9/11 commission invented the "Phantom Flight 11"

[Mutton-Head]

The 9/11 commission invented the "Phantom Flight 11" story, to cover-up the fact that fighters did not intecept AA77.

And now, it's time for bed. See you Friday.

[CptColumbo]

The 9/11 commission invented the "Phantom Flight 11" story, to cover-up the fact that fighters did not intecept AA77.

And now, it's time for bed. See you Friday.
You post something accusing a group of people of taking part in a mass murder, with no evidence, and walk away. You're quite the piece of work.

[twinstead]

You post something accusing a group of people of taking part in a mass murder, with no evidence, and walk away. You're quite the piece of work.

I'm trying to figure out an efficient word to describe the tactics folks like Mutton-Head use to cast Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt to shore up their untenable theories, while still folowing the explative rules of this forum....

[CptColumbo]

I'm trying to figure out an efficient word to describe the tactics folks like Mutton-Head use to cast Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt to shore up their untenable theories, while still folowing the explative rules of this forum....Idiotic?

[Starrman]

The 9/11 commission invented the "Phantom Flight 11" story, to cover-up the fact that fighters did not intecept AA77.

And now, it's time for bed. See you Friday.

I am a billionare with several supermodel girlfriends who answer to my every whim. And now, it's time to go to bed with the four of them. See you in 14 seconds.

[bob_kark]

Why even reply? Just let the thread drop.

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

The 9/11 commission invented the "Phantom Flight 11" story, to cover-up the fact that fighters did not intecept AA77.

And now, it's time for bed. See you Friday.

You know, if you're going to do that, you could at least have the courtesy to write It's True :) at the end.

[Cylinder]

The 9/11 commission invented the "Phantom Flight 11" story, to cover-up the fact that fighters did not intecept AA77.

And now, it's time for bed. See you Friday.

The evidence is in both the FAA and NORAD com and radar loops. Since the 9/11 Commision had yet to be constituted, can you explain that neat little trick?

[Mutton-Head]

You post something accusing a group of people of taking part in a mass murder, with no evidence, and walk away. You're quite the piece of work.

Oh please, get over yourself. You're way too melodramatic. Absolutely nothing like Columbo. It's Friday morning, I said I'd be back.

[Mutton-Head]

The evidence is in both the FAA and NORAD com and radar loops. Since the 9/11 Commision had yet to be constituted, can you explain that neat little trick?

No, there is no evidence. the story that they were following "phantom flight 11" was invented long after the fact (2004). On the commission's report, on page 26, is a supposed conversation with an FAA official. There is no piece of physical evidence that that conversation took place. The FAA individual is not named. General Larry Arnold had no recolection of there ever being a "phantom flight 11." Even the report itself says, of the supposed taped conversation, "We have been unable to identify the source of this mistaken FAA information"

[gumboot]

Even the report itself says, of the supposed taped conversation, "We have been unable to identify the source of this mistaken FAA information"


Yes that's because they have heard a taped recording of communications regarding this AA11, but cannot work out where the error occured that resulted in this false aircraft.

That's pretty clear. It makes it more likely they're going off a recording. If they were told in interviews about AA11 it would be a simple thing to ask "why did you think it was AA11?"
"Oh well, that's what Hank told me it was..."
"Hank, why did you think it was AA11?"
"Well Jeff came over to me and..."

And so forth. This would be straight forward.

However, a recorded voice, that they might not be able to actually identify, is another story...

And why would the commission report double-cover the failure to intercept AA77? That just doubles the risk of being caught out.

Failure to intercept AA77 is explained by the 090 for 60 flight plan that the F-16's took. The phantom AA11 is irrelevant.

-Andrew

[Cylinder]

No, there is no evidence. the story that they were following "phantom flight 11" was invented long after the fact (2004). On the commission's report, on page 26, is a supposed conversation with an FAA official. There is no piece of physical evidence that that conversation took place. The FAA individual is not named. General Larry Arnold had no recolection of there ever being a "phantom flight 11." Even the report itself says, of the supposed taped conversation, "We have been unable to identify the source of this mistaken FAA information"

Where did they obtain a transcript of this coversation between Boston Center and NEADS?

FAA: Military, Boston Center. I just had a report that American 11 is still in the air, and it's on its way towards-heading towards Washington.

NEADS: Okay. American 11 is still in the air?

FAA: Yes.

NEADS: On its way towards Washington?

FAA: That was another-it was evidently another aircraft that hit the tower. That's the latest report we have.

NEADS: Okay.

FAA: I'm going to try to confirm an ID for you, but I would assume he's somewhere over, uh, either New Jersey or somewhere further south.

NEADS: Okay. So American 11 isn't the hijack at all then, right?

FAA: No, he is a hijack.

NEADS: He-American 11 is a hijack?

FAA: Yes.

NEADS: And he's heading into Washington?

FAA: Yes. This could be a third aircraft.

Was that made from whole cloth? The Commission says no. Footnote 148 reads:

148. NEADS audio file, Identification Technician position, channel 7, 9:21:10.

They got it from the loop.

[Mutton-Head]

Where did they obtain a transcript of this coversation between Boston Center and NEADS?



Was that made from whole cloth? The Commission says no. Footnote 148 reads:



They got it from the loop.



The conversation is completely unverifiable. No names. Nobody at FAA, NORAD, or NEADS ever recalled this happening. This story was made up, two full years after the fact.

[gumboot]

The conversation is completely unverifiable. No names. Nobody at FAA, NORAD, or NEADS ever recalled this happening. This story was made up, two full years after the fact.



And I had so much hope for you after your (semi) acceptance that the WTC didn't collapse at free-fall speeds.

-Andrew

[Cylinder]

The conversation is completely unverifiable. No names. Nobody at FAA, NORAD, or NEADS ever recalled this happening. This story was made up, two full years after the fact.

Are you claiming that the recording was faked or that it does not exist?

[ARubberChickenWithAPulley]

The conversation is completely unverifiable. No names. Nobody at FAA, NORAD, or NEADS ever recalled this happening. This story was made up, two full years after the fact.

Repeating this numerous times doesn't make it true. Footnotes 149-151 all deal with the missing Flight 11, and they all contain the exact channel and time. Moreover, the following quote:

Mission Crew Commander, NEADS: Okay, uh, American Airlines is still airborne. Eleven, the first guy, he's heading towards Washington. Okay? I think we need to scramble Langley right now. And I'm gonna take the fighters from Otis, try to chase this guy down if I can find him.

is footnoted as 149. And it gives the name of the Mission Crew Commander at NEADS who said it: Kevin Nasypany.

That is quite verifiable.

[Pete Tattum]

The 9/11 commission invented the "Phantom Flight 11" story, to cover-up the fact that fighters did not intecept AA77.

And now, it's time for bed. See you Friday.

Well, at least you live-up to your name!

[Cylinder]

And it gives the name of the Mission Crew Commander at NEADS who said it: Kevin Nasypany.

That is quite verifiable.

Thanks for clearing that point up. I guess we need to add the BC controller, NEADS tech and NEADS MCC to the greater conspiracy.

[Mutton-Head]

Repeating this numerous times doesn't make it true. Footnotes 149-151 all deal with the missing Flight 11, and they all contain the exact channel and time. Moreover, the following quote:

Mission Crew Commander, NEADS: Okay, uh, American Airlines is still airborne. Eleven, the first guy, he's heading towards Washington. Okay? I think we need to scramble Langley right now. And I'm gonna take the fighters from Otis, try to chase this guy down if I can find him.

is footnoted as 149. And it gives the name of the Mission Crew Commander at NEADS who said it: Kevin Nasypany.

That is quite verifiable.


My problem with that, is that it completely contradicts NORADs first report, "Air War Over America." And, General Larry Arnold, incharge of NORAD at the time, had no knowledge of that ever happening.

[Cylinder]

My problem with that, is that it completely contradicts NORADs first report, "Air War Over America." And, General Larry Arnold, incharge of NORAD at the time, had no knowledge of that ever happening.

The NEADS MCC works in Rome, NY. Maj Gen Arnold commanded CONUS NORAD (1ST Air Force), headquartered in Tyndall AFB, FL.

[Belz...]

I'm trying to figure out an efficient word to describe the tactics folks like Mutton-Head use to cast Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt to shore up their untenable theories, while still folowing the explative rules of this forum....

Let's see.... Fear... Uncertainty... Doubt...

FUDdle ??

[Mutton-Head]

The NEADS MCC works in Rome, NY. Maj Gen Arnold commanded CONUS NORAD (1ST Air Force), headquartered in Tyndall AFB, FL.


And so Maj Gen Arnold was unaware of any phantom AA11 until June, 2004, 2 1/2 years later?

[Stellafane]

The 9/11 commission invented the "Phantom Flight 11" story, to cover-up the fact that fighters did not intecept AA77.

And now, it's time for bed. See you Friday.

Dylan Avery invented the "Loose Change" story, so that when they discover barnyard porn on his PC, he can claim the evil gubmint put it there to discredit him.

My claim has as much validity as yours.

[Cylinder]

And so Maj Gen Arnold was unaware of any phantom AA11 until June, 2004, 2 1/2 years later?

I'm not certain what Arnold claimed. Do you have a link? Certainly the claim I was not aware of that fact differs from the claim I am not aware of that fact which, in turn, differs from the claim it did not happen that way.

I'll look up the primary source for that quote and post the results here. Any link or information would be appreciated. At any rate, there has been solid, primary source evidence presented here that refutes the claim that NEADS was not (incorrectly) notified that AA 11 had turned toward Washington DC.

[c0rbin]

I think this thread clearly describes the documentary methods of Loose Change and all the YouTube nonesense we find about 9/11.

MO: Create a Cryptic, open-ended opening post.

I work in marketing and this is great online marketing, especially for a captive audience like a message board. Of course we are going to read...scrutinize...the OP so that we may contribute intelligently. It's what we do. So, this open-ended statement and the promise of "tune in on monday" is to entice us to come back or to stick around for the duration thereby giving this mutton head (lower case) attention.

Now in a different medium, say, film. This sentence would be supported with images evoking fear, conspiracy, violence; an ominus voice over; and a threatening, but driving drum beat provided by DJ Troof.

And they wonder why no one will listen to their cries of injustice!

[Mutton-Head]

I'm not certain what Arnold claimed. Do you have a link? Certainly the claim I was not aware of that fact differs from the claim I am not aware of that fact which, in turn, differs from the claim it did not happen that way.

I'll look up the primary source for that quote and post the results here. Any link or information would be appreciated. At any rate, there has been solid, primary source evidence presented here that refutes the claim that NEADS was not (incorrectly) notified that AA 11 had turned toward Washington DC.



http://wid.ap.org/transcripts/040617commission911_1.html

[Cylinder]

And so Maj Gen Arnold was unaware of any phantom AA11 until June, 2004, 2 1/2 years later?

From Gen. Arnold's 9/11 Commission testimony transcript (http://www.911commission.gov/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-05-23.htm).

It was then very shortly thereafter [Cylinder: Otis scrambled]that we saw on television the second airplane, United 175, crash into the South Tower. And the first thing that I think most of us felt was, was this a rerun of the first event? And then it turned out to be the second event. We had no warning of that whatsoever. In fact, that airplane was called possibly hijacked later on, which as General McKinley referred to, as the fog and friction of war, actually caused further confusion, because we were not aware which aircraft actually crashed into the towers. We just knew that by now we had two airplanes that have crashed into the towers. We have two airplanes that are called hijacked. Again, we are still minutes away -- I think the record said eight minutes away from New York City with F-15s that are moving very rapidly in that direction.

Emphasis is mine. Gen. Arnold does not address the confusion of AA 77 with AA 11 explicitly, but he does explicitly state that at the time they could not match flight numbers and targets with any degree of certainty.

[Cylinder]

http://wid.ap.org/transcripts/040617commission911_1.html

Thanks. Here's the relevant portion of the transcript for anyone interested:

BEN-VENISTE: General, is it not a fact that the failure to call our attention to the miscommunication and the notion of a phantom flight 11 continuing from New York City south, in fact, skewed the whole reporting of 9/11? It skewed the official Air Force report, which is contained in a book called Air War Over America, which does not contain any information about the fact that you were following or thinking of a continuation of flight 11 and that you had not received notification that flight 77 had been hijacked?

ARNOLD: Well, as I recall, first of all, I didn't know the call signs of the airplanes when these things happened. When the call came that American 11 was a possible hijacked aircraft, that aircraft just led me to come to a conclusion that there were other aircraft in the system that were a threat to the United States.

BEN-VENISTE: General Arnold, surely by May of last year, when you testified before this commission, you knew those facts.

ARNOLD: I didn't recall those facts in May of last year. That's the correct answer to that.

In fact, as I recall, during that time frame, my concern was why did -- the question that came to me was, Why did we scramble the aircraft out of Langley Air Force Base, the F-16s out of Langley Air Force Base?

And there had been statements made by some that we scrambled that aircraft at a report of American 77, which was not the case and I knew that. And I was trying to remember in my own mind, what was it that persuaded us to scramble those aircraft.

And I thought at the time it was United 93. But as I was able to -- we did not have the times when we were notified of this. I did not have that information at that time.

BEN-VENISTE: General Arnold,...

ARNOLD: It didn't happen.

BEN-VENISTE: ...according to source...

ARNOLD: We scrambled those aircraft to get them over Washington, D.C., to protect Washington, D.C.

BEN-VENISTE: According to our staff, you know that there was a substantial problem in getting information from NORAD; that we received information, we were told that the information was complete, we went out into the field -- our staff did and did a number of interviews.

And as a result of those interviews, we found that there were tapes which reflected the facts relating to flight 11. And we found additional information by which we were able, through assiduous and painstaking work, listening to any number of tape recordings, to reconstruct what actually occurred as you have heard in the staff statement.

I take it you have no disagreement with the facts put forward in the staff statement. That's been produced in advance for comment and I take it you're in agreement now with our staff's conclusions with respect to those facts.

ARNOLD: I am.

BEN-VENISTE: We have -- and I'm not going to go through it, but it is disturbing to see that there were efforts at after-action reports, which were available shortly after 9/11. There were communications which our staff has received with respect to e-mails that reflect some of the facts on nearly a contemporaneous basis with the 9/11 catastrophe, that reflect a story which unfortunately is different from the one which was presented to this commission earlier.

When you and General Eberhart were asked about the existence of tape recordings reflecting these open line communications, both of you indicated that you had such -- no such recollections.

EBERHART: Mr. Commissioner, I think it's important to note that I did not testify in front of this commission. So to say that I said that that day is categorically wrong.

BEN-VENISTE: I'm sorry, sir. I'm sorry. You are correct. I will refer to General Arnold's comments, both with respect to...

KEAN: This is the last question, Commissioner.

BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.

EBERHART: Yes. The Northeast Air Defense sector apparently had a tape that we were unaware of at the time. And you're -- and to the best of my knowledge, what I've been told by your staff is that they were unable to make that tape run.

BEN-VENISTE: I'm told...

EBERHART: Though they were later able to -- your staff was able, through a contractor, to get that tape to run.

And so, to the best of my knowledge, that was an accurate statement in May that I did not know of any tape recordings. If I would have had them available to me, it certainly would have been -- I would have been able to give you more accurate information.

Our focus was on when the events occurred, and we did not focus on when we -- we didn't have a record -- I did not have a record of when we had been told different things.

BEN-VENISTE: In order to clarify it, and I apologize again, General Eberhart, the statement that I was referring to was a statement which we are advised was made to the staff. It was General McKinley, as well as General Arnold.

When I asked the question, Let me ask you whether there's a regularly made tape recording of these open line indications? General Arnold answered Not to my knowledge, and General McKinley answered, Not to my knowledge.

It was through the painstaking investigation that discovered these tapes and then our staff listening to those tapes which assisted us in being able to provide the level of detail and accuracy which we've done today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

KEAN: Thank you very much, Commissioner.

It does seem that Gen. Arnold claimed not to be aware of the 77/11 issue at the time of his original testimony, but as referenced above - he clearly asserts their was confusion on 9/11 on assigning flight numbers to targets.

The problem you have with this testimony is that is further establishes the provenance of the tape that documents the communications as they happened that morning. That is, Richard Ben-Veniste - the Commissioner that exposes this gap through tough questioning - also verifies the existence and source of the NORAD tapes. This clearly refutes your claim that those tapes do not exist. For instance:

BEN-VENISTE:According to our staff, you know that there was a substantial problem in getting information from NORAD; that we received information, we were told that the information was complete, we went out into the field -- our staff did and did a number of interviews.

And as a result of those interviews, we found that there were tapes which reflected the facts relating to flight 11. And we found additional information by which we were able, through assiduous and painstaking work, listening to any number of tape recordings, to reconstruct what actually occurred as you have heard in the staff statement.

and

EBERHART: Yes. The Northeast Air Defense sector apparently had a tape that we were unaware of at the time. And you're -- and to the best of my knowledge, what I've been told by your staff is that they were unable to make that tape run.

BEN-VENISTE: I'm told...

EBERHART: Though they were later able to -- your staff was able, through a contractor, to get that tape to run.

And so, to the best of my knowledge, that was an accurate statement in May that I did not know of any tape recordings. If I would have had them available to me, it certainly would have been -- I would have been able to give you more accurate information.

A Commissioner who seems very skeptical of Gen. Arnold's testimony verifies the tapes. Do we add him to the pile as well?

[CptColumbo]

Oh please, get over yourself. You're way too melodramatic. Absolutely nothing like Columbo. It's Friday morning, I said I'd be back.
I'm not using the death of 3000 people to boost my own ego and self importance by accussing others of murder with no evidence. You are a sorry excuse for a human being.

[CurtC]

How could NORAD possibly do anything effective, because we all know that NORAD, just like Al Qaeda, is based in a cave?

[Mutton-Head]

BEN-VENISTE: General, is it not a fact that the failure to call our attention to the miscommunication and the notion of a phantom flight 11 continuing from New York City south, in fact, skewed the whole reporting of 9/11? It skewed the official Air Force report, which is contained in a book called Air War Over America, which does not contain any information about the fact that you were following or thinking of a continuation of flight 11 and that you had not received notification that flight 77 had been hijacked?

ARNOLD: Well, as I recall, first of all, I didn't know the call signs of the airplanes when these things happened. When the call came that American 11 was a possible hijacked aircraft, that aircraft just led me to come to a conclusion that there were other aircraft in the system that were a threat to the United States.

BEN-VENISTE: General Arnold, surely by May of last year, when you testified before this commission, you knew those facts.

ARNOLD: I didn't recall those facts in May of last year. That's the correct answer to that.

In fact, as I recall, during that time frame, my concern was why did -- the question that came to me was, Why did we scramble the aircraft out of Langley Air Force Base, the F-16s out of Langley Air Force Base?

And there had been statements made by some that we scrambled that aircraft at a report of American 77, which was not the case and I knew that. And I was trying to remember in my own mind, what was it that persuaded us to scramble those aircraft.

And I thought at the time it was United 93. But as I was able to -- we did not have the times when we were notified of this. I did not have that information at that time.

BEN-VENISTE: General Arnold,...

ARNOLD: It didn't happen.

BEN-VENISTE: ...according to source...

ARNOLD: We scrambled those aircraft to get them over Washington, D.C., to protect Washington, D.C.

BEN-VENISTE: According to our staff, you know that there was a substantial problem in getting information from NORAD; that we received information, we were told that the information was complete, we went out into the field -- our staff did and did a number of interviews.

And as a result of those interviews, we found that there were tapes which reflected the facts relating to flight 11. And we found additional information by which we were able, through assiduous and painstaking work, listening to any number of tape recordings, to reconstruct what actually occurred as you have heard in the staff statement.

I take it you have no disagreement with the facts put forward in the staff statement. That's been produced in advance for comment and I take it you're in agreement now with our staff's conclusions with respect to those facts.

ARNOLD: I am.

BEN-VENISTE: We have -- and I'm not going to go through it, but it is disturbing to see that there were efforts at after-action reports, which were available shortly after 9/11. There were communications which our staff has received with respect to e-mails that reflect some of the facts on nearly a contemporaneous basis with the 9/11 catastrophe, that reflect a story which unfortunately is different from the one which was presented to this commission earlier.

When you and General Eberhart were asked about the existence of tape recordings reflecting these open line communications, both of you indicated that you had such -- no such recollections.

EBERHART: Mr. Commissioner, I think it's important to note that I did not testify in front of this commission. So to say that I said that that day is categorically wrong.

BEN-VENISTE: I'm sorry, sir. I'm sorry. You are correct. I will refer to General Arnold's comments, both with respect to...

KEAN: This is the last question, Commissioner.

BEN-VENISTE: Thank you.

EBERHART: Yes. The Northeast Air Defense sector apparently had a tape that we were unaware of at the time. And you're -- and to the best of my knowledge, what I've been told by your staff is that they were unable to make that tape run.

BEN-VENISTE: I'm told...

EBERHART: Though they were later able to -- your staff was able, through a contractor, to get that tape to run.

And so, to the best of my knowledge, that was an accurate statement in May that I did not know of any tape recordings. If I would have had them available to me, it certainly would have been -- I would have been able to give you more accurate information.

Our focus was on when the events occurred, and we did not focus on when we -- we didn't have a record -- I did not have a record of when we had been told different things.

BEN-VENISTE: In order to clarify it, and I apologize again, General Eberhart, the statement that I was referring to was a statement which we are advised was made to the staff. It was General McKinley, as well as General Arnold.

When I asked the question, Let me ask you whether there's a regularly made tape recording of these open line indications? General Arnold answered Not to my knowledge, and General McKinley answered, Not to my knowledge.

It was through the painstaking investigation that discovered these tapes and then our staff listening to those tapes which assisted us in being able to provide the level of detail and accuracy which we've done today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

KEAN: Thank you very much, Commissioner.


That whole thing reads to me like Arnold is being directed to remember something that never happened, as far as he is concerned. He is being a good soldier, and taking orders, from Ben-Veniste.

[Mutton-Head]

BEN-VENISTE: General Arnold, surely by May of last year, when you testified before this commission, you knew those facts.

ARNOLD: I didn't recall those facts in May of last year. That's the correct answer to that.

Come on, Arnold is falling on his sword here. He's talking about May 2003, almost two years after 9/11. You mean to tell me in two years he didn't learn about this phantom flight 11? You mean to tell me that Gen Arnold cares that little about what happened and why? I'm sure he spent every day for two years going over records and transcripts, trying to find out why NOARD was unsuccessful. And he never found out about phantom 11 in all of that time. Gen Arnold, right here, in his testimony, he's taking the blame, because someone told him to.

[Cylinder]

Thanks for clearing that point up. I guess we need to add the BC controller, NEADS tech and NEADS MCC to the greater conspiracy.

...

A Commissioner who seems very skeptical of Gen. Arnold's testimony verifies the tapes. Do we add him to the pile as well?

...

That whole thing reads to me like Arnold is being directed to remember something that never happened, as far as he is concerned. He is being a good soldier, and taking orders, from Ben-Veniste.

So far - just to keep a small claim within the greater conspiracy afloat, we have to add:

- The controllers and managers at Boston Center
- NEADS identification technician
- NEADS MCC
- 1ST Air Force commander
- A 9/11 Commissioner

[George152]

Oh please, get over yourself. You're way too melodramatic. Absolutely nothing like Columbo. It's Friday morning, I said I'd be back.

You're just another muslim apologist deep in denial

[Mutton-Head]

...



...



So far - just to keep a small claim within the greater conspiracy afloat, we have to add:

- The controllers and managers at Boston Center
- NEADS identification technician
- NEADS MCC
- 1ST Air Force commander
- A 9/11 Commissioner

No, I don't think all of those people were "in on it," of course. But I do find a problem with Mr. Arnold's testimony. Specifically the claim that he did not know about phantom flight 11. See, I believe that he didn't know about it. BEN-VENISTE really seems to be leading him. And as I said, I think Arnold is taking the fall here. Why exactly, I don't know.

[gumboot]

No, I don't think all of those people were "in on it," of course. But I do find a problem with Mr. Arnold's testimony. Specifically the claim that he did not know about phantom flight 11.


Mutton-Head, I'm going to give you the benefit of a doubt, just to see if you've thought this through. Please answer this one question:

Why did the 9/11 Commission invent the phantom AA11?

-Andrew

[Mutton-Head]

Mutton-Head, I'm going to give you the benefit of a doubt, just to see if you've thought this through. Please answer this one question:

Why did the 9/11 Commission invent the phantom AA11?

-Andrew

I'm not sure if the commission invented it. But it does seem to be a device being used to divert attention from the real story. And the Commision has embraced/endorsed it. Who actually invented it, I don't know. But to me, it's fishy.

[aggle-rithm]

I'm not sure if the commission invented it. But it does seem to be a device being used to divert attention from the real story. And the Commision has embraced/endorsed it. Who actually invented it, I don't know. But to me, it's fishy.

You should enter the Olympics. I do believe you could earn a gold medal at straw-grasping.

[gumboot]

I'm not sure if the commission invented it. But it does seem to be a device being used to divert attention from the real story. And the Commision has embraced/endorsed it. Who actually invented it, I don't know. But to me, it's fishy.



Mutton-Head. What is the name of this thread? What is the contents of your first post on this thread?

-Andrew

[orphia nay]

You're just another muslim apologist deep in denial

I hope you meant "muslim terrorist apologist", not "muslim apologist". :boggled:

[orphia nay]

BEN-VENISTE: General Arnold, surely by May of last year, when you testified before this commission, you knew those facts.

ARNOLD: I didn't recall those facts in May of last year. That's the correct answer to that.

He didn't recall the facts.

But, OH NO:

And so Maj Gen Arnold was unaware of any phantom AA11 until June, 2004, 2 1/2 years later?

The 9/11 commission invented the "Phantom Flight 11" story
:rolleyes:

Was he even asked about it in May 2003?

[Mutton-Head]

Mutton-Head. What is the name of this thread? What is the contents of your first post on this thread?

-Andrew


Hmmmmm... You're right. I should have said, "Somebody invented the phantom flight 11." My case here is a bit too weak to have an actual meaningful debate. My apologies.

[SRW]

During the rainy season the pond next to my house fills up with water, within days frogs start croaking. The frogs are quite annoying, however after each rain stops the pond drains and the frogs disappear. I used to think that the frogs simply went to ground during the dry season. Now I am not so sure.

Frogs are annoying CT'ersare annoying.
Frogs never make intelligent statements Ct'rs never make intelligent statements.
Frogs live in pond scum, Ct'ers in pond scum would be hard to find.
I ran over a frog once and they are really gross with their innards sticking out and stuff.

Does anyone know if a CT'er were run over their innards would stick out in a gross manner? I do not know for sure...im just making statements, I have no proofe that Ct'ers are shape shifting alliens, I think some one should prove they arn't.