Norman Mineta’s Testimony Proves 9/11 Was an Inside Job
Norman Mineta’s Testimony Proves 9/11 Was an Inside Job
"When examining almost any aspect of 9/11, there is strong evidence to support the alternative theory that 9/11 was a false-flag attack committed by elements within the U.S. Government and Military. The controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and WTC 7 is perhaps the strongest argument with the best scientific evidence since all three buildings collapsed at near freefall speed, leaving behind pools of an orange hot material (aka “molten metal”). The degree of pulverization of the concrete in the Twin Towers creating the pyroclastic dust cloud has proven to be nearly impossible to explain with a legitimate building collapse.
The problem with discussing this evidence is that these are scientific arguments that can only be fully understood by experts in the necessary fields. Though my science background is limited, common sense tells me that these scientific arguments are legitimate criticisms of the official theory of the collapse of the three buildings.
Supporters of the official theory have attempted to debunk the scientific evidence supporting the alternative theory (aka, the conspiracy theories), but the argument I present here cannot be debunked. The argument I present in this paper is not a scientific argument, does not require any special knowledge, and can be understood by any rational person. This argument definitely proves that 9/11 was an inside job and no other rational interpretation of these events presented could lead to any other conclusion."
Please check out entire article, the author is looking for some feedback.
- Login to post comments
I think that Minetas
I think that Mineta's testimony should be treated as it is evidence, it was an inside job.
But I also think there is a possibility that the Mineta testimony is spin. I mean, if it was a missile that hit the Pentagon and the Bushadm. wants to hide it?
The bait is the suggestion that there was a standdown order. The underlaying message is that it really was a plane (American 77) coming from Ohio.
No
No, the shoe is on the other foot. The no-plane at the Pentagon idea is a diversion. Mineta's testimony was not only omitted by the 9/11 commission, but it's fallen into the Orwellian memory hole: it is totally non-existent in the media. Instead, they always give lots of time to the "WHAT hit the pentagon" non-issue when they interview skeptics, even though Mineta's testimony - on its own, regardless of all the other evidence we usually marshal against the official story - can indeed crack open the inside job: he refers to orders coming from an identifiable individual and being relayed to other individuials. What were those orders?
As always, the issue is not "what hit the pentagon," but how could anything AT ALL hit the Pentagon, and Mineta's testimony gives us a key to that, for it points directly to culprits, not the vague unprovable, unknowable stuff about pictures and video we mostly don't have.
Again, the fact that the media seems to have standing orders to talk about the "no-plane" stuff should itself be proof-positive that THAT issue is the spin.
I would suggest to all truthers that we re-evaluate this issue: we can't claim there was no plane at the pentagon and, at the same time, talk about Mineta's testimony. IMHO, we should drop the no-plane stuff and focus on Mineta.
Mike Malloy Update
UPDATE
Mike, Molly, and Kathy - the entire Malloy family - have nasty colds right now and are getting strong for the upcoming battle against the November flying monkey right candidates!
To say that we're eager to get back on the air would be the understatement of the century. With Chavez, Armitage, Bush, Powell, Intel reports, Osama et al, Mike is pulling stories faster than Limbaugh can pop little blues on a child porn tour of Micronesia.
Suffice it to say we can't wait to get back behind a mic!
As for media news: Mike was recently interviewed by salon.com for an article they're writing about Air America Radio past, present, and future. As is "Creative Loafing" here in Atlanta. We haven't been told the publication dates, but watch for them. Mike had some interesting observations.
Listen to Peter Werbe at 10 PM ET on Air America Radio while you can. He's a good guy and a premier talk show host and you should check him out, wish him luck, and pray his checks cash.
And again - for all the kind folks who keep emailing wanting to know the awful truth, rest assured: we will share all the details of our personal experiences with Air America once our financial and other mutual business issues are resolved; hopefully sooner rather than later. You deserve to know the truth and as you would imagine, there's quite a story to tell.
Of the three potential radio opportunities we blogged here about, one seems less possible, one seems more possible, and one remains unchanged. We're still cautiously optomistic that we'll be back on the air soon. Can't wait to talk with you all again!
Thanks as always for rour supportive email and calls and petitions. They help our morale tremendously and have been noted by potential new broadcast outlets.
Watch your back,
Malloys
9/24/06
there was most certainly a
there was most certainly a plane at the pentagon, is just wasnt a boeing 757-200.
I beleive a large fighter jet (not an A3) hit the pentagon, and fired a missile at it right before it struck.
see sped up frames on impact...
4fps... http://www.montalk.net/four_per_second.gif
8fps... http://i22.photobucket.com/albums/b338/merc_mercy_/pentanimxox1.gif
10fps... http://www.montalk.net/ten_per_second.gif
patriot
st911
Thanks usafreedompatriot
The images put into perspective.....This is not a 757
And this is important because the passengers faked their deaths
Like Barbara Olson...
Obscene Stupidity
Every single passenger on the four flights hijacked by jihadists is dead.
Hijacked by who?
Are you referring to the patsies trained by the US? Or the perps from the military, industrial, petro-globalists who started this holy war of terror?
You do understand
you are replying to a post from 2006 right? Maybe pomeroo can reply in 2016 ;-)
These threads got bumped up the tracker due to a short error condition in the web site. It's a bit oafish imho to keep them up there by starting discussions with 5-year-old comments.
Just my 2c, but go right ahead...
No, Cheney duped Minetta to make him a witness...
No, Cheney duped Minetta to make Minetta an unwitting witness to something that never happened. AA-77 did not strike the Pentagon.
If AA-77 had really struck the Pentagon, they wouldn't have felt the need to fabricate DNA matches for 63 of 64 passengers. (Same thing goes for UA-93 @ Shanksville. They IDed all the passengers there too! Sure!)
If an airliner smashes through the Pentagon @ 530 mph, and there are no seats, no luggage, and a few dubious plane scraps, viable DNA (organic material) will not be recoverable for 63 of 64 passengers!!!
Going out on a limb maybe
but it might as well be that "the plane" was the C-130 seen near the Pentagon (Wasn't a similar plane spotted in Shanksville?) and that it deployed a cruise missile from up close. (And probably dropped something in Shanksville before, causing the "plane-crash" crater)
I know that this is a very controversial topic, but the damage to the Pentagon (esp. in depth) simply doesn't match an airliner. No way a tin can penetrated through 3 rings. Seriously. Deploying a missile from nearby would also minimize eyewitnesses, as a missile traversing half the US would probably not have gone unnoticed.
So excuse me for stirring the pot, but that does seem plausible to me, and it connects Mineta's testimony with the documented damage.
very well put, though i tend
very well put, though i tend to think it was likely an A-3 type plane that hit. i try not to talk about this subject much as it splits the movement about 50/50,but your assesment makes sense. you cannot convince me a piece of landing gear caused the perfect circle in the C-ring wall. thats ridiculous.
How Dumb Can Fantasists Get?
In a two-part debate on The American Thinker, J.R. Dunn totally demolished the charlatan Fetzer. Dunn demonstrated that speculations about an A-3 being the type of aircraft flown into the Pentagon are absurd. Now, you come along, blissfully ignorant of the exchange, and spout the same debunked nonsense. Is it ever appropriate to stop inventing factoids and LEARN something?
It Wasn't an A3
All of the evidence that a Skywarrior hit the building is based on pictures of plane debris, and pentagonresearch.com has proved without a doubt that every one of those pieces came from a 767 - particularly the fan rotor that Loose Change bases their entire A3 claim on.
If Flight 77 didn't hit the building, then there was a LOT of planted debris. There's pictures of engine parts, of the front landing gear manifold, lots of pieces of aluminum frame components... Many of the parts are bent around support columns, making it clear that they struck with high velocity. There's also a picture of an 8- holed landing gear hub. 767s could come with one of two hub designs, 8- hole or 10- hole, and a picture of Flight 77 in August as it was taking off proves that it had the 8- holed design.
While I DO think Flight 77 or a 767 mockup hit the building, I DON'T think that's what caused the 'punch out ' hole between the two rings. The damage certainly could have been enhanced with explosives.
Dunn is god to you correct?
Dunn is god to you correct? "but Dunn said....". get the fuck outta here you republican stooge. you've proven yourself to be nothing more than a gullible rightwing tool.
Proof
And you've proved yourself an ignorant fool who has absolutely no facts and is incapable of learning any.
ok Ron the republican
ok Ron the republican puppet. whatever you say. Dunn is god i guess.
What does politics have to do with?
Yo, Chris,
Pomeroo is stating a conclusive fact that has nothing to do with politics. Why do you 9/11 truthers get so defensive about known facts and resort to claiming it has something to do with politics? Can't you guys ever deal with factual evidence?
because his politics are
because his politics are very far to the right and i think it taints his gullible opinion. you dont think its relevant that this guy Ron is on "conspiracysmasher" all the time going on about "damn liberal this, liberal that, the lefts fault, damn leftwing idealogy, commie pinko liberal,blah blah blah". i do. the guy sounds like the second coming of Rush Limbaugh. if calling him a republican stooge/lackey who falls for the phony left/right shell game hurts your feelings, im sorry, but im not gonna stop. i may be far to the left in my politics(on most issues) but im not stupid enough to fall for the phony left/right paradigm like he does. "as long as republicans win, everything will be ok......". the guys rantings on "conspiracysmasher" sound like the misguided, blindly partisan rantings of a Hannity type.
Wrong, as Usual
I don't give a rat's patoot about the Republican Party. I usually vote Republican as the lesser of two evils. For all their flaws, the Republicans understand the threat of radical Islam. The leading Democrats are dishonest, demagogic, and clueless.
you dont give a rats ass
you dont give a rats ass about the republican party? do i really have to go grab some of your comments from "conspiracysmasher". you sound like Rush Linbaugh. you have an irrational fear of arabs. you probably have a bit of racism in your heart that makes it easier for you to be so gullible and so quick to believe the fear that the republicans, and many democrats are selling you. poor gullible little boy that you are. how does it feel to live your life in irrational fear?
Standard Fare
Why does every moron who gets exposed as an irrational fraud eventually resort to making accusations of racism? You want to see racism? Take a look at the loony-left's efforts to smear Ken Blackwell in Ohio and Richard Steele in Maryland, two highly-qualified black candidates who dared to step off the plantation. Now we're talkin' racism!
I'd ask why I am supposed to have "an irrational fear of Arabs," but you don't have the slightest idea. Just more empty blather. I fear Arabs who promise to kill Americans because on occasion they succeed in doing so.
So far, you have made some really dumb charges and have offered us absolutely nothing by way of logic or evidence. A typical lefty fantasist, I'd say.
Lety's be honest, Chris
Let's be honest. The comments on 9/11 blogger ALWAYS accuse those who easily debunk you on scientific facts are ALWAYS accused of being neo-cons, defenders of Bush, stooges, CIA plants, and NEVER liberals or leftists, despite the fact that 9/11 Truthers are in complete agreement with the far-right lunatics who claim 9/11 was Bush's doing.
You're right, you're not going to stop accusing those who debunk you on the facts as being anything but neo-cons and Republicans. Only those who cannot deal with factual evidence debunking them have to make up excuses like you.
In fact, in real life, politics has NOTHING to do with scientific evidence but EVERYTHING to do with 9/11 Truther conspiracy theories. Even the choice of words - calling yourselves "Truthers" - is a deliberate, political statement since the Truth is always the opposite of what you say it is.
Conspiracy Smasher and Pomeroo stick to the facts you hate. Neither of them relies on anything but physical evidence, reason, and logic.
actually jon, i was on
actually jon, i was on conspiracysmasher.com and saw MANY rightwing talking points spewing from his mouth over and over. i could actually predict what the little partisan douche was gonna say every time.
Don't be silly
The only ones on CS who spew nonsensical poltical diatribes are your buddies, Chris.
Just like you do here.
jon, now your just straight
jon, now your just straight up lying. Ron Weick spews some of the most typical and ridiculous rightwing talking points ive ever seen over on that trash site. get your head out of your ass or stop lying. im not sure which it is in your case.
Crystal Ball
Someone as mindless as you couldn't predict that a falling acorn will hit the ground.
Tell us, moron, why a partisan loony-leftist isn't predictable? If it defames America, you support it. If gives aid and comfort to enemies of America, you're for it. If it's benighted and anti-scientific, you espouse it.
How many of my "talking points" did you refute?
you just proved my point.
you just proved my point. "if it defames America, your for it". what kind of rightwing toolbag logic is that? i love the second amendment and i am basically against affirmative action. you cant paint me as a partisan douche like yourself. i have never voted for a democrat in my life. "if it gives aid and comfort to the enemies,you're for it". BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA, that alone is a typical rightwing talking point. keep it coming ya blindly partisan assclown.
Confluence of Loons
So, you may be a far-right nutcase. But I doubt it! I can smell a loony-lefty a mile off.
What talking points did you refute, dimwit?
"i can smell a loony lefty a
"i can smell a loony lefty a mile off". that comment alone shows you are a slave to the system. the republicans will keep you safe. yep. keep telling yourself that moron. i would feel sorry for your stupid ass if you were less of a prick.
and again, why does it have
and again, why does it have to be "far right" or "far left". is that how you live your life? is that how you really think? you listen to Hannity and Rush to hone your internet argument skills against "those damn liberals" huh prick? right VS left right fool? republican VS democrat right dumbass? us VS them huh moron? keep playing that right/left parlor game and stay gullible and clueless. ya dumb fuck.
Predictable
I'm sure that we all noted your incisive answers to my questions. You fools never disappoint. It's like shooting fish in a barrel.
yes, like i said, you
yes, like i said, you rightwing tools are usually VERY predictable. you sure dont dissapoint.
you should read this Ron.
Progressive Radio Hosts More Accepting Of Dissenting Views Than Conservative Hosts
Think Progress | September 26 2006
Research 2000 recently conducted a survey testing whether progressive or conservative talk radio shows are more open to callers with dissenting points of view. The organization made 15 calls (with a point of view that was not compatible with the host) to six radio shows — three progressive (Stephanie Miller, Randi Rhodes, Ed Schultz) and three conservative (Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, Rush Limbaugh).
Their findings concluded that all the progressive hosts were more willing to take calls from dissenters than were the conservative hosts. Research 2000’s ranking, in order of accessibility: 1): Shultz, 2) Rhodes, 3) Miller, 4) Ingraham, 5) Limbaugh, and 6) Hannity. Among the findings:
Progressive host Ed Schultz was the most accessible to callers with opposing points of view. “In fact, the only question the screener asked our fifteen callers was simply where are you calling from, radio call letters and your name.”
– Conservative host Sean Hannity was the least accessible. Not a single of the 15 calls Research 2000 made were accepted. “Eleven of our callers with dissenting view points were told by the screener either ‘I will pass it on’ or ‘call our liberal hotline’ and then disconnected.”
“Only two callers of fifteen dissenting view points was successful in getting on the Rush Limbaugh show. Both callers went through three screeners on the show before getting on the air with the host.”
– Ingraham, Miller, and Rhodes showed “no significant differences” in getting on the air “if one had a dissenting view point.” But the wait time for the Laura Ingraham show was the longest of the three — 40 minutes to one hour and 15 minutes.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/September2006/260906Progressive.htm
but see, unlike you, i dont fall for any of their shit. right or left.
aint you gonna say im a part
aint you gonna say im a part of the "blame america first crowd". tell me you havent used that typical line before you useful idiot. you know you have. typical bastard. this is for you:
Caught in the Crossfire: The False Left-Right Paradigm and the Deception of the American People
http://www.prisonplanet.com/analysis_newsom_122302_leftright.html
read for once. you are being played like a fiddle you dumb fuck.
Brother, Can You Spare a Paradigm?
Morons who babble about "false left-right paradigms" have a funny way of turning out to be deranged anarchists, Chomskyite loons, or good ol' ANSWER/ NION Marxists. Who exactly is "playing" me, you illiterate? Who represented the good guys in the Cold War? Tell us.
ask the regulars on this
ask the regulars on this site how i feel about Noam Chomsky. yet again, you make stupid assumptions based on POLITICS. your stuck. poor slave. crack a book and stop watching CNN and Fox.
Books are Good
Unlike you, I read more or less continually. That fact explains why I'm well-informed and you're an ignoramus. To repeat, for all I know, you may be a rightwing nutcase--but I doubt it!
unlike me? cause your
unlike me? cause your clairvoyant right toolbag? if well informed means spewing rightwing talking points and being gullible and fearful to the point that you take everything at face value with no independent research, i dont wanna be "informed". keep drinking that kool-aid you fearful little coward.
So what about that 757?
Considering just how close that plane was to the ground, I've never heard those people interviewed describe how LOUD the "airliner" was. The only description of sound was how quiet the plane was to some of the interviewees.
What type of engine is in a Global Hawk? Don't they have the ability to carry a missle? They are flown by remote control.
Try an airshow once
When you have a fast-moving plane approaching you, you rarely hear any sound until it is on top of you. Anyone at an airshow where military jets are appraoching you at high speed knows this.
In any case, there are reorts from eyewitnesses that they did not hear it coming because of that very fact.
Much agreed, pagen!
Perhaps there was really nothing 50 miles out, 30 miles out, etc. Maybe Cheney was spinning a yarn to convince the 70-something year-old Minetta that AA-77 was coming back at them from Ohio. Now it is offered as "proof" that AA-77 was coming at them (not to mention the incredible acrobatics & striking the relatively tiny reinforced section.)
I think a missile, SkyWarrior, and/or explosives blew-up the Pentagon & the light poles outside.
Yes! A glimmer of
Yes! A glimmer of light--there really was nothing out there. Flight 93 had already crashed. But Cheney wasn't aware of that fact. Will you ever get it?
Second this from pagan.
Second this from pagan.
This evidence is a diversion. NO plane hit the pentagon - 'the plane don't fit' in that tiny hole + planes DO NOT VAPORIZE on impact.
You have to be pretty thick not to put 2 and 2 together there.
That Settles That
I guess we can throw away all those photos of the parts recovered from Flight 77. Of course, nobody ever said that the plane was vaporized and the 12-foot-wide fuselage fits very well into the hole.
Don't read any of the abundant material on the 757 that hit the Pentagon and pay no attention to all those eyewitness accounts.
Above all, don't dare read Dunn's annihilation of Fetzer on americanthinker.com.
"Hannity & Colmes", FOX NEWS, 22 June 2006
An excellent study of what appears to have been a major motive for hitting the Pentagon, including, in my opinion, striking with a missile before the aircraft itself hit the building, as I have explained in my reply to J.R.Dunn in THE AMERICAN THINKER (21 September 2006), which is archived on st911.org. The casualty list at the Pentagon includes the names of at least sixteen persons identified as "budget analyst", "accountant", "financial manager", and the like, where some eight others have designations that might mean they had similar backgrounds and specializations. There were 125 listed casualities at the Pentagon, excluding any who may have been aboard the plane. 9/11 would therefore appear to have been a rather dangerous time to have been involved in attempting to track what happened to $2.3 trillion on behalf of the taxpayers, which we may reasonably assume was the case. As I explain there, a missile could be more precisely targeted to hit an exact location, which a plane might or might not strike "on target". Moreover, on "Hannity & Colmes", FOX NEWS (22 June 2006), during my appearance (where Ollie North stood in for Sean Hannity), I pointed out that we had discovered (a) that the Twin Towers had been brought down by controlled demolition, (b) that Norman Mineta had given this devastating testimony to the 9/11 Commission, and (c) that the FBI had recently acknowledged having "no hard evidence" tying Osama bin Laden to the events of 9/11. Neither Ollie nor Alan expressed any interest in these points, no matter how devastating they may be to the official account of what happened on 9/11, who was responsible and why, but only with whether I had discussed them with my students. The program, which was recorded, is also archived on st911.org. The next morning, the Secretary of Transportation announced his retirement, which was not only unexpected but meant that he, Norman Mineta, would no longer be a pubic servant and expected to respond to reporters' questions. It was, like the hit itself, another rather remarkable "coincidence".
Yes, Dr. Fetzer--great way to get rid of the accountants...
Yes, Dr. Fetzer--great way to get rid of the accountants/budget analystists & the records regarding the missing $2.3 trillion. That ain't just pocket change! People have been killed for far less money that that!
Newsflash
It turns out that the only people killed at the Pentagon were accountants. And, oddly, NOBODY has noticed or remarked on this extraordinary coincidence, a statistical anomaly on an order never observed previously in reality. Strange that Rumsfeld himself points out the waste of money and then kills all the accountants. I wonder why people insist on referring to fantasists as hopelessly deluded loons who live in a dream world.
Fetzer you are either deluded or a liar!
Dunn destroyed you in that exchange and I strongly encourage everyone to read it instead of reports about it by you.
Are You Serious?
J.R. Dunn destroyed your fabrications and exposed you as a charlatan. If you want to continue embarrassing yourself, be my guest.
Dunn's verbiage is no substitute for evidence . . .
Stick around. You obviously are unfamiliar with the evidence, so I'll make it very plain and simple for you. Dunn is great at ad hominems, pathetic at reasoning.
Check the Record of the Debate
You silly fraud! Dunn presented facts, hard data. You have absolutely no facts to support your pernicious myths. Your absurd, uninformed fabrications were exposed, and your preposterous, illogical arguments were blown out of the water.
Deliberate fabrication is no substitute for physical evidence
Jim Fetzer claimed that no 757 hit the Pentagon yet Cheney wouldn't order a shoot down of the 757 heading for the Pentagon. How's that for logic?
Frauds are like that.
Not so
What nonsense. You should take a course in ethics and critical thinking and stop misleading gullible 9/11 "truthers" with your conspiracy nonsense and amateur strcutural engineering.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself - if you are the real Jim Fetzer.
here is his (censored)
here is his (censored) testimony !!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlM8Sui6-X0
Censored
I'm having a little trouble with your use of the word, censored. I was under the impression that it meant, well, censored. As millions of people saw Mineta's testimony on C-Span and it is readily available on the net, can you explain how it can be described as censored? Words do have meanings, no?
Censored
Hey, did you know you're right? That's certainly not censorship.
However, with regard to the commission's final report, we shouldn't be concerned that it was 'ignored', 'whitewashed', 'removed', 'dismissed', 'swept away', 'disposed of', 'banished', 'sanatized', etc.
Is that you Zelikow?
Hack it into the record!
we make it easy! wtcdemolition.com/hack.htm
_ "Among the 'spider-man' skeptics are those who claim that no human can shoot web and stick to walls... They conveniently ignore the fact that he was bitten by a radioactive spider." Daily Bugle editorial debunking the claims of spider-man deniers
Have any of the Jersey girls
Have any of the Jersey girls responded specifically to the Mineta testimony?
im not sure, but since the
im not sure, but since the Jersey Girls are deathly afraid of being called "conspiracy theorists", i would assume not so much. i guess thats why Donna Marsh O'Connor isnt a Jersey Girl. shes just too blunt and realistic. she cant hide her feelings to play the media/politics game. Brietwieser is speaking at a Philadelphia political conference soon that usually hosts people like Giuliani,Pataki,Richard Cohen,Andrew Sullivan etc. here is a golden oppurtunity for Kristen to call the government to the carpet in front of many elites and the media. will she take the oppurtunity or will she stay "safe" again and just mention how the 9/11 Commission recommendations havent been implemented? sadly, the Jersey Girls still think the maninstream media and politicians are going to expose 9/11.
The information about the
The information about the the truth just keep comming, I've really see at all those websites that try to debunk 9-11 theories and try to justify the official story.
The information given by the alternative explanations of what happened on 911 seems to have more detail., a scientific based approch when analyzing on what happened on 911.
What's makes it hard to believe the official story is all the lies they been caught saying on national television, like when they said: they had no idea they would attack us with hijacked aircraft, but yet there is the official declasified august 6 2001 memo here is the link to see the memo: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/80601pdb.html , and all the inteligence that warned the US of an terrorist attack using airplanes before 9-11.
The government shouldn't have secrecy over a crime it hasn't commited, having to much secrecy means there is no proof, or that the proof that your claiming is boggus or fake. So far they can't give us proof about anything that they claim. Bush representatives and bush themself, mumble and avoid questions that they know can compromise them.
There is the Movie 911 mysteries, 911 press for turth, Loose change, and others, just show what most likely happen to the towers and events sorounding 9-11, the official story, NIST I just cannot believe thier explanations, they just cannot logicaly explain what happened on 9-11. They ignore many points and qualities of material structure, etc. And for the politica side the official story gets ripped to pieces by expose information and normal observation.
thanks for comments
thanks to everyone who read my article and posted comments so far. I'm espeically looking for preferably a cashed version or at least a copy of the ABC september 14th, 2002 article which paul thompson's timeline sites. The webarchive doesn't work anymore for it i guess. This article is still a work in progress, and i'm hoping that when it's done, i'll submit it to the journal for 9/11 studies. I'm also thinking of adding the Military's timeline(s) and show how they have conflicting and multipul versions of the NORAD response. This might bring me into the phantom flight 11, and then i might try to address the possibility that the plane that was "50 miles out" was acutally the phantom 11 flight. but this would still put cheney in the PEOC before 9:37, so we'd get them there too. I might also discuss the radar holes and how it's strange that when they happened to turn the transponder off, they were in a low primary radar coverage area.
Please post anything that you think should be added, changed, etc. This is still a draft and a work in progress, so any new ideas would be helpful. thanks
-adam
truth911.net
A piece of logic that you
A piece of logic that you can include is the fact that the statements were "50 miles out", "30 miles out", "10 miles out", etc.
Those statements suggest they knew the ultimate destination/target for the plane.
Otherwise the "young man" would have said "50 miles north-west (or whatever it would have been) and headed this way", "20 miles out and still headed this way", etc.
The fact that Cheney never had any question as to its direction, whether it had changed course, possible targets, etc suggest he knew it was aiming for the Pentagon.
FAA memo
You might consider mentioning the FAA memo submitted to the Commission, stating that information was being conveyed in teleconferences about "all flights of interest, including flight 77". The Commission does not mention the memo in its final report.
You Can't Grasp the Point
They were confused. The plane they were talking about WAS ALREADY DOWN. Cheney was relying on Secret Service reports received from the FAA that proved to be WRONG.
Secret Service?
I thought it was a military aide that was giving Cheney the updates. Once again, this story makes no sense. The FAA is giving the Secret Service updates, who is then relaying those updates to a military officer, who is then relaying that information to Cheney? Completely absurd. Highly doubtful a military officer is not relying on information obtained from military sources. Oh, I forgot, the military radar screens were "facing outwards" and couldn't track aircraft inside the US, right? Similar to my comments below, what if China flew its airforce over here and a few of their aircraft penetrated that first perimeter of military radar that is "facing outwards" and are now flying over the continental US? Does that mean the military then has to rely on the FAA to track the Chinese fighter aircraft as they fly over the continental U.S.? God help us.
Excellent point,
Excellent point, Somebigguy!!!
Stop the Nonsense
How excellent can it be when the plane in question had already crashed? But Cheney didn't know that.
White on black
My old eyes can't read white text on black background.
My two cents.
Phantom Passengers
Adam- Remember to keep in mind that about 80% of the "passengers" from the four flights are not listed in the Social Security Death Index. This list includes such notables as Todd Beamer, Mark Bingham, and Barbara Olson. And also note that MARKBINGHAM.ORG was created on 9/12/01.
Inept Bushitler Regime Probably Put Hijackers in SSDI ;-)
You KNOW how competent and capable Bushitler is !!!
MarkBingham.org was created
MarkBingham.org was created on 9-12-01?????
Where did you find this information? If true, that would indeed be very interesting!
One can do a "whois" search or something like that...
to see that the Mark Bingham site was indeed registered 1 day after 9/11!!! I don't understand how anyone (except a 9/11 insider) could have any need/reason for creating a "Mark Bingham" website 1 day after.
His best friend created the website the next day.
What's suspicious about that? If my best friend died I'd probably create a site for him too.
There was an article about the friend, can't remember his name but if you look at the WHOIS record you'll see the owner.
"There's a shadow on the faces of the men who send the guns to the wars that are fought in places where their business interest runs."
Bingham needs a website the next day???
How did Bingham's friend even know that Bingham was officially dead on 9/12/01? There was only a hole in the ground, no confirmation, no bodies! (I would've waited a reasonable amount of time, like a week or two at the very least.)
BTW, what ever happend to Bingham's "friend" & Bingham's mother? Why no Oprah show? Why no book? Somethings to hide??? (Same thing for Todd Beamer & the others. Where are his friends/family? Why no book? Were they even real people? Too much mystery here, just like the rest of 9/11.)
He knew Bingham was on the flight that crashed?
"There's a shadow on the faces of the men who send the guns to the wars that are fought in places where their business interest runs."
My guess at this time is
My guess at this time is they were probably real people. Their family & friends are probably under full gag orders not to say anything, not to go on tv shows, and not to write books for fear they could contradict the "official story."
"Hi mom, this is Mark Bingham...You believe me, don't you mom?"
whois markbingham.org
Domain ID:D77223487-LROR
Domain Name:MARKBINGHAM.ORG
Created On:12-Sep-2001 17:06:44 UTC
Last Updated On:11-Jan-2006 18:31:43 UTC
Expiration Date:12-Sep-2007 17:06:44 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:eNom, Inc. (R39-LROR)
Status:OK
Registrant ID:C536D23D96E01993
Registrant Name:Daniel Chu
Registrant Organization:TeleGraphic Designs
Registrant Street1:1515 Bonita Avenue
Registrant Street2:
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Berkeley
Registrant State/Province:CA
Registrant Postal Code:94709
Registrant Country:US
Registrant Phone:+1.5105485416
Registrant Phone Ext.:
Registrant FAX:
Registrant FAX Ext.:
Registrant Email:daniel@telegraphic.com
Constructive Criticism
I know you wanted comments, so here's my 2 cents. I hope my criticism is well taken and I hope you don't think I am disparaging you. Overall it is a good article and one that covers a very important topic.
The article starts off great, and continues well until about the last third. The title of your article is "Norman Mineta’s Testimony Proves 9/11 Was an Inside Job". Therefore, the reader expects the central thesis of the article to be about Norman Mineta's Testimony. As I said, the first two thirds or so fits perfectly within this thesis. Once you get to citing sections of Paul Thompson's timeline, you include too much irrelevant information for the reader, especially for the uninitiated. Insteaad of quoting or citing to Paul Thompson's timeline, go directly to the news sources he cites. Also, don't assume Paul Thompson has articulated your point in the clearest possible way, especially when your article is probably pointing in at least a slightly different direction than Thompson's timeline. Come up with your own way of making your own point.
The major irrelevant information comes under the heading "Motives". This section should be dropped altogether. Motives is a subject that deserves its own paper, and only serves to distract the reader from the most important point (at least as I see it) of your article: Cheney lied about when and where he was that day and we have testimony from a credible source that he was lying. If you choose to include the Motives section, you should definitely expand on what you have done thus far. As it stands, it is only a cursory analysis of one possible motive.
One other minor point: when you are quoting Griffin's book, the following passage is included:
"than even Clarke says"
Again, the uninitiated may not know who Clarke is, so it may be helpful to simply identify him in a parenthetical. I know you talk about him later in detail, but the newbie may not catch the significance immediately.
I'm glad you are devoting your time and attention to such an important topic.
Adam, I'd like to second
Adam,
I'd like to second Seve's sentiments also add a few comments/corrections of my own.
Lee Hamilton, then later clarifies by asking him if "the flight that you're referring too..." and Mineta finishes his sentence by saying "the flight that came into the pentagon".
That is not quite correct. What caught my eye was the use of "too". When I tried to find this piece of the testimony from the Commission archives here and here (links you could include when you mention that the testimony is available online) I noticed that you also omitted and added a couple of words:
It's minor but, I think, important to get quotes like that exactly correct in a paper such as this where the stated goal is to prove an inside job (and to claim that there is no other rational conclusion). I noticed another slight change from the actual testimony when you cite the "50 miles out" sequence. You took part of the preceding sentence and made it the first part of the next sentence ("During the time that the airplane..."). Again, I realize it's minor.
I recall seeing a post on 911blogger recently (can't remember by whom and can't find it now) where the author pointed out a third possibility as to what the still-standing order was: not to use the Pentagon's built-in defenses (assuming they exist) against the incoming plane. I guess that's a kind of stand-down order but a very specific one that is not often considered. Food for thought.
By the way, thanks for the black-on-white version. My eyes appreciate it. :)
just wanted you to know i
just wanted you to know i made those changes... thanks, i was sloppy in my quotes.
Check out this
Check out this bullsh--.
Now, they are claiming the anthrax may not have been government issued.
FBI Is Casting A Wider Net in Anthrax Attacks
By Allan Lengel and Joby Warrick
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, September 25, 2006; Page A01
Five years after the anthrax attacks that killed five people, the FBI is now convinced that the lethal powder sent to the Senate was far less sophisticated than originally believed, widening the pool of possible suspects in a frustratingly slow investigation.
The finding, which resulted from countless scientific tests at numerous laboratories, appears to undermine the widely held belief that the attack was carried out by a government scientist or someone with access to a U.S. biodefense lab.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/24/AR200609...
I also laugh over all of this controversy about Bill Clinton's outburst on Chris Wallace. You know Bill wanted to explode the Bin Laden myths. All he needed to do was point out his best buddy GHWB was chilling with Osama's bro Shafig on 9/11 and that the bin Ladens and Carlyle Group are all business partners, but Clinton knows which side his bread is buttered on.
No doubt it was crappy anthrax from Iran...
Sure that contradicts everything reported in the last five years (OK, reported in the year after it happened then disappeared like an embarassing wart) but look, we're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. You can study that new reality judiciously, as you will, but while you're doing so we'll act again and change the reality. What part of this doesn't make sense, you plebeian tools???
:)
US OUT OF IRAQ! US INTO IRAN! NOT IN MY NAME, BUT DO IT JUST THE SAME!
Gotta love how they have both sides of every debate ruled, eh?
now that pisses me off. all
now that pisses me off. all of a sudden in didnt come from a military base right? just last week, i swear to god, i made an observation on this very website that i couldnt figure out why the MSM was all of a sudden paying attention to the anthrax attacks again. it was on CNN,CBS and ABC, possibly others. stories on the anthrax attacks out of the blue from 3 major networks in 2 days. it seemed very strange to me at the time. now it seems so clear. as far as Clinton goes, you are absolutely right. if he REALLY wanted to strike a blow all he would have had to do was bring up Carlyle. but like a good little elitist soldier he kept it shut. still though, it was fun to see that bastard Chris Wallace get called out a bit on Fox. and anytime anyone prominent calls Fox what it is, shameless propaganda, its a net plus. not that CNN and the rest are much better, but its still kind of gratifying.
good feedback
black and white version:
http://www.flatplanet.net/truth911/minetabandw.html
also, the ms word version is properly formatted
http://www.flatplanet.net/truth911/minetapaper.doc
that's a good point too somebigguy... i hadn't really thought about that. but i guess it would be pretty obvious that the plane was either flying toward either the white house, or the pentagon, or somewhere in the area. how many miles away is the white house from the pentagon? i think it's only a few miles away right? Also, the PEOC is below the white house, so when they said "50 miles out" it could be "50 miles out" of the white house. I don't think that this necessairly implies that they knew the target, but they would have guessed it would have been somethign in the area. This argument does hold up well though, when talking about phantom 11 or another plane that was "50 miles out" of another target because i think the statement does imply that it would have been "50 miles out" of pentagon or whitehouse whereas the only other possibility is that the phantom 11 could have been "50 miles out" of NYC, the only other logical target that they would be able to identify.
and about the passengers on the plane.. i know from kill town's site that they all had strange backgrounds in military, navy, and other things, but i guess i havn't been able to really draw any conclusions from that and i'm not sure how it fit in. I realize why the victims in the pentagon were murdered, but i don't understand really what's going on with the passengers... so if anyone has theories about that, please elaborate.
I absolutely agree
Anyone can see from my name here that I absolutely agree the Mineta testimony is probably THE most underrated, ignored piece of evidence of the events surrounding 9/11/01.
DICK CHENEY IS OUR VICE PRESIDENT !!
WHY WASN'T THIS TESTIMONY HEADLINE NEWS?
WHY HASN'T THIS ISSUE BEEN FORCED !?!?!?!
And As Jim Fetzer mentioned above, it needs to be continually hammered that Mineta resigned the next day after Fetzer's appearance on H & C.
Even if Cheney SUPPOSEDLY was going to have the plane shot down (as Hamilton kept hammering), why hasn't that whole episode been analyzed and investigated?
I agree, folks, that the Mineta testimony is their achilles heel.
If any of you haven't seen this shocking testimony, I have it below in my signature.
.
.
They can't explain the Mineta Testimony:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y
yes, that Foreign Minister.
the same one that met with William Rodriquez and says 9/11 was likely an inside job.
Venezuelan Foreign Minister Illegally Detained at JFK Airport and Strip-Searched
Stephen Lendman | September 25 2006
VHeadline.com broke the news early Saturday evening that Venezuelan Foreign Minister Nicolas Madura was prevented by airport officials from departing the US from JFK airport on a commercial flight on Saturday following the UN General Assembly meeting. He said officials demanded he surrender his ticket and boarding pass claiming his name was on a so-called "red list." He was then illegally detained, taken to a small room and strip-searched despite his strong protests after having clearly identified who he was. He explained once he did, his treatment only got worse.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/September2006/250906Venezuelan.htm
the media = the "great Pretender"
The MSM is the great pretender, pretending not to see what we see, what everybody sees when shown the evidence. They claim to have collectively the 'independent' opinion that nothing noteworthy is there with 9/11 theories. Reps and Dems join them in this great pretending so Joe Normal can live in the illusion that nothing big is there to be exposed. The basis of it all is....trust.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/n
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/opinion/letters/sfl-brmail994xsep23,0,2...
"...Their goal is to maximize their war profiteering opportunities, political and economic, by having the war (Iraq and terror) last as long as possible..."
whining mewling Alexander Cockburn is on the loose again
maybe he's been having too many drinks with Hitchens
The list goes on ,and on
Damn! How much proof do we need?Iam also wondering,since i've been looking into the events of 9/11 for almost a year.Most every site really does'nt look more closely at the FAA?
After all this is where there (goverment) is putting all the blame on?
Is there something to uncover there?
WE THE PEOPLE ,FOR THE PEOPLE
Christ, Alex Cockburn is at
Christ, Alex Cockburn is at it again.
Please post this hit piece on the front page.
He cherry picks a foul-mouthed letter and tries to use it as synedoche for the entire truth movement. Ie we're all a bunch of louts.
Surprise surprise, he also apes the msm modus operandi by focussing on the Pentagon and CD. Not a peep about Minetta, the war games, dancing Israelies, put-options, pre-911 invasion planes, Silverstein's insurance policy, FBI informants living with "hijackers", Able Danger, Abromoff and so on. Same old story.
This shit is getting out of control. We need a real no-nonsense wordsmith like Chossudovsky or Peter Dale Scott to disect and debunk these arguments. It won't be the same of if a conservative like Paul Joseph takes care of it.
Cockburn represents the most hostile of the Left-gatekeepers: he's briliant, progressive, anti-democrat, near-anarchistic, caustic as hell, but he refuses to acknowledge 911. He also, apparently, regards himself as something of a "vanguard" for "the left", trying to steer activists into what he considers the most important issues, truth be damned. Like Chomsky, he regards "conspiracy theories" as an energy-sucker that dilutes ant-war activism.
He does make one interesting point regarding a leaked memo on JFK.
I think it's time for someone from our side to step up to the plate. Everyone should email Chussudovsky, who is also a left-radical but who embraces the new paradigm. Or Peter Dale Scott. Or Sander Hicks. Or DRG. I shall do so presently.
Holy shit! Seargent Chavez
Holy shit! Seargent Chavez is legit !
He's on Alex jones right now.
This could be our biggest whistleblower yet!
Shit, we need this on front
Shit, we need this on front page!
anything new he has to tell?
anything new he has to tell? some new smoking gun?
On why LJ comes out now....
"I thought I was the only one individual who knew, and no one was supposed to know" LJ Chavez on Alex Jones Show
On why LJ comes out now...
"I thought I was the only one individual who knew, and no one was supposed to know" LJ Chavez on Alex Jones
thats huge.
Claim: USCENTCOM Sergeant Blows Whistle On 9/11 Inside Job
Blogosphere debate rages as to whether "Chavez" is real or disinfo
Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | September 25 2006
UPDATE: Sergeant Chavez has now provided us with evidence of his credentials - the pdf can be viewed here.
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/september2006/250906blowswhistle.htm
should we be excited yet?
pdf
at first glance it looks legit to me.
http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/LChavez_214.pdf
are his claims verifyable
Yes, but for example William Rodriquez told of things that can be verified, things that other ones he was with saw&heard too. The LJ Chavez guy so far didn't tell of anything that was verifyable, like the stand-down order - can he please tell us HOW he heard of the stand-down order. Who handed him the info? what did they say?
i share your concern but i
i share your concern but i think the simple fact that it has been established that this guy indeed was on the inside and is making these claims is huge.
i'm getting a 404??
i'm getting a 404??
how about this
how about this theory:
Assuming the stories about the WTC 'rebuild or demolish'-requirement due to asbestos are true, covert plans were underway all along by 'some' underground organization to solve the problem more conveniently by means of a destructive 'terror' attack on the WTC. The first clumsy attempt in 1993 failed, so they worked on better plans, and by 2001 a group including Larry Silverstein had preparations going for a complete demolition framed as a terror attack. And at this moment GWB, being connected by some underground 'parent' organization (NWO), had learned of it and decided to 'participate' in the plan, to turn this event into the PNAC plan for a new Pearl Harbour. His contribution was thereby the use of crashed Boeings as a smokescreen for the planned use of explosives, and an attack on the Pentagon, to add the essential military component to the 'new Pearl Harbour'.
- It's just what came to my mind to piece the mystery together, how we can on the one hand have the Silverstein insurance fraud, and on the other hand the War On Terror.
9/11 Mysteries, the Film,
alludes to this long term planning. For example, Bush's younger brother assumed control of security at the WTC from 1996 to 2000.
Silverstein connection pretty obviously through neocons
Let's see, Netanyahu and Silverstein are buddies who chat every week on the phone, Feith, Wolfowitz, Perle et al are in the habit of writing position papers for Netanyahu (Securing the Realm) and the USG (Rebuilding America's Defenses) two documents which share ideological synergy vis a vis aggressive intervention in the middle east. Election stolen in 2000 by the oilygarchical Bush and co. brings that PNAC/neocon crowd into positions of authority. I think it will become clear whose brainchild it was as we continue to tighten the circle of likely conspirators.
Silverstein to Netanyahu to Feith to Pentagon
The connections are pretty clear-- Securing the Realm and Rebuilding America's Defenses are sister documents as far as I'm concerned. Their authors all came into power when the election in 2000 was stolen by the Bush crime family with a little help from their friends. The idea behind 9/11, or "The Big Wedding" was to marry American and Israeli (and then Britain, Spain, etc.) interests in a perpetual Arab/Muslim hating alliance, a convenient excuse for globalists to seize control of oil supplies in advance of peak oil and to militarize the planet to a degree never before seen or considered wise. It's not really that hard to see, then, that various intelligence services, including elements of Mossad, ISI, and some U.S. agencies would have been involved to some extent. These people are experts at hiding their activities and with the media cowed and even complicit in the coverup, and politicians worried about their secrets coming out after years of wiretapping by who knows who (but see the censored Fox News report for some clues) there has been no breakthrough leak. That is why it has taken us five years to wake up the populace--but waking up they are.
Regarding the "molten metal"...
A chemical engineer I know told me that when Steel bends and warps and falls in conjunction with more steel, friction is created which heats the steel and can make it quite hot.
Combine that with the fact that the heat had nowhere to escape under the rubble, and you have basically an "incubation effect" which in turn makes the steel even hotter.
Thoughts?
"There's a shadow on the faces of the men who send the guns to the wars that are fought in places where their business interest runs."
"quite hot"
That's not a very quantitative data point. :)
You can easily bend a little piece of metal back and forth with your hands to the point where it's hot enough to burn you. But melt? If all it took was some bending and turning we wouldn't need blast furnaces with constant supplies of fuel and oxygen.
Those are my thoughts.
Considering the hundred
Considering the hundred thousands of tons of steel falling down, it seems plausible that at the point of maximal pressure of all that weight, something weird might happen physically, like extreme heat. But i don't buy that the heat wouldn't have gone away withing weeks - there's no such thing as 'containing' heat. It radiates heat, so it loses energy. If it was still there weeks thereafter, there had to be an energy source - thermite.
Friction causes resistance
Friction causes resistance, the more friction the more resistance. This would really indicate that the towers fell too slowly!
Can Anybody Here Read?
I came to this site wondering what the fantasists actually believed. Surely, I felt, there must be some point of contact with reality apart from the hysterically overheated rhetoric and the appeals to bogus science. This latest recycling of a thoroughly debunked canard makes me suspect that at least some of you understand perfectly well that this whole silly, baseless movement is a charade.
It is one thing to pretend that the 9/11 Commission Report is the product of the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy. To ignore its existence totally is quite another. The plane Cheney is talking about in Mineta's testimony is Flight 93 and the orders are shootdown orders. When does the insanity stop? Are there any limits for your tolerance of irrationality and disregard for truth?
From the 9/11 Commission Report, the section, United 93 and the Shootdown Order:
"At 10:02, the communicators in the shelter began receiving reports from the Secret Service of an inbound aircraft--presumably hijacked--heading toward Washington. That aircraft was United 93. The Secret Service was getting this information directly from the FAA. The FAA may have tracking the progress of United 93 on a display that showed its projected path to Washington, not its actual radar retrun. Thus, the Secret Service was relying on projections and was not aware that the plane was already down in Pennsylvania."
STOP. READ THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH OVER AND OVER UNTIL THE INFORMATION SINKS IN.
"At some time between 10:10 and 10:15, a military aide told the Vice President and others that the aircraft was 80 miles out. Vice President Cheney was asked for authority to engage the aircraft...The Vice President authorized fighter aircraft to engage the inbound plane."
STOP. THERE IS NO PLANE. DO YOU GET IT? THERE IS NO PLANE--IT HAS ALREADY CRASHED. CHENEY DOESN'T KNOW THIS. Let's continue:
"He told us he based this authorization on his earlier conversation with the President. The military aide returned a few minutes later, probably between 10:12 and 10:18, and said the aircraft was 60 miles out. He again asked for authorization to engage. The Vice President again said yes."
ALL OF YOUR MADNESS CONCERNING THE ORDER THAT "STILL STANDS" RELATES TO A SHOOTDOWN ORDER FOR A PLANE THAT HAD ALREADY CRASHED. WILL YOU EVER GRASP THIS POINT?
"...Minutes went by and word arrived of an aircraft down in Pennsylvania. Those in the shelter wondered if the aircraft had been shot down pursuant to this authorization.
"At approximately 10:30, the shelter started receiving reports of another hijacked plane, this time only 5 to 10 miles out. Believing that they had only a minute or two, the Vice President again communicated the authorization to'engage' or 'take out' the aircraft. At 10:33, Hadley told the air threat conference call: 'I need to get word to Dick Myers that our reports are there's an inbound aircraft flying low 5 miles out. The Vice President's guidance was we need to take them out.'
"Once again, there was no immediate information about the fate of the inbound aircraft. In the apt description of one witness, 'It drops below the radar screen and it's just continually hovering in your imagination; you don't know where it is or what happens to it.' Eventually, the shelter received word that the alleged hijacker 5 miles away had been a medevac helicopter."
Are there any fantasists who are capable of acknowledging what is right in front of their noses? Cheney is being asked about orders pertaining to a plane that has already crashed. What will it take?
So, radar is showing a plane
So, radar is showing a plane that already crashed? That makes sense.
Can Anybody Here Read?
Can Anybody Here Read?
"The FAA may have been tracking the progress of United 93 on a display that showed its projected path to Washington, not its actual radar return."
What does it take?
So, let's get everyone on
So, let's get everyone on the record and clear it up. Cheney, the kid, many more of the FAA and NORAD geeks...
Confused
Clear up what? The plane Cheney was asked about was already down. Cheney didn't know that, but WE do.
You expect tinfoil hats to be logical?
Pomeroo,
Do you actually expect any of these clown-shoe dullards to understand, facts, logic and reason? They will simply ignore this until the next time they bring it up...
How is your New American
How is your New American Century going?
Fine, Thanks
Much better than the last one went for the Soviet Union.
Boy are you in for a shock.
Boy are you in for a shock.
Comeback
You have inside information that the comrades are due for a comeback?
Read the paper. Then read
Read the paper. Then read parts two and three.
why do you troll around on
why do you troll around on tin foil hat sites if you posses such vastly superior brain power...
These poor non-thinkers
CS and Pomeroo,
These bozos have been in a trance for the last 5 years, following their pied piper (now Jim Fetzer), repeating these silly things that evidence does not exist, reason is a myth, that everyone that refutes must be a Republican or Neo-con, and have never looked beyond their noses at reality.
It's telling that they can ONLY think in terms of political ends. Their criticism of the facts that refute are never based on evidence, but only on political motives. As we learned in basic psychology, those who can only think in those terms are the very ones who practice ONLY that themselves. That is why we have all this nonsense about an "offical story", endless conspiracy theories about "plitical motives" and a complete lack of a basic comprehension of the physical world.
Reality is meaningless to these bozos. They are so incompetent that they will follow anyone who tells them a story they like. That is why people like Jim Fetzer is able to to so easily con 9/11 truthers.
Keep up the good job of thrusting truth into this den of conspiracy whackos. If you can save only one from a life of hoplesss stupidity and fantasy, you will have succeeded.
Mineta states the conversation took place while 77 was
approaching the Pentagon...
"There's a shadow on the faces of the men who send the guns to the wars that are fought in places where their business interest runs."
Mineta was Wrong
Mineta was wrong. The timeline makes it impossible. He was confused; the plane he was referring to was Flight 93. If you want to pretend that Flight 77 had not yet hit the Pentagon, then we enter an alternate universe where time has no meaning.
Ok...
If you are correct about Mineta being wrong, why didn't the 9/11 Commission Report so state? Why didn't they say, you know, Mineta was simply mistaken. It was actually flight 93 he was recalling.
Also, it is preposterous to think that highly trained and skilled military and civilian personnel would continue to track an airplane's "projected" flight path after it has already crashed. If we are to actually believe this, then I feel extremely unsafe with these same people still responsible for protecting us in time of war. Can you imagine the military continuing to track an enemy airplane long after it had crashed? To accept this absurd sequence of events is to accept that China or Russia could fly over here any time they wanted to and take out our military with no trouble at all. After all, the people watching our radar screens can't tell the difference between a downed plane and a live plane.
Interesting
Yes, not to mention that any enemy airplane could excape detection by simply turning off their transponders as if the USA could even track an enemy transponder.
Incorrect Claims
You blithely state that it is "preposterous" that a plane that has already crashed would continue to be tracked. The point that you choose to ignore is that Flight 93 was lost. The transponder had been turned off and air traffic controllers were looking a screen full of blips trying to figure out which one might be the missing plane. With no knowledge whatever of the realities, you pretend that that a serious hole in our air defenses is nothing more than an absurdity. The attacks of 9/11 proved a profound embarrassment for the FAA and NORAD. Silly, baseless conspiracy theories dismiss a real problem and ask us to concern ourselves with pure fantasy.
Correct Claims
I don't "blithely" state anything. I critically examined the account you have endorsed and persuasively argued that it is, indeed, preposterous. Think instead of repeating what others have told you. The only time I ever write here is if I have something original to say, and this is no exception. As truth for a change pointed out, all the Chinese or Russian fleet would have to do is fly over here with no transponders and they could totally destroy us before we know it. This is especially troubling because the Chinese or Russians would have aircraft at their disposal that have a smaller radar cross-section than a commercial jetliner, and aircraft that travel much faster than commercial jetliners. How on earth could our hapless NORAD track such an incoming fleet if they couldn't even keep track of a few slow moving jumbo jets? If 9/11 truly demonstrated gaping holes in our air defenses, why haven't any countries attacked us since 9/11, taking advantage of these gaping holes? Surely Russia and China are aware of Bush Co.'s desire for world domination, it's all over the PNAC documents. Why not cut if off at the choke point, here in the Homeland? It would be such an easy task since our radar operators can't even track a few commercial jetliners with no transponders.
Not Listening
You have argued nothing persuasively. NORAD sheepishly confessed that its defenses resembled a doughnut--looking outward to the exclusion of threats emanating from within. They were prepared for attacks by the Russians or Chinese; not for attacks using American commercial aircraft. But, then, you already knew that.
Much has changed since 2001. There is better communication between the FAA and NORAD and new protocols have been put into place.
I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts...
that the military never, either before or after 9/11, had to rely on civilian (FAA) radar to track enemy aircraft flying over the continental U.S. If this was truly the case, it constitues, at a bare minimum, criminal negligence on the part of the military. Can you seriously imagine a military commander waiting on word from an FAA controller on the whereabouts of the enemy mig that just penetrated the military radar "doughnut"? Again, preposterous. Not blithely, but persuasively preposterous.
In any case, when you first came here, you came with some facially logical arguments that needed to be deconstructed for everyone else's viewing pleasure, but now, you have been elevated to the status of a troll for repeating long-debunked 9/11 Commission Report claims and offering no analysis of your own. Unless you have something more interesting and challenging to offer, I'm done, for trolls like you truly deserve no response.
Are you having trouble understanding?
You know, anonymous, what you imagine as "preposterous" is really totally irrelevant to what the facts were and are. If you were intellectually honest, you would use all your powers to investigate the facts yourself rather than come here and reveal that what you "imagine" should have been the case is far more relevant that what are actually the facts.
If you want to make a case for your position, then bring us the relevant facts about what the NORAD defense policy prior to 9/11 was, not what you imagine it should have been. Can you do that?
Look, you are attempting to
Look, you are attempting to ask reasonable questions, so my impatience was uncalled for. Surely you must recognize that the four hijacked flights cannot, in any coherent sense, be considered "enemy aircraft." NORAD doesn't even enter the picture until the convoluted process of air traffic controllers informing their supervisors of possible hijackings, the supervisors alerting their supervisors, who finally contact the FAA, gets completed. Only at that point does NORAD get notified and then they have to run through their own procedures to actually scramble fighters.
Don't you see that the FAA isn't expected or required to deal with foreign military aircraft? That's NORAD's job, what it is designed for.
What happened on 9/11 exposed a gaping hole in our air defenses.
Actually
Commercial airliners that have turned off their transponders (ie. the hijacked aircraft) can be directly compared to enemy aircraft. The transponder serves to identify a commerical aircraft as friendly. An unidentified aircraft must, in any semblance of a prudent air defense policy, be treated as an enemy aircraft until determined otherwise. The way NORAD determines friend or foe is to sramble fighters and visually inspect the situation. As soon as the airplane transponders turned off and the jets changed course, the flights should have popped up on NORAD radar screens and fighters should have been scrambled. It's quite simple. NORAD stood down. There is no other plausible explanation.
Should have?
I always marvel at these assertions that things "should have" happened as the poster imagines and there is no other "plausible" explanation. Funny thing is, when it comes to actually backing up such assertions with evidence, none is forthcoming.
Hopeless
No matter how many times it's explained, you will refuse to comprehend. NORAD does not monitor domestic commercial flights. There is nothing to "pop up." Hijacking protocols in place before 9/11/01 required the FAA to notify NORAD of any problems. You ignore reality and pretend that your erroneous assumptions can guide you to the only plausible explanation. As it happens, the plausible explanation is also the correct one, the one you won't consider.
I See
So they are saying that the airplanes weren't intercepted because they turned off their transponders and yet they had projected paths?
You Don't See Anything
The planes weren't intercepted because they had ceased to exist. The hijackers had turned off the transponders, but the projected paths were known to air traffic controllers.
I See
So you do admit that an enemy aircraft would be unable to be tracked unless they installed a USA approved transponder?
Silly Stuff
Why not stop the foolishness? I admit that foreign aircraft would be intercepted on entering U.S. airspace.
Agreed
Let's stop the foolishness. If enemy aircraft with no transponders could be tracked, why not slow moving, large commercial airliners? Simple question. Please answer. If not, go home.
Try To Comprehend
NORAD was not monitoring domestic commercial flights. It was not their job. Surely you must grasp this point by now.
Okay
So we both admit that the NORAD FAA excuse about how they couldn't track the airplanes because the transponders were turned off is absurd. The question then is, why couldn't or wouldn't they have tracked the aircraft and intercepted them. And please understand I have problems with both the Official Theory and the Underground Theory and I am here to actually try to figure out what really happened. I am not going to be hostile to you and I hope you are not hostile to me. Thanks
pomeroo has gone home to
pomeroo has gone home to lick his wounds
Not really
Pomeroo has made a case not yet refuted by anybody. You're visibly upset about it.
No
I still haven't heard any explanation how NORAD and the FAA could not track a known target, transponder or not, nor intercept it in the amount of time available. If as pomeroo said they had "projected flight paths" headed to DC; why didn't they go to DC and protect it? This doesn't make sense to me.
This is a minor piece of concrete absolute evidence of something is wrong, at a minimum gross incompetence. And I’m sure we both agree that whoever was grossly incompetent should at the least be reprimanded. There are far more absolute proofs of salient wrongdoing that should be addressed before this.
Not really
A transponder identifies a target. A radar tracks blips. The two are different.
Now it should be relatively simple for you to present evidence that the hijackers had NO reason to turn off the transponders if they could be identified by radar, notwithstanding the fact that NORAD did not track commercial flights within our borders at the time.
The funny thing is that 9/11 truthers have never been able to explain why the hijackers turned off the transponders. Can you? We can say that your concrete evidence is nothing more than loose sand right now.
We'll await your evidence with concrete evidence from aviation experts.
And whatever else needs licking.
The "transponder off" = "lost in a sea of blips" misunderstanding has been debunked here many times.
No Debunking
Asserting that something has been debunked when, manifestly, it hasn't been is dishonest argumentation.
The information on this subject is abundant; 911myths has an entire section and the Popular Mechanics book devotes a whole chapter. How have you debunked them?
Like I said,
it has been repeatedly debunked here. Any expert will tell you, the idea that a plane with its transponder off becomes less conspicuous is just plain wrong. Really, that is about the looniest bit of idiocy ever.
"Asserting that something has been debunked when, manifestly, it hasn't been is dishonest argumentation."
My goodness, that's a really silly remark coming from you.
No it hasn't
Where is your "expert", casseia? How about some facts to back you up from someone who knows and you won't dismiss outright? Let's see what you know about transponders and radar equipment and how they were used on 9/11.
Your "Facts" are Wrong
A plane with its transponder turned off becomes one of many blips on a radar screen. With sufficient time, a blip can be identified through a process of elimination. On 9/11, obviously, there wasn't time.
Any debunking by fantasists invariably takes the form of denying the hard evidence, inventing new science, and repeating falsehoods over and over.
Oh, you guys!
Really, when the facts are so easily available, you expect me to take you by the hand and spell everything out? How typical of you reality-denying trolls. It's EVERYWHERE. It's basic knowledge. Maybe try using google, rather than just repeating falsehoods over and over.
Exasperation
The facts ARE readily available, but you don't want to learn them: They are inconvenient to your fantasies. Firefighter Louie Cacchioli will show up dozens of times on a Google search. He is cited by the fraud David Ray Griffin and several fantasist websites. There's a small problem: Cacchioli resents having his words twisted by the conspiracy liars and he doesn't buy their bullshit about explosives.
The basic knowledge about the FAA and NORAD is available in the Popular Mechanics book. Unfortunately, that book relies on experts in the field--avionics techs, military personnel, airline spokespersons, writers for the magazine "Aviation Week," flight instructors, professors of aeronautics--rather than crackpots who fabricate their evidence. You wouldn't pay any attention to them. After all, they deny your fantasy: they must be part of the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy.
Your side repeats its debunked falsehoods over and over. The conspiracy liars have no interest in learning or understanding anything.
We'll Try Again
The planes were not intercepted because they no longer existed. Is this a difficult concept?
The hijackers turned off the transponders, but the planes had projected paths: they're called flight plans.
Flight Plans
So the flight plans (what you are now calling projected paths) of these commercial aircraft would have taken them directly over the White House or the Pentagon? Another absurd claim that is demonstrably false. These aircraft were supposed to be heading west (ie. their flight plans [projected paths] would have them traveling west, not east).
Do you have any other arguments you would like to try or just go home with your tail between your legs?
How about some facts?
Your nervousness shows by your inability to refute Pomeroo with actual facts. You just take the position that we should all believe because you can't imagine otherwise. You wouldn;t be hired as an investigator with those lack of skills.
Chaos
The aircraft TURNED. Everyone is on the same page here. The projected paths, i.e. the assumptions made by air traffic controllers, led to Washington, D.C. You loons always retreat to the same refuge. Your nonsense gets exposed and you pretend that you're winning the argument. The original destinations corresponded to the flight plans. When the planes were HIJACKED, the controllers attempted to figure out where they were going. We know that NORAD was hunting Flight 11, said to be headed for Washington, AFTER it had crashed into the WTC. Will you ever get the idea that people were confused?
Did...
The wargames that were taking place that day add to their confusion?
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
A Question That Never Grows Old
No.
Then why did he say that later when he found out about Flight 93
in PA, he wondered if they shot it down?
There was 30 minutes in between Flight 77 and Flight 93.
Mineta gave a detailed account of his arrival, the occupants, and the events, which puts Cheney there far earlier than the timeline provided by the commission.
"There's a shadow on the faces of the men who send the guns to the wars that are fought in places where their business interest runs."
(9:10 a.m.): Rice and Cheney Apparently Go to White House Bunker
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_ti... According to counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke and others, Vice President Cheney goes from his White House office to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC), a bunker in the East Wing of the White House, at about this time. National Security Adviser Rice, after initiating a video conference with Richard Clarke in the West Wing, goes to the PEOC to be with Cheney. There is no video link between response centers in the East and West Wings, but a secure telephone line is used instead. [Clarke, 2004, pp. 3-4; ABC News, 9/14/2002; New York Times, 9/16/2001; Daily Telegraph, 12/16/2001] One eyewitness account, David Bohrer, a White House photographer, says Cheney leaves for the PEOC just after 9:00 a.m. [ABC News, 9/14/2002] However, there is a second account claiming that Cheney doesn’t leave until sometime after 9:30 a.m. In this account, Secret Service agents burst into Cheney’s White House office. They carry him under his arms—nearly lifting him off the ground—and propel him down the steps into the White House basement and through a long tunnel toward an underground bunker. [Washington Post, 1/27/2002; BBC, 9/1/2002; Newsweek, 12/31/2001; New York Times, 10/16/2001; MSNBC, 9/11/2002; 9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004] At about the same time, National Security Adviser Rice is told to go to the bunker as well. [ABC News, 9/11/2002] In addition to the eyewitness accounts of Clarke and Bohrer, ABC News claims that Cheney is in the bunker when he is told Flight 77 is 50 miles away from Washington at 9:27 a.m., suggesting that accounts of Cheney entering the bunker after 9:27 a.m. are likely incorrect.
Mineta's Account
Mineta's account puts Cheney there long before he could POSSIBLY have been there. It is contradicted by everyone present. Can you ever entertain the possibility that Mineta's memory failed him?
Can you entertain the possibility...
that Cheney is lying about when he got there?
"There's a shadow on the faces of the men who send the guns to the wars that are fought in places where their business interest runs."
Illogical
No, because Mineta's timeline conflicts with everyone else's.
Illogical?
I think it's extremely logical to think that a man who has lied to this country about a great many things, would lie about his actions on 9/11.
Even the 9/11 staffers didn't believe Cheney's testimony, and yet we're supposed to believe Cheney because pomeroo, the worthless troll, tells us to?
As DHS pointed out, Richard Clarke's, David Bohrer's, and ABC News' accounts coincide with Mineta's testimony.
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
Logic Puzzle
Jon Gold is someone who has no use for evidence. An unintelligent, reflexive leftwinger, he rejects everything that contradicts his puerile fantasies, i.e., he rejects reality. If his lie about 9/11 staffers rejecting Cheney's testimony turns out to be valid, then we find ourselves with a little logic problem. Jon won't solve it because he's too dumb. Others may care to take a crack:
Mineta's testimony contradicts Cheney's timeline; the 9/11 Commission contains several highly partisan Democrats (Richard ben-Veniste being the outstanding example) who would sell their souls to burn Bush and Cheney; Mineta is a Democrat, a holdover from the Clinton administration.
Now, comes the tricky part: millions of people saw Lee Hamilton quiz Mineta. Why wasn't it a big story? C'mon gang, put on your thinking caps. The N.Y Times, the L.A. Times, the Washington Post, all the major networks, would swim a river of raw sewage to nail Cheney. Why didn't they feel that Mineta nailed him?
No, Jon ,I'm afraid we won't buy any boilerplate about Democrat attack dogs "protecting" Bush and Cheney. You can pull the wool over the eyes of a few drooling morons, but the rest of us want to know why the Commission rejected Mineta's timeline. Could it be that the "official" explanation, that it was contradicted by ALL other available evidence is--gasp!--correct?
Tell us, why was this seemingly HUGE story not much of a story at all?
Take care, Jon. I know you have to run.
yet again, the debate comes
yet again, the debate comes down to right VS left for the hopelessly simplistic Ron Weick. what a predictable tool. Mineta was a democrat so anything he says is null and void right Ron? god you are pathetic.
pomeroo
So here’s my problem. By 9:02, after both towers were hit, everybody knew that airplanes were being hijacked, were crashing into buildings (NORAD was notified of a hijacking at 8:40) and at least one was headed for Washington DC. That gives the air force 35 minutes to intercept your “projected trajectory”. Flying at 2000 MPH a military jet could have reached DC from as far away as Colorado. What’s up with that? This is a reasonable question and I would really like a reasonable answer. I hope you can give me that answer. Thanks.
Very good...
How is it possible that the most defended airspace in the world managed to have an errant plane breach it, and crash into the Pentagon 34 minutes after two towers were already hit, and everyone in the world knew "America was under attack?"
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
Even the "Amazing" George Tenet...
Knew what was happening even before the SECOND tower was hit...
CIA Director George Tenet was told of the crash a few minutes after it happened. A messenger gave him the news as he was eating breakfast with former Senator David Boren in a Washington restaurant three blocks from the White House. Boren says Tenet was told that the World Trade Center had been attacked by an airplane: “I was struck by the fact that [the messenger] used the word attacked.” An aide then handed a cell phone to Tenet, and Tenet made some calls, showing that at least some at the highest levels of the Bush administration were talking about an attack at this time. Tenet then said to Boren, “You know, this has bin Laden’s fingerprints all over it.” [ABC, 9/14/02]
Not bad for someone within an Administration that had "no idea.."
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
Good, an admission
So we have one 9/11 Truther who agrees it must have been bin Laden and nout Bush who did it. So much for the 9/11 Truth Movement.
Sorry, no...
You have a 9/11 Truther that pointed out George Tenet's statement contradicted statements from the Administration, the FBI, etc... that there were "no warnings."
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
Don't keep us in suspense.
Why don't you tell us by giving us the facts instead of beating around the bush?
pomeroo
Did the jet pilots sent up to do combat against attacking enemies really travel at 25 percent maximum speed? From what I know about jet pilots, they would have been going faster than the recommended top speed if they thought the USA homeland was being hijacked. Pomeroo, this is not correct and leads to suspicion. I’m sure it could be resolved easily by a few well placed questions. You do agree, right?
The Game's Afoot
An entire chapter in the Popular Mechanics book is devoted to the stand down canard. It explains how the protocols in place in 2001 hampered communication between the FAA and NORAD. Am I expected to sit here and copy out ten pages from the book? I'm afraid I won't play that game. Read the chapter and tell me what questions were not answered.
pomeroo
You need not do that, we both know that NORAD was told of a hijacking at 8:40, we know that everybody knew that terrorists were crashing planes into buildings at 9:02 and we know that the pentagon was hit at 9:37. Referring me to documents that support these facts doesn’t answer the question.
I went back to the PM online article and it doesn’t seem to mention the war games as a distraction, but I’m sure you agree that having the twin towers attacked at the very moment that there was a war game about having the twin towers attacked is unreasonable as a defense against the stand down argument. That’s sorta like saying that you couldn’t defend yourself from someone throwing rocks at you because you were target practicing with your AK47. It stretches the limits of credulity. If for just once you could say, “Okay, that is a bit much.” Or “That is odd, isn’t it.” That would add sooo much to your believability. There’s a number of things that blows away some of the truthers arguments as well.
The PM article says stuff like: “Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors.”
How can they use this as an argument? For this to be reasonable, there would to have been no way for a air traffic controller to highlight a suspicious or noteworthy aircraft. According to the timeline all four of the flights were under suspicion before they lost their transponders. And they wouldn’t have to search through 4500 planes, they would just have to look at the airplane that there is a problem with that is highlighted on their screen. And all they would have to search is around the location of the airplane that lost it’s transponder. In fact I’ll bet that if you ask a air traffic controller, you will find that an airplane that loses it’s transponder will automatically highlight the offending radar blip. This jumps out as a red flag. Why would they say that they had to search 4500 planes when clearly they did not have to search that many. Not to mention that you mentioned they had a projected path of flight 77.
I really hope you see the point of all this. There are serious questions that have not been answered and you sending me to these websites doesn’t answer the questions. You know about the stories that NORAD has given about 911. How many different stories have they come out with now, three, four? This is suspicious. You of all people should be able to admit to this. I am glad to admit to flaws in the truthers theories, but so far you haven’t been able to show me credible evidence debunking the points I raise. Hopefully you can get to a point where you might doubt some aspect of the official theory as I have come to doubt some of the truthers theories..
Anyway, thanks for the time, cause that’s the most valuable thing we own.
pomeroo
Can we both agree that the planes were traveling at 25 percent their top speed?
No, they have a hard time with facts
Pomeroo,
Real facts are foreign and to be avoided here.
jon davies
Do you agree that the pilots sent to protect DC were traveling at 25 percent their maximum velocity? Is this a fact we can agree on?
And?
Do you agree with the proponderance and congruence of ALL the evidence that our government had nothing to do with that the attacks of 9/11?
jon davies
When you show me logical evidence that answers the questions I am asking, So far you have not answered any of my questions. Let me ask you this question. Say you were the commanding officer of the jets that were going to intercept airplanes that are attacking America. You look over the situation and realize you have to send planes to intercept. What would the first question you would ask your ops people. See if it would match mine. I would ask “How long will it take for my jets to get there.” When the ops people say, “Well, it will take 40 minutes traveling at 500 mph.” I don’t think I would say, “Okay”. I would say, “Tell the pilots to go to afterburners and get their asses there as fast as possible.” Ya know what; I think that’s what you would have said too, right
New stuff at
New stuff at waynemadsenreport.com : Chavez' foreign minister has a collection of 9/11 conspiracy books + more
Flight 77 DID Hit The Pentagon
Geez, I find it really sad people still cling onto the "no plane hit the pentagon/missile hit it/fake plane"
theory. These same people put down the No Planers @ The WTC theory, but they are both false.
First off, there's no need to swap planes, none. This idea that the phone calls were faked is also false.
Again, no need to fake it. Besides, you really think those plane parts and burned passenger belongings were "planted"? You think passengers were rounded up in some room and loaded onto a fake plane or gassed somewhere? I have advanced graphic design software, and I can tell thats definately a 757, and what looks like an AA logo on the fin.
Mineta's testimony, like the Able Danger, ISI link, and firefighter/survivors of WTC testimony is daming because it was purposefully ommitted by a commission that admits they were lied to and set up to fail.
To the people who think the passengers werent on the planes, where's your proof? We have proof of hijacker war games on an unpresedented level moved up, proof they intentionally confused NORAD, proof Saudi officails were told to let the terrorists in, proof they were controlled and funded by our buddy Pakistan, proof the FBI was told to not investigate the hijackers, suspicious over the true nature of Able Danger, and thousands of other sunstantiated pieces.
Smart 9/11 researchers know the REAL angle of the Pentagon:
Not wh at hit it, but WHY? Who turned off the missile/phalanx anti aircraft defense? And did it go off at the last minute, incurring the need to edit/withold the tapes? Why did it hit that one area? And WAS Hani ultimately in control at the last few minutes...or was it electronicly hijacked? These are the real questions.
I have zero doubt Flight 77 hit, or that 9/11 was a complex inside-outside job that involved elements of the US, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Israel, UK, Turkey and "al Qaeda" as the all too eager hitmen.
Then there's Mineta's testimony. To the "debunkers" who say were making something out of nothing,
my response
ok... some people have said above that the "young man" was talking about flight 93. My question is, why would Mineta think that they were talking about the plane that hit the pentagon if the Pentagon was already hit by that time? If you think this conversation occurred around 10am, then the pentagon was already attacked and Mineta would know that they were not refering the plane to hit the pentagon. He could only be under the belief that the plane, which was "50 miles out" , was the one that hit the pentagon if this occurred BEFORE 9:37. get it?
thanks everyone
thanks for all the comments... i've read them all and there's some good ideas in there and i'll definately be making some the recomended changes.
MSNBC: Cheney Lied About His 9/11 Activities
Right here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11436302/site/newsweek/page/6/
"Cheney testified to the 9/11 Commission that he spoke with President Bush before giving an order to shoot down a hijacked civilian airliner that appeared headed toward Washington. (The plane was United Flight 93, which crashed in a Pennsylvania field after a brave revolt by the passengers.) But a source close to the commission, who declined to be identified revealing sensitive information, says that none of the staffers who worked on this aspect of the investigation believed Cheney's version of events."
I find it hillarious the little "debunker" cult out there claims to be left wing Bush haters, calls us "deniers", when they wont even talk about the air quality lies...whose denying what?
The "debunkers" are quite literally the most vengeful, hateful clan of individuals online next to hardline neocons...and a big reason why the modern liberal leftgatekeepers can suck it. Fuck the left and the right.
:yawn:. still fighting those
:yawn:. still fighting those "damn liberals" huh pocky? do you want all of us liberals to just pack up and go home and let you republicans fight for the constitution? the average rightwinger on the street does nothing but wave a flag and close their mind from all facts. the average leftwinger is trying hard everyday to wake people up to the fact that we have a president literally shitting on the constitution. liberals try to stop war for the most part while republicans like yourself do nothing of the sort. illegal spying. who protested that the loudest? liberals. fuck the left and the right, but fuck the right much harder. good for nothings. at least some on the left are trying to shine a light on the illegal tactics of this administration. thats more than can be said for your kind.
Right, I'm a real
Right, I'm a real Republican...yeah, I must be a self hating one then. Why would ANYONE call themselves a "liberal"? why not just someone who is politically aware? Anyways, my comments were solely directed at the idiots who call people like you and me "deniers", who claim to be Bush hating liberals...yet they suck up the official neocon version like their life depended on it.
Evidence is not political
The reality of the physical evidence of what happened on 9/11 is not political and can never be. Stay away from politics and stick to the physical evidence.
No
The problem is that the physical evidence is not available for independent study. That's what should happen, the evidence should be made public, 911 conspiracy theories are now rampant on the internet and many many people are entertaining them. There is plenty of physical evidence that would quickly and surly confirm or deny the reality of the theories.
Reasonable people have reasonable questions. If everything is correct with the official theory, there is no need to hide it from the public. If there is something wrong with the official theory, then there is a very compelling reason for the alleged perpetrators to hide the evidence. The simple and logical thing to do is release the evidence, if the official theory is correct. If one has nothing to hide one shouldn't be afraid of one's phone calls being monitored. If one has nothing to hide one shouldn't be hiding the evidence.
A reasonable person should support the release of the evidence to quickly stop these theories.
Remember what Sherlock Holmes said, "Be suspicious of people that hide evidence, their motives for hiding evidence is the crux of guilt”.
Several mistakes
1. The physical evidence was studied independently and is still available. Check out what's available in a hangar at JFK airport, for instance.
2. 9/11 conspiracies exist for reasons having nothing to do with physical evidence. For instance the massive amount of physical evidence available from the wtc collapses, the Pentagon, Flight 93, the thousands of eyewitnesses, and all the independent studies icluding NIST, FEMA, and ASCE are completely didmissed as irrelvant by 9/11 "truthers". You see that daily here.
3. There is no "official theory". There is only the preponderance of evidence that has produced a solid consensus about what happened. The evidence has not been refuted so a red heering has been constructed byu 9/11 truthers to avoid this salient fact.
4. There is no evidence being "hidden." There is no evidence we don not already have that is necessary to prove anything different than we already know.
5. Reasonable people have never stopped unreasonable and irrational people from believing conspiracy theories. People still believe the JFK assassination was committed by more than one shooter; that the moon landings did not happen; that the Holocaust never happened; that AA77 did not hit the Pentagon; that thousands of eyewitnesses did not see what they see. Evidence that 9/11 truthers do not like iscompletelty dismissed.
Your premises are completely wrong. 9/11 truthers should stop believing in the fairy tales theu beleive and admit the truth about 9/11.
jon davies
1. - Can you please post the phone number of the people I can contact so I can have access to the evidence at the hanger at JFK?
2, - Once you post the phone number that will give me access to this evidence, I will concede this point.
3. - There is no solid preponderance of evidence; if you hadn't noticed many reasonable people find the official theory as unacceptable. You know that. You wouldn’t be here and I wouldn’t be here if that was true. This statement is a canard and a misrepresentation of reality. I'm still on the fence about all this, and this statement just leads me to think something is up. No one has explained the massive amount of sulfur in the debris, the only person that has come up with any explanation is Steven Jones. Do you have an explanation? I think it was the New York Times that said it was one of the biggest mysteries of 911. I didn’t create the sulfur; the 911 truthers didn’t create the sulfur. So far the only explanation that is reasonable is Jones’.
4. – When you post the phone number of the person that can give access to this evidence to the public, I will concede this point.
5. – There are reasonable questions about the JFK murder that reasonable people still ask. If you don’t think there are still some reasonable questions about JFK, I can’t help you. You do realize that we still have to wait another 34 years until all the evidence about the JFK hit will be released. That’s the kind of thing that sets off alarms with people. Some reasonable people deny Iran/Contra, Watergate, that the senate murdered Caesar. Do you remember the Iraqi WMD denials, the US torture denials, the secret CIA torture camps, the Niger Nuke lies and on and on. The evidence is overwhelming that this administration has an obvious pattern of lies. Even you have to admit to that. I agree that there is evidence that points to some of the official theory, but there is also a lot of reasonable questions that should be answered that the official theory doesn’t; I’m sure you agree. Able Danger, the ISI payments to Atta, Building 7, the sulfur in the debris, lack of an airplane at Shanksville, the official coverup of the deadly air at ground zero; there are a lot of reasonable questions that need answering. I spent some time looking at airliner plane crashes. They all have visible debris. Even Lockerbie had massive parts of planes visible. If you can find me one other example of an aircraft completely disappearing in a crash, that would go a long way in putting me on your side. I will not dismiss evidence you present, I am looking for that evidence.
These questions are not fairy tales, they need answers.
Thanks for being civil with me; I have no desire for an argument or insults. I would just like some answers.
"I am sufficiently proud of my knowing something to be modest about my not knowing everything." ~ Vladimir Nabokov
You claim that you're
You claim that you're interested in answers, but you make little or no effort to find them. Jones's reasonable explanations for phenomena he knows little about have earned him a suspension. Perhaps his theory concerning Jesus Christ 's visit to America stamps him as a revolutionary thinker, but, then, perhaps not.
For a reasonable explanation of sulfur, see
http://911myths.com/Sulfur.pdf
JFK conspiracists follow the typical pattern of repeatedly asking questions that have received convincing answers and ignoring everything that contradicts their own pet fantasies.
pameroo
I went over that document. Acid rain, the contents of the building and gypsum reactions could work for the towers but once again that pesky little fact about building 7. Can you see why people have questions. This document does not address building 7 enough to answer the question.
Since you seem to be the go to guy for debunking truthers, I still haven't seen an explanation about that red hot metal flowing out of the tower with the white hot spot at it's source. Have you got a link that explains that? It would be appreciated. I couldn't find it. Thanks.
It is forbidden to kill; therefore all murderers are punished unless they kill in large numbers and to the sound of trumpets. ~ Voltaire
Curious
You say you haven't "seen" an explanation of the molten mixed-aluminum flow. Where can you be looking? Plenty of information is certainly available on debunking911.com.
pomeroo
But none of it answers the question what caused the flowing molten metal. I have not seen one explanation that makes sense to me. Have you? I have heard that is the molten frame of the airliner. I will accept that when I see just one example of aluminum flowing sparkling red hot in sunlight at 1000 degrees.
I did spend a lot of time trying to find videos or pictures of molten alum. I couldn’t find any. Everything I found was inside and in furnaces that were way above 1000 degrees. Do you have access to an example of alum flowing like in that video. I would appreciate it. That doesn't make sense to me.
I heard it was a reaction of the molten alum and the rust on the columns. That doesn't make sense to me. There was clearly not enough rust on the columns to maintain a reaction like on that video, you know that.
Why doesn’t debunking911 has any examples, pictures or videos of molten alum on their page.
Help me out here, pomeroo. I would love to see proof of this. And when I do, I’ll be on your side on this issue. Unfortunately, every video I have seen of thermite reactions look like that tower video and I have been unable to find a single video of molten alum looking like that. I really hope you understand that this is a reasonable question. You have an opportunity to make a convert of me on this issue, all you have to do is bring it.
I'm Trying
Again, I'm trying. Dr. Greening explained in his paper that, in addition to the fuselages of the planes, another source is the aluminum cladding encasing the buildings. The molten flow is not pure aluminum, which accounts for the color. It is a mixture of aluminum, plastics, insulation, etc. I hope this helps a bit.
Hmmmm,
I thought Jones was suspended because he infered that a portion of the USA Govt was involved with 911, not the research about the physics of 911. Why would you say something like that?
Bad Information
Jones was suspended because his unprofessional conduct was an embarrassment to his department. His refusal to submit his "work" to peer review reflected poorly on the school. You'll note that Dr. Greening, in correspondence with Jones, suggests several tests that would resolve their dispute. Jones has no interest in performing them.
?
Where is this unprofessional conduct and an embarrassment to his department information documented?
I can understand that one
I can understand that one could make a theory that a mixture of material could be like that, But I not sure I can buy into that. The metal flow is very homogeneous. There is almost no variation in the flow. I suppose one could create a mixture like that, but common sense says that it would have to be completely mixed, which is very doubtful.
If this were the case, there would be clear variations in the stream. You would agree with that, I’m sure. And if this were the case one would expect to see flowing material at other locations at the towers. That’s reasonable. But none of this is there. All we have is a very consistent homogeneous flow of metal that looks like all the videos of thermite reactions and there are no examples of alum looking like that mixed or not. Not to mention if the temp really was at 1000 degrees, all the windows would have melted way before any kind of alum/other debris reaction would have started. I hope you can understand why there are questions that should be answered, that still have no answers.
By the way, thanks for the civil tone. It supports your position more than any of the evidence you have presented.
the guy who comes on this
the guy who comes on this site whos comments are roughly 50% "liberal" bashing isnt a republican? coulda fooled me my man.
Mindy Kleinberg
Prior to 9/11, FAA and Department of Defense Manuals gave clear, comprehensive instructions on how to handle everything from minor emergencies to full blown hijackings.
These "protocols" were in place and were practiced regularly for a good reason -- with heavily trafficked air space; airliners withour radio and transponder contact are collisions and/or calamities waiting to happen.
Those protocols dictate that in the event of an emergency, the FAA is to notify NORAD. Once that notification takes place, it is then the responsibility of NORAD to scramble fighter-jets to intercept the errant plane(s). It is a matter of routine procedure for fighter-jets to "intercept" commercial airliners in order to regain contact with the pilot. In fact, between June 2000 and September 2001, figter jets were scrambled 67 times.
If that weren't protection enough, on September 11th, NEADS (or the North East Air Defense System dept of NORAD) was several days into a semiannual exercise known as "Vigilant Guardian". This meant that our North East Air Defense system was fully staffed. In short, key officers were manning the operation battle center, "fighter jets were cocked, loaded, and carrying extra gas on board."
Lucky for the terrorists none of this mattered on the morning of September 11th.
Let me illustrate using just flight 11 as an example.
American Airlines Flight 11 departed from Boston Logan Airport at 7:45 a.m. The last routine communication between ground control and the plane occurred at 8:13 a.m. Between 8:13 and 8:20 a.m. Flight 11 because unresponsive to ground control. Additionally, radar indicated that the plane had deviated from its assigned path of flight. Soon thereafter, transponder contact was lost - (although planes can still be seen on radar - even without their transponders).
Two Flight 11 airline attendants had separately called American Airlines reporting a hijacking, the presence of weapons, and the infliction of injuries on passengers and crew. At this point, it would seem abundantly clear that Flight 11 was an emergency.
Yet, according to NORAD's official timeline, NORAD was not contacted until 20 minutes later at 8:40 a.m. Tragically the fighter jets were not deployed until 8:52 a.m. -- a full 32 minutes after the loss of contact with flight 11.
Why was there a delay in the FAA notifying NORAD? Why was there a delay in NORAD scrambling fighter jets? How is this possible when NEADS was fully staffed with planes at the ready and monitoring our Northeast airspace?
Flights 175, 77 and 93 all had this same repeat pattern of delays in notification and delays in scrambling fighter jets. Delays that are unimaginable considering a plane had, by this time, already hit the WTC.
Even more baffling for us is the fact that the fighter jets were not scrambled from the closest air force bases. For example, for the flight that hit the Pentagon, the jets were scrambled from Langley Air Force in Hampton, Virginia rather than Andrews Air Force Base right outside D.C. As a result, Washington skies remained wholly unprotected on the morning of September 11th. At 9:41 a.m. one hour and 21 minutes after the first plane was hijack confirmed by FAA, Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. The fighter jets were still miles away. Why?
So the hijackers luck had continued. On September 11th both the FAA and NORAD deviated from standard emergency operating procedures. Who were the people that delayed the notification? Have they been questioned?
In addition, the interceptor planes or fighter jets did not fly at their maximum speed. Had the belatedly scrambled fighter jets flown at their maximum speed of engagement, they would have reached NYC and the Pentagon within moments of their deployment, intercepted the hijacked airlines before they could have hit their targets, and undoubtedly saved lives.
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
Recycled Drivel
Instead of making transparent attempts to con us with your thoroughly debunked drivel, why not respond to the very specific and detailed chapter in the Popular Mechanics book that deals with the stand down canard?
So you're saying...
The testimony of one of the surviving family members who had to fight for the very Commission she was testifying at, was "drivel?"
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
Clarification
I'm saying two things: loony-leftists such as yourself don't give a damn about the victims of the jihadist attacks. That fact has been demonstrated ad nauseam.
Second, I'm saying that all of the canards contained in your post have been thoroughly debunked. The most convenient source is the chapter in the Popular Mechanics book on the myth of the stand down order. Tell us where they went wrong.
Rule #7
Of www.911blogger.com...
Post useful information and commentary, not ad-hominem attacks or insults
Insult #1: "loony-leftists"
Insult #2: "don't give a damn about the victims"
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
Tell me Ron...
Why isn't the 9/11 Report good enough? Why do you have to refer to a book written by Popular Mechanics as your "holy grail" of 9/11?
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
Just from this thread...
Reference #1: The information on this subject is abundant; 911myths has an entire section and the Popular Mechanics book devotes a whole chapter.
Reference #2: The basic knowledge about the FAA and NORAD is available in the Popular Mechanics book.
Reference #3: why not respond to the very specific and detailed chapter in the Popular Mechanics book that deals with the stand down canard?
You're not making a very good case for the 9/11 Report.
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
Did the families...
That you supposedly care so much about lobby Popular Mechanics for the answers of 9/11 or Washington D.C.?
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
Was It...
Popular Mechanics that was given a mandate to give a "full and complete accounting" of the attacks of 9/11 or the 9/11 Commission?
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
Was It...
Popular Mechanics that turned away whistleblowers with pertinent information regarding 9/11, or the 9/11 Commission?
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
You're a #@&$@...
Joke.
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
We're on the Same Page
You've demonstrated that the Popular Mechanics team of experts is free of any suspicion of being complicit in the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy. Now that we've established its independence, you can proceed to showing us the errors. Your cohorts are deeply embarrassed by your conspicuous failure to point to, well, ANYTHING. Let's see a few errors in the PM book.
Never Let Them See You Sweat
Don't act so desperate. Your house of cards has already collapsed. Relax.
We notice that you don't respond to challenges. We get the idea. Tell you what--we both acknowledge that you can't refute anything in the PM book. Okay, pick out something on 911myths.com and refute that. Try refuting something on debunking911.com. How about the Protec paper? Best of all, show us a few flaws in the NIST report.
We hear the blather. We never see the goods. What have you got?
Thanks for the inspiration morepoo.
Popular Mechanics Debunked
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
A Bluff is Called
I suspect that even the most mindless fantasists noticed, to their disappointment perhaps, that you never got around to debunking anything in the PM book. I expected no less (or perhaps I should say, no more) from you.
You've let the True Believers down, Jon. You have a well-earned reputation for loud bluster followed by craven retreat when challenged. You were challenged and, as always, you turned tail and ran.
You've given us much empty rhetoric. I asked for the goods. You came up empty-handed.
You've got nothing. Absolutely nothing.
I love watching...
Trolls squirm... HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
___________________________________
"It was all about finding a way to do it. That was the tone of it. The president saying ‘Go find me a way to do this."
Delusions
Most of us have noticed your problems in making me squirm while I'm crushing you like a peanut shell.
I'm not doing much squirming. You're tap dancing furiously and it ain't a pretty sight.
Let's see some debunking, Jon. You promised: We're waiting.
i think that your theory is
i think that your theory is brilliant but i do not believe that we would have bombed ourselves, but had bin laden do it for us, since the two families are known friends.
"Do the orders still stand?" Who was he?...
Complete info here (thanks to jimd3100) -
http://s1.zetaboards.com/pumpitout/topic/3712237/
.
Thanks Mr Cochrane!
"The 9-11 Commission report is the authoritative narrative of the events of 9-11...I have nothing further to add." -- Doug Cochrane (Do the orders still stand?)
Were those shoot down orders? Well let's take Mr Cochranes advice and look at what the 9-11 Commission report said......
"At 8:37:52, Boston Center reached NEADS. This was the first notification received by the military-at any level-that American 11 had been hijacked:" --9-11 Commision Report page 37/585
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
"NEADS: Is this real world-world or exercise?" -- 9-11 Commission report page 37/585
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
"8:46:40 AA 11 crashes into 1 WTC" -- 9-11 Commission report page 49/585
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
"9:03:11 Flight 175 crashes into 2 WTC" -- 9-11 Commission report page 49/585
"9:37:46 AA 77 crashes into the pentagon" -- 9-11 Commission report page 50/585
"10:03:11 Flight 93 crashes in field in Shanksville, PA" -9-11 Commission report page 50/585
"NEADS needed orders to pass to the pilots. At 10:10, the pilots over Washington were emphatically told, "negative clearance to shoot." --9-11 Commission report page 62/585
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
"10:15 Washington Center advises NEADS that Flight 93 has crashed in PA" -- 9-11 Commission report page 50/585
"Shootdown authority was first communicated to NEADS at 10:31." --9-11 Commission report page 62/585
"We are sure that the nation owes a debt to the passengers of United 93. Their actions saved the lives of countless others, and may have saved either the Capitol or the White House from destruction." -- 9-11 Commission report page 62/585
Yup, I agree. Because these traitors were going to let the capital be hit. No one was issuing shoot down orders.
Thanks Mr Cochrane