911 - Points to discuss

Mahatma coat

Why would the families of the dead people have to be in on it?

I still dont think that the required number of people to keep this conspiracy is that many, only the select few at the top need to know whats going on, they diseminate the instructions to their underlings and so on, the underlings believe the cover story and repeat it.

so lets look at what we need

19 Mentalist hijackers
5-10 handlers for these nutters
10 - 20 people well placed in American institutions such as the FBI and the CIA
5 - 10 People in Government in Washington to oversee the blind eye
5 - 10 People in Media organisations to oversee the Spin

so thats 70 People, lets go mad and say there were a hundred people in on it.

is that such a wild number?

these peoples careers, even their lives would be at risk should the truth ever come out.

6th

Diogenes wrote: »

(PS Adrian I'm just getting warmed up here man, keep this up and we're going to redefine the interweb dictionary of pwnage, to include a photo of you)

Infracted.

If you cant make your point in a mature manner then dont bother.

(PS Diogenes, you've had 4x7day days and numerous infractions - you next ban will be for a month).

Diogenes

jonbravo wrote: »

Thanks .http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_14.htmand here you go......

Alas this is what you get from selective quoting. From the same article.

"Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot, said Bernard of Freeway Airport. "There's no doubt in my mind that once that [hijacked jet] got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it," he said"

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/Newsday_com.htm

As I've explained in at least one prior column, Hani Hanjour's flying was hardly the show-quality demonstration often described. It was exceptional only in its recklessness. If anything, his loops and turns and spirals above the nation's capital revealed him to be exactly the ****ty pilot he by all accounts was. To hit the Pentagon squarely he needed only a bit of luck, and he got it, possibly with help from the 757's autopilot. Striking a stationary object -- even a large one like the Pentagon -- at high speed and from a steep angle is very difficult. To make the job easier, he came in obliquely, tearing down light poles as he roared across the Pentagon's lawn.

It's true there's only a vestigial similarity between the cockpit of a light trainer and the flight deck of a Boeing. To put it mildly, the attackers, as private pilots, were completely out of their league. However, they were not setting out to perform single-engine missed approaches or Category 3 instrument landings with a failed hydraulic system. For good measure, at least two of the terrorist pilots had rented simulator time in jet aircraft, but striking the Pentagon, or navigating along the Hudson River to Manhattan on a cloudless morning, with the sole intention of steering head-on into a building, did not require a mastery of airmanship. The perpetrators had purchased manuals and videos describing the flight management systems of the 757/767, and as any desktop simulator enthusiast will tell you, elementary operation of the planes' navigational units and autopilots is chiefly an exercise in data programming. You can learn it at home. You won't be good, but you'll be good enough.

"They'd done their homework and they had what they needed," says a United Airlines pilot (name withheld on request), who has flown every model of Boeing from the 737 up. "Rudimentary knowledge and fearlessness."

"As everyone saw, their flying was sloppy and aggressive," says Michael (last name withheld), a pilot with several thousand hours in 757s and 767s. "Their skills and experience, or lack thereof, just weren't relevant."

"The hijackers required only the shallow understanding of the aircraft," agrees Ken Hertz, an airline pilot rated on the 757/767. "In much the same way that a person needn't be an experienced physician in order to perform CPR or set a broken bone."

That sentiment is echoed by Joe d'Eon, airline pilot and host of the "Fly With Me" podcast series. "It's the difference between a doctor and a butcher," says d'Eon.

http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/05/19/askthepilot186/

In my opinion the official version of the fact is absolutely plausible, does not require exceptional circumstances, bending of any law of physics or superhuman capabilities. Like other (real pilots) have said, the manoeuvres required of the hijackers were within their (very limited) capabilities, they were performed without any degree of finesse and resulted in damage to the targets only after desperate overmanoeuvring of the planes. The hijackers took advantage of anything that might make their job easier, and decided not to rely on their low piloting skills. It is misleading to make people believe that the hijackers HAD to possess superior pilot skills to do what they did.

Diogenes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Why would the families of the dead people have to be in on it?

I still dont think that the required number of people to keep this conspiracy is that many, only the select few at the top need to know whats going on, they diseminate the instructions to their underlings and so on, the underlings believe the cover story and repeat it.

so lets look at what we need

19 Mentalist hijackers

So you believe that four planes hit their targets and had hijackers on board.

10 - 20 people well placed in American institutions such as the FBI and the CIA

At what level and in what capacity could they have total control over agencies with staff of tens of thousands.

5 - 10 People in Government in Washington to oversee the blind eye

Same question.

5 - 10 People in Media organisations to oversee the Spin

Ditto.

so thats 70 People, lets go mad and say there were a hundred people in on it.

is that such a wild number?

Watergate fell apart and there were about a dozen people in on it. So yes.
these peoples careers, even their lives would be at risk should the truth ever come out.[/QUOTE]

bonkey

meglome wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C02dE5VKeck

So according to this video the CNN reporter is saying that there was no plane crash at the Pentagon.

But...

When we listen to the full segment that's not what he's saying at all. He was asked specifically about an eye-witness who thought the plane (and he thought it was a plane) had crashed near the Pentagon and not into it. So the reporter is explaining that there is no crash site near the Pentagon, which there isn't.

Sorry can't find the video at the moment but here's the audio.

From your own recommended site:

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

Tsk tsk.

Mahatma coat

3 planes hit their targets :rolleyes:

and to answer th rest of yer questions

the top, or thereabouts

Diogenes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

3 planes hit their targets :rolleyes:

Pithy and avoiding the point. Do you believe 19 men hijacked 4 planes, 3 hit their targets and the 4th flew into the ground?

Yes or No?

and to answer th rest of yer questions

the top, or thereabouts

You do understand how incredibly weird it would be for the the director general of the FBI to interfere with an investigation. Or for Rupert Murdoch to directly interfere with a journalist writing a story?

Mahatma coat

OK, to use your analogy, Rupey dosent like a story, he rings you, you get wierded out, you report his interference, big issue, abuse of position.

someone just down the line from Rupey rings, expresses his dissatisfaction, brix get shat, its those who claim to represent the top level, and they are generally many 'Paygrades' to borrow an americanism, above you, you dont have the direct I was told to do this link, but its implied, and it gets done.



and yeah a bunch of SAUDIS Hijacked the planes

The_Kew_Tour

Diogenes wrote: »

Alas this is what you get from selective quoting. From the same article.



http://www.pentagonresearch.com/Newsday_com.htm



http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/05/19/askthepilot186/

Some fair points in there Diogenes I have to say.

But I do think the points are one dimensional really. I mean they would still have had to use down stairs for direction to the Pentagon.

I mean its very easy say they had the basics right and that would do but they also needed direction.

There does not seem to be any Plan B type scenario in case they needed to relaunch there attack..

We are talking about Plane here not a toy car. (if you are to believe that this was what happened)

meglome

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Why would the families of the dead people have to be in on it?

I still dont think that the required number of people to keep this conspiracy is that many, only the select few at the top need to know whats going on, they diseminate the instructions to their underlings and so on, the underlings believe the cover story and repeat it.

so lets look at what we need

19 Mentalist hijackers
5-10 handlers for these nutters
10 - 20 people well placed in American institutions such as the FBI and the CIA
5 - 10 People in Government in Washington to oversee the blind eye
5 - 10 People in Media organisations to oversee the Spin

so thats 70 People, lets go mad and say there were a hundred people in on it.

is that such a wild number?

these peoples careers, even their lives would be at risk should the truth ever come out.

I'm gonna quote from 911myths.com which as bonkey points out I did earlier with that video.

911myths.com wrote:

The story...

Some criticise 9/11 conspiracy theories because they say must have involved "thousands of people", but that's missing the point. Governments work on a "need to know" basis, people may have some local knowledge of their own involvement, but only a few need to have the full picture.

Our take...

We've seen this argument used several times, and consider it misleading in the extreme. Why? Let's consider one example.

The "Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon" argument has to explain the debris that appeared, and damage like the broken street lights. Some suggest the answer is simple: the debris was planted, the street light damage faked. Now, if that happened, it's certainly most unlikely that those involved would also have in-depth knowledge of explosives in the WTC, but so what? That doesn't matter. If one person came forward to say "I was in a secret army team that planted fake debris at the Pentagon on 9/11", then don't you think that's going to be enough to create some considerable headlines?

And it's the same in many other areas. Planting explosives at the WTC, say. Being a member of Bush's secret service detail on 9/11 and saying you had advance knowledge of the attack, therefore knew he was in no danger. Being on the NIST or FEMA teams and explaining how you were leaned on to produce a conclusion that you don't believe makes sense. None of these people need know everything about 9/11, but they would all have enough information to completely change what we think about the event.

What's more, the "small conspiracy" argument also ignores what's supposed to be a huge coverup. Have you ever looked at the list of people involved in the FEMA and NIST WTC reports, for instance? What's the explanation for these academics, engineers and scientists producing something that others would have us believe is an incompetent tissue of lies? Why they've been "leaned on", of course, or they're scared of speaking out. In which case they're now also a part of the conspiracy, if only after the fact, and have to be included in the total.

What is the total? It's hard to say, not least because some people could have more than one conspiracy or coverup-related task. Still, here are some of the people who have very useful knowledge about 9/11 events (assuming you accept all the 9/11 conspiracy theories; cross off names here for the ones you don’t)

• * CIA agent Larry Mitchell for meeting with bin Laden in the months before 9/11, and everyone else in the CIA who knows they're not actually trying to capture him after all
• * GW Bush and various family members (if you're to believe the relevance of Bush family members being involved with the WTC security company Stratesec)
• * Condoleezza Rice (if you believe she had enough knowledge to warn Willie Brown that he might be in danger)
• * John Ashcroft (if you believe he had enough knowledge to decide not to fly commercial flights)
• * Larry Silverstein (if you believe he knew 9/11 was coming and that there were explosives in WTC7)
• * The 19 people who played the part of the hijackers, if you believe they were just their to play a role and were never on the planes
• * Enough senior people at the FBI to block progress in the Moussaoui case, ensure the Phoenix memo was ignored, and more
• * Ahmad Umar Sheikh for funding the hijackers, General Mahmoud Ahmad for ordering him to do so, and enough of the ISI to get the money and cover up that they were doing this for the US
• * Everyone who found out about the attacks in advance, and chose not to go into work rather than warn anyone else, and didn't mention this after the fact (thousands of Israelis in the towers, and so on), and everyone who warned them
• * Everyone responsible for the insider trading before the attacks, the CIA for supposedly monitoring these transactions but doing nothing about them, and enough of the SEC and FBI to ensure that the report was a whitewash
• * The members of Bush’s secret service team on 9/11 (who presumably either knew in advance that he was safe, or haven’t spoken out about their surprise about what happened subsequently)
• * The five "dancing Israelis" who filmed the attack "as it happened", and presumably many others in Israeli Intelligence, and enough people in the police or FBI to cover up the details of the case and get them shipped out
• * Everyone responsible for planting evidence in the hijackers cars, bags and so on
• * Everyone responsible for planting evidence in the WTC wreckage (passports etc), or removing it (WTC black boxes)
• * Air Traffic Control and flight schedulers at the takeoff airports (to cope with the double flights), and to make sure they didn't follow procedure in reporting the hijackings promptly
• * Whoever prepared the "special" planes swapped for the real flights, complete with "missile pod" for firing into the towers just before impact, and the ATC and Norad staff who didn't mention the swap
• * Norad and senior officers working at the day (so they could lie about the war games and their lack of response)
• * Fighter pilots who deliberately flew too slowly so they wouldn't reach the aircraft in time
• * Whoever shot down Flight 93, and the senior officers who helped cover it up
• * Everyone who researched the passengers, then all the actors who used that research to make fake mobile calls to their relatives, and either the phone company or the FBI for covering up the phone records
• * Everyone involved in killing hundreds of passengers, assuming they didn't die in the crashes and were killed later
• * Everyone involved in transporting their bodies to the various scenes if they did, or faking the DNA evidence if they didn't
• * The people who researched the WTC to find out the best place to place explosives
• * The people who planted the explosives through the WTC towers and WTC7
• * Whoever detonated the WTC explosives at various different times of the day
• * Enough of the New York Fire and Police Departments to shut up everyone else and make sure they didn't try to investigate why all their friends and colleagues died
• * Everyone who prepared the remote control plane that really flew into the Pentagon, and whoever remote-controlled it, and the Washington Air Traffic Controllers who aren't allowed to talk about the extra radar blip they saw over the Pentagon (if Flight 77 really flew over it)
• * The Sheraton hotel staff who reportedly saw the video of the plane as it flew past to the Pentagon, but have never said that it wasn't the "official" flight
• * The people who ensured the Pentagon missile defence systems were disabled to the plane could hit
• * The people who planted the fake Pentagon evidence, from body parts to black boxes, and those who prepared it
• * The people who faked additional evidence around the Pentagon, bringing down lampposts etc in an effort to make it look like a large winged plane carried out the attack
• * Rudolph Giuliani for having advance knowledge that the WTC was going to collapse, and for helping to ensure that the steel was disposed of quickly
• * Enough people at American and United Airlines to keep quiet about the absence of the hijackers names from the passenger manifests
• * Enough people at CNN not to question the absence of the hijackers names from the flight manifests, if you believe that's what their victims lists really are
• * Enough people at FEMA and NIST to ensure any reports and analyses produced were whitewashes
• * Enough senior officials at the many WTC insurance companies to ensure the doubts were ignored and claims were paid
• * Everyone involved in producing the fake bin Laden "confession" video(s)
• * Khalid Al-Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi Bin Al-Sheeba for discussing how they planned 9/11 on audio tape even though this didn’t happen, and perhaps al Jazeera reporter Yosri Fouda for getting the interview (if we assume he knows it isn't true)
• * All the other Al Qaeda members who've either implicitly or explicitly accepted responsibility for 9/11, even when they know it was carried out by someone else
• * The staff of the 9/11 Commission for deliberately obscuring the truth

I think you could easily find more people that would need to be involved. And I think we're already in the thousands.

JonathanAnon

Sorry if this is a repost. This is probably the newest of the 9/11 truth documentaries. It's foreign made, either French or Italian. Includes interviews with Gore Vidal, Russ Wittemberg (Think his name is actually spelt WitteNberg), Nobel winner Dario Fo, and a number of other well known foreign actors.

Nothing much completely new on this, and doesnt cover flight 93, but it's gives very compelling evidence for the case that a plane did not hit the pentagon.

This is part one on youtube.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3kBn1usddI

jonbravo

bonkey wrote: »

No, jonbravo.

Critics of the official account of events insist that Payne Stewart's plane is proof that response times were slow. Responses to that argument need only address Payne Stewart's plane.


No-one sane would claim otherwise.

The reason Payne Stewart's Cessna is often quoted is because the one hour of "missing" time due to the time-zone change makes it look like the response times were astoundingly quick.

If you believe there is an example that shows that 911 was slow, from amongst these hundreds that have occurred, then all you need do is provide the evidence.

Incidentally, I notice that in this case you're quite happy to quote NORAD's spokesman. Does this mean you believe him?


I'm more than happy to address this point, after you clarify that you are accepting official sources as evidence, given that this is what you're referring to.

Notting i find is evidence more like sources to discuss.i dont believe there is an example that shows 911 was slow,but isnt 911 itself evidence!? if you clarify that 'time-zone's' are notting new to military or the world that flys.
I'm accepting official sources as evidence of a conspiracy,but thats not my final assessment....
does it matter what i believe!? i dont think so.
All im looking for is an understanding that the military were slow as some people say [not just me].

meglome

JonathanAnon wrote: »

Sorry if this is a repost. This is probably the newest of the 9/11 truth documentaries. It's foreign made, either French or Italian. Includes interviews with Gore Vidal, Russ Wittemberg (Think his name is actually spelt WitteNberg), Nobel winner Dario Fo, and a number of other well known foreign actors.

Nothing much completely new on this, and doesnt cover flight 93, but it's gives very compelling evidence for the case that a plane did not hit the pentagon.

This is part one on youtube.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3kBn1usddI

Does it talk to the 123 people who saw a plane? And why isn't it in the thread we have running at the moment?

6th

JonathanAnon wrote: »

Sorry if this is a repost. This is probably the newest of the 9/11 truth documentaries. It's foreign made, either French or Italian. Includes interviews with Gore Vidal, Russ Wittemberg (Think his name is actually spelt WitteNberg), Nobel winner Dario Fo, and a number of other well known foreign actors.

Nothing much completely new on this, and doesnt cover flight 93, but it's gives very compelling evidence for the case that a plane did not hit the pentagon.

This is part one on youtube.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3kBn1usddI

Threads merged.

JonathanAnon

meglome wrote: »

Does it talk to the 123 people who saw a plane?

Not sure, but it talks to about 124 people who didnt see evidence of a plane at the supposed crash site. Has some footage of Donal Rumsfeld helping to carry a man out on a stretcher.

meglome

JonathanAnon wrote: »

Not sure, but it talks to about 124 people who didnt see evidence of a plane at the supposed crash site. Has some footage of Donal Rumsfeld helping to carry a man out on a stretcher.

A plane flying over a city near to the international airport isn't strange so I'd imagine most people didn't notice it. But when it screamed low over the highway next to the Pentagon lot's of people noticed it. That's the big problem with the CT lot's of people saw a plane, there are pictures of the bits.

We really reckon the 68 year old (at the time) Rumsfeld was carrying people out on a stretcher, instead of doing his other job?

Have a read of this thread though so we don't have to go repeating it all again.

Sofa_King Good

meglome wrote: »

Does it talk to the 123 people who saw a plane? And why isn't it in the thread we have running at the moment?

On Flight 93:

Here is a transcript of a radio interview with a Military whistleblower who was in the Mlitary Base Fort Meade which houses an office of the NSA on 9/11.

Who claims that not only that the first crash in the towers was seen on an internal TV channel by army colleagues but also that she witnessed a meeting/conference call between high ranking officers that came to the collective decison to shoot down flight 93 as a matter of protocol.

This for me strengthens the argument of there not needing to be high numbers complicit if some top brass in the military were unaware.

http://www.projectcamelot.org/elizabeth_nelson_flight_93_transcript.html

meglome

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

On Flight 93:

Here is a transcript of a radio interview with a Military whistleblower who was in the Mlitary Base Fort Meade which houses an office of the NSA on 9/11.

Who claims that not only that the first crash in the towers was seen on an internal TV channel by army colleagues but also that she witnessed a meeting/conference call between high ranking officers that came to the collective decison to shoot down flight 93 as a matter of protocol.

This for me strengthens the argument of there not needing to be high numbers complicit if some top brass in the military were unaware.

http://www.projectcamelot.org/elizabeth_nelson_flight_93_transcript.html

What has the flight 93 which crashed into a field got to do with the Pentagon? You do realise she is supporting that the planes did crash into the twin towers which she says is why they agreed to shoot down Flight 93?

All this evidence shows is that flight 93 might well have been shot down. Which I've personally never argued about in the first place, I think it might well have been shot down. I don't have a problem believing you could cover up shooting one plane down which you knew would be used as a flying bomb.

However if I'm not mistaken she says they agreed to shoot it down but doesn't know for a fact they they actually did. Given the recording from the passengers on the plane itself that they were going to rush the hijackers, it still 50/50 for me.

Now I'm completely ignoring the interviewer keeps literally putting words in her mouth, he's telling her things as fact when they are very much disputed, and she says some stuff that I personally find a bit crazy.

bonkey

jonbravo wrote: »

Notting i find is evidence more like sources to discuss.i dont believe there is an example that shows 911 was slow,but isnt 911 itself evidence!? if you clarify that 'time-zone's' are notting new to military or the world that flys.

Maybe we're talking at cross-purposes when we're using the term "slow".

The response times on September 11, 2001 were entirely in keeping with the response times one would expect, based on an analysis of other intercept cases, of which there are - as you pointed out - hundreds.

There is no evidence to suggest that the system on that day worked any less efficiently (or more inefficiently) to how it normallly would.

So if one wants to suggest there is a conspiracy there, it is not a conspiracy to do with September 11 2001, but rather one to where the entire response mechanism of the FAA has been permamently crippled, basically since its inception.

I'm more than happy to accept that its a sub-optimal design, but "broken by design" isn't evidence of a conspiracy...and particularly isn't evidence of one relating specifically to 9/11

All im looking for is an understanding that the military were slow as some people say [not just me].

With respect, even the 20-odd minutes that you quote as an example were not relevant to the military's response. They were, rather, the delay incurred in contacting the military. Until they were contacted, as far as the US military were concerned, it was just another day.

If you want to argue those 20-odd minutes, then they need to be lain at the feet of the FAA, not the US military. However, to do so we would be discussing the official records, including the official discrpancies and the official clarifications thereof.

In fact, one can't even discover that there is a question to be answered about the timeline without accepting at least part of the official account, because this is where that discrepancy arose.

If, as you have insisted on other lines of discussion, you refuse to accept any information from official sources, then to be honest, all you can say is that you haven't got a single idea as to what the response times were or were not, as all information pertaining to such comes from sources you refuse to consider.

Hence my tack of you first accepting that this line of discussion must be based on official sources. There's no point in starting to discuss it, only to find that as soon as we look at the answers behing the discrepancy, you won't accept the very same sources from which the details of the discrepancy arose.

The_Kew_Tour

JonathanAnon wrote: »

Sorry if this is a repost. This is probably the newest of the 9/11 truth documentaries. It's foreign made, either French or Italian. Includes interviews with Gore Vidal, Russ Wittemberg (Think his name is actually spelt WitteNberg), Nobel winner Dario Fo, and a number of other well known foreign actors.

Nothing much completely new on this, and doesnt cover flight 93, but it's gives very compelling evidence for the case that a plane did not hit the pentagon.

This is part one on youtube.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3kBn1usddI

thanks for this link. After reviewing it, much of the information I suppose we already know but some interesting points came to me

It was good that we had 4-5 people who either had relative died in this tragedy or people who happened to be in the building at the time. Im pretty sure I have heard or read about the man who came down from four floors above from the impact but it raises one massive question.

How come he and his fellow partner at time were able walk down without little resistence? It just proves the myths we have been told when you stand back to think about it

The person though I have most feel for is the guy who lost his son and is trying to approach a brick wall in finding out the answers.

I hope that someday for him and others the truth will finally be resolved but I think we may have to wait for bit yet or sadly we never get the correct findings of what is now a day most will never forget and that changed many things minds throughout the world

BertrandMeyer

A film riddled with inaccuracies, he's a conspiracy theorist dyed in the air over the US Government lie about that time the US security agencies weren't always forthcoming about sharing information with each other. Too many topics are stymied in the air over the US government findings.

But honestly I'd be happy for you to show me otherwise some time and look carefully at each one. The idea being that everyone can show why they are never considered right or wrong. Instead, they are so sure they are not interested in anything that shows that not to be budged from your position. Surely we all want to know the truth as far as it can be established?

The_Kew_Tour

BertrandMeyer wrote: »

A film riddled with inaccuracies, he's a conspiracy theorist dyed in the air over the US Government lie about that time the US security agencies weren't always forthcoming about sharing information with each other. Too many topics are stymied in the air over the US government findings.

But honestly I'd be happy for you to show me otherwise some time and look carefully at each one. The idea being that everyone can show why they are never considered right or wrong. Instead, they are so sure they are not interested in anything that shows that not to be budged from your position. Surely we all want to know the truth as far as it can be established?

well I dont think a dad who has lost his son is doing it to make a name for himself.

I mean the 9/11 commission report is full of inaccuracies full stop and we aint talking a handfull here

jonbravo

bonkey wrote: »

Maybe we're talking at cross-purposes when we're using the term "slow".

The response times on September 11, 2001 were entirely in keeping with the response times one would expect, based on an analysis of other intercept cases, of which there are - as you pointed out - hundreds.

There is no evidence to suggest that the system on that day worked any less efficiently (or more inefficiently) to how it normallly would.

So if one wants to suggest there is a conspiracy there, it is not a conspiracy to do with September 11 2001, but rather one to where the entire response mechanism of the FAA has been permamently crippled, basically since its inception.

I'm more than happy to accept that its a sub-optimal design, but "broken by design" isn't evidence of a conspiracy...and particularly isn't evidence of one relating specifically to 9/11


With respect, even the 20-odd minutes that you quote as an example were not relevant to the military's response. They were, rather, the delay incurred in contacting the military. Until they were contacted, as far as the US military were concerned, it was just another day.

If you want to argue those 20-odd minutes, then they need to be lain at the feet of the FAA, not the US military. However, to do so we would be discussing the official records, including the official discrpancies and the official clarifications thereof.

In fact, one can't even discover that there is a question to be answered about the timeline without accepting at least part of the official account, because this is where that discrepancy arose.

If, as you have insisted on other lines of discussion, you refuse to accept any information from official sources, then to be honest, all you can say is that you haven't got a single idea as to what the response times were or were not, as all information pertaining to such comes from sources you refuse to consider.

Hence my tack of you first accepting that this line of discussion must be based on official sources. There's no point in starting to discuss it, only to find that as soon as we look at the answers behing the discrepancy, you won't accept the very same sources from which the details of the discrepancy arose.

im accepting the official sources i'm sure of that.Might not say it.:)

On where the discrepancy arose, i can come back to that, if i like to reseach further as my little bit of wisdom[RESEACH] on the subject is/was very very little.
so as a result i fear im at a disadvantage on this subject.

i have also learned a few things about 911
so thanks for the diplomatic discussion.

Diogenes

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

On Flight 93:

Here is a transcript of a radio interview with a Military whistleblower who was in the Mlitary Base Fort Meade which houses an office of the NSA on 9/11.

Who claims that not only that the first crash in the towers was seen on an internal TV channel by army colleagues but also that she witnessed a meeting/conference call between high ranking officers that came to the collective decison to shoot down flight 93 as a matter of protocol.

This for me strengthens the argument of there not needing to be high numbers complicit if some top brass in the military were unaware.

http://www.projectcamelot.org/elizabeth_nelson_flight_93_transcript.html

Heres two points.

1) It's anonymous.

2) She's claims she's radiologist. You're planning a massive military operation, and you drag in an X-Ray technication, a highly trained specialist and they decide just on whimsy to make her fetch coffee in the ready room that day.

That story is ****ing bull****.

Diogenes

Mahatma coat wrote: »

OK, to use your analogy, Rupey dosent like a story, he rings you, you get wierded out, you report his interference, big issue, abuse of position.

someone just down the line from Rupey rings, expresses his dissatisfaction, brix get shat, its those who claim to represent the top level, and they are generally many 'Paygrades' to borrow an americanism, above you, you dont have the direct I was told to do this link, but its implied, and it gets done.

The TINY, TINY TINY flaw in your thinking is this, journalists are by their nature inquisitive people who ask questions.

Do you really think journalists are the the type of people who are told to spike a story and think 'fair enough" and don't ask why.

I've worked on stories that have been spiked, I've worked on stories that have been pulled/stopped/never broadcast because of libel/court order/ Home office order/order from on high, the first question that is asked is why? And I have NEVER not been privy the reason. I should also point out when I did work in news I was a freelancer with no ties and no loyalty to any company or organisation.

I've worked on stories that have been pulled because of libel, and it's explained who's libelling who and why (incidentally any competent journalist would be mortally offended if they felt they libelled someone) I've worked on stories were details were suppressed due to court order, or a home office "D" order (A "D order" is a home office order that suppresses the reporting or discussion, or even a visual ) It has to be explained to us the specific person who we can't discuss or the specific events, and juxtapose images that would cause a problem.

I'll give you an example, a few years ago, a group of tourists were kidnapped on the Ethiopian border with Ethrea. The kidnappers made demands, and while putting together the story every news organisation in the UK expressly forbidding publishing names or photos of the hostages. The government stated that one of the hostages was the wife of a senior member of the home office? Did we verify this claim? Yup. After verifying the claim did we agree not run the story? ....

and yeah a bunch of SAUDIS Hijacked the planes

Are you claiming every hijacker was a Saudi?

6th

Diogenes wrote: »

That story is ****ing bull****.

Do you really think that language is nessecery? Can you not express yourself in a more grownup fashion? My questions = Rhetorical.

meglome

6th wrote: »

Do you really think that language is nessecery? Can you not express yourself in a more grownup fashion? My questions = Rhetorical.

As an Irish person I think bad language is always important and necessary.

Sofa_King Good

Diogenes wrote: »

Heres two points.

1) It's anonymous.

As are you. Does it detract from your points? She has a very valid and understandable reason for doing so.

Diogenes wrote: »

2) She's claims she's radiologist.

In training. Also she was a solider.

she offered us up to the Commander of the Hospital, and I believe the Commander of the Base, to be of service to them because we didn’t have the right to bear arms while we’re in training

Diogenes wrote: »

You're planning a massive military operation, and you drag in an X-Ray technication, a highly trained specialist

No. In training.

Diogenes wrote: »

and they decide just on whimsy to make her fetch coffee in the ready room that day.

Or, private serves and assists officers. Where is the mystery?

Diogenes wrote: »

That story is ****ing bull****.

In your opinion.

BertrandMeyer

Did this thread change peoples opinion or polarise? Tonnes of assuming that was as good as setting up on my views closely enough. 9/11 being an issue to ground zero dust. To directly compare another building collapse you'd have to say it was a plane. This doesn't mean the US weren't involved.

bonkey

Sofa_King Good wrote: »

As are you. Does it detract from your points?

It would certainly destract from any points which were not independantly verifiable.

The logic of a poster is independant of who they are. Similarly, whether Diogenes really has worked in broadcasting or not is irrelevant, as the arguments in that area which he is making (e.g. regarding behaviour to libel claims, D orders, etc.) are all independantly verifiable.

He is making no claim which is tied directly to his involvement, which means that his anonymity is irrelevant.

On the other hand, this radiologist-in-training is making claims that are very specific to their direct experience. Even if they were not anonymous, it would still boil down to a question of whether or not you trust the individual to be honest. Add in anonymity, and it boils down to a question of whether or not you accept the honesty and integrity of a stranger on the internet, who is claiming to have information which you cannot independantly verify.

I'm willing to bet that if the story this person was telling was about how the 911 Comission really were honest guys, and they witnessed them having struggles of conscience over how to ensure that they told only the truth as far as they could ascertain it, then we'd see a differnet story.

Me...I'd still argue it was an unverifiable claim from an anonymous stranger on the internet and therefore worthless.

Would you maintain your position that their anonymity is not an issue? That their lack of established trustworthiness is not an issue? Would your stance on the relevance or admissibility of such unverifiable stories change if it went against beliefs you hold (or lean towards), rather than supporting them?