Double Tree Video Released?

[JAStewart]

The wacko's on the LC forum are saying that the doubletree video - "which doesn't show a plane" has been released on CNN Pipeline - any word on this?

[Earl The Tall]

Let me guess it shows, shocker the Doubletree hotel.

EDIT: I just tried looking and I couldn't find the video there.

[Oliver]

No, no plane visible on the footage...

[Alt+F4]

If the video shows a plane the CTers will say the video was tampered with. If the video doesn't show a plane the CTers will say the video was tampered with.

End of story

[WildCat]

I think it comes out Dec. 21. Seconds later the CT's will say it was faked/tampered with.

[jhunter1163]

Rumor has it that this video does show the plane. However, unless you could actually see Hanjour through the cockpit windows, CTists won't be satisfied.

[StoneWT]

These investi-Googlers are...well...they are quite stoopid when it comes to video. You aren't going to get crystal clear shots of an aircraft traveling at several hundred miles an hour from a low-quality video camera that takes a frame every second or worse. They want the videos specifically because they won't show a crystal clear picture of the aircraft down to the scratches on the windows. They ignore the photographs, eyewitness testimony, and physical evidence that tells any sane person what hit the Pentagon.

[T.A.M.]

I have seen no references in Google News to it, which I would think would be one of the first places word would come.

TAM

[JAStewart]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIw9jrOhT8w

[Enlightenment]

I would post the youtube link, but I'm too new. It's on the LC forum.

[JAStewart]

Its ok because I did ^^

[T.A.M.]

ok, is it just me, or is the camera that took that video situated so that we cant see the area of the pentagon that was hit. If this the case, then would we not have known, all along, that the plane would not be visible?

TAM

[T.A.M.]

I dont see any plane flying over afterward...that is for sure...lol

TAM

[JAStewart]

This totally backs up the South Park theory that the 9/11 conspiracy was made and is fueled by the government :P

[beachnut]

Its ok because I did ^^


proves flight 77 hit the building is the fact the souls of all on board were there on 9/11
Now you can see the fuel explode
CT nut cases can not handle the truth, can you


I wanted to post this but I need to clean it up some but I can not post he is a non equal oppotunity post type of truth guy.

Please post some to JDX and make his day, he will ban you if you show him the truth

My goodness does he wreck the plane if you get him mad???

[Enlightenment]

Why is there a black band at the top of the video?

[JAStewart]

Yeah, I believe AA77 did hit the pentagon. I'm an EX-conspiracist.

[beachnut]

Please post some comments.

We could have a contest who gets banned first for the smallest or best veiled non truth statement!

[JAStewart]

Why is there a black band at the top of the video?


I figure its CNN highlighting the attack area?

[Enlightenment]

I figure its CNN highlighting the attack area?

Ah ok, I just caught the camera zoom at the beginning of the video. Sneaky.

[StoneWT]

This is a sick way to promote Pilots for 9/11 TWOOF (otherwise known as a website/forum designed to sell outrageously priced, low-quality youtube videos on DVD).

[beachnut]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIw9jrOhT8w

Do not contradict JDX when you post at his video, wonder if he has copyright rights

Go post a comment

I got banned. I can not control my poor writing ability and stay civil. Or something.

You will not be the first one JDX bans.

[T.A.M.]

well it is in the style of Loose Change, so what can ya do. Ripping things offline and then putting your name in front of it seems to be the norm now.

TAM

[beachnut]

This means there was no fly over at the time of impact!!!

No flyover visable so the Citgo station witnesses are wrong.

[beachnut]

Let see some comments pile up. I do not want to be the only one JDX bans! He writes letters to me too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIw9jrOhT8w

[Arus808]

This means there was no fly over at the time of impact!!!

No flyover visable so the Citgo station witnesses are wrong.


i was just going to point that out.

[T.A.M.]

exactly...i see no evidence of a plane, of any kind, flying over the pentagon after impact. Now I would like to see more of the tape, looking from that angle for a good 2 minutes or so, to see if a fly over by another plane occured some time later. But as for the "plane approached, but instead of hitting, it flew over" theory...seems blown out of th water.

TAM

[T.A.M.]

This may be a nail in the coffin for that theory, which I believe is at the heart of JDXs research, is it not?

TAM

[Arus808]

Anyone wnat to provide a google earth/map view of the area, to put in relation where the Double Tree hotel , citgo station and pentagon are?

[Enlightenment]

somebody post the myspace link to a better video.

[JAStewart]

Anyone wnat to provide a google earth/map view of the area, to put in relation where the Double Tree hotel , citgo station and pentagon are?

www.loosechange911.com/download/doubletree.png
http://forums.randi.org/www.loosechange911.com/download/doubletree.png

[Oliver]

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=1507751455

[jhunter1163]

I'd say this video pretty well kills the flyover theory. JDX will have to come up with something new. Not that they're not already putting their tinfoil thinking caps on....

[JAStewart]

Yup just got blocked from Loose Change forums again AND from JdumbX's video. I think.

[Enlightenment]

Thanks Oliver. Now is it just me, or does anybody think they might see the top of the tail fin behind the roof just before the explosion? Or is that just traffic on the highway in the background?

[Arus808]

www.loosechange911.com/download/doubletree.png (http://www.loosechange911.com/download/doubletree.png)
http://forums.randi.org/www.loosechange911.com/download/doubletree.png

okay, looking at that image, what would the expect from a hotel that is sitting on the wrong side of the building? That video showed exactly what I expected. A fireball obscured by the south wall of the pentagon. and its further AWAY than the citgo station.

[jhunter1163]

Thanks Oliver. Now is it just me, or does anybody think they might see the top of the tail fin behind the roof just before the explosion? Or is that just traffic on the highway in the background?

I saw that too. I think it's just a truck going by on the highway.

[beachnut]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/124474571fe17618fd.jpg


Think 7 is the hotel, and the darn highway is between the hotel and the Pentagon.

[Dazed]

Hey, I just watched the video. One thing I do find odd, the video clearly shows a beautiful shot of the facade of pentagon where it was struck. But the video begins after the point of impact or right after. Why are the preceding frames, which would show the approach of the plane, edited out? :(

ETA: Oh I see... I thought that big black thing in the first frame was a fireball emerging from the facade.. but I think its actually a truck driving by, and the impact was on the other side of the building, which we can't see.

[Enlightenment]

Hey, I just watched the video. One thing I do find odd, the video clearly shows a beautiful shot of the facade of pentagon where it was struck. But the video begins after the point of impact or right after. Why are the preceding frames, which would show the approach of the plane, edited out? :(

The myspace video is better, but both videos loop so you see stuff before the explosion.

[beachnut]

You can only see the highway, no Pentagon in the video. The wall I think is the Highway wall. You can see an underpass on the left, but no pentagon.

The lens is worthless too, we are only 600 yards from the Petagon impact, but the Highway is in the way.

[Dazed]

I think you're right beachnut, that wall can't be the pentagon, because there's clearly something driving across the roof if it is. :\

[beachnut]

trucks seen on roof of pentagon proof of inside on roof job. film at 11

[Dazed]

:P

So this video equates to absolutely nothing, in terms of evidence.

So I guess my question is... why was this worthless black and white blurred **** secretly withheld from the American public for 5+ years, and would still be locked up in a DOJ filing cabinet were it not for the court order?

What about the other 80+ videos? Why is all this stuff locked up in secret if it shows dick all?

ETA: Especially when you realize that had these not been confiscated in the first place, or at the very least, immediately released after their content was verified by the FBI, the pentagon conspiracy theories would not have a leg to stand on.

[gumboot]

I think you actually can see the aircraft...

On the myspace one, if you wait for the loop, note a "vehicle on the highway" that seems to reach The Pentagon right as the explosion happens. But then note the speed this vehicle is travelling at in comparison with the other vehicle on the highway at the same time.

I believe this faster vehicle is actually AA77, personally.

It's worth nothing this footage is far superior quality to the Pentagon gatehouse one - much higher frame rate. Obviously it's still garbage quality, but what did anyone expect? :p

-Gumboot

ETA. scratch that. The object appears to continue after it has reached the point where the explosion appears, so it must just be someone speeding on the highway... :p

[TheGrunion]

I think you're right beachnut, that wall can't be the pentagon, because there's clearly something driving across the roof if it is. :\

This is correct.

I-395 is elevated in the area between the Pentagon and Doubletree. The "wall" in the Video is a mechanically stabilized earth wall, which supports I-395. The Pentagon is not visible.

When you drive southbound along this stretch of I-395 and look over to your right, you end up "looking down" upon the Pentagon.

[gumboot]

What about the other 80+ videos? Why is all this stuff locked up in secret if it shows dick all?



It's only you that thinks it is "locked up in secret".

Governments do not usually release publicly evidence gathered in an investigation at all. In the US, there's the FOIA, but they still won't normally release anything unless someone SPECIFICALLY ASKS FOR IT.

Once that happens no doubt they still have to secure permission. Remember, this video DOES NOT BELONG TO THE US GOVERNMENT! As per US Case Law any evidence gathered for a criminal investigation remains the property of the private individual who owned it before it was confiscated.

-Gumboot

[Dazed]

Can someone post a link to the myspace video please? I can't find it.

[Dazed]

I wonder why the videos always get publicly released to Judicial Watch, when it is Scott Bingham's lawsuits which are actually forcing the releases of these videos?

http://flight77.info/

[T.A.M.]

At a crime scene you collect all sorts of things that may or MAY NOT be of use to you. You cant take any chances. As to why they with held the tape, well prior to the Moussaoui trial, that was the reason. Then only FOIA requests sent after the trial was over would have been responded to. As to this, I believe an FBI agent reviewed all the tape, and in response to Flight77.infos request, told then that only 13 of the 85 tapes even showed the side of the pentagon in question, and of those, only the security tape previously released, showed any sign of the plane.

As to what benifit this tape it...not much, but it does show that before and after, there is no sign of a "fly over jet". Also, I wonder, if based on the initial motion of the fireball/smoke, could one work backward to calculate the flight path of the plane, to see if it corresponds to the south of Citgo versus the "earth shattering" north of citgo claims.

TAM

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=1507751455

[gumboot]

Also, I wonder, if based on the initial motion of the fireball/smoke, could one work backward to calculate the flight path of the plane, to see if it corresponds to the south of Citgo versus the "earth shattering" north of citgo claims.

TAM


I don't think that would be much use. Both flight paths are in a left-to-right screen direction.

-Gumboot

[Dazed]

It's only you that thinks it is "locked up in secret".


"the govt admitted having 84 other recordings related flight 77, but since none of the 84 show the "impact", we had to file a second FOIA request for those recordings. that FOIA request was denied, and we've since filed an appeal."

http://flight77.info/old.htm

5 years later we get /2/ of those 84 videos. Sounds like they're locked up in secret to me.

ETA: And this is because the FBI was forced against their will by a court order to release them, and they still stalled past the date of Nov. 9th given by the court for the release.

[T.A.M.]

ya i didnt think so, but some of these experts, with the right video, they can do almost anything.

TAM:)

[beachnut]

Video was evindence for the idiot trial. This happens all the time. Be glad it was not your money or video locked up for a while, you could only sell it now! Private videos are owner property, wonder if anyone is about to make some money.

It proves the roads were busy and not sterile so it was not a covert Goverment job. Hundreds of witnesses saw the event.

Highway was busy!

So if you are CT inclined you now have proof it was a normal busy day, a lot of people were just hearing about the WTC, and then the Pentagon gets hit.

I was wondering how busy it was that day. It was busy, and I bet there are more witnesses than were interviewed.

This video proves the plane hit the Pentagon at a low angle, below 6 degrees. Not visible from this camera because the plane was below the obstuctions seen on the video.

I have listened to enough witnesses, and trust the people who discussed the events of that day. Those people in the Pentagon who saw the plane parts that moment, not planted parts, but first on scene people who saw plane parts in minute.

Any CT on the Pentagon and flight 77 are all nut cases, or those who are making money off the nut cases.

[gumboot]

I wonder why the videos always get publicly released to Judicial Watch, when it is Scott Bingham's lawsuits which are actually forcing the releases of these videos?

http://flight77.info/



Judicial Watch also had a FOIA release, I believe. As, obviously, did CNN. They probably released them to everyone at once.

The writers of that website are false, however. The Doubleday footage is not the first confiscated footage relating to AA77 released through FOIA. Sounds like they're blowing their own trumpet.

-Gumboot

[T.A.M.]

Moussaoui Trial Data/Exhibits were only released this year. All 85 tapes likely fell under the umbrella of "potential evidence in a criminal case" relating to his trial.

TAM

[Dazed]

Thanks for the link TAM.

[uk_dave]

You're all missing the most important thing!!

My mate dylan avery posted this on his forum....

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_1229545720915ede71.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=2922)

Now this clearly shows the shadow of the alien mothership in the top right corner....

[gumboot]

Moussaoui Trial Data/Exhibits were only released this year. All 85 tapes likely fell under the umbrella of "potential evidence in a criminal case" relating to his trial.

TAM


I believe the problem is the FOIA request was for "video depicting the impact of AA77" or such thing. Since most of the footage wasn't even looking in the right direction, and since much of the rest didn't show the impact, they don't get all 80+.

A second request was for "all video confiscated" and I think it's reasonable that such a request was denied, personally. I still can't get over the whole FOIA thing in the first place. And yet it's AMERICANS who think they have an evil corrupt government. Un ***** believable.

-Gumboot

[Dazed]

Agreed, my point is just that, knowing that the videos are all more or less worthless, the FBI's refusal to release them without a struggle breeds conspiracy theories.

[T.A.M.]

I know. Here in Canada we have the same problem. People want access to everything and anything. This is regardless of whether or not they have the foggiest idea of what the information means.

I do not disagree with transparency, I believe it keeps govts more honest, but I mean some of the things that get asked for is simply assinine.

I would like someone to post a bigger pic, or link to one, that clearly shows the hotle in relation to the Pentagon and the Citgo.

TAM

[beachnut]

Can someone post a link to the myspace video please? I can't find it.

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=1507751455

but becareful it is a CTers site citing the video

[Bell]

Hee hee :)

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2093724&postcount=26

[T.A.M.]

Perhaps they have released them back to their rightful owners, or perhaps they are keeping them for evidence for the KSM trial or the "Ramzi Binalshibh" trial.

TAM

[beachnut]

You're all missing the most important thing!!

My mate dylan avery posted this on his forum....

Now this clearly shows the shadow of the alien mothership in the top right corner....

I can see it!

The CT guys will use this and say the video has been edited and ignore the fact the hotel is below the Highway which is looking down on the Pentagon.

[gumboot]

Agreed, my point is just that, knowing that the videos are all more or less worthless, the FBI's refusal to release them without a struggle breeds conspiracy theories.


At this point, anything the government does or doesn't do will breed conspiracy theories. CTers will not let go of their pet theories no matter the evidence.

I do not believe the government is required to dispell their fantasies.

-Gumboot

[TheGrunion]

Agreed, my point is just that, knowing that the videos are all more or less worthless, the FBI's refusal to release them without a struggle breeds conspiracy theories.

I very much disagree with this line of thinking.

While the videos in question may pertain no data that is relevant to the events of 9/11, this does not make them "worthless"

Someone intending to do harm to the Pentagon in the future would love for the U.S. Government to release all of the surveillance footage (or at least the footage from the Pentagon cameras).

This would provide those which intend harm data that they do not currently possess.

At the end of the day, the U.S. government cares about national security. It doesn't give two poos about what Do Over Dylan and the rest of the twoofers think.

[Big Les]

As has been suggested, it looks to me also like the very fast object tracking left-right past the van on the highway is the aircraft - whatever it is is VERY fast, light-coloured, and its merge with the location of the Pentagon pretty much coincides with the bloom of the explosion.

But what do I know- is there any professional commentary on what this video shows as yet?

[Dazed]

I very much disagree with this line of thinking.

While the videos in question may pertain no data that is relevant to the events of 9/11, this does not make them "worthless"

Someone intending to do harm to the Pentagon in the future would love for the U.S. Government to release all of the surveillance footage (or at least the footage from the Pentagon cameras).

This would provide those which intend harm data that they do not currently possess.

At the end of the day, the U.S. government cares about national security. It doesn't give two poos about what Do Over Dylan and the rest of the twoofers think.

I think I disagree with that. Any "data" that those videos might show can just as readily be obtained from google maps, or even a little old fashioned reconnoiter.

[TheGrunion]

I think I disagree with that. Any "data" that those videos might show can just as readily be obtained from google maps, or even a little old fashioned reconnoiter.

The "data" that I am referring to is the location of Pentagon surveillance cameras.

[MikeW]

Agreed, my point is just that, knowing that the videos are all more or less worthless, the FBI's refusal to release them without a struggle breeds conspiracy theories.
It's given as an excuse, but I don't think it's a valid one: Governments just like to keep hold of information, it's how they are. Doesn't actually mean the particular information they're holding onto has any value at all.

Here in the UK, for instance, we're approaching a yearly event re: Government secrecy. Every New Year they finally release documents to the public that have been witheld for 30 years, and the new year papers run stories on whatever pops up. Is there ever anything important? Almost always not: it's some long-forgotten political or foreign policy things that could have been made available 20 years ago, at least, and no-one would have cared.

Of course the FOIA law in the US has more teeth than ours, but I think the same thing applies. Governments don't want to set a precedent by releasing lots of information on anything, most probably because that would make it obvious when they really DID want to cover anything up. Plus they know it wouldn't make any difference: if your audience believes that video and photographic evidence is faked, and Government documents contain lies, then releasing videos, photographs and Government documents isn't going to persuade them of anything.

[Kent1]

As has been suggested, it looks to me also like the very fast object tracking left-right past the van on the highway is the aircraft - whatever it is is VERY fast, light-coloured, and its merge with the location of the Pentagon pretty much coincides with the bloom of the explosion.

But what do I know- is there any professional commentary on what this video shows as yet?

Very interesting. I'm really interested to see the higher rez video when it comes out. That could be the plane...hmm..

[Dazed]

The "data" that I am referring to is the location of Pentagon surveillance cameras.

Okay, well then yes, in that case I agree with you. But that doesn't apply to the public cameras. We don't know that the remaining 82 unreleased videos are, but I doubt all 82 of them are Pentagon security cameras, we know that civilian footage was confiscated (citgo, doubletree) and I'd bet that there's more of it in that list of 82.

Further, the original video, plus the second video released, were both pentagon security cameras..

[milesalpha]

:P

So this video equates to absolutely nothing, in terms of evidence.

So I guess my question is... why was this worthless black and white blurred **** secretly withheld from the American public for 5+ years, and would still be locked up in a DOJ filing cabinet were it not for the court order?

What about the other 80+ videos? Why is all this stuff locked up in secret if it shows dick all?

ETA: Especially when you realize that had these not been confiscated in the first place, or at the very least, immediately released after their content was verified by the FBI, the pentagon conspiracy theories would not have a leg to stand on.


They have a leg to stand on in any case? I would just like to repeat that these are all low speed security cams, they would not reveal anything if all 80of them were trained right on the exact spot, they are not designed for such a purpose.

[Kent1]

It's given as an excuse, but I don't think it's a valid one: Governments just like to keep hold of information, it's how they are. Doesn't actually mean the particular information they're holding onto has any value at all.

Here in the UK, for instance, we're approaching a yearly event re: Government secrecy. Every New Year they finally release documents to the public that have been witheld for 30 years, and the new year papers run stories on whatever pops up. Is there ever anything important? Almost always not: it's some long-forgotten political or foreign policy things that could have been made available 20 years ago, at least, and no-one would have cared.

Of course the FOIA law in the US has more teeth than ours, but I think the same thing applies. Governments don't want to set a precedent by releasing lots of information on anything, most probably because that would make it obvious when they really DID want to cover anything up. Plus they know it wouldn't make any difference: if your audience believes that video and photographic evidence is faked, and Government documents contain lies, then releasing videos, photographs and Government documents isn't going to persuade them of anything.

There are tons of documents going through the declassification process all the time and there's nothing sinister about them. A priority on refuting CT theories is not a big one. One of these days I'll have to post some interesting info on my interview with a former NARA librarian. Its only a matter of time before the rest of these video get released.

[Dazed]

Very interesting. I'm really interested to see the higher rez video when it comes out. That could be the plane...hmm..

Yes, the more I watch it the more it seems likely. I took a screen grab.

I think its possible that the circled object is the tail fin. It could just as easily be a car on the highway though.

[Kent1]

Yes, the more I watch it the more it seems likely. I took a screen grab.

I think its possible that the circled object is the tail fin. It could just as easily be a car on the highway though.
I think what's more interesting is that you also have a dark smear trailing along at the same speed just behind that white you circled. Maybe that dark smear is the tail?

[TheGrunion]

Okay, well then yes, in that case I agree with you. But that doesn't apply to the public cameras. We don't know that the remaining 82 unreleased videos are, but I doubt all 82 of them are Pentagon security cameras, we know that civilian footage was confiscated (citgo, doubletree) and I'd bet that there's more of it in that list of 82.

Further, the original video, plus the second video released, were both pentagon security cameras..

I've already agreed that this doesn't apply to the public cameras.

If you read this carefully, you should be able to get a good feel for the contents of the 85 videos.

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/121.html

I'm guessing that 56 show nothing meaningful whatsoever. I would think these include whatever privately owned tapes were swept up, plus whatever may have been picked up from Arlington Nation Cemetary, plus Pentagon cameras pointed outward from the Pentagon (or towards other buildings on the reservation). The Doubletree tape probably technically falls into this category.

Based on the wording used, the next 29 are most likely static cameras on or in the Pentagon, trained on areas that were not impacted by the incident.

I believe the next 12 are tapes that were created to document the damage caused by the incident.

I don't believe that there is a significant volume of private tapes being held on to by the U.S. Government.

[Dazed]

I tend to agree with you, I just think that the public should have full access to them, as part of the historical and official record of that day, and its silly that they weren't all released at once 4 years ago, at least, the 56 that show "nothing meaningful whatsoever." I can totally respect national security concerns, but those clearly aren't the issue with footage such as this doubletree video. It seems like they sat on it for 5 years, and abused FOIA loopholes, to keep it from being released, and I can't think of any real reason for that.

Most people here are just like "It's the government's way." But I don't think that's a good answer.

[T.A.M.]

I think after looking at the video again, you may be right. the first object does seem to end at the pentagon. Gumboot, i think the object you see persist, is actually the truck on the highway which comes through the smoke just after the crash.

TAM

[beachnut]

Yes, the more I watch it the more it seems likely. I took a screen grab.

I think its possible that the circled object is the tail fin. It could just as easily be a car on the highway though.

Time the object. It could be the plane. It looks like he pushed it down and caught it before he hit early.

[Kryptos]

Ho hum... this is boring.

A while back, I posted some photos here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1930783

Here's where everything is located:

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/images/thumb/c/c6/Doubletreemap.jpg/600px-Doubletreemap.jpg


Here are some more photos.

Looking down Army Navy Dr., towards S. Eads, from the Doubletree. The highway (I-395) obstructs the view of the Pentagon:
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/images/thumb/1/1a/Doubletree_armynavy2.jpg/600px-Doubletree_armynavy2.jpg


This is looking directly across the street (Army Navy Dr.) from the Doubletree. Not much to see:
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/images/thumb/c/cb/Doubletree_highway.jpg/600px-Doubletree_highway.jpg


And here's another tour of the area:

This is slightly up the road (Army Navy Dr.) from the Doubletree, looking down S. Eads where it passes under the I-395 overpass from the Pentagon S. Parking Lot. Same overpass as seen in the first picture. This is the most you can see of the Pentagon from this side of the highway:
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/images/thumb/7/71/Doubletree_armynavy.jpg/600px-Doubletree_armynavy.jpg


And this is a view of Army Navy Dr., from S. Eads (and down the street from the Doubletree). The buildings off in the distance (on the left side of the image) are Navy Annex buildings. Also note the construction cranes and spires (Air Force Memorial, which is now open):

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/images/thumb/a/a0/Doubletree_south_eads.jpg/600px-Doubletree_south_eads.jpg


If you continue down this street 3 blocks, you hit S. Joyce St. This photo is the view from Army Navy Dr. The plane passed overhead, just on other side of the overpass. The Citgo is visible down the street.

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/images/9/92/South_joyce.jpg


For some perspective, the Pentagon as seen from the Citgo:
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/images/thumb/a/a3/Citgo_pentagon_view.jpg/600px-Citgo_pentagon_view.jpg


And, the Citgo and Navy Annex buildings seen from along Washington Boulevard, next to the Pentagon(and the Air Force Memorial spires - now open):

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/images/thumb/7/78/Washblvd3.jpg/600px-Washblvd3.jpg

End of tour.


Anyway, I'm finding this boring, tiresome, and absurd to keep debating the Pentagon no-planers. I've been compiling witness accounts (http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=Pentagon_witnesses) (in progress) of people who saw the plane. I may plot their locations on a map and make it into Macromedia Flash presentation or something.

-Kate

[Earl The Tall]

And, the Citgo and Navy Annex buildings seen from along Washington Boulevard, next to the Pentagon(and the Air Force Memorial spires - now open):


Oh they are open. Crap I need to get down there before I head out to Texas.

[Hierosis]

Let me just chime in here as someone who is likely that rare 9/11 conspiracy theorist who comes here to see the other side of the argument and not get into an argument.

First, my position. While I do think there is more to 9/11 than we'll ever know, I ABSOULTELY BELIEVE THAT FLIGHT 77 HIT THE PENTAGON. I often clash with "truthers" over this. But to me it's just basic logic. If such a nefarious plan was in place, wouldn't they want it to have been simple, untraceable and practical? Wouldn't it make little sense to switch planes or whatever and add any complicating elements to any plan? So, in my humble opinion, FLIGHT 77 HIT THE FRIGGIN' PENTAGON.

I'm glad that the video seems to refute the "flyover" theory. But otherwise I have some issues here. We had to wait 5 years for this? Why couldn't it just be released on September 12, 2001? What is the big secret here? There are legitimate questions about 9/11 that have yet to be answered. And for that reason, the administration has no one to blame but themselves for some of the conspiracy theories. Granted, they were bound to emerge. But the veil of secrecy that they have placed over 9/11 has acted like a steroid. Why the hell couldn't this video have come out years ago? And even if there is no clear footage of the plane, why can't they just release all the footage they have????? It would shut SOME people up, and offer closure to others who lost people there. But the big build up to this only throws gas on the fire (insert jet fuel doesn't melt steel comment here). I promise you more people will start to doubt that Flight 77 hit the pentagon after they see this. And maybe, like South Park portayed, that's what they want. Who knows anymore...

[Arus808]

I'm glad that the video seems to refute the "flyover" theory. But otherwise I have some issues here. We had to wait 5 years for this? Why couldn't it just be released on September 12, 2001? What is the big secret here? There are legitimate questions about 9/11 that have yet to be answered. And for that reason, the administration has no one to blame but themselves for some of the conspiracy theories. Granted, they were bound to emerge. But the veil of secrecy that they have placed over 9/11 has acted like a steroid. Why the hell couldn't this video have come out years ago? And even if there is no clear footage of the plane, why can't they just release all the footage they have????? It would shut SOME people up, and offer closure to others who lost people there. But the big build up to this only throws gas on the fire (insert jet fuel doesn't melt steel comment here). I promise you more people will start to doubt that Flight 77 hit the pentagon after they see this. And maybe, like South Park portayed, that's what they want. Who knows anymore...

5 years for soemthing that showed bupkis, is a non issue imho.

The government doesn't entertain these consipracy theories. Only recently the NIST decided to entertain it for a bit on wTC 7 and they are treating that as only a "highlight" to address why the CT surrounding WTC 7 is not even plausible. Why should the government put stock into every "theory" put forth, when its not backed by evidence?

I could say the moon is made of cheese. however, we've put men on the moon and they can whole heartedly discount my claims with the evidence they brought back, along with video footage taken of the event. Its my theory, but its a theory they never entertained.

The government doesn't OWE us anything. They investitaged 9/11 , put out three different reports, basically all coming to the same conclusion. These videos, wereprobably never releaesd becaues THEY Didn't support any theory that was beyond what the evidence and facts showed. The physical evidence was more than enough to prove that a plane hit hte pentagon, that it was AA 77 and the DNA evidnece found proved that it was.

THERE IS A THEORY ABOUT EVERYTHING, whether is a murder two blocks from your house or something as big as 9/11. The only "facts" are when peopel admit to the crimes they've committed and how they went about to plan it, then it no longer becomes a theory.

[Oliver]

5 years for soemthing that showed bupkis, is a non issue imho.

The government doesn't entertain these consipracy theories. Only recently the NIST decided to entertain it for a bit on wTC 7 and they are treating that as only a "highlight" to address why the CT surrounding WTC 7 is not even plausible. Why should the government put stock into every "theory" put forth, when its not backed by evidence?

I guess they would investigate everthing if their
reputation is down enough because CT-speculations...

Isn´t this the reason for the new WTC7 investigation?

[TheGrunion]

There are legitimate questions about 9/11 that have yet to be answered.

Welcome aboard Hierosis.

What legitimate questions about 9/11 do you considered unanswered and who would you like to answer them?

[Hierosis]

Ok, if it was all simple incompetance, how was NO ONE help accountable? These people would have failed us ON MASSIVE LEVEL! They don't even offer up one scapegoat (ie, Oliver Noth in Iran/Contra).

Did any of you ever read James Ridgeway's book "the 5 Unanswered Questions About 9/11?" If not, I would suggest you do. I promise that it's EXTREMELY practical and doesn't talk about pods, jews or the illuminati.

[TheGrunion]

Ok, if it was all simple incompetance, how was NO ONE help accountable? These people would have failed us ON MASSIVE LEVEL! They don't even offer up one scapegoat (ie, Oliver Noth in Iran/Contra).

Did any of you ever read James Ridgeway's book "the 5 Unanswered Questions About 9/11?" If not, I would suggest you do. I promise that it's EXTREMELY practical and doesn't talk about pods, jews or the illuminati.

Why do you presume that the cause of 9/11 was "simple incompetance"?

How can you state that no one was held accountable?

http://149.101.1.32/ag/moussaouiindictment.htm

[Hierosis]

BTW - major props for the Scott Hall picture.

[Alt+F4]

I've been compiling witness accounts (http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=Pentagon_witnesses) (in progress) of people who saw the plane. I may plot their locations on a map and make it into Macromedia Flash presentation or something.

-Kate

That would be great, if you have the time to do it. BTW, thanks for the photos, I for one am not familar with the area around the Pentagon.

[TheGrunion]

BTW - major props for the Scott Hall picture.
Thanks.

However, I am much more interested in your thoughts regarding the questions I asked you, rather than my avatar.

[Hierosis]

I think you're misunderstanding me. Unless I missed something, the official story says, that we were basically caught with our pants down. Meaning the government completely dropped the ball in anticipating and stopping these attacks. I have yet to see a single government official held accountable for this "incompetence."

The Moussaouii trial? They tried someone who did not take part in the attacks and whose role in it is still unclear to this day. Regarding 9/11 the most he is, is guilty by association. I don't want to sound like I'm defending the guy, but he was in jail on 9/11 and didn't take part in the attacks. Does it makes sense to charge for a crime that occurred while they were already in jail?

[TheGrunion]

I think you're misunderstanding me. Unless I missed something, the official story says, that we were basically caught with our pants down. Meaning the government completely dropped the ball in anticipating and stopping these attacks. I have yet to see a single government official held accountable for this "incompetence."

Have you read the 9/11 commission report? The actual report? I think you should. You will have a much better understanding of the official story.

The Moussaouii trial? They tried someone who did not take part in the attacks and whose role in it is still unclear to this day. Regarding 9/11 the most he is, is guilty by association. I don't want to sound like I'm defending the guy, but he was in jail on 9/11 and didn't take part in the attacks. Does it makes sense to charge for a crime that occurred while they were already in jail?

Based on the above, I presume that you now acknowledge that someone was held accountable.

You seem like a decent enough person. I'm guessing that you have only been exposed to derivitive information filtered through pro-CT websites.

I know it takes a lot of effort, but do yourself a favor and read at least the 9/11 commission report. I think it will greatly assist in putting things in context for you.

[Hierosis]

Oh no no brother, I have read that incredible Tom Clancy feature. Curiously, have you read "Without Precedent?" This is the book that was written by Kean and Hamilton earlier this year where they talk about how much information they were DENIED access to, thus limiting the effectiveness of their investigation. If not, I'd make a trip to amazon.

As far as Moussaouii, so you're telling me that prosecuting someone who didn't take part in the ACTUAL ATTACKS is considered justice? Surely you jest sir. And I still think you're not quote getting the concept of GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR MISERABLE FAILURES ON AND BEFORE 9/11.

[Gravy]

I think you're misunderstanding me. Unless I missed something, the official story says, that we were basically caught with our pants down. Meaning the government completely dropped the ball in anticipating and stopping these attacks. I have yet to see a single government official held accountable for this "incompetence." Specifically who do you think should be held accountable, and how?

[Hierosis]

Specifically who do you think should be held accountable, and how?

Gravy Train!!! I was wondering when I would be cited by you.

Well, why don't you tell me. You're the one who feels that the incompetence theory is all there is to it.

[Kryptos]

Ok, if it was all simple incompetance, how was NO ONE help accountable?

62,040,606 American voters (a majority) in 2004 did not fault the administration for failing to "connect the dots" and foresee the 9/11 attacks, and for various reasons were content with status quo.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/president/

Of course, 59,028,109 American voters were dissatisfied for various reasons, but that wasn't enough. I don't fault the government for failing to "connect the dots" or the "failure of imagination".

I'm not sure if you have a realistic idea of the government's capabilities. It's not at all like Hollywood, but is rather like a huge and very slow elephant. There are ~2 million employees scattered in offices all around the Washington area, FBI and other agency field offices across the country, and around the world. Combine that with government's slow adoption of technology to aid in information sharing, and bureaucratic/legal "walls" that inhibit interagency coordination, and failure to "connect the dots" is no surprise.

http://news.com.com/Critics+Management,+not+IT+money,+is+FBI+problem/2100-1028_3-5191646.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/17/AR2006081701485.html

As for holding officials accountable, folks like George Tenet and Louis Freeh are gone. On the other hand, if FAA and NORAD leadership lied to the 9/11 Commission to hide their incompetence, I wouldn't be sad to see them go. But overall, the problems are more systematic than anything, in terms of what the government could have done to prevent 9/11.

-Kate

[Gravy]

Gravy Train!!! I was wondering when I would be cited by you.

Well, why don't you tell me. You're the one who feels that the incompetence theory is all there is to it.Don't put words in my mouth. It's your claim, and I asked a reasonable question about it. Specifically whom do you think should be held accountable, and how?

[Skeptic4Sure]

:D

[Hierosis]

62,040,606 American voters (a majority) in 2004 did not fault the administration for failing to "connect the dots" and foresee the 9/11 attacks, and for various reasons were content with status quo.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/president/

Of course, 59,028,109 American voters were dissatisfied for various reasons, but that wasn't enough. I don't fault the government for failing to "connect the dots" or the "failure of imagination".

I'm not sure if you have a realistic idea of the government's capabilities. It's not at all like Hollywood, but is rather like a huge and very slow elephant. There are ~2 million employees scattered in offices all around the Washington area, FBI and other agency field offices across the country, and around the world. Combine that with government's slow adoption of technology to aid in information sharing, and bureaucratic/legal "walls" that inhibit interagency coordination, and failure to "connect the dots" is no surprise.

http://news.com.com/Critics+Management,+not+IT+money,+is+FBI+problem/2100-1028_3-5191646.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/17/AR2006081701485.html

As for holding officials accountable, folks like George Tenet and Louis Freeh are gone. On the other hand, if FAA and NORAD leadership lied to the 9/11 Commission to hide their incompetence, I wouldn't be sad to see them go. But overall, the problems are more systematic than anything, in terms of what the government could have done to prevent 9/11.

-Kate

Kate,

I have a very good idea of how the government works, as I've worked with government officials and run for office.

Regardless, so since Freeh and Tenet resigned, they're clear??? That's all?? One simply has to resign from a government position to avoid discipline.

Have you read the book that Kean and Hamilton released earlier this year??? You know, the one about how difficult the administration made the investigation???

And finally,

The 2004 election was NOT a referendum on 9/11. If you think it was, I have a list of books I'd recommend.

[Hierosis]

Don't put words in my mouth. It's your claim, and I asked a reasonable question about it. Specifically whom do you think should be held accountable, and how?


No no, see, I don't accept the official explanation. But I'm also not abligated by law to give you an alternate theory and pretend like I'm an expert on building structure, military action, war games, NORAD, etc...

But having seen you in action, it seems clear that you feel that the 9/11 Commission report covered all the needed bases. Therefore, you would accept the idea that this all happened due to complete incomentance. So I would redirect the question to you of, "how do we deal with this incredible incompentence??"

Oh, and I meant to put this in my reply Kate. They were not able to imagine a scenario like this? Have you at all read about Operation Bojinka? If not, I'd suggest looking it up.

[Skeptic4Sure]

Ho hum... this is boring.

A while back, I posted some photos here:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=1930783

Here's where everything is located:

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/images/thumb/c/c6/Doubletreemap.jpg/600px-Doubletreemap.jpg


Here are some more photos.

Looking down Army Navy Dr., towards S. Eads, from the Doubletree. The highway (I-395) obstructs the view of the Pentagon:
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/images/thumb/1/1a/Doubletree_armynavy2.jpg/600px-Doubletree_armynavy2.jpg


This is looking directly across the street (Army Navy Dr.) from the Doubletree. Not much to see:
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/images/thumb/c/cb/Doubletree_highway.jpg/600px-Doubletree_highway.jpg


And here's another tour of the area:

This is slightly up the road (Army Navy Dr.) from the Doubletree, looking down S. Eads where it passes under the I-395 overpass from the Pentagon S. Parking Lot. Same overpass as seen in the first picture. This is the most you can see of the Pentagon from this side of the highway:
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/images/thumb/7/71/Doubletree_armynavy.jpg/600px-Doubletree_armynavy.jpg


And this is a view of Army Navy Dr., from S. Eads (and down the street from the Doubletree). The buildings off in the distance (on the left side of the image) are Navy Annex buildings. Also note the construction cranes and spires (Air Force Memorial, which is now open):

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/images/thumb/a/a0/Doubletree_south_eads.jpg/600px-Doubletree_south_eads.jpg


If you continue down this street 3 blocks, you hit S. Joyce St. This photo is the view from Army Navy Dr. The plane passed overhead, just on other side of the overpass. The Citgo is visible down the street.

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/images/9/92/South_joyce.jpg


For some perspective, the Pentagon as seen from the Citgo:
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/images/thumb/a/a3/Citgo_pentagon_view.jpg/600px-Citgo_pentagon_view.jpg


And, the Citgo and Navy Annex buildings seen from along Washington Boulevard, next to the Pentagon(and the Air Force Memorial spires - now open):

http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/images/thumb/7/78/Washblvd3.jpg/600px-Washblvd3.jpg

End of tour.


Anyway, I'm finding this boring, tiresome, and absurd to keep debating the Pentagon no-planers. I've been compiling witness accounts (http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=Pentagon_witnesses) (in progress) of people who saw the plane. I may plot their locations on a map and make it into Macromedia Flash presentation or something.

-Kate


Cool photos Kate.

Feels like I am back on Columbia Pike again...aaah memories.

Kate, the plane was on the North side of the gas station and didn't hit the light poles or the building.

It was a flyover.

[Hierosis]

It was a flyover.

Dude, no it wasn't. Stop embarrassing yourself and anyone else who has questions about 9/11.

Thanks.

[Gravy]

No no, see, I don't accept the official explanation. But I'm also not abligated by law to give you an alternate theory and pretend like I'm an expert on building structure, military action, war games, NORAD, etc...

But having seen you in action, it seems clear that you feel that the 9/11 Commission report covered all the needed bases. Therefore, you would accept the idea that this all happened due to complete incomentance. So I would redirect the question to you of, "how do we deal with this incredible incompentence??"

Oh, and I meant to put this in my reply Kate. They were not able to imagine a scenario like this? Have you at all read about Operation Bojinka? If not, I'd suggest looking it up.Got it. You feel that someone should be held accountable for incompetence but you can't say who, or how they should be held accountable. It's fine to have feelings about these things, but its unproductive to complain about them without being able to support your postion or suggest solutions.

[Hierosis]

Got it. You feel that someone should be held accountable for incompetence but you can't say who, or how they should be held accountable. It's fine to have feelings about these things, but its unproductive to complain about them without being able to support your postion or suggest solutions.

Now you're putting words in my mouth Gravy. If you can't back up your own theories, to quote flavor flav, "I got nothin' for ya man."

[TheGrunion]

Oh no no brother,

No matter how much you like my avatar, we are not brothers, I assure you.

I have read that incredible Tom Clancy feature. Curiously, have you read "Without Precedent?" This is the book that was written by Kean and Hamilton earlier this year where they talk about how much information they were DENIED access to, thus limiting the effectiveness of their investigation. If not, I'd make a trip to amazon.

No, I haven't read Without Precedent. I consider your recommendation to read it to be a pretty fair one.

How do you reconcile calling the 9/11 commission report a "Tom Clancy feature", yet hold a book written by the co-chairs of this same commission in such high regard?

As far as Moussaouii, so you're telling me that prosecuting someone who didn't take part in the ACTUAL ATTACKS is considered justice? Surely you jest sir. And I still think you're not quote getting the concept of GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR MISERABLE FAILURES ON AND BEFORE 9/11.

YOU stated:
Ok, if it was all simple incompetance, how was NO ONE help accountable

Then I demonstrated that to date someone (Moussaouii) was indeed held accountable (indicted and convicted), thereby disproving your assertion.

Now, you whine about the unfairness of Moussaouii being held accountable because he didn't participate in the actual atacks, and in the same absurd sentence further whine about government officials (who had nothing to do with planning or implementing the events of 9/11....and therefore also did not participate in the actual attacks) not being held accountable for the same attacks.

As far as me not understanding concepts, the fault for that in this case rests with the sender of the message (you). The assertion that you STATED was that NO ONE was held accountable.

I now infer from your last post that the assertion that you MEANT was that NO ONE EMPLOYED BY THE U.S. GOVERNMENT was held accountable.

Excuse me for not being a mind reader. You'll need to explain yourself much better than this in the future if you want to be taken seriously on this board.

With all of that out of the way:

What government officials and employees to you believe should be held accountable?

What evidence of their wrongdoings do you have to offer?

What do you propose be the punishment of those that failed us in your eyes?

If you can't provide a meaningful answer to all three of the above questions, please don't waste my time answering any of them.

[Gravy]

Now you're putting words in my mouth Gravy. If you can't back up your own theories, to quote flavor flav, "I got nothin' for ya man."My theories? What might those be, o Great Karnak? :con2:

[StoneWT]

Gravy Train!!! I was wondering when I would be cited by you.


Hierosis is simply another undercover conspiracy troll. He may have watched a couple of conspiracy videos and read a book or two.

He complains about a lack of punishment for those accountable. He fails to identify those responsible, explain why they're responsible, and define the punishment.

This is all he has: innuendo and answering a response to a statement/question he raised with another question.

Honestly, you have no business crusading for 9/11 TWOOF if you haven't even taken the time to read the 9/11 Report. How can you attack something if you don't have the foggiest notion as to what is?

[Skeptic4Sure]

Dude, no it wasn't. Stop embarrassing yourself and anyone else who has questions about 9/11.

Thanks.


Hey champ.

We are the guys who went to the Pentagon area and obtained THE smoking gun based on interviewing witnesses.

Don't embarrass yourself by talking to me like that.

Did you go to the VA area and interview witnesses?

Did you?

[Gravy]

Hey champ.

We are the guys who went to the Pentagon area and obtained THE smoking gun based on interviewing witnesses.

Don't embarrass yourself by talking to me like that.

Did you go to the VA area and interview witnesses?

Did you?Did you go to the VA area, interview eyewitnesses, and when they contradicted your beliefs and supported the official version, claim that they are liars who may be government agents?

Did you?

You did!

[Abbyas]

It's coming from all sides! Debunkers vs. truthers! Truthers vs. Question Askerers!

Seriously though, anyone read that Without Precedent thing?

[Pardalis]

Hierosis is simply another undercover conspiracy troll. He may have watched a couple of conspiracy videos and read a book or two.

Come on, now let's be fair. From what I can read of his posts, Hierosis is showing no signs of being a troll.

He seems to be a genuinely concerned individual, and like any ordinary person, he didn't study the entire 9/11 issue at length.

[Skeptic4Sure]

Did you go to the VA area, interview eyewitnesses, and when they contradicted your beliefs and supported the official version, claim that they are liars who may be government agents?

Did you?

You did!


Thuffering Thucatash.

Oh god, stalker. Get off it, Your world is about to crumble.

Did you interview anybody? Didn't think so.

hahahahahaha....North Side pal. You are DONE.

[Skeptic4Sure]

Skavy, so how bout that plane in the video?

Good stuff huh?

[TheGrunion]

Hey champ.

We are the guys who went to the Pentagon area and obtained THE smoking gun based on interviewing witnesses.

Don't embarrass yourself by talking to me like that.

Did you go to the VA area and interview witnesses?

Did you?

Hey champ, I worked there for four years.

I can remember having to explain the concept of a secure perimeter to Merc over the LC boards.

I spent quite a bit of time in the specific area you are talking about. It looks much different today than it did on 9/11/2001.

You never had a chance to be on site.

You never even were "in the area" before the reconfiguration of the area itself.

You are the embarrassment.

Why don't you take a field trip to a petting zoo, find another board, and pretend you are a veterinarian? It would be about the same thing you are doing here.

[Pardalis]

Thuffering Thucatash.

Oh god, stalker. Get off it, Your world is about to crumble.

Did you interview anybody? Didn't think so.

hahahahahaha....North Side pal. You are DONE.

Now this on the other hand is a real troll.

[Abbyas]

Now this on the other hand is a real troll.

Laughed out loud on that one.

[Dazed]

(CBS) This is the story of hundreds, if not thousands, of foreign language documents that the FBI neglected to translate before and after the Sept. 11 attacks -- documents that detailed what the FBI heard on wiretaps and learned during interrogations of suspected terrorists.

Sibel Edmonds, a translator who worked at the FBI's language division, says the documents weren't translated because the division was riddled with incompetence and corruption.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/10/25/60minutes/main526954.shtml

After this story broke she was placed under a gag order.


"The Inspector General's report contains confirmed evidence of intentional, not accidental, criminality. The validity of the evidence has been confirmed by Senators Grassley and Leahy, and by the FBI."

http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/121704Hogue.shtml

[StoneWT]

Come on, now let's be fair. From what I can read of his posts, Hierosis is showing no signs of being a troll.

He seems to be a genuinely concerned individual, and like any ordinary person, he didn't study the entire 9/11 issue at length.


I think he is here for a game of wits. Constantly trying to force the burden of proof onto people attempting to help him when he brought up an issue isn't a good sign.

SkepticFoSho' is bragging about the work he did. It's all about tooting your own horn.

[Hierosis]

No, I haven't read Without Precedent. I consider your recommendation to read it to be a pretty fair one.

Then read it.

With all of that out of the way:

What government officials and employees to you believe should be held accountable?

see below

What evidence of their wrongdoings do you have to offer?

Are you serious? Even if you work with the official story, the President of the United States and his cabinet are charged with protecting the population of this country. (Please, again, remember that I am working off the idea that the 9/11 Commission report is accurate which I do not feel that it is), some evidence would be those holes in the ground where buildings and people once stood. Or that chunk that came out of the pentagon. Or that plane that crashed in PA, regardless of how we think it crashed.
Our leaders should not be excused from being reprimanded for their incompletence, that's not how a democracy works. The 9/11 Commission report basically says, "someone dropped the ball. but we don't want to look at who dropped it. we want to look at how it looked when it dropped and what kind of sound it made when it bounced off the ground."

What do you propose be the punishment of those that failed us in your eyes?

I dunno, impeachment perhaps. Some jailtime and the American people's ability to select new leaders who we feel are more compentent. Unless you feel comfortable under the Bush administration that is.

If you can't provide a meaningful answer to all three of the above questions, please don't waste my time answering any of them.

I think my reply was frankly more than you could have hoped for. So I'm pretty ok with it.

[~enigma~]

Thanks Oliver. Now is it just me, or does anybody think they might see the top of the tail fin behind the roof just before the explosion? Or is that just traffic on the highway in the background?You see the tail but the hotel was on the wrong side of the pentagon.

[Hierosis]

My theories? What might those be, o Great Karnak? :con2:

I would assume that your theory is close to the official version, if not identical. Correct me if I'm mistaken.

[Hierosis]

Hierosis is simply another undercover conspiracy troll. He may have watched a couple of conspiracy videos and read a book or two.

He complains about a lack of punishment for those accountable. He fails to identify those responsible, explain why they're responsible, and define the punishment.

This is all he has: innuendo and answering a response to a statement/question he raised with another question.

Honestly, you have no business crusading for 9/11 TWOOF if you haven't even taken the time to read the 9/11 Report. How can you attack something if you don't have the foggiest notion as to what is?

Is this for real?

[TheGrunion]

I think my reply was frankly more than you could have hoped for. So I'm pretty ok with it.

Don't pat yourself on the back.....it was nothing to be proud of.

Using your logic, I suppose you believe that we should start firing and jailing law enforcement every time a crime is committed.

And you failed to provide any evidence to support your assertions. I asked for evidence of their wrongdoings. So lets see it.

[Redtail]

Skavy, so how bout that plane in the video?

Good stuff huh?

So it's back to no plane again? Even though the highway blocks the view of The Pentegon? How would anyone see it... unless it "pulled up"? :rolleyes:

[Dazed]

Don't pat yourself on the back.....it was nothing to be proud of.

Using your logic, I suppose you believe that we should start firing and jailing law enforcement every time a crime is committed.

And you failed to provide any evidence to support your assertions. I asked for evidence of their wrongdoings. So lets see it.

Please see my post.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2143596&postcount=119

[Hierosis]

I think he is here for a game of wits. Constantly trying to force the burden of proof onto people attempting to help him when he brought up an issue isn't a good sign.

SkepticFoSho' is bragging about the work he did. It's all about tooting your own horn.

A game of wits? Is that what you call it when someone comes on here with an opinion that differs from yours?

[Gravy]

Laughed out loud on that one.Me too. We couldn't invent a sillier lackwit if we tried. The fact that he actually believes that aircraft contrails are evidence of a government mind-control program is just icing on the cake.

[Dazed]

"Paul Thompson said that his role is "neutral, to compile information," but charged that the 9/11 Commission Report was a "white wash and a cover up." He pointed to the Commission's assertion that "no foreign government was involved" but it buried contrary information. And NORAD officials testified under oath regarding the timeline, which was contradicted by the Commission's new timeline, and Thompson asked, "Why weren't these NORAD officials charged with perjury?" Condoleezza Rice also testified under oath and should have been charged with perjury for her lies about the Presidential Daily Briefing of August 6, 2001, Thompson charged."

http://www.truthemergency.us/pages/Commentary.htm

[Hierosis]

Please see my post.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2143596&postcount=119

Thank you.

[Gravy]

A game of wits? Is that what you call it when someone comes on here with an opinion that differs from yours?Opinions are fine, but you came here with a complaint that no one had been held accountable. We asked who you think should be held accountable and how. If you think that's an unreasonable question, please explain. If it is a reasonable question but you cannot answer it, your argument needs refining. It's your complaint. What would you like to see done?

[Arus808]

the only people to blame here are those who voted for the elected officials for the last 12 years...why dont we blame all registered voters?

[Gravy]

I would assume that your theory is close to the official version, if not identical. Correct me if I'm mistaken.Then it wouldn't be my theory, would it? I go with the evidence. That's all.

[Pardalis]

All in all, I think this is where the 9/11 debate should be. Instead of these idiotic controlled-demolitions-no-plane BS theories, there are important questions about government failures that need to be adressed so that this sort of thing doesn't happen again.

Of course it will happen again, no matter what we do, the terrorists will somehow find a defect in the security that they can take advantage of. But at least with some constructive debate about the US's own failures, something positive can come out of it.

I get the feeling the Bush administration felt embarrassed about its incompetence and corruption, and wanted to swipe it under the rug. That to me is irresponsible. As hierosis said, these people are supposed to protect their citizens, it's their job.

[Hierosis]

Opinions are fine, but you came here with a complaint that no one had been held accountable. We asked who you think should be held accountable and how. If you think that's an unreasonable question, please explain. If it is a reasonable question but you cannot answer it, your argument needs refining. It's your complaint. What would you like to see done?

Ok, I'm not going to get into a battle of semantics with you on a message board. You're clearly missing my point, and that's ok. You can fire back anyway you choose and call this a copout, but I'm not going to run in circles with you.

[Dazed]

He asked you a direct question. Don't be a wanker, to get to the next level you have to answer it.

Who should be charged, why and how?

[Arus808]

Ok, I'm not going to get into a battle of semantics with you on a message board. You're clearly missing my point, and that's ok. You can fire back anyway you choose and call this a copout, but I'm not going to run in circles with you.


i dont see how he is running circles.

YOU made assetion A - the claim that there should someone held responsible for all the crap that happened up to 911 and after 9/11
Gravy asked whom do you think should be held responsible

You gave no answer

What? You dont know how to give a simple answer to a simple question?

[TheGrunion]

Please see my post.
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=2143596&postcount=119

I read them both.

You do realize that the second one is an Op-Ed piece, right.

I've consulted to clients at the federal, state, and local levels. I've seen inefficiency, laziness, and incompetence in all three, as well as the private sector. I don't find this surprising in the least.

I agree that this sort of thing is very unfortunate.

If you have a method to completely eradicate this sort of thing, you should be the CEO of a very large corporation. Let me know when that happens because I'll sink every last penny that I have into your stock.

[Hierosis]

All in all, I think this is where the 9/11 debate should be. Instead of these idiotic controlled-demolitions-no-plane BS theories, there are important questions about government failures that need to be adressed so that this sort of thing doesn't happen again.

Of course it will happen again, no matter what we do, the terrorists will somehow find a defect in the security that they can take advantage of. But at least with some constructive debate about the US's own failures, something positive can come out of it.

I get the feeling the Bush administration felt embarrassed about its incompetence and corruption, and wanted to swipe it under the rug. That to me is irresponsible. As hierosis said, these people are supposed to protect their citizens, it's their job.

Well, while we may disagree overall, I appreciate that you recognize a good debate. I wasn't trying to come here and throw outrageous theories at people. I wanted to have a fact conversation about one of the greatest tragedies in our history.

With that said, I'm off to bed.

[~enigma~]

Hey champ.

We are the guys who went to the Pentagon area and obtained THE smoking gun based on interviewing witnesses.

Don't embarrass yourself by talking to me like that.

Did you go to the VA area and interview witnesses?

Did you?

Until you provide the evidence that you did and that you interviewed anyone, your claim is a bunch of hot air that is totally meaningless.

[Dazed]

I read them both.

You do realize that the second one is an Op-Ed piece, right.

I've consulted to clients at the federal, state, and local levels. I've seen inefficiency, laziness, and incompetence in all three, as well as the private sector. I don't find this surprising in the least.

I agree that this sort of thing is very unfortunate.

If you have a method to completely eradicate this sort of thing, you should be the CEO of a very large corporation. Let me know when that happens because I'll sink every last penny that I have into your stock.

I realize, but I pasted it because I think the points he makes about perjury are valid.

[~enigma~]

Thuffering Thucatash.

Oh god, stalker. Get off it, Your world is about to crumble.

Did you interview anybody? Didn't think so.

hahahahahaha....North Side pal. You are DONE.

Which side is the grassy knoll on and was it a lone plane or was there a second...go crawl under a rock :)

[Pardalis]

Well, while we may disagree overall, I appreciate that you recognize a good debate. I wasn't trying to come here and throw outrageous theories at people. I wanted to have a fact conversation about one of the greatest tragedies in our history.

I think you may have misinterpreted Gravy's remark because of what his name represents in the CT world. The name "Gravy" I'm sure is synonymous with something unpleasant there. But rest assured, he is a true and honest debater. He only asked you to finish your thoughts.

I think your thoughts have merit, you shouldn't feel antagonised here. You only have to understand that when you make a claim here, you have to be able to support it.

[uk_dave]

Hierosis, are you saying that you believe it was more than incompetence and that you believe the skeptics who post here simply see 9/11 as being the result of incompetence by the US govt and military and as such we should be asking for someone to be held accountable?

If that is the case then I would simply point out that:

1. Airline security in the US (for domestic flights) was a joke prior to 9/11 and this, coupled with an expectation of what a hijack would actually mean on a domestic flight, lead to an opportunity for the type of attack we eventually witnessed. This situation existed for years prior to 9/11. If we are to apportion blame for this it will have to include not only previous governments, civil servants and airline bosses, but also the travelling public who, up until the 9/11 attacks, wanted flying within the US to be as simple as getting on a bus. Now that the full potential of suicidal attacks is known and appreciated the government (of not just the US) is in danger of swinging to the opposite end of the spectrum and could be accused of being too prescriptive and intrusive with ragards to the movement of it's own citizens. So really any govt is caught between a rock and a hard place: Not enough action and a terrorist attack can be carried out. Too much action and they get accused of being a police state.

2. Hindsight. We have the wonderful benefit of being able to work backwards from the 9/11 attack and join up all those dots which pointed to it happening. Unfortunately this fails to take into account all the other dots which point to other terrorist attacks happening but which ultimately come to nothing. So things are never as clear as they might appear with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.

3. Foreign govt involvement? Possibly. But then you have to take into account real politik. The world is not black and white. Yes, there is always the possibility that powerful people in saudi or pakistan had connections with the hijackers. But the balancing question is can these people be dealt with by diplomatic means rather than a military response which ultimately leads to an even more unfriendly regime being given power in those countries? I suspect that the US govt chose the diplomatic route.

[Crungy]

Hey champ.

We are the guys who went to the Pentagon area and obtained THE smoking gun based on interviewing witnesses.

Don't embarrass yourself by talking to me like that.

Did you go to the VA area and interview witnesses?

Did you?

Deja Vu all over again.....

The first psychological issue with witness testimony is "perception" — the question of whether external events are copied into memory accurately. The second is "memory" — the issue of whether initial perceptions, accurate or inaccurate, remain unchanged in the mind.
If human perception is questionable, human memory is at least equally questionable.

The tempting simple assumption is that people have "Flashbulb Memory." That just as a flashbulb fires and imprints an image permanently on film, an event is emblasioned on human memory and remains there unchanged. Alas, that's not the case.

In the first place, people can "remember" things that they could not have possibly seen. One example comes from Daniel Schacter's book Seven Sins of Memory, and concerns the 1992 crash of an El Al cargo plane into an apartment building in the Netherlands.

People throughout the country saw, read, heard, and talked about the catastrophe.

Ten months later a group of Dutch psychologists probed what members of their university communities remembered about the crash. The researchers asked a simple question: "Did you see the television film of the moment the plane hit the apartment building?" Fifty-five percent of respondents said "yes." In a follow-up study, two-thirds of the participants responded affirmatively.

They also recalled details concerning the speed and angle of the plane as it hit the building, whether it was on fire prior to impact, and what happened to the body of the plane right after the collision. These finding are remarkable because there was no television film of the moment when the plane actually crashed.

The psychologists had asked a blatantly suggestive question: they implied that television film of the crash had been shown. Respondents may have viewed television footage of the postcrash scene, and they probably read, imagined, or talked about what might have happened at the moment of impact. Spurred on by the suggestive question, participants misattributed information from these or other sources to a film that they never watched.

[gumboot]

Woah...

Thinks have fired up here! Let's try keep it civil.

My take...

Whenever I see 9/11 claims that no one was hel accountable for the government's incompetence, I recall my analysis of 9/11 that led to the conclusion that 9/11 occured because of three things.

In particular, it makes me think of thing number three - American arrogance.

To most Americans, I think, it goes without saying that their government *could* have stopped 9/11 and *should* have stopped 9/11. Therefore, the fact that they didn't is evidence of one of two things:

1) Government incompetence
2) Intentional Government inaction (a LIHOP scenario, if you will)

I personally don't agree, and I attribute this view to American arrogance.

It must be a grossly unpleasant thing to entertain that "19 ragheads with boxcutters" thwarted the multi-billion dollar defences of such a great and powerful nation.

I think they did, though. I think the Terrorist beat the US, plain and simple. They were smarter, they were more ruthless, more dedicated, and they were bolder. They did not succeed because of US incompetence, they succeeded because they were superior. Plain and simple.

Rather than look for government officials to lynch and blame, the US would do far better actively seeking to address the real issue - a potentially superior enemy.

Norman Mineta, in his testimony to the 9/11 Commission, identified US ports as the weakest link in national security. What has been done since 9/11 to address this weakness?

Prior to 9/11, FAA assessment teams managed to smuggle everything from firearms to explosive to chemical weapons onto US domestic flights. What has been done to improve security at airports in the US?

Prior to 9/11 law enforcement and intelligence agencies did not communicate well (indeed, that's an understatement), and resources for counter-terrorism operations were insufficient for the task.

Prior to 9/11 politics on the world stage was considered more important than protecting the US, and terrorists often were left alone out of fear of offending this country or that diplomat.

What has been done post-9/11 to enable US intelligence and law enforcement, and to bring a more realistic attitude re: terrorism into the global political sphere?

THESE are the sort of questions an American citizen should be asking of their government. Americans have pretty few individuals in their nation who are selfless enough to dedicate their life efforts to keeping the nation safe. Instead of demanding to know why they do not have a perfect track record in their difficult task, why don't Americans turn their efforts to making sure the government provides them sufficient resources to do their job properly?

Perhaps some Americans need to let go of their superior arrogance and simply acknowledge that Osama and his bunch of misfits simply out-played them. It is a bitter lesson to learn, but in learning it, the USA will benefit more than it would from a thousand more navel-gazing "investigations".

-Gumboot

[T.A.M.]

Gumboot:

I agree. I have often said I am LIHOI (Let It Happen Out of Ignorance/Incompetence) or LIHOA (Let It Happen Out of Arrogance).

Is it unique to the USA...no. If this happened on Canadian soil, it would likely have been similar. I think it is a modern world thing.

Hierosis:

Welcome. Shame to see you go before I was able to enter in on the conversation.

Gravy's Question was legitimate, so why do you dodge the question. To shout out that the government is incompetent, but then not name names is pretty weak.

S4S:
The Double Tree shows some low grade images, one of which could be the plane coming into and hitting the Pentagon.

What the Double Tree Video DOES NOT show, but should if it occured, is a FLYOVER plane. There is no evidence of a plane passing through the airspace above the pentagon either before, during, or after the explosion...so where is your flyover jet?

TAM

[Bell]

Crungy, great article.

Also, paying the Citgo witnesses to jog their memories might help as well.

[T.A.M.]

Crungy:

Sorry man, so many posts, I over looked yours. That is a great article on the psychology behind memory and recollection. It is studies like that one, that result in witness testimony being more scrutinized, as it should be.

TAM

[gumboot]

What the Double Tree Video DOES NOT show, but should if it occured, is a FLYOVER plane. There is no evidence of a plane passing through the airspace above the pentagon either before, during, or after the explosion...so where is your flyover jet?

TAM



Interestingly...

The Pentagon gatehouse camera footage may not have shown a flyover, even had it occured. As I calculated, the aircraft would have crossed the entire expanse of the frame in one second, and the camera was only taking one frame a second. It was lucky that the camera caught the aircraft at all.

In contrast, the Doubleday footage appears to be operating at a much higher frame rate. As such, this camera would CERTAINLY catch anything flying low above The Pentagon.

-Gumboot

[stateofgrace]

The Moussaouii trial? They tried someone who did not take part in the attacks and whose role in it is still unclear to this day. Regarding 9/11 the most he is, is guilty by association. I don't want to sound like I'm defending the guy, but he was in jail on 9/11 and didn't take part in the attacks. Does it makes sense to charge for a crime that occurred while they were already in jail?

Hi Hierosis and welcome.

I would like to comment on this. I have read many of the transcripts from the Moussauii trail and although by no means an expert on it I am familiar with the in and outs of it.

From my understanding, and I sure I will be corrected if wrong. Moussaouii was not charged with being connected with the attacks of 911. He had nothing whatsoever to do with this attack. Despite popular belief he was not the 20th hijacker. He was charged with and pleaded guilty to being a member of a terrorist organization and conspiracy to commits acts of terrorism. It was never alleged at his trial that he was part of the 911 attacks.

From what I have read when the attack was planned by KSM (also in custody) and authorized by UBL, it was called the ´plane operation´. It was originally mean to be in two waves. Wave one the 911 attacks and then a second attack sometime later. Moussaouii was to be part of the second wave of the attacks, not the first wave. As such it does seem likely that when he was captured the 911 attack was not compromised as he knew nothing or very little about them.

This seems to be confirmed by UBL himself who issued a statement when Moussaouii got sentenced.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011541.php


``He had no connection at all with Sept. 11," the speaker, claiming to be bin Laden, said in the tape posted on the Internet.
``I am the one in charge of the 19 brothers, and I never assigned brother Zacarias to be with them in that mission," he said, referring to the 19 hijackers

[Crungy]

Crungy, great article.

Also, paying the Citgo witnesses to jog their memories might help as well.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the LyteWeightSeptic posse was aware of that study and copied the methods used to elict the responses they were after.

[Bell]

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the LyteWeightSeptic posse was aware of that study and copied the methods used to elict the responses they were after.

Don't give them too much credit! Even if they were aware of this study, their reaction would not be "we can use this to influence our witnesses" but "holy crap, a Jew plane crashed, it was captured on film, and suddenly the film does not excist anymore!" :)

[Gravy]

Don't give them too much credit! Even if they were aware of this study, their reaction would not be "we can use this to influence our witnesses" but "holy crap, a Jew plane crashed, it was captured on film, and suddenly the film does not excist anymore!" :)You got it exactly, Bell!

[chipmunk stew]

to quote flavor flav, "I got nothin' for ya man."
[Fear of a Black Planet nitpick]
"I can't do nothin' for ya man."
[/FBP nitpick]

[Crungy]

to quote flavor flav, "I got nothin' for ya man."

Quoting an anti semitic conspiracy nut. Priceless!

[Dog Town]

I can see this is sitting well with the twoofers! LMFAO!
How bout that fly-over? LMFAO, again!

[boloboffin]

Dogtown's got it.

In the upcoming Loose Change: Final Cut, the assertions will be made that:

a) Flight 77 flew to the north of the Citgo,
b) Flight 77 flew over the Pentagon
c) another plane hit the light posts (or they were rigged to blow)
d) another plane crashed into the Pentagon (or a missile or something, all we're doing is asking questions)

However, this video does show that b) is false. Flight 77 did not do a flyover. It hit the Pentagon.

That means that d) is false. It is Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon.

This makes c) absurd. Why would the planners go ahead and fly 77 into the Pentagon and then fake a different approach?

All of this, then, contradicts a). Whatever witnesses they have managed to cherrypick or manipulate into statements are contradicted by the evidence.

The Doubletree video shows that LC:FC's "clincher" evidence is false.

[Hierosis]

Hi Hierosis and welcome.

I would like to comment on this. I have read many of the transcripts from the Moussauii trail and although by no means an expert on it I am familiar with the in and outs of it.

From my understanding, and I sure I will be corrected if wrong. Moussaouii was not charged with being connected with the attacks of 911. He had nothing whatsoever to do with this attack. Despite popular belief he was not the 20th hijacker. He was charged with and pleaded guilty to being a member of a terrorist organization and conspiracy to commits acts of terrorism. It was never alleged at his trial that he was part of the 911 attacks.

From what I have read when the attack was planned by KSM (also in custody) and authorized by UBL, it was called the ´plane operation´. It was originally mean to be in two waves. Wave one the 911 attacks and then a second attack sometime later. Moussaouii was to be part of the second wave of the attacks, not the first wave. As such it does seem likely that when he was captured the 911 attack was not compromised as he knew nothing or very little about them.

This seems to be confirmed by UBL himself who issued a statement when Moussaouii got sentenced.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011541.php

Hi. I think we are on the same page here in what I'm trying to get accross. People keep saying that Moussaouii was convicted for 9/11, which he was not. He probably was in place for a seperate operation, but his verdict did not conclude that. I will disagree with you on one point, which is that while is was NOT alleged that he was being tried for 9/11, it was certainly implied in the same way that the administration implied (but never straight out said) that there was a Saddam/911 connection. Hence the playing of the cockpit recordings for the jury and other evidence that was not at all related to the defendent and was very specific to the events of 9/11.

Also, the link you put up has some good info, but I'd warn that in general, anything that David Horowitz does or is connected to (Frontpagemag.com, discoverthenetworks.com, campuswatch.com) is usually biased, innaccurate and/or taken out of context. The information he puts out there is so loaded it's ridiculous and would almost be right at home on some "no planers" web site.

You can see how ridiculous his own words are by going either here:
http://www.campusprogress.org/tools/155/know-your-right-wing-speakers-david-horowitz

or here:

http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/people/davidhorowitz

Finally, I'd also like to point out that Horowitz (along with other neocons like R. James Woolsey and Frank Gaffney) believes that the 93 WTC bombing and the OKC bombing were both masterminded by Saddam, so I would certainly put him in the conspiracy theorist category.

[Hierosis]

[Fear of a Black Planet nitpick]
"I can't do nothin' for ya man."
[/FBP nitpick]

Yeah, I realized that after I posted. Bah.

[Hierosis]

Quoting an anti semitic conspiracy nut. Priceless!

Are you serious? Do you hAve any idea what you're talking about, or do you just make it up as you go along??? Flavor flav has probably never uttered a political statement in his public life (unless Chuck D cleared it first). You're thinking of Professor Griff, who did make some anti-semitic comments and then bowed out of the group. Or are you just holding Flavor flav "guilt by association?"

[beachnut]

Let me just chime in here as someone who is likely that rare 9/11 conspiracy theorist who comes here to see the other side of the argument and not get into an argument.

First, my position. While I do think there is more to 9/11 than we'll ever know, I ABSOULTELY BELIEVE THAT FLIGHT 77 HIT THE PENTAGON. I often clash with "truthers" over this. But to me it's just basic logic. If such a nefarious plan was in place, wouldn't they want it to have been simple, untraceable and practical? Wouldn't it make little sense to switch planes or whatever and add any complicating elements to any plan? So, in my humble opinion, FLIGHT 77 HIT THE FRIGGIN' PENTAGON.

I'm glad that the video seems to refute the "flyover" theory. But otherwise I have some issues here. We had to wait 5 years for this? Why couldn't it just be released on September 12, 2001? What is the big secret here? There are legitimate questions about 9/11 that have yet to be answered. And for that reason, the administration has no one to blame but themselves for some of the conspiracy theories. Granted, they were bound to emerge. But the veil of secrecy that they have placed over 9/11 has acted like a steroid. Why the hell couldn't this video have come out years ago? And even if there is no clear footage of the plane, why can't they just release all the footage they have????? It would shut SOME people up, and offer closure to others who lost people there. But the big build up to this only throws gas on the fire (insert jet fuel doesn't melt steel comment here). I promise you more people will start to doubt that Flight 77 hit the pentagon after they see this. And maybe, like South Park portayed, that's what they want. Who knows anymore...

The evidence is already in on 77. On 9/11 all the evidence was in. Witnesses and physical evidence was there. DNA confirmed the dead.

So what do you have to prove there is something more? What?

Just a feeling?

Name some stuff, quantify your stuff.

[Hierosis]

Woah...

Thinks have fired up here! Let's try keep it civil.

My take...

Whenever I see 9/11 claims that no one was hel accountable for the government's incompetence, I recall my analysis of 9/11 that led to the conclusion that 9/11 occured because of three things.

In particular, it makes me think of thing number three - American arrogance.

To most Americans, I think, it goes without saying that their government *could* have stopped 9/11 and *should* have stopped 9/11. Therefore, the fact that they didn't is evidence of one of two things:

1) Government incompetence
2) Intentional Government inaction (a LIHOP scenario, if you will)

I personally don't agree, and I attribute this view to American arrogance.

It must be a grossly unpleasant thing to entertain that "19 ragheads with boxcutters" thwarted the multi-billion dollar defences of such a great and powerful nation.

I think they did, though. I think the Terrorist beat the US, plain and simple. They were smarter, they were more ruthless, more dedicated, and they were bolder. They did not succeed because of US incompetence, they succeeded because they were superior. Plain and simple.

Rather than look for government officials to lynch and blame, the US would do far better actively seeking to address the real issue - a potentially superior enemy.

Norman Mineta, in his testimony to the 9/11 Commission, identified US ports as the weakest link in national security. What has been done since 9/11 to address this weakness?

Prior to 9/11, FAA assessment teams managed to smuggle everything from firearms to explosive to chemical weapons onto US domestic flights. What has been done to improve security at airports in the US?

Prior to 9/11 law enforcement and intelligence agencies did not communicate well (indeed, that's an understatement), and resources for counter-terrorism operations were insufficient for the task.

Prior to 9/11 politics on the world stage was considered more important than protecting the US, and terrorists often were left alone out of fear of offending this country or that diplomat.

What has been done post-9/11 to enable US intelligence and law enforcement, and to bring a more realistic attitude re: terrorism into the global political sphere?

THESE are the sort of questions an American citizen should be asking of their government. Americans have pretty few individuals in their nation who are selfless enough to dedicate their life efforts to keeping the nation safe. Instead of demanding to know why they do not have a perfect track record in their difficult task, why don't Americans turn their efforts to making sure the government provides them sufficient resources to do their job properly?

Perhaps some Americans need to let go of their superior arrogance and simply acknowledge that Osama and his bunch of misfits simply out-played them. It is a bitter lesson to learn, but in learning it, the USA will benefit more than it would from a thousand more navel-gazing "investigations".

-Gumboot

Gumboot, you make some very good points and present them very well. While I do disagree and I guess I fall into a "LIHOP" stance (I HATE these acronyms as much as I hate liberal and conservative), the problem I have is that the more you dig, the more you find that the government was well aware of most of these guys for some time before 9/11. This was mostly done by the FBI, and they don't usually track people unless they have a good reason (or they post on the Loose Change board...just kidding).

Even so, if our government is so...disorderly... Ive always wondered how it was that they were unable to stop the attacks once they were underway, but had almost all commercial aircraft was grounded or heading for ground by mid-morning. That's thousands of flights the FAA would have to redirect, and it was done in a very quick fashion, so they clearly can coordinate. It's also something that had NEVER been done in the history of air travel in America. So they seemed quite capable of working on the fly in this case.

However, I will not dispute claims of American arrogance, as they are plentiful. But I think you're also forgetting that certain protocols exist for dealing with one hijacked jet, much less four over an almost 2 hour period.

This isnt necessarily directed at you, but no one has answered my post form earlier. So, IS ANYONE FAMILIAR WITH THE BOJINKA PLOT?

[Hierosis]

The evidence is already in on 77. On 9/11 all the evidence was in. Witnesses and physical evidence was there. DNA confirmed the dead.

So what do you have to prove there is something more? What?

Just a feeling?

Name some stuff, quantify your stuff.



What are you talking about? I thought I said pretty plainly that I DO NOT believe that anything other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

[Hierosis]

He asked you a direct question. Don't be a wanker, to get to the next level you have to answer it.

Who should be charged, why and how?

Please refer to the top post on page 4 where all my answers are in BOLD. :D

[uk_dave]

Wasn't the bojinka plot the forerunner of the recent threat against transatlantic flights?

If so, how does this relate to 9/11?

A massive plot to destroy aircraft in flight is a different scenario to one in which planes are hijacked.

In a hijack situation pre 911, the assumed course of events would include a landing somewhere either to re-fuel and an onward flight, or a negotiation. If you were a passenger on a flight in such a circumstance all you would care about would be getting back on to the ground.

Likewise, the authorities are not going to shoot down a plane which they assume is going to be forced to land somewhere.

Flying planes into buildings was sufficiently new for it to take everyone by surprise.

[beachnut]

Cool photos Kate.

Feels like I am back on Columbia Pike again...aaah memories.

Kate, the plane was on the North side of the gas station and didn't hit the light poles or the building.

It was a flyover.


Where is the plane on the video S4S. You have junk now, just more lies that you will try to push? Too bad your lies are gone now!

By the way it has been 5 years and if you had something you will be in jail for obstruction. So you ignore all the real evidence and manufacture your own. This means you are a CT guy for 9/11 lies. You are the real thing.

[Hierosis]

Hierosis, are you saying that you believe it was more than incompetence and that you believe the skeptics who post here simply see 9/11 as being the result of incompetence by the US govt and military and as such we should be asking for someone to be held accountable?

I appreciate your points, but let me use your question to clarify things a little bit.

My assumption (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that the majority of people here accept the narrative of the 9/11 Commission report. That narrative essentially said that 9/11 took place due to a failure of planning and imagination. That would be failing at your job... or incompetence. I, however, do not believe 9/11 was the result of mere incometence all around. But if it was, as the Commission report indirectly said, then should someone have been held accountable?

[beachnut]

Cool photos Kate.

Feels like I am back on Columbia Pike again...aaah memories.

Kate, the plane was on the North side of the gas station and didn't hit the light poles or the building.

It was a flyover.

Did your plane have propellers or jets? Did you plane flyover on the 10th or was it the 9th?

Do you think it could be the C-130 checking the damage for ATC?

Do you always mess up and fall for this junk?

[uk_dave]

Hierosis,

In a bygone age of political responsibility very likely someone would have been held responsible or been honourable enough to fall on their own sword.

But this is the 21st century and politicians must never be seen to be wrong.

I would be interested to know of the resignations or sackings which followed events such as pearl harbour, the fall of saigon and the withdrawal from somalia.

On the other hand perhaps we live in a time where it is considered more constructive to put right the flaws in the system without necessarily engaging in a witch hunt in the process.

[Hierosis]

Wasn't the bojinka plot the forerunner of the recent threat against transatlantic flights?

If so, how does this relate to 9/11?

A massive plot to destroy aircraft in flight is a different scenario to one in which planes are hijacked.

In a hijack situation pre 911, the assumed course of events would include a landing somewhere either to re-fuel and an onward flight, or a negotiation. If you were a passenger on a flight in such a circumstance all you would care about would be getting back on to the ground.

Likewise, the authorities are not going to shoot down a plane which they assume is going to be forced to land somewhere.

Flying planes into buildings was sufficiently new for it to take everyone by surprise.

You're only half right. Bokinka called for planes to explode OVER major cities, but also for planes to be flown into major landmarks. It does not relate directly to the events of 9/11, but it does shoot down the idea that no one could have imagined people flying planes into builings. The military has wargammed the scenario since the they broke up the Bojinka plot. If they were able to create a war game based on the premise, they certainly had no problem imagining it actually happening.

(side note - please do not confuse my reference to war games as anything related to war games taking place ON 9/11, because most of the people with questions get that one wrong.)

[beachnut]

I appreciate your points, but let me use your question to clarify things a little bit.

My assumption (and correct me if I'm wrong) is that the majority of people here accept the narrative of the 9/11 Commission report. That narrative essentially said that 9/11 took place due to a failure of planning and imagination. That would be failing at your job... or incompetence. I, however, do not believe 9/11 was the result of mere incometence all around. But if it was, as the Commission report indirectly said, then should someone have been held accountable?

If you have a car hit you, in a scam, today it is a failure of imagination and planning!

When you burn yourself cooking; failure of imagination and planning!

Good old catch all, failure of planning and imagination!

Oh, be careful you boss will pull this on you! Better yet a peer wanting to dump your chances at beating him to the Ring! Look old H failed to plan and have imagination when he messed up that one! Good old caught you!

Do you think the commission was poking at everyone else. Where was congress, where were we, where was everyone.

You will have to share this with everyone; failed to plan and have an imagination. I have to join them, never saw them cutting my throat to take my plane from me, I was too busy flying the jet!

So why did we fail to make sure we were covered. I like JFK "ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country!"

Got any ideas to help the next surprise not be one!?

[Hierosis]

Hierosis,

In a bygone age of political responsibility very likely someone would have been held responsible or been honourable enough to fall on their own sword.

But this is the 21st century and politicians must never be seen to be wrong.

I would be interested to know of the resignations or sackings which followed events such as pearl harbour, the fall of saigon and the withdrawal from somalia.

On the other hand perhaps we live in a time where it is considered more constructive to put right the flaws in the system without necessarily engaging in a witch hunt in the process.

That's the biggest bunch of bunk I've ever heard. We should just accept that in the 21st Century our leaders are not held accountable, and instead work with them to fix their mistakes? Please.

The Fall of Saigon? Do you mean the Vietnam war as a whole or this particular battle? Because we weren't there at that point.

In Somalia, Clinton was SAVAGED by the press and even his own party in congress. Granted, that's not enough in my opinion, but this was a military operation that was poorly planned. Clinton took a lot of heat for that and it was one of the reasons he rarely sent troops anywhere after that (Bosnia being the exception, but even then people raked him over the coals for Somalia and how this would be a repeat."

Finally, regarding Pearl Harbor, I'm guessing you've never read much about it have you? Following Pearl Harbor (like immediately, not two years later) the Roberts Commission was formed to investigate what happened. Their investigation cited Pearl Harbor commanders Admiral Husband Kimmel and General Walter C. Short for deriliction of duty. Both gentlemen appealed and were later able to establish that they were not given the proper information from higher up in the military command, which would lead directly to the Secretary of War. But they were paraded out (like Lyndie England at Abu Graib) as the guys who"dropped the ball" and took the walk of shame...

[Hierosis]

Got any ideas to help the next surprise not be one!?

Yes! Keep people with your mentality FAR away from government.

[beachnut]

Yes! Keep people with your mentality FAR away from government.

Oops too late. We need guys like you who know everything!

sign up, we need people who know what is going to happen before it happens, some one like you?!

[beachnut]

The colts need someone too, who can know what to do on Sunday, so on Monday we do not have to look back and make up how we should have done this and that.

[Big Les]

You have a point; one I've considered in light of the De Menezes shooting here in Britain, i.e. how can no-one be to blame for the death of an innocent man? Failings were identified in various aspects of the overall operation and the execution of the tactical side of things, yet AFAIK, no-one has "copped it"; not the officers involved (rightly so IMO), and no-one in the chain of command (wrongly IMO). The buck should stop somewhere. However, the difference is that the UK authorities were directly responsible for De Menezes' death. If the US gov is not directly responsible for 9/11, the need to root out and eliminate the culpable is not as great.

I think it's a valid question - who should be held responsible, and how? But it does not lend any weight to any CT having taken place.

[uk_dave]

Hierosis,

I was not defending a lack of accountability, merely pointing out that it seems to be the way of the world these days.

I remember reading a long time ago about a UK government minister who resigned over something his predecessor had done. This was in the 50's or 60's, but these days it is all political expediency.

It is interesting that your pearl harbour comment includes that the men were able to establish that the fault lay higher up in the chain of command, and yet was any action then taken against those who were responsible? The president certainly didn't take a fall over it.

[Kryptos]

IS ANYONE FAMILIAR WITH THE BOJINKA PLOT?

Yes, today I am familiar with Bojinka.

Back on 9/11/2001, I had never heard of it.

I'm sure the government has HUGE volumes of intelligence spread across the many disjointed agencies; they are also shorthanded when it comes to translators, so I'm sure there was a HUGE volume of intelligence and communications intercepts in Arabic that went untranslated until after 9/11. It's an immense challenge to sort through the massive volume of information, work within the HUGE bureaucracy, across agencies, and with legal restrictions in place on 9/11 barring criminal investigators [e.g. the FBI] and intelligence officials from sharing information.

And, yes I've read Without Precedent.

Kean and Hamilton talk about frustrations in dealing with FAA and NORAD officials, who were less than forthcoming, ultimately leading the commission to subpoena those agencies for documents. Also, the testimony of FAA and NORAD officials as to timing of their response was misleading, possibly constituting obstruction if they were intentionally misleading the commission and Congress.

With a July 2004 deadline, the 9/11 Commission had a time limit, and didn't look further into possible obstruction by officials. The matter was referred to the Inspector Generals of the DOT and DOD, respectively.

Here are the findings (http://www.oig.dot.gov/StreamFile?file=/data/pdfdocs/cc2006085.pdf) of the DOT inspector general, regarding the FAA.

In sum, they found no intent by officials to mislead the commission:
No Intent to Mislead Panel Found In Aviation Officials' 9/11 Errors (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-dyn%2Fcontent%2Farticle%2F2006%2F09%2F01%2FAR20060 90101498.html&ei=aTVzRYnGCoOMgALKp7T1BQ&usg=__nY7smT5ZCsamzRQlyRXblSnSXhk=&sig2=Wf3c70T5qe7alzdtwxTWPw)

And from the DOD inspector general: Report No. 06-INTEL-12 (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dodig.osd.mil%2FIr%2Freports% 2F06-intel-12.pdf&ei=UDVzRdeBBqKSgAKC2Lz5BQ&usg=__dwSA147oAvsxCQtFnvvBo-OqriY=&sig2=4aC9ctG5NSV4EzYlH4WnBg)

-Kate

[Hierosis]

You have a point; one I've considered in light of the De Menezes shooting here in Britain, i.e. how can no-one be to blame for the death of an innocent man? Failings were identified in various aspects of the overall operation and the execution of the tactical side of things, yet AFAIK, no-one has "copped it"; not the officers involved (rightly so IMO), and no-one in the chain of command (wrongly IMO). The buck should stop somewhere. However, the difference is that the UK authorities were directly responsible for De Menezes' death. If the US gov is not directly responsible for 9/11, the need to root out and eliminate the culpable is not as great.

I think it's a valid question - who should be held responsible, and how? But it does not lend any weight to any CT having taken place.

Yes!!! And I'm not saying it proves anything related to CT.

[Hierosis]

Hierosis,

I was not defending a lack of accountability, merely pointing out that it seems to be the way of the world these days.

I remember reading a long time ago about a UK government minister who resigned over something his predecessor had done. This was in the 50's or 60's, but these days it is all political expediency.

It is interesting that your pearl harbour comment includes that the men were able to establish that the fault lay higher up in the chain of command, and yet was any action then taken against those who were responsible? The president certainly didn't take a fall over it.

No, you're right on the point that the people who likely should ahve been held accountable were not. I was just correcting your reading of history in that SOMEONE was held accountable for Pearl Harbor.

[~enigma~]

You're only half right. Bokinka called for planes to explode OVER major cities, but also for planes to be flown into major landmarks. Apparently they forgot to assasinate the pope on 9/11?It does not relate directly to the events of 9/11, but it does shoot down the idea that no one could have imagined people flying planes into builings. Using planes as weapons was a possibility that was known and prepared for since at least 1996. For example look at the security at both the republican and democratic conventions in 2000. The relationship between Bojinka and 9/11 was based on an assumed alternate plan of which there is no proof so I would say the relationship is at best a very large stretch. The military has wargammed the scenario since the they broke up the Bojinka plot. If they were able to create a war game based on the premise, they certainly had no problem imagining it actually happening. There have been war games and military exercises throughout history. What exactly is the problem you have with that?

(side note - please do not confuse my reference to war games as anything related to war games taking place ON 9/11, because most of the people with questions get that one wrong.)

[uk_dave]

No, you're right on the point that the people who likely should ahve been held accountable were not. I was just correcting your reading of history in that SOMEONE was held accountable for Pearl Harbor.

And I wasn't stating that no one was held responsible, I was asking if anyone had been held responsible in the expectation that in that era someone would have been accountable.

:)

[Hierosis]

Yes, today I am familiar with Bojinka.

Back on 9/11/2001, I had never heard of it.

I'm sure the government has HUGE volumes of intelligence spread across the many disjointed agencies; they are also shorthanded when it comes to translators, so I'm sure there was a HUGE volume of intelligence and communications intercepts in Arabic that went untranslated until after 9/11. It's an immense challenge to sort through the massive volume of information, work within the HUGE bureaucracy, across agencies, and with legal restrictions in place on 9/11 barring criminal investigators [e.g. the FBI] and intelligence officials from sharing information.

And, yes I've read Without Precedent.

Kean and Hamilton talk about frustrations in dealing with FAA and NORAD officials, who were less than forthcoming, ultimately leading the commission to subpoena those agencies for documents. Also, the testimony of FAA and NORAD officials as to timing of their response was misleading, possibly constituting obstruction if they were intentionally misleading the commission and Congress.

With a July 2004 deadline, the 9/11 Commission had a time limit, and didn't look further into possible obstruction by officials. The matter was referred to the Inspector Generals of the DOT and DOD, respectively.

Here are the findings (http://www.oig.dot.gov/StreamFile?file=/data/pdfdocs/cc2006085.pdf) of the DOT inspector general, regarding the FAA.

In sum, they found no intent by officials to mislead the commission:
No Intent to Mislead Panel Found In Aviation Officials' 9/11 Errors (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fwp-dyn%2Fcontent%2Farticle%2F2006%2F09%2F01%2FAR20060 90101498.html&ei=aTVzRYnGCoOMgALKp7T1BQ&usg=__nY7smT5ZCsamzRQlyRXblSnSXhk=&sig2=Wf3c70T5qe7alzdtwxTWPw)

And from the DOD inspector general: Report No. 06-INTEL-12 (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dodig.osd.mil%2FIr%2Freports% 2F06-intel-12.pdf&ei=UDVzRdeBBqKSgAKC2Lz5BQ&usg=__dwSA147oAvsxCQtFnvvBo-OqriY=&sig2=4aC9ctG5NSV4EzYlH4WnBg)

-Kate

Kate, you seem a bit idealistic, and that's fine. Do you really think that, with everything this administration has covered up they would allow the DOD General to challenge the 9/11 Commission findings? Not likely.

I would also refer you to Senator Max Cleland who left the commission and noted that it was a joke that was clearly set up to fail. The timeframe they were given did not allow them the time needed to conduct a real investigation. Further, no real investigation starts with a conclusion and works backwards to prove it, as the 9/11 Commission, and to be fair, many 9/11 Truthers do.

[Gravy]

Thanks for that info, Kate. Great job once again!

[Hierosis]

Thanks for that info, Kate. Great job once again!

:jaw-dropp

Yes! Half the story is great as long as it backs up your claims.

[Pardalis]

Hierosis, don't make me regret I defended you for not being a troll...

[Kryptos]

:jaw-dropp

Yes! Half the story is great as long as it backs up your claims.


The government isn't good at keeping secrets and covering up wrongdoing. Hence, we know all about secret CIA prisons, Watergate, Iran-Contra, etc.

If FAA and/or NORAD officials intentionally mislead and obstructed, or worse Let 9/11 Happen on Purpose... we would find out. Some whistleblower at those agencies could write a tell-all book.

[Hierosis]

Hierosis, don't make me regret I defended you for not being a troll...

I appreciate that you defended me very much and have found you to be one of the most knowlegeable people on this board. While we may disagree overall, you are clearly well versed and read with both sides covered. You don't partake in the backslapping I was pointing at in my previous post.
My gripe with Gravy's comment is that he's basically become what he set out to destroy. He's just dying for a fight with anyone who doesn't agree with him 100 %. To me that comment seemed more at home on 911 Blogger.

[Pardalis]

I appreciate that you defended me very much and have found you to be one of the most knowlegeable people on this board.

I appreciate the compliment but there are far more knowledgable people here than I, especially Gravy.

My gripe with Gravy's comment is that he's basically become what he set out to destroy. He's just dying for a fight with anyone who doesn't agree with him 100 %. To me that comment seemed more at home on 911 Blogger.

Gravy is one of the few who took great time and effort to dig deep and study in great detail the 9/11 events. I think that is why you misinterpret him as cocky and antagonistic. He is not, he only knows what he's talking about.

I think if you only put your apprehension towards Gravy aside, there could be an enlightening conversation.

Let's put a stop to the animosity and let's discuss this like adults. :)

[Hierosis]

The government isn't good at keeping secrets and covering up wrongdoing. Hence, we know all about secret CIA prisons, Watergate, Iran-Contra, etc.

If FAA and/or NORAD officials intentionally mislead and obstructed, or worse Let 9/11 Happen on Purpose... we would find out. Some whistleblower at those agencies could write a tell-all book.

Kate, if that were true then it would have come out in 1966 that the Gulf of Tonkin never took place, thus eliminating our reason for sending a full force of troops out there. Instead, it only came out officially in the past few years through interview with McNamara and LBJ's library tapes.

Or we would have known right away that Henry Kissinger and Nixon orchestrated the facist takeover in Chile by Pinochet which resulted in decades of murder and misdeeds against the people of Chile. Instead, most people still don't know that Kissinger was the architect of said operation.

You've just given me three examples of nefarious government activity that HAS been exposed. Though, really, Nixon resigning over Watergate was like the government jailing Al Capone for tax evasion. Regardless, if those took place, how can you say for sure that there aren't 15 other incidents that WEREN'T reported on?

The CIA's job is to shroud itself in secrecy. Through them, this country has overthrown more democratically elected governments than any other in the world.

[Hierosis]

I appreciate the compliment but there are far more knowledgable people here than I, especially Gravy.

He's one of the few who took great time and effort to dig deep and study in great detail the 9/11 events. I think that is why you misinterpret him as cocky and antagonistic. He is not, he only knows what he's talking about.

I think if you only put your apprehension towards Gravy aside, there could be an enlightening conversation.

Let's put a stop to the animosity and let's discuss this like adults. :)

I disagree, but it's all good. I've never said that Gravy isn't thorough in his research. But his de-evolution into a guy who shows up at ground zero and chases around conspiracy theorists literally begging them for a fight is kinda lame. Mark clearly has one side of the story down pat. My biggest gripe is that he (like Alex Jones) won't even listen to what I have to say because he knows that at the end of the day we'll still diagree.

[Gravy]

I disagree, but it's all good. I've never said that Gravy isn't thorough in his research. But his de-evolution into a guy who shows up at ground zero and chases around conspiracy theorists literally begging them for a fight is kinda lame. Mark clearly has one side of the story down pat. My biggest gripe is that he (like Alex Jones) won't even listen to what I have to say because he knows that at the end of the day we'll still diagree.
False. I present facts and demand accuracy from people who choose to lie at Ground Zero. Your issue with that?

I won't listen to you? False. You complained that no one had been held accountable for 9/11. I repeatedly asked you who you think should be held accountable and why. You chose not to answer.

Now we have a new statement: that Kate's information presents half the story. Okay, what factual information do you have to fill in the other half? I'm listening, again.

[stateofgrace]

Hierosis.

What exactly is your gripe?

Please don’t take this the wrong way but what exactly is your issue with 911?

You seem to believe it was a terrorist attack.

Do you believe that certain people within the US saw the warnings and purposefully ignored them?

Or that people have not been brought to account for missing the warnings?

Surely you don’t believe the insane no plane, bombs inside the Towers etc, theories.

Could you just say in a few sentences exactly what makes you feel so uncomfortable about 911?

[Pardalis]

I would also refer you to Senator Max Cleland who left the commission and noted that it was a joke that was clearly set up to fail. The timeframe they were given did not allow them the time needed to conduct a real investigation. Further, no real investigation starts with a conclusion and works backwards to prove it, as the 9/11 Commission, and to be fair, many 9/11 Truthers do.

I agree they delayed the commission report, it could be argued that it had alot to do with their Iraq agenda, as he himself implied:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=max_cleland

The reason this report was delayed for so long—deliberately opposed at first, then slow-walked after it was created—is that the administration wanted to get the war in Iraq in and over ... before (it) came out.

[Hierosis]

False. I present facts and demand accuracy from people who choose to lie at Ground Zero. Your issue with that?

I won't listen to you? False. You complained that no one had been held accountable for 9/11. I repeatedly asked you who you think should be held accountable and why. You chose not to answer.

Now we have a new statement: that Kate's information presents half the story. Okay, what factual information do you have to fill in the other half? I'm listening, again.

OK, let me get this out of the way, the performance that I saw online of you at ground zero was horrific. I actually defended you after the 9/9 stuff because I thought that Alex Jones was being a moron and not engaging you in a real debate. But what I saw looked as if you had been taking notes from Jones.

Regardless, I don't have time to write a book here, but let me try this again, one more time. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT 9/11 OCCURRED DUE TO GOVERNMENT INCOMPETENCE OR LACK OF PLANNING. But I felt that most of you did. So going on that assumption I'm asking you, "Shouldn't someone have been held accountable for this failure?" I do not think that person if George Bush, just for the record. I don't think he had any idea this was going to happen, and likely really did poop his pants in that Florida classroom (though why the secret service didn't evacuate him instantly is a debate for another day). So, I have no answer to the question because I don't pretend to know what happened on 9/11.
Now, with all due respect, you seem very confident that you've got the story down pat, so it would be more proper for you to tell ME who was at fault when the most sophisticated air defense system in the history of the world simply failed for two hours. Someone had to have dropped the ball, right? So who was it?

Regarding Kate, I did fill in the other half. Scroll up a bit.

Finally, I came on here for about a day a few weeks ago and as soon as I said that I had questions about 9/11 you basically started to interrogate me when I hadn't made a single specific claim. Anyway Mark, you've been doing this long enough now that I'm sure you're convinced that the way you see things is the one truth and I am not going to try and change that. Too much energy wasted when I could be doing something more productive, like enhancing my own knowledge of history, which I try to do as much as possible.

[Hierosis]

I agree they delayed the commission report, it could be argued that it had alot to do with their Iraq agenda, as he himself implied:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=max_cleland

Excellent point. This is why I like you.

[Pardalis]

Hierios, if it wasn't intelligence failure, what was it?

Do you believe that the US government was behind 9/11?

If so, why?

[Pardalis]

Excellent point.

He doesn't imply that the USG was in on the 9/11 plot though.

You see the difference?

Everybody knows the Bush admin took advantage of 9/11 to go to Iraq.

[uk_dave]

tell ME who was at fault when the most sophisticated air defense system in the history of the world simply failed for two hours. Someone had to have dropped the ball, right? So who was it?

So if we say no one was at fault, then that is the end of the discussion?

Or do you actually believe that someone WAS at fault, as implied by the above quote?

[rwguinn]

Hierosis.

What exactly is your gripe?

Please don’t take this the wrong way but what exactly is your issue with 911?

You seem to believe it was a terrorist attack.

Do you believe that certain people within the US saw the warnings and purposefully ignored them?

Or that people have not been brought to account for missing the warnings?

Surely you don’t believe the insane a plane, bombs inside the Towers etc, theories.

Could you just say in a few sentences exactly what makes you feel so uncomfortable about 911?

His gripe is that the US gubmint didn't exercise Prior Restraint on any-and-everybody who could/might/would hurt US citizens by some means that would, on the very face of it, violate every provision of the US Constitution (Prior restraint does, also). I would bet he likes indescriminate profiling, and is very firmly in favor of abridging my (and your) freedoms, just so he can feel saf(er), regardless of where I/you live.
He probably also thinks that TSA and Homeland Security violate his Constitutional freedoms...

[Hierosis]

Hierosis.

What exactly is your gripe?

Please don’t take this the wrong way but what exactly is your issue with 911?

You seem to believe it was a terrorist attack.

Do you believe that certain people within the US saw the warnings and purposefully ignored them?

Or that people have not been brought to account for missing the warnings?

Surely you don’t believe the insane a plane, bombs inside the Towers etc, theories.

Could you just say in a few sentences exactly what makes you feel so uncomfortable about 911?

Ok, I'll try to do this as briefly as possible, which will be hard because as I've said, I don't have a specific theory about 9/11. I've encountered anomallies in the official story (some I have already listed) that have always left me with a bad taste.

Let's get this out of the way, I do think it was a terrorist attack in a sense. Islamic rage against this country is a very real thing and anyone who denies that is a fool. I do think that warnings were ignored, yes.
I am troubled that a real investigation hasn't been done where it names those who failed us that day (as Richard Clarke so accurately put it). Again, it's their job to protect us. So any failure to do that should result in disciplinary action.

Also, we've had Kalid Skeikh what's-his-face in custody for over three years now. We've said that he was the mastermind behind the plan. So why hasn't he been tried?

And no, I don't believe any of this crap about "no planes." Bombs inside the building? Possible, but I have no proof of that and have read many conflicting reports on this. But since I don't have anything more than a hunch to work off on that one, I won't talk about it because it's my opinion, not an established fact.

Hope this helped. With that said I'm checking out for the day.

[Gravy]

OK, let me get this out of the way, the performance that I saw online of you at ground zero was horrific. I actually defended you after the 9/9 stuff because I thought that Alex Jones was being a moron and not engaging you in a real debate. But what I saw looked as if you had been taking notes from Jones.The difference? the 9/9 video was essentially unedited. The more recent video was heavily edited to remove my presentations, facts and questions. Want to piss me off? Come to Ground Zero, spout lies about 9/11, get every single thing wrong, show that you know zero about the attacks, refuse to listen to my corrections, say you're proud of what you're saying and doing, and tell me that Christ wouldn't behave the way I do, while you stand there and exonerate terrorists and falsely accuse people of the murder of thousands. Damn right I'll be pissed. If you can dish it out but can't take it, expect to be criticized.

Regardless, I don't have time to write a book here, but let me try this again, one more time. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT 9/11 OCCURRED DUE TO GOVERNMENT INCOMPETENCE OR LACK OF PLANNING. I believe it occurred because intelligent murderers took advantage of systemic weaknesses.

But I felt that most of you did. So going on that assumption I'm asking you, "Shouldn't someone have been held accountable for this failure?" I do not think that person if George Bush, just for the record. I don't think he had any idea this was going to happen, and likely really did poop his pants in that Florida classroom (though why the secret service didn't evacuate him instantly is a debate for another day). So, I have no answer to the question because I don't pretend to know what happened on 9/11. What leads you to believe that the official version is false?

Now, with all due respect, you seem very confident that you've got the story down pat, so it would be more proper for you to tell ME who was at fault when the most sophisticated air defense system in the history of the world simply failed for two hours. Someone had to have dropped the ball, right? So who was it? See above.

Regarding Kate, I did fill in the other half. Scroll up a bit. Where's your specific response? I don't see it.

Finally, I came on here for about a day a few weeks ago and as soon as I said that I had questions about 9/11 you basically started to interrogate me when I hadn't made a single specific claim. Anyway Mark, you've been doing this long enough now that I'm sure you're convinced that the way you see things is the one truth and I am not going to try and change that. Too much energy wasted when I could be doing something more productive, like enhancing my own knowledge of history, which I try to do as much as possible.Yes, I want to know what your questions are and what knowledge they're based on. If you have claims, I want to see your evidence. That's what we do here. I hope you'll stick around if you're able to be specific, direct, and factual.

[Hierosis]

His gripe is that the US gubmint didn't exercise Prior Restraint on any-and-everybody who could/might/would hurt US citizens by some means that would, on the very face of it, violate every provision of the US Constitution (Prior restraint does, also). I would bet he likes indescriminate profiling, and is very firmly in favor of abridging my (and your) freedoms, just so he can feel saf(er), regardless of where I/you live.
He probably also thinks that TSA and Homeland Security violate his Constitutional freedoms...

You couldn't be further off base, and I think you know better.

[TheGrunion]

I am troubled that a real investigation hasn't been done where it names those who failed us that day (as Richard Clarke so accurately put it). Again, it's their job to protect us. So any failure to do that should result in disciplinary action.

Hope this helped. With that said I'm checking out for the day.

I suppose that you've never made a mistake or failed at something despite your best efforts. :rolleyes:

[Pardalis]

Kalid Skeikh what's-his-face

That's his face:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/888645734e66db0a7.jpg

:scared:

[Hierosis]

The difference? the 9/9 video was essentially unedited. The more recent video was heavily edited to remove my presentations, facts and questions. Want to piss me off? Come to Ground Zero, spout lies about 9/11, get every single thing wrong, show that you know zero about the attacks, refuse to listen to my corrections, say you're proud of what you're saying and doing, and tell me that Christ wouldn't behave the way I do, while you stand there and exonerate terrorists and falsely accuse people of the murder of thousands. Damn right I'll be pissed. If you can dish it out but can't take it, expect to be criticized.

I believe it occurred because intelligent murderers took advantage of systemic weaknesses.

What leads you to believe that the official version is false?

See above.

Where's your specific response? I don't see it.

Yes, I want to know what your questions are and what knowledge they're based on. If you have claims, I want to see your evidence. That's what we do here. I hope you'll stick around if you're able to be specific, direct, and factual.

Ok, I have to sign off but I'll indulge the first part of your post.

You're convicting me for the actions of idiots at ground zero. I'm not one of them. So get over it. I don't invoke Christ, or anything else, and I don't deny terrorism as I said a few posts up. I have not preached anything in my discussions here. So you need to sperate your view of me from your view of what you called "troofers."

Perhaps the video was edited, but you sure looked like a little kid begging for candy while everyone else ignored you. I tried to be fair in my past post with my comments on Alex Jones, which is far more than you've done for me. Remember, you attacked me first a few weeks back bud. Now, time to hit the city.

Night all.

[uk_dave]

I thought that was ron jeremy

[Hierosis]

That's his face:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/888645734e66db0a7.jpg

:scared:

I thought that was Ron Jeremy's face? :D

[Hierosis]

I thought that was ron jeremy

DAMN YOU FOR BEATING ME TO THAT DAVE!!!! :o

[uk_dave]

Great minds think alike, and fools seldom differ.

Or we both have more information about the porn industry than we should be too eager to admit to!

:o

[Pardalis]

I thought that was ron jeremy

I thought that was Ron Jeremy's face? :D

:dl:

[Abbyas]

Ah, see? Common ground. With, uh, knowledge of unattractive men with large wieners.

Quick comment here. While I don't think Hierosis's reactions here have been one hundred percent justified, it's very difficult to follow ten different questions or comments to you especially if some of them (not all) are associating him/her with other CTers.

I've gotten a poop load of hate mail from various nutjobs, but I have met two or three genuinely concerned, kind individuals who A: one hundred percent believe loose change, B: have valid frustrations with government and have parlayed those frustrations into theories and C: genuinely have some questions re: 9/11 that I myself don't feel have been properly answered. The intelligent are in the minority, but they do exist.

And while I hate, HATE, the idea of going down to ground zero, associating oneself with those crap posters and signs, and shouting "9/11 was an inside job!", not all individuals who have questions, valid or otherwise, are those people. The problem is for them, their leaders are. And this is what we associate with "truthers" or "question askers".

It is a difficult road figuring who's a jerk, who's a nut, and who's a genuinely intelligent person or who's a combination, but we run the risk of alienating everyone when we "bad cop" everybody.

[Hierosis]

Great minds think alike, and fools seldom differ.

Or we both have more information about the porn industry than we should be too eager to admit to!

:o

Hey, I have no problem copping up to the porn thing. :) Though I did meet the hedgehog a few years back. One of the funniest guys I've ever met.

[Pardalis]

Hey, I have no problem copping up to the porn thing. :) Though I did meet the hedgehog a few years back. One of the funniest guys I've ever met.

I'm sure you have to have a good sense fo humour to survive in that industry for so long. ;)

[Gravy]

Ok, I have to sign off but I'll indulge the first part of your post.

You're convicting me for the actions of idiots at ground zero. I'm not one of them. So get over it. I don't invoke Christ, or anything else, and I don't deny terrorism as I said a few posts up. I have not preached anything in my discussions here. So you need to sperate your view of me from your view of what you called "troofers." That was a hypothetical. I wasn't accusing you of those things. I was explaining why I was pissed off at that guy.

My issue with you is that you seem to want us to resolve your questions about 9/11. Most of us believe that the official version is essentially correct. If you have specific things to dispute in that account, you'll find no shortage of discussion here. But repeatedly saying "Don't you think..." isn't a basis for discussion. It's a leading question that most of us probably don't agree with. We want to know what you think, and why.

You mentioned your disatisfaction with our previous encounter. Here it is. It was much like this one: many assumptions, few specifics.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2000208#post2000208

[T.A.M.]

Hierosis:

At this point I have to say something. Up until now, for the most part you have seemed civil, and certainly not confrontational.

I do not know Mark Roberts well, but I have gotten to know his mannerisms in debate here, as well as his views, and his dedication to this topic. This man has spent more time researching 9/11 and the events around it than anyone I know. I would venture to say more than any of the "truthers".

His conduct at GZ, as I have seen through the video in question, and other videos is not deplorable or horrific. Edited the way it is, and if you do not know the full circumstances around it, may make it seem that way, but it isnt.

Mark and a few fellow NYCers go down to GZ as many weekends as they can to basicly defend the "other side" of 9/11. That is because, if they did not, you would have hundreds and thousands of americans exposed to half truths and speculation, with nothing backing it up except the comments of the snake oil salesmen.

Is he in their face...you bet, and I would be too. These guys spout of lies, and insults, and libel, and if Mark were not there, they would have free reign, with noone to hold them accountable. Most of what he does, if you actually watch, is let the "truthers" have there turn, then he takes the people they were talking to aside, and shows them his stuff. He is passionate...I mean he is from NYC. I suspect he lost someone he knew that day. If he didnt, he certainly lost any innocence he may have had left.

I suppose a certain amount of shaiting on him is expected, as it is for Dylan Avery and Alex Jones, as Mark is at the front of this side of the "war", but as a soldier in that army, I am gonna defend him for what he does.

May sound trite, or orchestrated, but it is the truth. If I were in NYC, I would be down there with him, and in their faces as well.

TAM

[Abbyas]

You mentioned your disatisfaction with our previous encounter. Here it is. It was much like this one: many assumptions, few specifics.
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.p...08#post2000208

Ahh, the difficulties of a message board. How to read the tone of someone's post.

The guy came here after finding out his picture was posted (something we've griped about the LC boards doing), and he tried to laugh it off and received demands that he clarify his views and the evidence to support them...

And while, Mark, I'm sure that your intentions were honorable and genuinely welcoming here:

Will you take a stand against these horribly ignorant statements about Silverstein and the methods used to express them? Will you encourage others in the "truth movement" to stop making these baseless accusations? (Perhaps you do now...my thanks and apologies if that's so!)

I think that we can understand how that would be taken as a demand.

This will be the last time I defend anyone connected with the 9/11 truth mov't, I swear. If I have to give up my nunchucks, I'm gonna be very upset.

[Pardalis]

May sound trite, or orchestrated, but it is the truth. If I were in NYC, I would be down there with him, and in their faces as well.

Honestly, If I went to Ground Zero, I could barely contain myself: I would yell Quebecer insanities at them and want to punch their faces, literally.

How Gravy can restrain himself as it is is trully amazing.

[Gravy]

Hierosis:

At this point I have to say something. Up until now, for the most part you have seemed civil, and certainly not confrontational.

I do not know Mark Roberts well, but I have gotten to know his mannerisms in debate here, as well as his views, and his dedication to this topic. This man has spent more time researching 9/11 and the events around it than anyone I know. I would venture to say more than any of the "truthers".Thanks, TAM, but I'm still brand new at this stuff, and I don't expect to be doing it for much longer. Mike Williams, on the other hand, has been quietly knocking the myths off for years. So much of what I've learned I owe to his work. There's little chance that I would have had the patience for this stuff without the head start he provided.

[Gravy]

Ahh, the difficulties of a message board. How to read the tone of someone's post.

The guy came here after finding out his picture was posted (something we've griped about the LC boards doing), and he tried to laugh it off and received demands that he clarify his views and the evidence to support them...

And while, Mark, I'm sure that your intentions were honorable and genuinely welcoming here:

I think that we can understand how that would be taken as a demand.

This will be the last time I defend anyone connected with the 9/11 truth mov't, I swear. If I have to give up my nunchucks, I'm gonna be very upset.It wasn't a demand, but an honest question, spurred by the thread topic: people who were supporting the protest at Ground Zero on 9/11. It's my hope that people who do have questions about 9/11 but who don't agree with Alex Jones and Dylan Avery will speak up about the negative light those people cast on the movement. I have no power to make that happen, but I think it's a valid question for someone who attends a protest organized by ignorant extremists in order to attract media attention during a memorial.

[gumboot]

Gumboot, you make some very good points and present them very well. While I do disagree and I guess I fall into a "LIHOP" stance (I HATE these acronyms as much as I hate liberal and conservative), the problem I have is that the more you dig, the more you find that the government was well aware of most of these guys for some time before 9/11. This was mostly done by the FBI, and they don't usually track people unless they have a good reason (or they post on the Loose Change board...just kidding).


Are you aware of the definition of "Actionable Intelligence"?

It is easy, in hindsight, to identify the clues that led to the plot. But at the time those clues are not so obvious, vague, inconclusive, and hidden in a multitude of false clues.




Even so, if our government is so...disorderly... Ive always wondered how it was that they were unable to stop the attacks once they were underway, but had almost all commercial aircraft was grounded or heading for ground by mid-morning. That's thousands of flights the FAA would have to redirect, and it was done in a very quick fashion, so they clearly can coordinate. It's also something that had NEVER been done in the history of air travel in America. So they seemed quite capable of working on the fly in this case.


I'm very familiar with the NORAD response on 9/11, so if you have any specific questions I can probably help. But for now, let me just say this:

Once the hijackers were onboard the aircraft, nothing could be done to stop the attack.

Grounding aircraft and intercepting aircraft are not comparable actions, so I don't know why you bring that up.



However, I will not dispute claims of American arrogance, as they are plentiful. But I think you're also forgetting that certain protocols exist for dealing with one hijacked jet, much less four over an almost 2 hour period.


Indeed, protocols did exist. Do you know what they were? They were for the ATC Centre to notify the FBI. Fortunately only ONE of the ATC Centres on 9/11 actually followed correct proceedure, otherwise NORAD would have been oblivious until after it had happened.



This isnt necessarily directed at you, but no one has answered my post form earlier. So, IS ANYONE FAMILIAR WITH THE BOJINKA PLOT?


Yes I am familiar with Oplan Bojinka.

-Gumboot

[StoneWT]

Hierosis' game should be evident to all by now. He is trying to get Gravy and others to argue for the faulty positions in his statements disguised as questions.


Gravy Train!!! I was wondering when I would be cited by you.

Well, why don't you tell me. You're the one who feels that the incompetence theory is all there is to it.


He is here to impress his CT buddies with his debating chess skills. If he was sincere, he wouldn't consistently treat straightforward questions from Gravy and others like personal attacks. Since Hierosis uses tricky statements disguised as questions, he assumes everyone else does. If he was sincere, he wouldn't consistently respond with questions when Gravy and others respond to his initial statement/question. Honest people are thankful for an answer. They don't pretend to be blind and deaf by rewording the original question that was ALREADY answered or explained to be faulty.

Hierosis, please take your disrespectful chess game elsewhere. 3,000 dead Americans deserve better.

[Pardalis]

Hierosis' game should be evident to all by now. He is trying to get Gravy and others to argue for the faulty positions in his statements disguised as questions.

I really think you should give him a chance.

Even though Russell Pickering started posting here with a nice and polite demeanor, my BS-O-Meter was going wild.

With Hierosis, it's not moving at all. :)

[gumboot]

who was at fault when the most sophisticated air defense system in the history of the world simply failed for two hours.


The US does not have "the most sophisticated defense system in the history of the world". Not by a long shot. The ONLY thing protecting US airspace was 14 fighter aircraft and several government agencies operating on obsolete computer systems and equipment.

Despite all this, despite the impossibility of the task, these few defenders did incredible work on 9/11.

-Gumboot

[~enigma~]

I really think you should give him a chance.

Even though Russell Pickering started posting here with a nice and polite demeanor, my BS-O-Meter was going wild.

With Hierosis, it's not moving at all. :)
I think it might be time for your BS-O-Meter to have it's yearly maintenance. I thought he was harmlessly asking questions (sounds like the LC bunch) until he brought up operation Bojinka yesterday. First he leaves out a few sailent points of the operation then when Im bring it to his attention, he ignores my post so he can say Kate is telling half a story. He is pure BS. Oil your meter and tap it on the side and watch his BS take your meter off scale.

[StoneWT]

I really think you should give him a chance.

Even though Russell Pickering started posting here with a nice and polite demeanor, my BS-O-Meter was going wild.

With Hierosis, it's not moving at all. :)


Eh, he has had several pages worth of chances. Look at his responses and the way he phrases his questions.

[Pardalis]

Maybe he's just unfamiliar with message boards and critical thinking.

[Kent1]

That's his face:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/888645734e66db0a7.jpg

:scared:
As a matter of fact, Mr. what's-his-face's hearing is coming up this month.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2471269

[~enigma~]

Maybe he's just unfamiliar with message boards and critical thinking.Aren't the woowoos unfamiliar with critical thinking?

[Brainster]

Hierosis is missing that not many around here argue that incompetence led to 9-11. This argument is perhaps natural from those who believe in CTs because it's an alternative reason why the ominipotent powers of NORAD were not brought to bear on the supposed hijackers.

What we don't believe in, Hierosis, are those omnipotent powers. We believe that the men and women of NORAD and the ATC centers were doing the best they could while operating under what we now understand to have been tragically mistaken assumptions. Were mistakes made? Yep. Were they honest mistakes? Yep.

[~enigma~]

Before bringing up NORAD and opening the door to our resident twoofer woowoos so they can bring up the stand down crap again, can someone please tell me ONE civilian flight that was intercepted in the 5 years prior to 2001. I do not want to hear there were 67 in the year before 9/11 (I heard that from the woowoos about 1000 times). I want one flight mentioned by name so we can verify. NORAD didn't stand down it is just that certain people do not comprehend the difference between scramble and intercept. Nor do they understand the difference between combat ready and alert.

:bananapartyhat:

[Pardalis]

Were mistakes made? Yep. Were they honest mistakes? Yep.

I beg to differ here. I agree most of the pre-9/11 mistakes were honest mistakes, but alot of them were avoidable and were caused by stupid politics and bad management. These are the things that should have been dealt with head on in the Commission so that they wouldn't happen again. I agree with the critics of the Commission this way.

[gumboot]

Before bringing up NORAD and opening the door to our resident twoofer woowoos so they can bring up the stand down crap again, can someone please tell me ONE civilian flight that was intercepted in the 5 years prior to 2001. I do not want to hear there were 67 in the year before 9/11 (I heard that from the woowoos about 1000 times). I want one flight mentioned by name so we can verify. NORAD didn't stand down it is just that certain people do not comprehend the difference between scramble and intercept. Nor do they understand the difference between combat ready and alert.

:bananapartyhat:



The "scramble Vs intercept" is often brought up in response to the "many intercepts" figure, but it is a very misleading response.

The 67 in the months prior to 9/11 (I think it was 6 months, not a year) should be considered intercepts, giving CTers the benefit of the doubt.

However...

NORAD's area of responsibility is the Air Defence Identification Zone - or ADIZ. This is a "buffer" zone located over water at the edges of the USA.

You can see the Continental US ADIZ here (http://pics.livejournal.com/calan8/pic/00001f6p/).

It is defined by Federal Aviation Regulation Part 99 section 43: (http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%5CrgFAR.nsf/0/E90A375546B4EF53862571650050F1AA?OpenDocument)

Sec. 99.43
Continguous U.S. ADIZ.

The area bounded by a line from 43°15'N, 65°55'W; 44°21'N; 67°16'W; 43°10'N; 69°40'W; 41°05'N; 69°40'W; 40°32'N; 72°15'W; 39°55'N; 73°00'W; 39°38'N; 73°00'W; 39°36'N; 73°40'W; 37°00'N; 75°30'W; 36°10'N; 75°10'W; 35°10'N; 75°10'W; 32°00'N; 80°30'W; 30°30'N; 81°00'W; 26°40'N; 79°40'W; 25°00'N; 80°05'W; 24°25'N; 81°15'W; 24°20'N; 81°45'W; 24°30'N; 82°06'W; 24°41'N; 82°06'W; 24°43'N; 82°00'W; 25°00'N; 81°30'W; 25°10'N; 81°23'W; 25°35'N; 81°30'W; 26°15'N 82°20'W; 27°50'N; 83°05'W; 28°55'N; 83°30'W; 29°42'N; 84°00'W; 29°20'N; 85°00'W; 30°00'N; 87°10'W; 30°00'N; 88°30'W; 28°45'N; 88°55'W; 28°45'N; 90°00'W; 29°25'N; 94°00'W; 28°20'N; 96°00'W; 27°30'N; 97°00'W; 26°00'N; 97°00'W; 25°58'N; 97°07'W; westward along the U.S./Mexico border to 32°32'03"N, 117°07'25"W; 32°30'N; 117°25'W; 32°35'N; 118°30'W; 33°05'N; 119°45'W; 33°55'N; 120°40'W; 34°50'N; 121°10'W; 38°50'N; 124°00'W; 40°00'N; 124°35'W; 40°25'N; 124°40'W; 42°50'N; 124°50'W; 46°15'N; 124°30'W; 48°30'N; 125°00'W; 48°20'N; 128°00'W; 48°20'N; 132°00'W; 37°42'N; 130°40'W; 29°00'N; 124°00'W; 30°45'N; 120°50'W; 32°00'N; 118°24'W; 32°30'N; 117°20'W; 32°32'03"N; 117°07'25"W; eastward along the U.S./Mexico border to 25°58'N, 97°07'W; 26°00'N; 97°00'W; 26°00'N; 95°00'W; 26°30'N; 95°00'W; then via 26°30'N; parallel to 26°30'N; 84°00'W; 24°00'N; 83°00'W; then Via 24°00'N; parallel to 24°00'N; 79°25'W; 25°40'N; 79°25'W; 27°30'N; 78°50'W; 30°45'N; 74°00'W; 39°30'N; 63°45'W; 43°00'N; 65°48'W; to point of beginning.


Intercepts inside the ADIZ are, and always have been, routine. There is standard proceedure (http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap5/aim0506.html) for these intercepts.

However, the 9/11 attacks did not involve aircraft operating inside the ADIZ. They were domestic flights over CONUS (Continential United States) airspace. Prior to 9/11 there was NO standard intercept proceedure for flights inside CONUS. Standard hijacking proceedure was to notify the FAA and hand over control to the FBI. As a domestic crime, only the FBI had the authority to request military support.

So the question that should be asked is:

Did NORAD perform any successful intercepts inside CONUS Airspace prior to 9/11?

The answer is yes. In the decade prior to 9/11 NORAD was involved in ONE intercept.

This was October 25th, 1999. The aircraft was N47BA - a Learjet35 owned by Payne Stewart.

The NTSB report on this incident is here (http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2000/AAB0001.pdf).

So how well did NORAD do on this occasion?

Well, first off, some basic comparisons:

1) N47BA did not deviate from its intended flightplan.
2) The transponder onboard N47BA remained on at all times throughout the intercept.

Neither of the above is true of the 9/11 flights. This make intercept many magnitudes more difficult.

So then, how well did NORAD do?

The first intercept aircraft - a test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin AFB, Florida, reached N47BA 81 minutes after communication was lost.

So let's compare that to the flights of 9/11, and total flight duration of those aircraft:

FLIGHT HIJACKING CRASH DURATION
AA11 0813 0846 33 minutes
UA175 0847 0903 16 minutes
AA77 0856 0937 41 minutes
UA93 0928 1003 35 minutes

So the intercept of N47BA - an aircraft with transponder functioning and in straight level flight - took almost TWICE AS LONG as the longest flight duration on 9/11 - that of AA77.

The facts speak for themselves. A successful intercept of any of the 9/11 flights was impossible.

-Gumboot

ETA.

It is worth noting that the times I gave are from the moment of hijacking. Of more relevance is the "window of opportunity" - the time between when NORAD were notified of a hijacking and when that flight crashed. On 9/11 the longest window of opportunity that NORAD would receive was 9 minutes for AA11. The N47BA intercept took 9 times as long.

[boloboffin]

The "scramble Vs intercept" is often brought up in response to the "many intercepts" figure, but it is a very misleading response.

The 67 in the months prior to 9/11 (I think it was 6 months, not a year) should be considered intercepts, giving CTers the benefit of the doubt.

However...

NORAD's area of responsibility is the Air Defence Identification Zone - or ADIZ. This is a "buffer" zone located over water at the edges of the USA.

You can see the Continental US ADIZ here (http://pics.livejournal.com/calan8/pic/00001f6p/).

It is defined by Federal Aviation Regulation Part 99 section 43: (http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%5CrgFAR.nsf/0/E90A375546B4EF53862571650050F1AA?OpenDocument)



Intercepts inside the ADIZ are, and always have been, routine. There is standard proceedure (http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap5/aim0506.html) for these intercepts.

However, the 9/11 attacks did not involve aircraft operating inside the ADIZ. They were domestic flights over CONUS (Continential United States) airspace. Prior to 9/11 there was NO standard intercept proceedure for flights inside CONUS. Standard hijacking proceedure was to notify the FAA and hand over control to the FBI. As a domestic crime, only the FBI had the authority to request military support.

So the question that should be asked is:

Did NORAD perform any successful intercepts inside CONUS Airspace prior to 9/11?

The answer is yes. In the decade prior to 9/11 NORAD was involved in ONE intercept.

This was October 25th, 1999. The aircraft was N47BA - a Learjet35 owned by Payne Stewart.

The NTSB report on this incident is here (http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2000/AAB0001.pdf).

So how well did NORAD do on this occasion?

Well, first off, some basic comparisons:

1) N47BA did not deviate from its intended flightplan.
2) The transponder onboard N47BA remained on at all times throughout the intercept.

Neither of the above is true of the 9/11 flights. This make intercept many magnitudes more difficult.

So then, how well did NORAD do?

The first intercept aircraft - a test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin AFB, Florida, reached N47BA 81 minutes after communication was lost.

So let's compare that to the flights of 9/11, and total flight duration of those aircraft:

FLIGHT HIJACKING CRASH DURATION
AA11 0813 0846 33 minutes
UA175 0847 0903 16 minutes
AA77 0856 0937 41 minutes
UA93 0928 1003 35 minutes

So the intercept of N47BA - an aircraft with transponder functioning and in straight level flight - took almost TWICE AS LONG as the longest flight duration on 9/11 - that of AA77.

The facts speak for themselves. A successful intercept of any of the 9/11 flights was impossible.

-Gumboot

The discerning reader will note that Gumboot has generously contrasted the actual flight times (from takeoff to crash) of the 9/11 planes with the Payne Stewart intercept time. Had Gumboot given an exact apple-to-apple comparison of times (from loss of communication/transponder information to crashing), the contrast would be even more startling.

[~enigma~]

Did NORAD perform any successful intercepts inside CONUS Airspace prior to 9/11?

The answer is yes. In the decade prior to 9/11 NORAD was involved in ONE intercept.

This was October 25th, 1999. The aircraft was N47BA - a Learjet35 owned by Payne Stewart.

Thank you for verifying what I knew in regards to one intercept and thanks for explaining the difference between CONUS and ADIZ. I guess now any woowoos that actually read and understood your post can give up their ridiculous stand down theory.

You deserve a round of applause for your post so...

:bigclap

[Abbyas]

It wasn't a demand, but an honest question, spurred by the thread topic: people who were supporting the protest at Ground Zero on 9/11. It's my hope that people who do have questions about 9/11 but who don't agree with Alex Jones and Dylan Avery will speak up about the negative light those people cast on the movement. I have no power to make that happen, but I think it's a valid question for someone who attends a protest organized by ignorant extremists in order to attract media attention during a memorial.

I know him well. And he does. However it's not necessarily his responsiblilty to prove himself here.

Mark, I want to iterate here that I appreciate your work with this to no end, however... "Good cop! Good cop!"

[Bell]

Thank you for verifying what I knew in regards to one intercept and thanks for explaining the difference between CONUS and ADIZ. I guess now any woowoos that actually read and understood your post can give up their ridiculous stand down theory.

You deserve a round of applause for your post so...

:bigclap

That is assuming the deniers are actually capable of learning. I still haven't witnessed that :rolleyes:

[gumboot]

The discerning reader will note that Gumboot has generously contrasted the actual flight times (from takeoff to crash) of the 9/11 planes with the Payne Stewart intercept time. Had Gumboot given an exact apple-to-apple comparison of times (from loss of communication/transponder information to crashing), the contrast would be even more startling.


Actually I gave the times from moment of hijacking, not take off. For UA175 and UA93 there is a further delay until FIRST SIGNS OF HIJACKING (5 minutes for UA175 and 11 minutes for UA93), but more telling is the contrast if the times are given from when NORAD were notified of the hijacking in each case. That gives you an intercept window of 9 minutes (AA11), 0 minutes (UA175), 2 minutes (AA77) and -4 minutes (UA93).

Given that on 9/11 NORAD Alert aircraft were on 15 minute standby, all four flights would have been down before the interceptors even got into the air, assuming they were scrambled the moment NORAD was notified.

-Gumboot

[gumboot]

Thank you for verifying what I knew in regards to one intercept and thanks for explaining the difference between CONUS and ADIZ. I guess now any woowoos that actually read and understood your post can give up their ridiculous stand down theory.

You deserve a round of applause for your post so...

:bigclap


:D Thanks. For a more detailed look at NORAD, I have written a document (http://screwloosechange.xbehome.com/fst/NORAD.pdf) that addresses the NORAD Stand-down theory.

It includes information on NORAD and its mission, standard intercept proceedures, the 9/11 wargames, and a minute-by-minute timeline of NORAD's response to the attacks.

It is also a little out of date and I really should finish my second draft. :o

-Gumboot

[Bell]

Actually I gave the times from moment of hijacking, not take off. For UA175 and UA93 there is a further delay until FIRST SIGNS OF HIJACKING (5 minutes for UA175 and 11 minutes for UA93), but more telling is the contrast if the times are given from when NORAD were notified of the hijacking in each case. That gives you an intercept window of 9 minutes (AA11), 0 minutes (UA175), 2 minutes (AA77) and -4 minutes (UA93).

Given that on 9/11 NORAD Alert aircraft were on 15 minute standby, all four flights would have been down before the interceptors even got into the air, assuming they were scrambled the moment NORAD was notified.

-Gumboot

And then you also have to take into account the small number (4 IIRC) of fighterplanes and the number (11 IIRC) of suspected hijacked airplanes.

[~enigma~]

The "scramble Vs intercept" is often brought up in response to the "many intercepts" figure, but it is a very misleading response.

The 67 in the months prior to 9/11 (I think it was 6 months, not a year) should be considered intercepts, giving CTers the benefit of the doubt.

However...

NORAD's area of responsibility is the Air Defence Identification Zone - or ADIZ. This is a "buffer" zone located over water at the edges of the USA.

You can see the Continental US ADIZ here (http://pics.livejournal.com/calan8/pic/00001f6p/).

It is defined by Federal Aviation Regulation Part 99 section 43: (http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%5CrgFAR.nsf/0/E90A375546B4EF53862571650050F1AA?OpenDocument)



Intercepts inside the ADIZ are, and always have been, routine. There is standard proceedure (http://www.faa.gov/ATpubs/AIM/Chap5/aim0506.html) for these intercepts.

However, the 9/11 attacks did not involve aircraft operating inside the ADIZ. They were domestic flights over CONUS (Continential United States) airspace. Prior to 9/11 there was NO standard intercept proceedure for flights inside CONUS. Standard hijacking proceedure was to notify the FAA and hand over control to the FBI. As a domestic crime, only the FBI had the authority to request military support.

So the question that should be asked is:

Did NORAD perform any successful intercepts inside CONUS Airspace prior to 9/11?

The answer is yes. In the decade prior to 9/11 NORAD was involved in ONE intercept.

This was October 25th, 1999. The aircraft was N47BA - a Learjet35 owned by Payne Stewart.

The NTSB report on this incident is here (http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2000/AAB0001.pdf).

So how well did NORAD do on this occasion?

Well, first off, some basic comparisons:

1) N47BA did not deviate from its intended flightplan.
2) The transponder onboard N47BA remained on at all times throughout the intercept.

Neither of the above is true of the 9/11 flights. This make intercept many magnitudes more difficult.

So then, how well did NORAD do?

The first intercept aircraft - a test pilot from the 40th Flight Test Squadron at Eglin AFB, Florida, reached N47BA 81 minutes after communication was lost.

So let's compare that to the flights of 9/11, and total flight duration of those aircraft:

FLIGHT HIJACKING CRASH DURATION
AA11 0813 0846 33 minutes
UA175 0847 0903 16 minutes
AA77 0856 0937 41 minutes
UA93 0928 1003 35 minutes

So the intercept of N47BA - an aircraft with transponder functioning and in straight level flight - took almost TWICE AS LONG as the longest flight duration on 9/11 - that of AA77.

The facts speak for themselves. A successful intercept of any of the 9/11 flights was impossible.

-Gumboot

ETA.

It is worth noting that the times I gave are from the moment of hijacking. Of more relevance is the "window of opportunity" - the time between when NORAD were notified of a hijacking and when that flight crashed. On 9/11 the longest window of opportunity that NORAD would receive was 9 minutes for AA11. The N47BA intercept took 9 times as long.
Someone with alot of free time should post this in every known woowoo forum. Can't understand their avoidance of logic, evidence and common sense. :(

[Bell]

Someone with alot of free time should post this in every known woowoo forum. Can't understand their avoidance of logic, evidence and common sense. :(

Welcome to the other side.

[Abbyas]

[oops double post

[~enigma~]

Welcome to the other side.Aerosmith fan?

:dl:

[gumboot]

And then you also have to take into account the small number (4 IIRC) of fighterplanes and the number (11 IIRC) of suspected hijacked airplanes.


Yup. And of course those 4 aircraft were in pairs, so essentially they had two aircraft, to intercept a suspected 11 hijackings (that's only in the first 90 minutes!).

-Gumboot

[Hierosis]

Hierosis is missing that not many around here argue that incompetence led to 9-11. This argument is perhaps natural from those who believe in CTs because it's an alternative reason why the ominipotent powers of NORAD were not brought to bear on the supposed hijackers.

What we don't believe in, Hierosis, are those omnipotent powers. We believe that the men and women of NORAD and the ATC centers were doing the best they could while operating under what we now understand to have been tragically mistaken assumptions. Were mistakes made? Yep. Were they honest mistakes? Yep.

Brainster,

Please link me to the post where I specifically accussed NORAD and the ATRC Centers of incompetence. I think you're the one who is missing something here. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT 9/11 WAS THE RESULT OF INCOMPETENCE.

The people who work at NORAD, related agencies and most lower level government officials are good people who do what they do because they are honest. So don't put words in my mouth.

[Bell]

Aerosmith fan?

:dl:

You're barking up the wrong tree ;)

But no. I'm not an Aerosmith fan. Even though Liv must be the best thing Steven ever created.

[Hierosis]

Hierosis' game should be evident to all by now. He is trying to get Gravy and others to argue for the faulty positions in his statements disguised as questions.

He is here to impress his CT buddies with his debating chess skills. If he was sincere, he wouldn't consistently treat straightforward questions from Gravy and others like personal attacks. Since Hierosis uses tricky statements disguised as questions, he assumes everyone else does. If he was sincere, he wouldn't consistently respond with questions when Gravy and others respond to his initial statement/question. Honest people are thankful for an answer. They don't pretend to be blind and deaf by rewording the original question that was ALREADY answered or explained to be faulty.

Hierosis, please take your disrespectful chess game else here. 3,000 dead Americans deserve better.


First, I have no CT buddies to impress and that's not my game. To kill two birds with one stone, I came here to have a discussion. Yeah, I may be a bit of a wise@ss at times, but that's just me. Don't take it personally. I also came here to get your side of the story (all of you), not to have my questions answered as Mark suggested above.
Would it have been a better idea if I joined the Loose Change forum and DID NOT try to look at things from both sides. Damned if you do, damned if you don't I suppose.