minded people never want to admit they're wrong.
I've at least researched the subject carefully, kept calm in the face of your vitrolic, failed to descend to your level by responding to your insults, gave you the dignity of a response to your insulting questions when you failed to respond to mine, and gave you opportunity after opportunity to answer questions that you continually dodged. Compare that behavior to your constant ridicule, insults, and dodges to advoid answering questions. After re-reading the posts, it's pretty clear who here is petty, immature, and lacking in integrity- particularly in insulting a disabled veteran, with the sheer gall and temerity to state that it's a good thing that I was injured after 10 years of active duty, resulting in a medical retirement, yet continued to serve my country as a DoD civilian?? I would NEVER insult another disabled veteran in that matter, especially with such shoddy rationale. Sorry, but after comparing the two behaviors, it makes it clear that you're not worthy to lick my old combat boots.
You haven't fooled anyone on this blog. I'm done with you, until and unless you can be bothered to address some of the points raised here.
Posted by fiesty on September 26, 2007 06:03 PMFor those actually interested in debating the subject, let's recap some interesting questions about the official version.
1. Why does the official report contradict itself regarding the Langley Jet Scramble? Why did pilots ignore the real-world location specified in the original scramble in favor of a standard generic flight plan, ignored a in-flight change, and finally responded to a second in-flight change, resulting in responding to the attack one minute late? (9-11 Commission Report, pg 27)
2. Why did John Ashcroft's office ignore pre-attack warnings from John Schippers, former lead counsil of the house, detailing information received from FBI agents with proposed dates, names of the hijackers and the targets, and the fact that the investigations had been stymied and the agents threatened? Why has the current administration continued to fail to contact Mr. Schippers regarding his allegations? (infowars.com/transcript_schippers.html)
3. Why was Operation Able Danger (operation focused on global activities of al Qaida) shut down 4 months prior to the attack, and why was Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer directly ordered out of the operation by a two-star general? (patriotsquestion911.com/) Similarly, why were the specific intelligence warnings provided by Drs Nicholson, FBI informant Randy Glass, foreign intelligence agencies and governments, and US intelligence operative Delmart Vreeland not followed up on?
4. Why was the FBI Investigation of Zacarias Moussaoui repeatedly thwarted prior to, during, and after the attacks, to a degree that agents speculated that Al Qaida had moles at FBI headquarters? (www.time.com/time/covers/1101020603/memo.html) Similarly, why were the concerns of agent Indira Singh regarding PTECH dismissed with her being told to "shut up" and suggesting the informant should be killed, FBI Special Investigator Robert Wright's claims that special intelligents agents were shut down, and FBI Agent Sibel Edmonds claims that the FBI fudged intelligence not investigated?
Can you explain why, on this one day, for these four flights, the following aviation anamolies and physics contradictions:
1. Somehow all eight flight recorders on the four flights were unrecoverable or essentially unreadable- previously, flight recorders were recovered in most crashes and are sometimes the only item able to be recovered from a crash. The NTSB board president had stated just six months prior how flight recorders were practically indestructable and almost "always" recoverable.) What makes this one day, these four crashes, unique and what are the odds?
2. No pilot or co-pilot on any of the four planes was able to switch on their transponders in a hijack situation- despite pilots being trained on a simple code that you put in if you suspect that your plane is being hijacked which literally takes a split-second put your hand down on the center console and flip it over. How does this compare to previous situations in like circumstances?
3. Numerous pilots (including a former naval Top Gun and a civilian pilot who had previously flown two of the actual planes involved) state that the flight path and plane manuevers are flat impossible due to aeronautical physics and actual experience. Please explain the contradictions and physics.
4. A 757 was able to crash into the Pentagon right at the wall/ground interface when it would be nearly impossible for even a small slow single engine airplane- and without touching the lawn. Please provide the physics as to how this is possible.
5. Contrary to the experience of aircraft accident investigators, these four crashes had such unique circumstances that metal engines, luggage, the miles of wiring that make up any aircraft, etc all vaporized, leaving a dearth of wreckage compared to any other accident scene investigated. What makes this accident unique comparing to other comparable accidents?
6. The WTC, a steel and concrete building, collapsed after being hit by a Boeing 767 when the engineers designed it to withstand a direct hit from a Boeing 707 (approximately the same size and weight of the 767. Please explain this discrepancy.
7. Regarding the WTC, the second building collapsed before the first one, which had been burning for 20 minutes longer after a direct hit, when the second one hit was just a glancing blow. Please explain the physics to make this possible.
8. If the fire was so hot at the WTC, then why were people [survivors] looking out the windows and in the destroyed areas?
Just a few observations and questions...
ah, forgot one... why did military personnel with a background from operations overseas report smelling thermite (used in explosions) instead of jet fuel at the Pentagon, who also testified that it sounded like a bomb and not a crash. Also, why were these claims suppressed and not investigated?
Posted by fiesty on September 26, 2007 06:32 PMFiesty,
(may be you meant Feisty, who knows) here is why some people thinks that you are full of it;
1 2 where readable, one voice one data, all 4 recovered from flight 93 and 77. None at the towers for understandable reasons. And they are not practically indestructible. Get your story straight.
2 The transponders are never switched off on civilian aircraft, hijackers or not. If it’s a code entered they use a keypad, “takes a split-second put your hand down on the center console and flip it over.” – that would be a switch, so which one is it, according to you?
3 “Numerous pilots” – like how many? 2, 5, hundred? To some people everything is impossible, until it actually happens. Scientists used to think that rockets wouldn’t’ work in the vacuum of space, so what?
4 That’s BS, same aim as landing a plane, in this case even the landing gears where up (do you want to know why?). It’s not as hard as you think, or more like you try to make people belive.
5 Flat out lie, there are hundreds of pictures to prove it.
6 Both towers withstood the impact.
7 If someone have to explain this to you, you are really dumb.
8 Yeah, that’s why over 200 people leaped to their death, rather than stay, right?
I'm glad to get some debate here, but I wish people would check their facts before spouting off stuff they "know".
1. You're flat wrong. Per the official report, page 473, in reference to flight 93: "This is the only recorder from the four hijacked airplanes to survive the impact and ensuing fire". Then, if you read the report pages 29 on (describing flight 93), you find that only fragments of conversation from the flight were able to be read. So, unless you have access to other information, I'm right- only 1 of 8 recorders was recoverable, and it was essentially unreadable.
If the official report is right, then we do have an aviation anamoly here. These recorders are specifically designed to survive a crash- and while on a rare occasion one doesn't, most usually do. Barry M. Sweedler, from the National Transportation Safety Board, cited in a speech, when talking about how durable they are, demonstrated that for some crashes “the only wreckage recovered were the flight recorders”. (www.ntsb.gov/speeches/s000314.htm)
Further, it's a bone of contention because a a NY firefighter [retired], Nicholas DeMasi has stated that he escorted federal agents on an all-terrain vehicle in October 2001 and helped them locate three of the four recorders for those two flights. His story is collaborated by a volunteer and honorary firefighter, Mike Bellone. They claim they were approached by unknown bureau agents a short time after they found the boxes among the WTC rubble before January 2002. “They confronted me and told me to not to say anything,” recalled Bellone, referring to one of three reddish-orange boxes with two white stripes he saw in the back of DeMasi’s ATV. “I said, ‘Give me a good reason.’ When they couldn’t, I told them I wouldn’t shut up about it." (www.americanfreepress.net/html/black_box.html)
2. You're right- the transponders aren't turned off, but a hijack code is entered. And, on 9-11, the hijackers ended up turning off their transponders which is why the planes "disappeared" after awhile.
I cited the method for a hijack code transmission verbatim from pilots who have flown that craft. I think they know better than you and I how it's done. (See patriotsquestion911.com [Muga] and pilotsfor911truth.org)
3. Reference the links above; I'd have to cross-reference, but I believe the number is close to 200. The ones I find most compelling are:
a. Commander Ralph Kolstad (ret), former Navy Top Gun and Air Combat Instructor: “At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757’s and 767’s and I could not have flown it the way the flight path was described.... I could not have done what these 'beginners' did."
b. Lt. Col. Jeff Latas, former Air Force combat fighter pilot and Aerospace Engineer: " The things that really got my attention were the amount of descent rate that you had to have at the end of the flight, of Flight 77, that would have made it practically impossible to hit the light poles. [Destruction of the light poles near the Pentagon by Flight 77 was stated in the 9/11 Commission Report.] Essentially it would have been too high at that point to the point of impact where the main body of the airplane was hitting between the first and second floor of the Pentagon."
c. Capt. Russ Wittenberg, former Air Force combat fighter pilot and retired commercial pilot, previously flown two of the actual aircraft involved:
• "I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don't believe it's possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding -- pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it."
• "… there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have "descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 270 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon's first floor wall without touching the lawn."
• "Regarding Flight 77, which allegedly hit the Pentagon: "The airplane could not have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into what they call a high speed stall. The airplane won’t go that fast if you start pulling those high G maneuvers at those bank angles. … To expect this alleged airplane to run these maneuvers with a total amateur at the controls is simply ludicrous... It’s roughly a 100 ton airplane. And an airplane that weighs 100 tons all assembled is still going to have 100 tons of disassembled trash and parts after it hits a building."
4. Reference the pilots above.
5. No, the photos clearly show wreckage, but if you look close, you will see a lack of the specific items mentioned. The pilots above were the first I know of to notice the lack of luggage or wiring in the photos. Also, the amount of wreckage was so little:
a. That the first CNN reporter on scene stated "there is no evidence a plane hit the building".
b. Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, former Air Force staff member of the Director of the National Security Agency and eyewitness to Pentagon crash, state:
• "There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. "
• "I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact - no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. ... all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident."
c. Col. George Nelson (ret), former U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority:
• "With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged"
6. Um, and you base this on? You know they collapsed, we have the footage. Your answer STILL didn't address why it couldn't handle the hit when designed to.
7. Then explain. Doesn't make sense that something that got hit later, and a glancing blow at that, would collapse BEFORE the one hit directly.
8. You missed the point; I'm not stating there weren't fires that would cause survivors to jump, but that of the claimed intensity. The official reports states how it was so intense that's why little wreckage could be recovered.
Posted by fiesty on September 27, 2007 06:13 AM"Fiesty, (may be you meant Feisty, who knows) "
Ah, an attempt to try to discredit me based on what you assume is a misspelling. Actually, it's a pun on "feisty" and "fie!"- in other words, a spirited individual who will call foul when they see it. Certainly applicable to this topic!
Posted by fiesty on September 27, 2007 06:16 AMMarriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary definitions:
Feisty – 1. chiefly Southern and Midland a. full of nervous energy: Fidgety b. being touchy and quarrelsome c. being frisky and exuberant 2. having or showing a lively aggressiveness: Spunky
Fie – used to express disgust or disapproval
Fiesty, spare us on the temper tantrum. Save us on the bleeding heart. Being disabled does not provide you with immunity from ridicule.
Mountain Cat had a good point. Clarity is more important at times than is agreement. It’s not possible to reach any clarity if you say the things you have been saying and then try to pretend that you are simply asking questions. It’s glaringly obvious that you are grinding an axe…big time…and that you are doing far more than simply expressing concerns. You are making direct accusations and you should be willing to expect harsh criticism when you twist yourself into knots trying to make your theories believable.
Here is just one of many examples I could provide from your postings: On more than one real-world occasion private airplanes had crashed into high-rise buildings, so that is why practice exercises occasionally include that in a scenario. You came right out and said that an exercise was conducted on 9/11which included in the scenario a plane being used as a missile when in actuality the scenario included the accidental crashing of a plane into a building. The use of a missile is tantamount to an aggressive, intentional and offensive attack whereas an accident involving a plane crashing into a building due to mechanical failure is definitely not using a plane as a missile. It’s an accidental collision. There is a huge difference. Yet you tried to make it seem as if they are one in the same to infer that the U.S. government had prior knowledge that the terrorists were going to use commercial airplanes as missiles. You are the one playing with semantics here. Words really do have meaning and you cannot simply use them interchangeably without changing the context and the meaning of a statement.
Your military training should have taught you to use more candor.
Posted by on September 27, 2007 08:33 AMand once again, dodges to avoid answering questions...
Posted by fiesty on September 27, 2007 01:57 PMFiesty,
It would be more credible if you actually presented evidence, and not just a few people’s opinion.
Evidence on some burning questions, like what happened to all those people on the flights than, if no passengers planes was involved. No, guesses or assumptions, just solid evidence.
You mean like citing the offical report? That doesn't count as "evidence"?
Posted by fiesty on September 27, 2007 07:42 PMFiesty, where in the official report did you see what happened to the passengers. That was the question.
Posted by Uno on September 27, 2007 08:15 PMPls clarify the question.
I didn't mean the official report to a passenger question, but in reference to your statement of "It would be more credible if you actually presented evidence".
I'm just a little frustrated at this point at all the ridicule, allegations of "making stuff up", when I have gone out of my way to cite sources, even providing page numbers! Really goes to show that folks can be pig-headed when they're convinced of something, all evidence to the contrary.
Posted by fiesty on September 27, 2007 08:24 PMOK, Fiesty, I’m not gonna ridicule you.
My question was, did the official report clarify what happened to the passengers of flight 77, if it was established that the Pentagon was hit by something other than flight 77?
You same like a pretty smart guy (or gal), but some of this stuff you raise is pretty hard to believe.
Uno-
"My question was, did the official report clarify what happened to the passengers of flight 77, if it was established that the Pentagon was hit by something other than flight 77?"
That's the problem- the report insists that the Pentagon was hit by a plane. It makes no mention of any investigations into eyewitness accounts to the contrary, even though some of those eyewitnesses testified before Congress! That's the issue- why weren't eyewitness accounts of creditable sources investigated? You have military personnel reporting explosions (not crashes) and the smell of thermite (not jet fuel), a senior Pentagon official and retired Lt Col stating that there was no evidence of a crash, a former aircraft accident investigator stating the same, as well as one of the first on-scene reporters- and yet NONE of these concerns were addressed in the report. Why?
"Some of this stuff you raise is pretty hard to believe."
I know, probably why I get ridiculed, but as you can see, I've researched hard and have the sources to prove it. For example, even you posted you thought all the recorders had been found, when the report clearly states they hadn't- something highly unusual given the NTSB's stated rate of recovery.
For those with an open mind, willing to actually research the issue and NOT go off conspiracy blogs, you DO begin to find more and more anamolies with the official version of events.
Posted by on September 28, 2007 03:32 AMOops that was me, forgot to post handle
Posted by fiesty on September 28, 2007 03:34 AMIf you're interested, here are some of the eyewitness accounts that contradict the plane theory. Also, forgive me, I confused thermite with cordite earlier:
Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, former Air Force staff member of the Director of the National Security Agency and eyewitness to Pentagon crash:
“There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner… I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact - no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. ... all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident…The same is true with regard to the kind of damage we expected. ... But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight… The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner.” [patriotsquestion911.com]
April Gallop, an Army employee with a Top Secret clearance:
She was at her desk in the Army administrative offices in the west section of the Pentagon on 9/11, the area of the building most heavily destroyed, when what she said sounded and felt “like a bomb” went off. “Being in the Army with the training I had, I know what a bomb sounds and acts like, especially the aftermath, and it sounded and acted like a bomb. There was no plane or plane parts inside the building, and no smell of jet fuel.” [physics911.net/pdf/honegger.pdf]
Multiple witnesses said they smelled cordite after the initial explosion at the Pentagon, an explosive which has a distinct and very different smell from that of burning jet fuel:
Pentagon eyewitness Don Perkal to MSNBC: “Even before stepping outside, I could smell the cordite. I knew explosives had gone off somewhere.” Also eyewitness account of AmTrak electrical engineer Samuel Danner who was at the site and said he smelled cordite. [American Free Press, July 7, 2006, reporting based on audio report by Republic Broadcasting Network, summary at www.total911.info/2006/07/pentagon-eyewitness-ids-global-hawk.html]
The then Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations on 9/11, Robert Andrews
He was the top civilian official in charge of special operations under Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld, as well as a former Green Beret whose office was on the second floor of the south section of the Pentagon, adjacent to the west section. While drawing the path that he took that morning on a sketch of the Pentagon, he revealed the following: When he and his aide entered the corridor on the inside ring of the west section, “we had to walk over dead bodies” to get to the inner courtyard. Note: This is two rings further in towards the center from the inner most hole made by whatever allegedly impacted the Pentagon that morning. [physics911.net/pdf/honegger.pdf]An Army auditor from Ft. Monmouth, New Jersey, who was on temporary duty assignment at the Pentagon before, on and after 9/11 [Name withheld per request but is willing to testify to a grand jury or independent official investigation]:
He was in the Army financial management spaces only minutes before the Pentagon explosion on the morning of 9/11. He had just returned to his temporary office on the ground floor of the adjacent south side of the Pentagon by the cafeteria when he heard an explosion and felt the building shake. Immediately afterwards, he said, hundreds of panicked Pentagon personnel ran by him down the corridor just outside his office and out the South Entrance, yelling “Bombs!” and “A bomb went off!” [physics911.net/pdf/honegger.pdf]
In the Air Force’s own account of the events of 9/11, Air War Over America:
The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) general who finally ordered interceptor jets scrambled on 9/11, although too late, Gen. Larry Arnold, revealed that he ordered one of his jets to fly down low over the Pentagon shortly after the attack there that morning, and that this pilot reported back that there was no evidence that a plane had hit the building.
One of the first reporters on the scene, CNN correspondent Jamie McIntyre reporting live from the Pentagon:
"From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon. The only site is the actual side of the building that's crashed in. And as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse..." .[CNN Live Broadcast, see at: thewebfairy.com/911/pentagon/index.html]
It is significant that the The 9/11 Commission Report ignores the testimony of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta to its own commission and did this only for the testimony of Secretary Mineta. The portion of Mineta’s testimony that is particularly dangerous is his claim that Vice President Cheney, in charge in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) beneath the White House since before Mineta arrived in the PEOC at 9:20, insisted to an incredulous “young man” that “the orders (given earlier by Cheney to this same individual) still stand” when the man told Cheney that the presumed plane they had been tracking as a blip on a screen was 50, then 30, and finally just 10 miles from Washington—orders which could only have been not to shoot down the plane. Otherwise there would have been no reason for the agent to ask Cheney if they “still” stood, despite the plane’s being almost upon the capital where Cheney himself was. This is critical because of the timing that can be inferred from Mineta’s testimony: As Mineta arrived at the PEOC at 9:20 am, and as Mineta estimated the “still stand?” interaction between Cheney and the agent happened 5 to 6 minutes after that, or about 9:25, it can be inferred based on the officially given speed of the plane represented by the blip of 540 mph that whatever that fast-approaching blip represented, it arrived in the vicinity of the Pentagon at approximately 9:32—nowhere close to the original official cover story time of 9:43, or even the six-minute-earlier time the Pentagon finally settled on for an alleged impact time of 9:37.”[physics911.net/pdf/honegger.pdf]
Survivor eyewitnesses from inside the west section of the Pentagon reported that the blast caused its windows first to expand outwards, and then inwards. [“9/11 -- Coup Against America: The Pentagon Analysis” (2006), Pete Tiradera]
Posted by fiesty on September 28, 2007 04:20 AM