don't get so defensive. I didn't say you believed that. I said I think it's a 757 since that is what flight 77 was. I also said I don't believe it was a missile or a huge gov't conspiracy; nowhere did i say YOU believed that.
i don't have a problem questioning the video...question away. But again, how clear is the video? I wish we had better quality videos to base such claims on.
Good point the video is not clear and in no part of it does it show a boeing 757.
And as that is the only prove of the plane hitting the pentagon because it also wierdly disapeared into pretty much thin air too, why would i believe it was flight 77?
Have you freeze framed the video in question and tried to make out what the object is?
Keep on rockin in the free world!!!!
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
I sure don't believe everything the government tells me, but I don't believe everything I read on the internet either, and I've yet to see a consistent, coherent, scientifically sound conspiracy theory. All I've seen are bits and pieces gathered from this, that and the other report, piled together to look like something that it probably wasn't.
Which is not to say I don't believe this administration would ever dream of doing such a thing ... they've done much worse, I don't think they'd stop at anything if it suited their purposes. The main reasons I'm not buying any of the conspiracies so far is that first of all, none of them are air-tight, they have as many holes as the "official" story. The second is that I just don't believe this band of idiots could have pulled this off. Too many people at too many levels in too many different places would have known ... something would have leaked by now.
On the other hand, is it believeable that the whole day was a massive fuck-up? Oh hell yeah, I have no trouble at all believing that! Could these guys have made wrong decision after wrong decision after wrong decision as the situation compounded and grew worse by the minute? Absolutely! Not only COULD they, it's exactly what I'd EXPECT them to do. Those who doubt this, please see Exhibit 1: War in Iraq, and Exhibit 2: Hurricane Katrina. Massive, mindblowing incompetence is what I expect from them.
I dunno ... there's very little reliable evidence, so I don't spend a lot of time on this, and I could very easily be wrong. But Operation Colossal Fuckup just has the ring of truth, to me.
"Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
Could these guys have made wrong decision after wrong decision after wrong decision as the situation compounded and grew worse by the minute? Absolutely! Not only COULD they, it's exactly what I'd EXPECT them to do. Those who doubt this, please see Exhibit 1: War in Iraq, and Exhibit 2: Hurricane Katrina. Massive, mindblowing incompetence is what I expect from them.
I don't call the following incompetence. I call it something else...
1. The whole system knew that planes had been and could be used by Al Qaeda as weapons, and had worked to prevent that happening in Genoa at the summit that summer when warning signals were high, protecting Bush specifically against planes.
2. Warnings from foreign intelligence agencies of such a plot were received all through the summer and early fall, as well as specific forewarnings not to fly on 9/11 to Pentagon Brass, foreign officials and the mayor of San Francisco.
3. Exercises and preparations were taken in 1998-2000 to secure the Pentgagon against a plane attack with radar and cameras, and to test emergency response procedures.
4. NORAD was on full readiness alert, with planes waiting on the runways as part of an exercise that day called Vigilant Guardian. There had been earlier exercises involving planes used as weapons as well. NORAD is capable of tasking any available plane.
5. Standard operating procedures in any single, even private plane air emergencies for an immediate FAA/NORAD response were not followed at all on 9/11 despite multiple large commuter planes off course, without transponders and not communicating with towers, which later were clearly known to be hijackings.
6. Not only were no NORAD intercept planes scrambled for well over half an hour after the first plane gave indications of trouble at 8:17 am, NONE were ever scrambled to defend DC and P-56, the most protected air space in the country.
Available planes in Canada were not scrambled, which regularly protect New York air space.
Available planes at Andrews AFB and Anacostia NAS proximate to DC were not scrambled.
Planes scrambled from Langley AFB, 130 miles south of DC, were sent to NYC and asked to confirm the hit on the Pentagon on the way there.
In addition, planes scrambled from Otis AFB in CT, sent too late to intercept the two NY attack planes, turned to intercept Flight AA77 headed to DC and were called back.
Fighter pilots from Pomona AFB in Atlantic City, NJ, on military maneuvers, within sight of the first tower burning in NYC were called back to base.
Planes in the air over North Carolina, based out of Andrews AFB were not tasked.
7. Normal response time in over 65 other air emergencies in the year before 9/11, in far less serious circumstances, was an average of 6-10 minutes. On 9/11 the time stretched to over an hour.
8. Army Brigadier General Montague Winfield, in charge of the the National Military Command Center (the Pentagon War Room) on the morning of 9/11, and in an open phone bridge communication with FAA, NORAD, White House and other agencies, getting real time information on the planes as they went off course, said on a CNN special anniversary program that the US Air Force did not respond right away because the FAA was tracking four seemingly unrelated hijackings. This makes no sense.
9. We realized that the seemingly unrelated hijackings that the FAA was tracking were actually a part of a coordinated terrorist attack against the United States. [Specific quotes of Winfield include: "We realized that the seemingly unrelated hijackings that the FAA was tracking were actually a part of a coordinated terrorist attack against the United States", Inside the Pentagon on 9-11, NEXT@CNN, CNN.com Transcripts, 9/7/02; "When the second aircraft flew into the second tower, it was at that point that we realized that the seemingly unrelated hijackings that the FAA was dealing with were in fact a part of a coordinated terrorist attack on the United States", "Moments of Crisis, Part 1: Terror Hits the Towers - How Government Officials Reacted to Sept. 11 Attacks, ABC News, 9/14/02 --ratitor]
10. Even though the Pentagon was attacked directly, the headquarters of the Department of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, none of its own internal defense mechanisms were used that day. In addition, not a single investigation, court of inquiry or courts-martial has ensued following the attack to determine responsibility.
11. Richard Meyers, the officer in charge of the Joint Chiefs that day spent well over an hour in private conversation with Congressman Max Cleland, apparently uninterrupted despite the fact that he had been informed about the first plane hitting the WTC and the fact that the country was clearly under attack by 9:05 am. Testifying to Congress the following week he answered questions about military response to the attacks wrongly, claiming that no planes were scrambled until after the Pentagon was hit.
12. The problem was that the planes scrambled that day were directed away from the areas that needed defense the most, and called into or back to the areas already hit instead.
13. Similarly, the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, reportedly sat in his office doing paperwork, oblivious to the attack until he felt the plane hit the Pentagon.
14. Even the Commander-in-Chief showed a lack of any urgent concern, despite having known about the first plane hitting the WTC before he joined an elementary school class in Florida for story reading, and despite being informed by aide Andrew Card of the second building being hit. Instead, Bush sat with the students and read until the entire scenario had unfolded.
15. According to the Washington Post, the Pentagon went to an Alpha security and defense alert once news of the WTC attack was reported, and after their building was hit, they went to a Charlie level of security. This is a scale from A-Alpha to B-Beta, C-Charlie, D-Delta. However, in 1999, facing phoned bomb threats, the Pentagon was on Delta alert, it's highest level. Why would it not have risen that high once they were under attack, or previous to the attack that day?
...on a fateful September morning in 2001, did America fabricate an outrage against civilians to fool the world and provide a pretext for war on Al Qaeda and Iraq?
This, and other deeply disturbing questions, are now being furiously debated on both sides of the Atlantic.
Why were no military aircraft scrambled in time to head off the attacks? Was the collapse of the Twin Towers caused by a careful use of explosives? How could a rookie pilot - as one of the terrorists was - fly a Boeing 757 aircraft so precisely into the Pentagon? And who made millions of dollars by accurately betting that shares in United and American Airlines, owners of the four doomed aircraft, were going to fall on 9/11 as they duly did?
An extremely high volume of bets on the price of shares dropping were placed on these two airline companies, and only these two. In the three days prior to the catastrophe, trade in their shares went up 1,200 per cent.
Initially, like most people in America, Professor Griffin dismissed claims the attacks could have been an inside job.
It was only a year later, when he was writing a special chapter on American imperialism and 9/11 for his latest academic tome, that the professor was sent a 'timeline' on the day's events based entirely on newspaper and television accounts. It was then that he changed his mind.
And one of the most puzzling anomalies that he studied was that none of the hijacked planes was intercepted by fighter jets, even though there was plenty of time to do so and it would have been standard emergency procedure in response to a suspected terrorist attack.
Indeed, it is mandatory procedure in the U.S. if there is any suspicion of an air hijack. In the nine months before 9/11, the procedure had been implemented 67 times in America.
Readers of The New Pearl Harbour and viewers of Loose Change are reminded that it was 7.59am when American Airlines Flight 11 left Boston. Fifteen minutes later, at 8.14am, radio contact between the pilot and air traffic control stopped suddenly, providing the first indication that the plane might have been hijacked.
Flight 11 should have been immediately intercepted by fighter pilots sent up from the nearby McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey. They could have made the journey to the World Trade Centre in three minutes.
But, surprisingly, F-15 fighter jets were instead ordered out of an airbase 180 miles away at Cape Cod. They appear to have flown so slowly - at 700mph, instead of their top speed of 1,850mph - that they did not arrive in time to stop the second attack, on the South Tower of the World Trade Centre. They were 11 minutes too late.
And this is not the only worrying question. Incredibly, the attack on the Pentagon was not prevented either. The defence headquarters was hit by the hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 at 9.38am. But fighter jets from Andrews Air Force Base, just ten miles from Washington, weren't scrambled to intercept it.
Instead, jets were ordered from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia, 100 miles away. By the time they arrived, Flight 77 had already hit the Pentagon.....
4. NORAD was on full readiness alert, with planes waiting on the runways as part of an exercise that day called Vigilant Guardian. There had been earlier exercises involving planes used as weapons as well. NORAD is capable of tasking any available plane.
5. Standard operating procedures in any single, even private plane air emergencies for an immediate FAA/NORAD response were not followed at all on 9/11 despite multiple large commuter planes off course, without transponders and not communicating with towers, which later were clearly known to be hijackings.
6. Not only were no NORAD intercept planes scrambled for well over half an hour after the first plane gave indications of trouble at 8:17 am, NONE were ever scrambled to defend DC and P-56, the most protected air space in the country.
Available planes in Canada were not scrambled, which regularly protect New York air space.
Available planes at Andrews AFB and Anacostia NAS proximate to DC were not scrambled.
Planes scrambled from Langley AFB, 130 miles south of DC, were sent to NYC and asked to confirm the hit on the Pentagon on the way there.
In addition, planes scrambled from Otis AFB in CT, sent too late to intercept the two NY attack planes, turned to intercept Flight AA77 headed to DC and were called back.
Fighter pilots from Pomona AFB in Atlantic City, NJ, on military maneuvers, within sight of the first tower burning in NYC were called back to base.
Planes in the air over North Carolina, based out of Andrews AFB were not tasked.
7. Normal response time in over 65 other air emergencies in the year before 9/11, in far less serious circumstances, was an average of 6-10 minutes. On 9/11 the time stretched to over an hour.
8. Army Brigadier General Montague Winfield, in charge of the the National Military Command Center (the Pentagon War Room) on the morning of 9/11, and in an open phone bridge communication with FAA, NORAD, White House and other agencies, getting real time information on the planes as they went off course, said on a CNN special anniversary program that the US Air Force did not respond right away because the FAA was tracking four seemingly unrelated hijackings. This makes no sense.
these are b/c in June of 2001 the bush administration stripped NORAD of this power and gave it to the Sec of Def
As a Director for Operations of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Fry issued an 'Instruction', CJCSI 3610.01A, which superseded earlier Department of Defence procedures for dealing with hijacked aircraft. The document, dated June 1, 2001, effectively stripped commanders in the field of all authority to act expeditiously, by stipulating approval for any requests involving "potentially lethal support" must be personally authorized by the Secretary of Defense, then as now Donald Rumsfeld. The order further requires the Secretary of Defense to be personally responsible for issuing intercept orders.
The CJCSI further states, "In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by referenced, forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval."
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
and anything I post or say you write off as "doesnt wash" or bullshit.
That's because all you've said is that 9/11 can be explained simply as a fuck-up on the part of the authorities. You've repeated the same thing over and over without confronting the points and anomalies in the official story that I've raised.
As a Director for Operations of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Fry issued an 'Instruction', CJCSI 3610.01A, which superseded earlier Department of Defence procedures for dealing with hijacked aircraft. The document, dated June 1, 2001, effectively stripped commanders in the field of all authority to act expeditiously, by stipulating approval for any requests involving "potentially lethal support" must be personally authorized by the Secretary of Defense, then as now Donald Rumsfeld. The order further requires the Secretary of Defense to be personally responsible for issuing intercept orders.
The CJCSI further states, "In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by referenced, forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval."
That's right. But according to Jlew et al, this change is just mere coincidence.
129 times the previous year the standard operating procedure had worked perfectly. Then the authority was transferred to Dick Cheney and in the very next incident - 9/11 - the procedure failed completely. Coincidence?
That's because all you've said is that 9/11 can be explained simply as a fuck-up on the part of the authorities. You've repeated the same thing over and over without confronting the points and anomalies in the official story that I've raised.
I told you why it was a fuck up. intelligence agencies did not work together prior to 9/11. I posted the report which outlines all of it from the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
As a Director for Operations of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Fry issued an 'Instruction', CJCSI 3610.01A, which superseded earlier Department of Defence procedures for dealing with hijacked aircraft. The document, dated June 1, 2001, effectively stripped commanders in the field of all authority to act expeditiously, by stipulating approval for any requests involving "potentially lethal support" must be personally authorized by the Secretary of Defense, then as now Donald Rumsfeld. The order further requires the Secretary of Defense to be personally responsible for issuing intercept orders.
The CJCSI further states, "In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by referenced, forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval."
But in his remarks, Rumsfeld referred to the "the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania."
Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center.
nah, he's just an idiot and doesn't know what he's talking about,...
you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
~Ron Burgundy
That's right. But according to Jlew et al, this change is just mere coincidence.
129 times the previous year the standard operating procedure had worked perfectly. Then the authority was transferred to Dick Cheney and in the very next incident the procedure failed completely. Coincidence?
Doesn't matter whether they knew exactly when and where the attacks would place. They should have acted on the intelligence. They chose instead to do nothing.
As far as there being no stand down order. Dick Cheney himself issued a stand-down order. It was the first one issued after a year of over 100 previous incidents of a similar alarms during which routine procedure was followed - i.e, the automatic scambling of military aircraft in the instance of passenger aircraft losing radar contact.
Coincidence?
Cmon Byrnzie...The conspiracy theory? Your smarter than that.
I told you why it was a fuck up. intelligence agencies did not work together prior to 9/11. I posted the report which outlines all of it from the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
you said it was bullshit
It is bullshit. And here are the reasons. Read them:
1. The whole system knew that planes had been and could be used by Al Qaeda as weapons, and had worked to prevent that happening in Genoa at the summit that summer when warning signals were high, protecting Bush specifically against planes.
2. Warnings from foreign intelligence agencies of such a plot were received all through the summer and early fall, as well as specific forewarnings not to fly on 9/11 to Pentagon Brass, foreign officials and the mayor of San Francisco.
3. Exercises and preparations were taken in 1998-2000 to secure the Pentgagon against a plane attack with radar and cameras, and to test emergency response procedures.
4. NORAD was on full readiness alert, with planes waiting on the runways as part of an exercise that day called Vigilant Guardian. There had been earlier exercises involving planes used as weapons as well. NORAD is capable of tasking any available plane.
5. Standard operating procedures in any single, even private plane air emergencies for an immediate FAA/NORAD response were not followed at all on 9/11 despite multiple large commuter planes off course, without transponders and not communicating with towers, which later were clearly known to be hijackings.
6. Not only were no NORAD intercept planes scrambled for well over half an hour after the first plane gave indications of trouble at 8:17 am, NONE were ever scrambled to defend DC and P-56, the most protected air space in the country.
Available planes in Canada were not scrambled, which regularly protect New York air space.
Available planes at Andrews AFB and Anacostia NAS proximate to DC were not scrambled.
Planes scrambled from Langley AFB, 130 miles south of DC, were sent to NYC and asked to confirm the hit on the Pentagon on the way there.
In addition, planes scrambled from Otis AFB in CT, sent too late to intercept the two NY attack planes, turned to intercept Flight AA77 headed to DC and were called back.
Fighter pilots from Pomona AFB in Atlantic City, NJ, on military maneuvers, within sight of the first tower burning in NYC were called back to base.
Planes in the air over North Carolina, based out of Andrews AFB were not tasked.
7. Normal response time in over 65 other air emergencies in the year before 9/11, in far less serious circumstances, was an average of 6-10 minutes. On 9/11 the time stretched to over an hour.
8. Army Brigadier General Montague Winfield, in charge of the the National Military Command Center (the Pentagon War Room) on the morning of 9/11, and in an open phone bridge communication with FAA, NORAD, White House and other agencies, getting real time information on the planes as they went off course, said on a CNN special anniversary program that the US Air Force did not respond right away because the FAA was tracking four seemingly unrelated hijackings. This makes no sense.
9. We realized that the seemingly unrelated hijackings that the FAA was tracking were actually a part of a coordinated terrorist attack against the United States. [Specific quotes of Winfield include: "We realized that the seemingly unrelated hijackings that the FAA was tracking were actually a part of a coordinated terrorist attack against the United States", Inside the Pentagon on 9-11, NEXT@CNN, CNN.com Transcripts, 9/7/02; "When the second aircraft flew into the second tower, it was at that point that we realized that the seemingly unrelated hijackings that the FAA was dealing with were in fact a part of a coordinated terrorist attack on the United States", "Moments of Crisis, Part 1: Terror Hits the Towers - How Government Officials Reacted to Sept. 11 Attacks, ABC News, 9/14/02 --ratitor]
10. Even though the Pentagon was attacked directly, the headquarters of the Department of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, none of its own internal defense mechanisms were used that day. In addition, not a single investigation, court of inquiry or courts-martial has ensued following the attack to determine responsibility.
11. Richard Meyers, the officer in charge of the Joint Chiefs that day spent well over an hour in private conversation with Congressman Max Cleland, apparently uninterrupted despite the fact that he had been informed about the first plane hitting the WTC and the fact that the country was clearly under attack by 9:05 am. Testifying to Congress the following week he answered questions about military response to the attacks wrongly, claiming that no planes were scrambled until after the Pentagon was hit.
12. The problem was that the planes scrambled that day were directed away from the areas that needed defense the most, and called into or back to the areas already hit instead.
13. Similarly, the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, reportedly sat in his office doing paperwork, oblivious to the attack until he felt the plane hit the Pentagon.
14. Even the Commander-in-Chief showed a lack of any urgent concern, despite having known about the first plane hitting the WTC before he joined an elementary school class in Florida for story reading, and despite being informed by aide Andrew Card of the second building being hit. Instead, Bush sat with the students and read until the entire scenario had unfolded.
15. According to the Washington Post, the Pentagon went to an Alpha security and defense alert once news of the WTC attack was reported, and after their building was hit, they went to a Charlie level of security. This is a scale from A-Alpha to B-Beta, C-Charlie, D-Delta. However, in 1999, facing phoned bomb threats, the Pentagon was on Delta alert, it's highest level. Why would it not have risen that high once they were under attack, or previous to the attack that day?
Cmon Byrnzie...The conspiracy theory? Your smarter than that.
"The conspiracy theory" come on dude,...
not everyone believes the same thing. trust me, you've got nuts out there that say some messed up stuff. but byrnzie has given links and legitimate questions. none of that shit passes the smell test. that level of incompetence should at least be criminally negligent,... if it was incompetence
you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
~Ron Burgundy
It's important that they are finally admitting it was preventable and pointing to accountability. However, if the thesis is that the system "failed" then it is a slippery slope. The theme of the Joint Inquiry in Congress was that 9/11 represented an "intelligence failure", and of course the solution is to give the agencies more funds and more power, reward the error in other words and unleash the spying.
A recent Washington Post article noted that the FBI now works directly with intelligence agents in their counter-terrorism and that the old rules preventing the excesses of the past have been abandoned again, with increased surveillance of those not suspected of actual criminal activity. NORAD/FAA activity on 9/11 cannot be explained as a "failure" in the sense of lack of readiness or incompetence. Why?
The whole system knew that planes had been and could be used by Al Qaeda as weapons, and had worked to prevent that happening in Genoa at the summit that summer when warning signals were high, protecting Bush specifically against planes.
Warnings from foreign intelligence agencies of such a plot were received all through the summer and early fall, as well as specific forewarnings not to fly on 9/11 to Pentagon Brass, foreign officials and the mayor of San Francisco.
Exercises and preparations were taken in 1998-2000 to secure the Pentgagon against a plane attack with radar and cameras, and to test emergency response procedures.
NORAD was on full readiness alert, with planes waiting on the runways as part of an exercise that day called Vigilant Guardian. There had been earlier exercises involving planes used as weapons as well. NORAD is capable of tasking any available plane.
Standard operating procedures in any single, even private plane air emergencies for an immediate FAA/NORAD response were not followed at all on 9/11 despite multiple large commuter planes off course, without transponders and not communicating with towers, which later were clearly known to be hijackings.
Not only were no NORAD intercept planes scrambled for well over half an hour after the first plane gave indications of trouble at 8:17 am, NONE were ever scrambled to defend DC and P-56, the most protected air space in the country.
Available planes in Canada were not scrambled, which regularly protect New York air space.
Available planes at Andrews AFB and Anacostia NAS proximate to DC were not scrambled.
Planes scrambled from Langley AFB, 130 miles south of DC, were sent to NYC and asked to confirm the hit on the Pentagon on the way there.
In addition, planes scrambled from Otis AFB in CT, sent too late to intercept the two NY attack planes, turned to intercept Flight AA77 headed to DC and were called back.
Fighter pilots from Pomona AFB in Atlantic City, NJ, on military maneuvers, within sight of the first tower burning in NYC were called back to base.
Planes in the air over North Carolina, based out of Andrews AFB were not tasked.
Normal response time in over 65 other air emergencies in the year before 9/11, in far less serious circumstances, was an average of 6-10 minutes. On 9/11 the time stretched to over an hour.
Army Brigadier General Montague Winfield, in charge of the the National Military Command Center (the Pentagon War Room) on the morning of 9/11, and in an open phone bridge communication with FAA, NORAD, White House and other agencies, getting real time information on the planes as they went off course, said on a CNN special anniversary program that the US Air Force did not respond right away because the FAA was tracking four seemingly unrelated hijackings. This makes no sense.
We realized that the seemingly unrelated hijackings that the FAA was tracking were actually a part of a coordinated terrorist attack against the United States. [Specific quotes of Winfield include: "We realized that the seemingly unrelated hijackings that the FAA was tracking were actually a part of a coordinated terrorist attack against the United States", Inside the Pentagon on 9-11, NEXT@CNN, CNN.com Transcripts, 9/7/02; "When the second aircraft flew into the second tower, it was at that point that we realized that the seemingly unrelated hijackings that the FAA was dealing with were in fact a part of a coordinated terrorist attack on the United States", "Moments of Crisis, Part 1: Terror Hits the Towers - How Government Officials Reacted to Sept. 11 Attacks, ABC News, 9/14/02 --ratitor]
Even though the Pentagon was attacked directly, the headquarters of the Department of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, none of its own internal defense mechanisms were used that day. In addition, not a single investigation, court of inquiry or courts-martial has ensued following the attack to determine responsibility.
Richard Meyers, the officer in charge of the Joint Chiefs that day spent well over an hour in private conversation with Congressman Max Cleland, apparently uninterrupted despite the fact that he had been informed about the first plane hitting the WTC and the fact that the country was clearly under attack by 9:05 am. Testifying to Congress the following week he answered questions about military response to the attacks wrongly, claiming that no planes were scrambled until after the Pentagon was hit.
The problem was that the planes scrambled that day were directed away from the areas that needed defense the most, and called into or back to the areas already hit instead.
Similarly, the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, reportedly sat in his office doing paperwork, oblivious to the attack until he felt the plane hit the Pentagon.
Even the Commander-in-Chief showed a lack of any urgent concern, despite having known about the first plane hitting the WTC before he joined an elementary school class in Florida for story reading, and despite being informed by aide Andrew Card of the second building being hit. Instead, Bush sat with the students and read until the entire scenario had unfolded.
According to the Washington Post, the Pentagon went to an Alpha security and defense alert once news of the WTC attack was reported, and after their building was hit, they went to a Charlie level of security. This is a scale from A-Alpha to B-Beta, C-Charlie, D-Delta. However, in 1999, facing phoned bomb threats, the Pentagon was on Delta alert, it's highest level. Why would it not have risen that high once they were under attack, or previous to the attack that day?
I have been trying hard to get public advocacy and policy groups here in DC involved in the Commission process. Chairman Kean told me at the last hearing that if anyone wants to be heard, they should contact him. I think our best strategy will be to compile a list of credible experts with alternate messages to the majority of witnesses who have testified so far, most of whom are directly involved with FBI, CIA and Pentagon intelligence, currrently or in the past. We could then push publicly for the National Commission to hear from credible witnesses on sane alternative policies relating to 9/11, as well as the historical and physical evidence of what really happened that day and who is its ultimate sponsor.
If they refuse all these witnesses, they will only discredit themselves. We don't need "theorists" about 9/11, we need real experts with good credentials. Mel Goodman would be an example, from Ambassador White's policy group. A former DoD official, Goodman has openly challenged Zelikow's conflicts of interest and called for him to step down as Commission director, as did the families. The Commission's official response was that they knew of Zelikow's conflicts, and that he was prepared to recuse himself in discussions relating to the NSC and Condalleze Rice. Kean went on to say that "all of us will have to [recuse ourselves] in relation to some issues". In other words, every single one of them is conflicted and compromised.
Accountability is key, but "failure" is a tricky concept. Did Haliburton "fail" to charge the right price for gasoline, an "error" that can be corrected merely by repayment, as Bush suggests. Any other contractor would face cancellation of contract, bar from future contracts for a period, possible jail time, and repayment of all defrauded funds. But Kellog/Brown & Root gets a slap on the wrist, a subsidiary of Cheney's former employer. The other subsidiary is DI or Dresser Industries, an oil and defense contractor that gave Bush Sr. his first job in Texas. Did the Bush neocons "fail" to heed ample warnings about 9/11, or did they intentionally ignore them?
The 9/11 commission report also details vast amounts of information the Clinton administration had about Bin Laden. There is also the very well documented event in which the CIA had a kill group on the ground in Afgahnistan with eyes on Bin Laden and the ability to take him out, and Clinton personally called it off because of the fear of killing a visiting Prince from the UAE. Does that make the Clinton administration part of the vast zionist conspiracy too? Let me guess. The 9/11 commission isn't reliable, part of the conspiracy, yadda yadda. right?
The 9/11 commission report also details vast amounts of information the Clinton administration had about Bin Laden. There is also the very well documented event in which the CIA had a kill group on the ground in Afgahnistan with eyes on Bin Laden and the ability to take him out, and Clinton personally called it off because of the fear of killing a visiting Prince from the UAE. Does that make the Clinton administration part of the vast zionist conspiracy too? Let me guess. The 9/11 commission isn't reliable, part of the conspiracy, yadda yadda. right?
The 9/11 commission members were appointed by George W. Bush, with input from Congress. Go figure.
not everyone believes the same thing. trust me, you've got nuts out there that say some messed up stuff. but byrnzie has given links and legitimate questions. none of that shit passes the smell test. that level of incompetence should at least be criminally negligent,... if it was incompetence
Thanks. The key point here is 'legitimate questions'. Questions that so far, Jlew and Last Exodus have chosen to avoid.
not everyone believes the same thing. trust me, you've got nuts out there that say some messed up stuff. but byrnzie has given links and legitimate questions. none of that shit passes the smell test. that level of incompetence should at least be criminally negligent,... if it was incompetence
I definitely agree on the incompetence stuff. But the allegations of direct knowledge of the attacks before hand are hogwash. And Im not posting any internet articles to support it. Im sure there are plenty of internet articles to support both sides. Ive read the 9/11 commission report and deem that a credible, critical analysis of what happened. It details many missed opportunities by both the Clinton and Bush administrations. Nothing in it suggests collaboration by anyone in our government for allowing 9/11 to happen. And that's all the information I need.
ditto that. chencey is evil. but not that evil. the 9/11 commission report explains it all. have your read it cover to cover?
the commission also said they thought the pentagon and cheney lied ot them
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
The 9/11 commission members were appointed by George W. Bush, with input from Congress. Go figure.
and let's not forget he originally picked kissinger to head the panel! then one of the guys who ended up cochairing it also said the government did nothing wrong in the iran/contra affair
standin above the crowd
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Thanks. The key point here is 'legitimate questions'. Questions that so far, Jlew and Last Exodus have chosen to avoid.
Im not avoiding anything. I dont engage you in debate on subjects that you are stuck in your position on. You are stuck in virtually any argument that is the most critical of the United States and its government 100% of the time. So why should I waste my time debating with someone who never changes position. Id simply suggest to people interested in learning about the mistakes leading up to 9/11 and that occurred on that day to read the 9/11 report. If you are interested in debating this subject, and have not read it, it just shows me that you have not done your homework.
Im not avoiding anything. I dont engage you in debate on subjects that you are stuck in your position on. You are stuck in virtually any argument that is the most critical of the United States and its government 100% of the time. So why should I waste my time debating with someone who never changes position. Id simply suggest to people interested in learning about the mistakes leading up to 9/11 and that occurred on that day to read the 9/11 report. If you are interested in debating this subject, and have not read it, it just shows me that you have not done your homework.
have you read the 28 pages they voided from the 'original' final report and any other editing they did to it?
have you read about members of the commision even admitting it was full of holes?
i admit i've only read parts of it and most of NIST, but that doesnt' mean it's absolute truth,... it only means that is all we have been given by a shady commission and a shady administration,...
you're a real hooker. im gonna slap you in public.
~Ron Burgundy
Comments
Try reading the whole article and not just the title, if you can.
I did read it and of course 9/11 was preventable. so is heart disease but somehow millions die every year from it.
Good point the video is not clear and in no part of it does it show a boeing 757.
And as that is the only prove of the plane hitting the pentagon because it also wierdly disapeared into pretty much thin air too, why would i believe it was flight 77?
Have you freeze framed the video in question and tried to make out what the object is?
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
Which is not to say I don't believe this administration would ever dream of doing such a thing ... they've done much worse, I don't think they'd stop at anything if it suited their purposes. The main reasons I'm not buying any of the conspiracies so far is that first of all, none of them are air-tight, they have as many holes as the "official" story. The second is that I just don't believe this band of idiots could have pulled this off. Too many people at too many levels in too many different places would have known ... something would have leaked by now.
On the other hand, is it believeable that the whole day was a massive fuck-up? Oh hell yeah, I have no trouble at all believing that! Could these guys have made wrong decision after wrong decision after wrong decision as the situation compounded and grew worse by the minute? Absolutely! Not only COULD they, it's exactly what I'd EXPECT them to do. Those who doubt this, please see Exhibit 1: War in Iraq, and Exhibit 2: Hurricane Katrina. Massive, mindblowing incompetence is what I expect from them.
I dunno ... there's very little reliable evidence, so I don't spend a lot of time on this, and I could very easily be wrong. But Operation Colossal Fuckup just has the ring of truth, to me.
You're not debating it. You've avoided all of the points that the above articles raised.
and anything I post or say you write off as "doesnt wash" or bullshit.
I don't call the following incompetence. I call it something else...
1. The whole system knew that planes had been and could be used by Al Qaeda as weapons, and had worked to prevent that happening in Genoa at the summit that summer when warning signals were high, protecting Bush specifically against planes.
2. Warnings from foreign intelligence agencies of such a plot were received all through the summer and early fall, as well as specific forewarnings not to fly on 9/11 to Pentagon Brass, foreign officials and the mayor of San Francisco.
3. Exercises and preparations were taken in 1998-2000 to secure the Pentgagon against a plane attack with radar and cameras, and to test emergency response procedures.
4. NORAD was on full readiness alert, with planes waiting on the runways as part of an exercise that day called Vigilant Guardian. There had been earlier exercises involving planes used as weapons as well. NORAD is capable of tasking any available plane.
5. Standard operating procedures in any single, even private plane air emergencies for an immediate FAA/NORAD response were not followed at all on 9/11 despite multiple large commuter planes off course, without transponders and not communicating with towers, which later were clearly known to be hijackings.
6. Not only were no NORAD intercept planes scrambled for well over half an hour after the first plane gave indications of trouble at 8:17 am, NONE were ever scrambled to defend DC and P-56, the most protected air space in the country.
Available planes in Canada were not scrambled, which regularly protect New York air space.
Available planes at Andrews AFB and Anacostia NAS proximate to DC were not scrambled.
Planes scrambled from Langley AFB, 130 miles south of DC, were sent to NYC and asked to confirm the hit on the Pentagon on the way there.
In addition, planes scrambled from Otis AFB in CT, sent too late to intercept the two NY attack planes, turned to intercept Flight AA77 headed to DC and were called back.
Fighter pilots from Pomona AFB in Atlantic City, NJ, on military maneuvers, within sight of the first tower burning in NYC were called back to base.
Planes in the air over North Carolina, based out of Andrews AFB were not tasked.
7. Normal response time in over 65 other air emergencies in the year before 9/11, in far less serious circumstances, was an average of 6-10 minutes. On 9/11 the time stretched to over an hour.
8. Army Brigadier General Montague Winfield, in charge of the the National Military Command Center (the Pentagon War Room) on the morning of 9/11, and in an open phone bridge communication with FAA, NORAD, White House and other agencies, getting real time information on the planes as they went off course, said on a CNN special anniversary program that the US Air Force did not respond right away because the FAA was tracking four seemingly unrelated hijackings. This makes no sense.
9. We realized that the seemingly unrelated hijackings that the FAA was tracking were actually a part of a coordinated terrorist attack against the United States. [Specific quotes of Winfield include: "We realized that the seemingly unrelated hijackings that the FAA was tracking were actually a part of a coordinated terrorist attack against the United States", Inside the Pentagon on 9-11, NEXT@CNN, CNN.com Transcripts, 9/7/02; "When the second aircraft flew into the second tower, it was at that point that we realized that the seemingly unrelated hijackings that the FAA was dealing with were in fact a part of a coordinated terrorist attack on the United States", "Moments of Crisis, Part 1: Terror Hits the Towers - How Government Officials Reacted to Sept. 11 Attacks, ABC News, 9/14/02 --ratitor]
10. Even though the Pentagon was attacked directly, the headquarters of the Department of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, none of its own internal defense mechanisms were used that day. In addition, not a single investigation, court of inquiry or courts-martial has ensued following the attack to determine responsibility.
11. Richard Meyers, the officer in charge of the Joint Chiefs that day spent well over an hour in private conversation with Congressman Max Cleland, apparently uninterrupted despite the fact that he had been informed about the first plane hitting the WTC and the fact that the country was clearly under attack by 9:05 am. Testifying to Congress the following week he answered questions about military response to the attacks wrongly, claiming that no planes were scrambled until after the Pentagon was hit.
12. The problem was that the planes scrambled that day were directed away from the areas that needed defense the most, and called into or back to the areas already hit instead.
13. Similarly, the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, reportedly sat in his office doing paperwork, oblivious to the attack until he felt the plane hit the Pentagon.
14. Even the Commander-in-Chief showed a lack of any urgent concern, despite having known about the first plane hitting the WTC before he joined an elementary school class in Florida for story reading, and despite being informed by aide Andrew Card of the second building being hit. Instead, Bush sat with the students and read until the entire scenario had unfolded.
15. According to the Washington Post, the Pentagon went to an Alpha security and defense alert once news of the WTC attack was reported, and after their building was hit, they went to a Charlie level of security. This is a scale from A-Alpha to B-Beta, C-Charlie, D-Delta. However, in 1999, facing phoned bomb threats, the Pentagon was on Delta alert, it's highest level. Why would it not have risen that high once they were under attack, or previous to the attack that day?
21.02.07
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23385010-details/An+explosion+of+disbelief+-+fresh+doubts+over+911/article.do
...on a fateful September morning in 2001, did America fabricate an outrage against civilians to fool the world and provide a pretext for war on Al Qaeda and Iraq?
This, and other deeply disturbing questions, are now being furiously debated on both sides of the Atlantic.
Why were no military aircraft scrambled in time to head off the attacks? Was the collapse of the Twin Towers caused by a careful use of explosives? How could a rookie pilot - as one of the terrorists was - fly a Boeing 757 aircraft so precisely into the Pentagon? And who made millions of dollars by accurately betting that shares in United and American Airlines, owners of the four doomed aircraft, were going to fall on 9/11 as they duly did?
An extremely high volume of bets on the price of shares dropping were placed on these two airline companies, and only these two. In the three days prior to the catastrophe, trade in their shares went up 1,200 per cent.
Initially, like most people in America, Professor Griffin dismissed claims the attacks could have been an inside job.
It was only a year later, when he was writing a special chapter on American imperialism and 9/11 for his latest academic tome, that the professor was sent a 'timeline' on the day's events based entirely on newspaper and television accounts. It was then that he changed his mind.
And one of the most puzzling anomalies that he studied was that none of the hijacked planes was intercepted by fighter jets, even though there was plenty of time to do so and it would have been standard emergency procedure in response to a suspected terrorist attack.
Indeed, it is mandatory procedure in the U.S. if there is any suspicion of an air hijack. In the nine months before 9/11, the procedure had been implemented 67 times in America.
Readers of The New Pearl Harbour and viewers of Loose Change are reminded that it was 7.59am when American Airlines Flight 11 left Boston. Fifteen minutes later, at 8.14am, radio contact between the pilot and air traffic control stopped suddenly, providing the first indication that the plane might have been hijacked.
Flight 11 should have been immediately intercepted by fighter pilots sent up from the nearby McGuire Air Force Base in New Jersey. They could have made the journey to the World Trade Centre in three minutes.
But, surprisingly, F-15 fighter jets were instead ordered out of an airbase 180 miles away at Cape Cod. They appear to have flown so slowly - at 700mph, instead of their top speed of 1,850mph - that they did not arrive in time to stop the second attack, on the South Tower of the World Trade Centre. They were 11 minutes too late.
And this is not the only worrying question. Incredibly, the attack on the Pentagon was not prevented either. The defence headquarters was hit by the hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 at 9.38am. But fighter jets from Andrews Air Force Base, just ten miles from Washington, weren't scrambled to intercept it.
Instead, jets were ordered from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia, 100 miles away. By the time they arrived, Flight 77 had already hit the Pentagon.....
these are b/c in June of 2001 the bush administration stripped NORAD of this power and gave it to the Sec of Def
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scott_Fry#CJCSI_3610.01A
As a Director for Operations of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Fry issued an 'Instruction', CJCSI 3610.01A, which superseded earlier Department of Defence procedures for dealing with hijacked aircraft. The document, dated June 1, 2001, effectively stripped commanders in the field of all authority to act expeditiously, by stipulating approval for any requests involving "potentially lethal support" must be personally authorized by the Secretary of Defense, then as now Donald Rumsfeld. The order further requires the Secretary of Defense to be personally responsible for issuing intercept orders.
The CJCSI further states, "In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by referenced, forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval."
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
That's because all you've said is that 9/11 can be explained simply as a fuck-up on the part of the authorities. You've repeated the same thing over and over without confronting the points and anomalies in the official story that I've raised.
That's right. But according to Jlew et al, this change is just mere coincidence.
129 times the previous year the standard operating procedure had worked perfectly. Then the authority was transferred to Dick Cheney and in the very next incident - 9/11 - the procedure failed completely. Coincidence?
I told you why it was a fuck up. intelligence agencies did not work together prior to 9/11. I posted the report which outlines all of it from the chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
you said it was bullshit
But in his remarks, Rumsfeld referred to the "the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania."
Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center.
nah, he's just an idiot and doesn't know what he's talking about,...
~Ron Burgundy
its certainly isnt proof
Cmon Byrnzie...The conspiracy theory? Your smarter than that.
It is bullshit. And here are the reasons. Read them:
1. The whole system knew that planes had been and could be used by Al Qaeda as weapons, and had worked to prevent that happening in Genoa at the summit that summer when warning signals were high, protecting Bush specifically against planes.
2. Warnings from foreign intelligence agencies of such a plot were received all through the summer and early fall, as well as specific forewarnings not to fly on 9/11 to Pentagon Brass, foreign officials and the mayor of San Francisco.
3. Exercises and preparations were taken in 1998-2000 to secure the Pentgagon against a plane attack with radar and cameras, and to test emergency response procedures.
4. NORAD was on full readiness alert, with planes waiting on the runways as part of an exercise that day called Vigilant Guardian. There had been earlier exercises involving planes used as weapons as well. NORAD is capable of tasking any available plane.
5. Standard operating procedures in any single, even private plane air emergencies for an immediate FAA/NORAD response were not followed at all on 9/11 despite multiple large commuter planes off course, without transponders and not communicating with towers, which later were clearly known to be hijackings.
6. Not only were no NORAD intercept planes scrambled for well over half an hour after the first plane gave indications of trouble at 8:17 am, NONE were ever scrambled to defend DC and P-56, the most protected air space in the country.
Available planes in Canada were not scrambled, which regularly protect New York air space.
Available planes at Andrews AFB and Anacostia NAS proximate to DC were not scrambled.
Planes scrambled from Langley AFB, 130 miles south of DC, were sent to NYC and asked to confirm the hit on the Pentagon on the way there.
In addition, planes scrambled from Otis AFB in CT, sent too late to intercept the two NY attack planes, turned to intercept Flight AA77 headed to DC and were called back.
Fighter pilots from Pomona AFB in Atlantic City, NJ, on military maneuvers, within sight of the first tower burning in NYC were called back to base.
Planes in the air over North Carolina, based out of Andrews AFB were not tasked.
7. Normal response time in over 65 other air emergencies in the year before 9/11, in far less serious circumstances, was an average of 6-10 minutes. On 9/11 the time stretched to over an hour.
8. Army Brigadier General Montague Winfield, in charge of the the National Military Command Center (the Pentagon War Room) on the morning of 9/11, and in an open phone bridge communication with FAA, NORAD, White House and other agencies, getting real time information on the planes as they went off course, said on a CNN special anniversary program that the US Air Force did not respond right away because the FAA was tracking four seemingly unrelated hijackings. This makes no sense.
9. We realized that the seemingly unrelated hijackings that the FAA was tracking were actually a part of a coordinated terrorist attack against the United States. [Specific quotes of Winfield include: "We realized that the seemingly unrelated hijackings that the FAA was tracking were actually a part of a coordinated terrorist attack against the United States", Inside the Pentagon on 9-11, NEXT@CNN, CNN.com Transcripts, 9/7/02; "When the second aircraft flew into the second tower, it was at that point that we realized that the seemingly unrelated hijackings that the FAA was dealing with were in fact a part of a coordinated terrorist attack on the United States", "Moments of Crisis, Part 1: Terror Hits the Towers - How Government Officials Reacted to Sept. 11 Attacks, ABC News, 9/14/02 --ratitor]
10. Even though the Pentagon was attacked directly, the headquarters of the Department of Defense and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, none of its own internal defense mechanisms were used that day. In addition, not a single investigation, court of inquiry or courts-martial has ensued following the attack to determine responsibility.
11. Richard Meyers, the officer in charge of the Joint Chiefs that day spent well over an hour in private conversation with Congressman Max Cleland, apparently uninterrupted despite the fact that he had been informed about the first plane hitting the WTC and the fact that the country was clearly under attack by 9:05 am. Testifying to Congress the following week he answered questions about military response to the attacks wrongly, claiming that no planes were scrambled until after the Pentagon was hit.
12. The problem was that the planes scrambled that day were directed away from the areas that needed defense the most, and called into or back to the areas already hit instead.
13. Similarly, the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, reportedly sat in his office doing paperwork, oblivious to the attack until he felt the plane hit the Pentagon.
14. Even the Commander-in-Chief showed a lack of any urgent concern, despite having known about the first plane hitting the WTC before he joined an elementary school class in Florida for story reading, and despite being informed by aide Andrew Card of the second building being hit. Instead, Bush sat with the students and read until the entire scenario had unfolded.
15. According to the Washington Post, the Pentagon went to an Alpha security and defense alert once news of the WTC attack was reported, and after their building was hit, they went to a Charlie level of security. This is a scale from A-Alpha to B-Beta, C-Charlie, D-Delta. However, in 1999, facing phoned bomb threats, the Pentagon was on Delta alert, it's highest level. Why would it not have risen that high once they were under attack, or previous to the attack that day?
"The conspiracy theory" come on dude,...
not everyone believes the same thing. trust me, you've got nuts out there that say some messed up stuff. but byrnzie has given links and legitimate questions. none of that shit passes the smell test. that level of incompetence should at least be criminally negligent,... if it was incompetence
~Ron Burgundy
The 9/11 commission report also details vast amounts of information the Clinton administration had about Bin Laden. There is also the very well documented event in which the CIA had a kill group on the ground in Afgahnistan with eyes on Bin Laden and the ability to take him out, and Clinton personally called it off because of the fear of killing a visiting Prince from the UAE. Does that make the Clinton administration part of the vast zionist conspiracy too? Let me guess. The 9/11 commission isn't reliable, part of the conspiracy, yadda yadda. right?
The 9/11 commission members were appointed by George W. Bush, with input from Congress. Go figure.
If only.
Thanks. The key point here is 'legitimate questions'. Questions that so far, Jlew and Last Exodus have chosen to avoid.
I definitely agree on the incompetence stuff. But the allegations of direct knowledge of the attacks before hand are hogwash. And Im not posting any internet articles to support it. Im sure there are plenty of internet articles to support both sides. Ive read the 9/11 commission report and deem that a credible, critical analysis of what happened. It details many missed opportunities by both the Clinton and Bush administrations. Nothing in it suggests collaboration by anyone in our government for allowing 9/11 to happen. And that's all the information I need.
the commission also said they thought the pentagon and cheney lied ot them
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Some of us are more demanding.
and let's not forget he originally picked kissinger to head the panel! then one of the guys who ended up cochairing it also said the government did nothing wrong in the iran/contra affair
he had a voice that was strong and loud and
i swallowed his facade cos i'm so
eager to identify with
someone above the crowd
someone who seemed to feel the same
someone prepared to lead the way
Im not avoiding anything. I dont engage you in debate on subjects that you are stuck in your position on. You are stuck in virtually any argument that is the most critical of the United States and its government 100% of the time. So why should I waste my time debating with someone who never changes position. Id simply suggest to people interested in learning about the mistakes leading up to 9/11 and that occurred on that day to read the 9/11 report. If you are interested in debating this subject, and have not read it, it just shows me that you have not done your homework.
have you read the 28 pages they voided from the 'original' final report and any other editing they did to it?
have you read about members of the commision even admitting it was full of holes?
i admit i've only read parts of it and most of NIST, but that doesnt' mean it's absolute truth,... it only means that is all we have been given by a shady commission and a shady administration,...
~Ron Burgundy
why doesnt the moderator ban you for making personal attacks and lieing?where did i say im a racist or leave a link to a hate site?
http://groups.msn.com/PearlJamNirvana/messages.msnw