Continued from [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/humanities-science/new-911-thread]this thread[/url]
I thought the last thread went fairly well. I'd stand in line for this.
An Even Newer 9/11 Thread
Thu, 2010-09-02 15:52
#1
An Even Newer 9/11 Thread
Thu, 2010-09-02 17:04
#2
How does Griffin know this happened?
[size=12]CNN. All amateur hijackers and part-time Muslims know to turn off the transponder unit to prevent transmission of the four digit hijack code. Or at least the regular pilots of KAL 85 knew to do it during NORAD's 'practice Armageddon' exercise on 9/11/01. And apparently, so did 19 amateur hijackers know to switch off flight transponders on the very same day as if by coordinated planning.
That is irrelevant to jrootham's discussion on the evidence linking Osama bin Laden to the 9/11 attacks
Well I've only ever seen or read about circumstantial evidence linking the CIA's antcommunist jihadi leader to the 9/11 attacks. The Pentagon says they have the real goods on OBL but can't reveal it to the public for public to scrutinize. And it's for reasons of US national security, or at least, this is what they tell the public. But jrootham says he's satisfied with the evidence which he described as 'adequate', so that means jrootham isn't concerned that 9/11 may have been a false flag military or intelligence or even a joint military-intelligence operation between the US and Canadian militaries on 9/11 that sounds anything like 'operation Armageddon', or something like that, and which may have gone awry for them. In which case, they'd have to cover it up. Maybe even cover it up by blaming some group of convenient patsies, like the US Military and CIA's Afghan-Arab terrorists who they were somewhat familiar with from their days as proxy partners fighting communism in 1980s and 90s Central Asia.
Again, the conspiracy masterminds are capable of orchestrating a covert and complex installation of explosives, secretly confound the parts of the internal security apparatus of the most powerful military and espionage force in the world that aren't involved in the conspiracy, apparently control the BBC itself, but still can't time a news release properly.I think the characterisation of the conspiracists as global masterminds who make stupid errors like this is somewhat inconsistent.
I think NORAD staging 'Practice Armageddon', an international military exercise on 9/11 may have not have went according to plan, no. And I have no real reason to believe there were any 'Al-Qaeda Muslims' on board any of those hijacked planes. I don't believe that stewardess Amy Sweeney made any cell phone calls to ATC from American flight 11, nor did Brian Sweeney make a cell phone call to his wife Julie from UA flight 175 and alleged to last several minutes. Or at least, not without a lot of technical difficulties when the plane was anywhere above 2000 feet altitude.
But I think the official narrative that claims a few amateur Cessna pilots dominated NORAD air space for nearly 2 hours on 9/11. and proceeded to demolish four buildings with only three planes, is fiction. There were dozens and maybe hundreds of incidents every year before 9/11/01 where passenger planes flew off course, and NORAD made sure to respond with fighter plane escorts in a matter of minutes. It didn't happen on 9/11 though. Why not? Does US "national security", and whatever that means, take priority over the truth? Is it good enough reasoon for you and Canada's leaders in Ottawa to send troops to occupy another country militarily and murder their citizens to protect a corrupt US-backed narco administration in Kabul from their own people striving for democracy?[/size]
Thu, 2010-09-02 17:04
#3
CNN. All amateur hijackers and part-time Muslims know to turn off the transponder unit to prevent transmission of the four digit hijack code. Or at least the regular pilots of KAL 85 knew to do it during NORAD's 'practice Armageddon' exercise on 9/11/01.
Did CNN claim that none of the hijacked planes were able to transmit the hijack code?
Well I've only ever seen or read about circumstantial evidence linking the CIA's anticommunist jihadi leader to the 9/11 attacks. The Pentagon says they have the real goods on OBL but can't reveal it to the public for public to scrutinize. And it's for reasons of US national security, or at least, this is what they tell the public. But jrootham says he's satisfied with the evidence which he described as 'adequate', so that means jrootham isn't concerned that 9/11 was a false flag military or intelligence or even a joint military-intelligence operation between the US and Canadian militaries on 9/11 that sounds anything like 'operation Armageddon', or something like that.
So, your evidence that this is a fale flag operation consists of ignorance of the evidence connecting Osama bin Laden to the attack.
You do realise that just because you are unaware of something does not mean that it does not exist, right?
I think NORAD staging 'Practice Armageddon', an international military exercise on 9/11 may have not have went according to plan, no. And I have no real reason to believe there were any 'Al-Qaeda Muslims' on board any of those hijacked planes. I don't believe that stewardess Amy Sweeney made any cell phone calls to ATC from UAL flight 175 either. Or at least not when the plane was above 25000 or 30,000 feet altitude.
I have no idea what you are trying to claim about this "Practice Armageddon" that you keep bringing up.
They have footage from the airport cameras of these men getting on the planes. They may not be "Al-Qaeda Msulims" according to you, but there is little doubt those 19 men were on those planes.
I do not believe that Ms. Sweeney used a cell phone either. She used an Airfone instead.
Thu, 2010-09-02 17:07
#4
.....
But I think the official narrative that claims a few amateur Cessna pilots dominated NORAD air space for nearly 2 hours on 9/11. and proceeded to demolish four buildings with only three planes, is fiction. There were dozens and maybe hundreds of incidents every year before 9/11/01 where passenger planes flew off course, and NORAD made sure to respond with fighter plane escorts in a matter of minutes. It didn't happen on 9/11 though. Why not? Does US "national security", and whatever that means, take priority over the truth? Is it good enough reasoon for you and Canada's leaders in Ottawa to send troops to occupy another country militarily and murder their citizens to protect a corrupt US-backed narco administration in Kabul from their own people striving for democracy?[/size]
Then it should be easy for you to find evidence of the US military providing an escort within minutes.
Thu, 2010-09-02 18:14
#5
Then it should be easy for you to find evidence of the US military providing an escort within minutes.
It's SOP for NORAD 24/7/365.25. Everybody knows that. DId US reconnaissance know that KAL flight 007 had "wandered" off course over Kamchatka and Sakhalin Island in the 1980s and carrying a woman from my hometown who died in the tragedy? Sure they did. They know where every plane is in the sky at all times.
Thu, 2010-09-02 18:44
#6
Did CNN claim that none of the hijacked planes were able to transmit the hijack code?
I don't know for sure. You'd have to do some leg work yourself. But the 9/11 Commish's report makes no mention of the universal code , "7500" for hijack in progress, having been received by any civilian ATC tower.
So, your evidence that this is a fale flag operation consists of ignorance of the evidence connecting Osama bin Laden to the attack.You do realise that just because you are unaware of something does not mean that it does not exist, right?
I have many significant other reasons to believe it was a false flag in addition to the lack of real evidence implicating Elvis bin Laden, who in all likelihood is deader than a door nail today while the US Military and CIA continue to play along with the charade that he is as alive and plotting the most sinister terror attacks against America. It's like reds under their beds and only slightly different.
I have no idea what you are trying to claim about this "Practice Armageddon" that you keep bringing up.
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Guardian#Global_Guardian_and_the_Sep... Guardian[/url]
Perhaps you can dig up some info on this for us? You may need to pursue a long and dragged-out FOI request through our stoogeaucracy in Ottawa. I don't think they will be very accommodating though. Just my guess. Our CA's in Ottawa are busy planning to seize dictatorial power by phony majority election and prolly can't be bothered with truth of any kind these days.
And many people are highly receptive of and easily persuaded by US Government propaganda. But that's okay, because they've fooled millions into believing in the invisible enemy that does not exist. As one of Rosie O'Donnell's guests said about it, an entire population has been mind-fucked by an invisible enemy. We will be known in future as the hypnotized generation.
They have footage from the airport cameras of these men getting on the planes. They may not be "Al-Qaeda Msulims" according to you, but there is little doubt those 19 men were on those planes.
Their names werent even on passenger lists on 9/11, so how could they know who the hijackers were? I don't think you understand what you're saying.
I do not believe that Ms. Sweeney used a cell phone either. She used an Airfone instead.
Sure, but only after the truth movement pointed out the technical flaws in their made up stories about cellular phone calls.
[url=http://physics911.net/cellphoneflight93]"Mom? This is Mark Bingham."[/url] Enough to make any mother suspicious if you ask me. And then they were "cut off."
Thu, 2010-09-02 19:18
#7
No Yards
Then it should be easy for you to find evidence of the US military providing an escort within minutes.It's SOP for NORAD 24/7/365.25. Everybody knows that. DId US reconnaissance know that KAL flight 007 had "wandered" off course over Kamchatka and Sakhalin Island in the 1980s and carrying a woman from my hometown who died in the tragedy? Sure they did. They know where every plane is in the sky at all times.
There's also Payne Stewart who 2 years earlier had an F-16 on him within seconds when he failed to respond to a request to change radio frequencies.
Thu, 2010-09-02 19:43
#8
Then there's Iran Air Flight 665. The yanquis aren't all-knowing, all-seeing.
Thu, 2010-09-02 19:55
#9
No Yards, your link says it took 1 hour and 20 minutes for a fighter to get to Payne Stewart's plane. Not seconds.
Thu, 2010-09-02 20:08
#10
Then there's Iran Air Flight 665. The yanquis aren't all-knowing, all-seeing.
What that proves is that ordinary lives are expendable as far as the US Government and US hawks are concerned.
"I will never apologize for the United States of America, ever. I don't care what the facts are." - VP George H. W. Bush (Prescott (pro-Nazi Eugenicist and warfiteer) Bush's son)
Thu, 2010-09-02 20:30
#11
">http://www.noradsanta.org/en/faq.html] Why does NORAD track Santa?
Twenty four hours a day, 365 days a year, NORAD tracks airplanes, missiles, space launches [u]and anything else that flies in or around the North American continent.[/u] While the tradition of tracking Santa began purely by accident, NORAD continues to track Santa. We’re the only organization that has the technology, the qualifications, and the people to do it. And we love it! NORAD is honored to be Santa’s official tracker on Christmas Eve!
They even track Santa fcs. Was Elvis bin Laden's pre-planned "new Pearl Harbor" a complete surprise to [s]FDR[/s] Bush, Cheney and Rice in modern times? It's not likely according to experts. In fact, there are experts and whistleblowers who've stated that they were warned well ahead of time. As in, NeoCons had advanced warning of Santa from intelligence agencies around the world who had been tracking Santa bin Laden's army of darkness.
Fri, 2010-09-03 00:25
#12
Everybody's indoctrinated to some extent - religious fanatics are not born believing in god, children are not born believing in santa claus, Canadians are not born believing they live in a 'democracy', the many racists of all stripes who make life miserable for millions around the world are not born that way. The only question is whether the indoctrination is benign and helpful, and more in the line of educating the young to be strong and free and intelligent citizens, or more sinister - most people would, I expect, agree that the well-indoctrinated Hitler Youth were not a 'benign' manifestation of indoctrination, nor were/are the many southern US whites who seem to truly believe dark-skinned people are inferior to them.
Fewer people understand that educating / indoctrinating people to believe that Canada is a great democracy with a free media etc etc is not a lot better in principle than the indoctrinated Hitler youth, just a lot better done, by powerful and wealthy people who still want to rule the world, but have decided that a more subtle operation may work better than Hitler's (at least in Canada - some 'shock 'n' awe' operations still serve a purpose, and well-trained cops with tasers and pepper spray are always available for the few who have a slightly better appreciation of what they're up to ..). Few people understand the difference between a well-treated subject whose masters decide everything for them, and a collection of free humans making decisions about their country together.
To scoff at indoctrination is simply to prove how very successful they have been.
I have a longer essay here - http://www.rudemacedon.ca/lgi/can-managed-dem.html - for anyone ready to get a bit deeper into the rabbit hole. And the book, of course - They're Building a Box - and You're In It http://www.rudemacedon.ca/dlp/box/box-intro.html .
Fri, 2010-09-03 01:19
#13
Hey siamdave; do you have the elasticity of thought to acknowledge that there are people who loathe Bush/Cheney/Rice/Obama and the empire they're inflicting on the planet yet who look at the destruction of the World Trade Centre and the damage to the Pentagon as something caused by big aircraft flying into them?
Fri, 2010-09-03 02:00
#14
And besides, US taxpayers [url=http://www.georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2010/05/columbia-space-shuttle...'t afford anymore money[/url] for expensive investigations as a result of frivolous inquiries into the worst building collapses in history. There's even less money to investigate the worst financial disaster in history. It's been one controlled demolition after another.
Fri, 2010-09-03 03:26
#15
Hey siamdave; do you have the elasticity of thought to acknowledge that there are people who loathe Bush/Cheney/Rice/Obama and the empire they're inflicting on the planet yet who look at the destruction of the World Trade Centre and the damage to the Pentagon as something caused by big aircraft flying into them?
- I don't quite get your point - I very obviously acknowledge such people - I spend a fair amount of time trying to explain to them why they're wrong.
Let me try one on you - do you have the clarity of vision and thought to stand up in public and confirm that you really believe that these buildings -
- have been so badly damaged by airplane crashes and the fires we see burning that total, global virtually instantaneous collapse is imminent?
- I've been challenging you OCT people for years like this, and have yet to get a clear response. Anyone else feel free to join in - I believe that! Yea, me too! Sure - it's obvious those buildings are on the verge of collapse!
- and etc
Fri, 2010-09-03 04:05
#16
As George Herbert Walker Bush once said, I will never demand a second investigation into 9/11. "I don't care what the facts are." And besides, false flags are unAmerican.
Fri, 2010-09-03 07:50
#17
-serendipity seems to be with those who are open to it - just came across this -
".. Edward Bernays, the American nephew of Sigmund Freud, is said to have invented modern propaganda. During the First World War, he was one of a group of influential liberals who mounted a secret government campaign to persuade reluctant Americans to send an army to the bloodbath in Europe. In his book Propaganda , published in 1928, Bernays wrote that the "intelligent manipulation of the organised habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society", and that the manipulators "constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power in our country". Instead of propaganda, he coined the euphemism "public relations"..." ( http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26286.html)
- by a writer named John Pilger - whom, as I noted on the last thread, is rarely if ever acknowledged in the Canadian MSM, although he is certainly one of the world's leading 'non-establishment' journalists and documentarians ....
Fri, 2010-09-03 10:04
#18
I don't know for sure. You'd have to do some leg work yourself. But the 9/11 Commish's report makes no mention of the universal code , "7500" for hijack in progress, having been received by any civilian ATC tower.
It seems that the hijackers simply turned the transponders off immediately. So, how is this evidence for a false flag operation?
I have many significant other reasons to believe it was a false flag in addition to the lack of real evidence implicating Elvis bin Laden, who in all likelihood is deader than a door nail today while the US Military and CIA continue to play along with the charade that he is as alive and plotting the most sinister terror attacks against America. It's like reds under their beds and only slightly different.
The issue of whether or not he is alive today is completely irrelevant to whether or not he is connected to the 9/11 attacks.
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Guardian#Global_Guardian_and_the_Sep... Guardian[/url]
Perhaps you can dig up some info on this for us? You may need to pursue a long and dragged-out FOI request through our stoogeaucracy in Ottawa. I don't think they will be very accommodating though. Just my guess. Our CA's in Ottawa are busy planning to seize dictatorial power by phony majority election and prolly can't be bothered with truth of any kind these days.
And many people are highly receptive of and easily persuaded by US Government propaganda. But that's okay, because they've fooled millions into believing in the invisible enemy that does not exist. As one of Rosie O'Donnell's guests said about it, an entire population has been mind-fucked by an invisible enemy. We will be known in future as the hypnotized generation.
Oh, it is some completely irrelevant red herrring. I hope you don't mind if I simply ignore it then.
Their names werent even on passenger lists on 9/11, so how could they know who the hijackers were? I don't think you understand what you're saying.
This is simply incorrect.
The Boston Globe reported on its web site Thursday that it had obtained a copy of the complete manifest list of the planes hijacked from Boston.The Globe said according to the manifest, Mohamed Atta, one of the suspected terrorists, was assigned seat 8D in business class on American Airlines Flight 11, directly across the aisle from Hollywood producer David Angell and his wife, Lynn, who were in seats 8A and 8B, respectively. Seated next to Atta in seat 8G was Abdul Alomari. FBI investigators have searched Alomari's home in Vero Beach.
The Globe reported the passenger list for United Air Lines Flight 175 shows that Marwan Alshehri got on the plane that left Boston and slammed into one of the Manhattan skyscrapers 15 minutes after Flight 11. An FAA pilot directory information spelled his name Marwan Alshehhi.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/14/national/main311268.shtml
Sure, but only after the truth movement pointed out the technical flaws in their made up stories about cellular phone calls.
[url=http://physics911.net/cellphoneflight93]"Mom? This is Mark Bingham."[/url] Enough to make any mother suspicious if you ask me. And then they were "cut off."
The way I see it, cell phone use would have been spotty and difficult, but possible, while Airfone use would have been no problem at all.
It's SOP for NORAD 24/7/365.25. Everybody knows that. DId US reconnaissance know that KAL flight 007 had "wandered" off course over Kamchatka and Sakhalin Island in the 1980s and carrying a woman from my hometown who died in the tragedy? Sure they did. They know where every plane is in the sky at all times.
That is not evidence for your claim. It is some completely irrelevant issue that doesn't even involve US air space.
Fri, 2010-09-03 11:00
#19
Let me try one on you - do you have the clarity of vision and thought to stand up in public and confirm that you really believe that these buildings have been so badly damaged by airplane crashes and the fires we see burning that total, global virtually instantaneous collapse is imminent?
Yes.
By the way, how is your recent discovery of Bernays germane to any of this? Then again, the buildings in that photo you posted look a little like "torches of freedom."
Fri, 2010-09-03 12:15
#20
Let me try one on you - do you have the clarity of vision and thought to stand up in public and confirm that you really believe that these buildings have been so badly damaged by airplane crashes and the fires we see burning that total, global virtually instantaneous collapse is imminent?
Yes.
By the way, how is your recent discovery of Bernays germane to any of this? Then again, the buildings in that photo you posted look a little like "torches of freedom."
- well, glad we got that on the record - I think you're the first one. It won't be long, I predict, where the family picnic, or whatever y'all do in a comparable way, is going to be having a good chuckle over that.
As for Bernays, well, your original question, to which I responded but you seem to have forgotten about (sort of a typical OCT behaviour when you're shown to have gotten yourself into something you can't handle) seemed to indicate you thought that OCTers were 'indoctrinated' according to my previous post, and I was just adding a bit of info for those who might be interested in looking into this deeper. Which is probably about 3 levels too deep for a bonger already, so bob's yer uncle, as the saying goes. If you want to try to engage in some serious discussion, I'd be happy to oblige - but your thinly veiled, completely misplaced sarcasm is, like, just too boring.
Fri, 2010-09-03 12:26
#21
From the mouths of sophomores...
Fri, 2010-09-03 12:34
#22
It's SOP for NORAD 24/7/365.25. Everybody knows that. DId US reconnaissance know that KAL flight 007 had "wandered" off course over Kamchatka and Sakhalin Island in the 1980s and carrying a woman from my hometown who died in the tragedy? Sure they did. They know where every plane is in the sky at all times.
That is not evidence for your claim. It is some completely irrelevant issue that doesn't even involve US air space.
- hmmm - '..every plane in the sky' would seem to include US air space - and in the context, especially US air space - keep at em, Fidel, they're on the ropes and reeling, I think - I've noticed with my last couple of small forays into the ring that it's like dealing with some desperate punchdrunk foe who is down and mostly out, lashing back with nonsencsical desperate gambits that an amateur could easily parry - c'mon, guys, get with it - on Rabble Babble summer 2010 - as in every other forum where there has been any kind of open debate - the OCT has been tried - and found wanting - very, very, very wanting.
Fri, 2010-09-03 12:43
#23
From the mouths of sophomores...
- well I guess that answers my invitation for 'serious discussion'. Can't say that I'm surprised, as the only really serious thing that can be said about the OCT is some form of 'crap'.
Geez, gramp, you didn't *really* believe that stuff, did ya?!?!?!?! whooooeeeee!!!!
Fri, 2010-09-03 14:20
#24
- hmmm - '..every plane in the sky' would seem to include US air space - and in the context, especially US air space - keep at em, Fidel, they're on the ropes and reeling, I think - I've noticed with my last couple of small forays into the ring that it's like dealing with some desperate punchdrunk foe who is down and mostly out, lashing back with nonsencsical desperate gambits that an amateur could easily parry - c'mon, guys, get with it - on Rabble Babble summer 2010 - as in every other forum where there has been any kind of open debate - the OCT has been tried - and found wanting - very, very, very wanting.
Fidel's claim was that US military fighter planes often were able to escort hijacked (or simply off course) passenger planes within minutes of receiving the signal.
The Korean airliner that was shot down by Soviet fighter planes is simply not evidence of Fidel's claims. This is because the planes that did intercept the plane were not US fighter planes, the plane was not in US airspace, and there is no indication as to how long the military planes took to arrive.
To put it simply, it is not relevant to Fidel's claims at all.
Fri, 2010-09-03 18:05
#25
One of the problems that the USAF had on 9/11 is what they described as "the whole in the doughnut". USAF radars are positioned along the periphery of the US and look outwards. Internal airspace control is the air traffic control responsibility, which depend on transponders. At least all this was the case at the time. The upshot was they didn't know what was going on. Which is why they shut down everything.
Fri, 2010-09-03 18:32
#26
Fidel's claim was that US military fighter planes often were able to escort hijacked (or simply off course) passenger planes within minutes of receiving the signal.
NORAD spokesman, [url=http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/analysis/norad/020812ap.html]Maj. Douglas Martin[/url], said that jets were scrambled 67 times to intercept suspicious planes in one-ten month period before 9/11. Did you think they played cards and ate cheeze doodles all day?
The Korean airliner that was shot down by Soviet fighter planes is simply not evidence of Fidel's claims.
Yes it is. Renowned investigative news journalist wrote a book about flight 007. In the book Hersh points out that there was a massive US military exercise in the Pacific at the time of the KAL shootdown. KAL 007 was cold war baloney.
9/11 is colder war baloney. 9/11 was just another gladio operation. NATO countries have bombed and killed innocent civilians before in order that the public demand increased security, and even when conjuring false pretexts for war.
Fri, 2010-09-03 19:50
#27
No Yards
No Yards, your link says it took 1 hour and 20 minutes for a fighter to get to Payne Stewart's plane. Not seconds.
Sorry, read that wrong, I though they were saying they followed the plan from 9:33EDT till 9:52CDT .. my bad.
Fri, 2010-09-03 21:26
#28
More than 60% of the world's oil and natural gas lie in Muslim lands.
This was the reason for false flag on 9/11.
This is the fascist scapegoat style of reasoning that causes hundreds of millions of people to be demonized by a western world inquisition against hundreds of millions of peaceful Islamists, and against all anti-capitalist heresy in general. It's an ongoing blood-for-oil sword operation. The war on democracy continues.
Fri, 2010-09-03 22:58
#29
More than 60% of the world's oil and natural gas lie in Muslim lands.
This was the reason for false flag on 9/11.
This is the fascist scapegoat style of reasoning that causes hundreds of millions of people to be demonized by a western world inquisition against hundreds of millions of peaceful Islamists, and against all anti-capitalist heresy in general. It's an ongoing blood-for-oil sword operation. The war on democracy continues.
That's ridiculous! How could Spiderman steal all that oil?!
Fri, 2010-09-03 23:12
#30
More than 60% of the world's oil and natural gas lie in Muslim lands.
This was the reason for false flag on 9/11.
This is the fascist scapegoat style of reasoning that causes hundreds of millions of people to be demonized by a western world inquisition against hundreds of millions of peaceful Islamists, and against all anti-capitalist heresy in general. It's an ongoing blood-for-oil sword operation. The war on democracy continues.
That's ridiculous! How could Spiderman steal all that oil?!
Yes, it's no secret that the USA's is the most oil dependent, most wasteful economy in the world today. Their thirst for cheap oil and energy in general is unsustainable. It's true that transporting oil and gas to North America from so far away is not economically feasible. But oil and gas represent power and influence for politicians, and oil and gas represent valuable commodities for western energy companies operating globally.
The answer would have to include: Afghanistan, pipeline geopolitics, colder war baloney etc. The name of the game is to provide alternative oil and gas supplies to Europe in order to lessen dependency on Russian and Iranian gas and oil, as well as projecting US power and influence in the region. But that's deserving of a thread all by itself.
Fri, 2010-09-03 23:59
#31
More than 60% of the world's oil and natural gas lie in Muslim lands.
This was the reason for false flag on 9/11.
This is the fascist scapegoat style of reasoning that causes hundreds of millions of people to be demonized by a western world inquisition against hundreds of millions of peaceful Islamists, and against all anti-capitalist heresy in general. It's an ongoing blood-for-oil sword operation. The war on democracy continues.
That's ridiculous! How could Spiderman steal all that oil?!
- try listening to those who quite obviously are considerably more educated about such things - you might learn something. Of course the tradeoff might be too severe to bear - less tv time ....
Sun, 2010-09-05 00:44
#32
[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2550513.stm]Fake al-Qaeda in Gaza[/url] 2002
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_Sheikh_Mohammed#Early_life][color=bl... Sheikh Mohammed fought for the CIA in Afghanistan[/color][/url]
[url=http://www.geopolintel.fr/article100.html]Zacarias Moussaoui fought for the CIA in Chechnya[/url]
[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7713][color=blue]C... Created “Al Qaeda Network”, Blamed for Pakistan Troubles[/color][/url] 2007
"I am a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign policy with war on my mind." - Honest George, War President of America
Sun, 2010-09-05 13:05
#33
NORAD spokesman, [url=http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/planes/analysis/norad/020812ap.html]Maj. Douglas Martin[/url], said that jets were scrambled 67 times to intercept suspicious planes in one-ten month period before 9/11. Did you think they played cards and ate cheeze doodles all day?
From your link:
From Sept. 11 to June, NORAD scrambled jets or diverted combat air patrols 462 times, almost seven times as often as the 67 scrambles from September 2000 to June 2001, Martin said.
So, NORAD seems to have significantly stepped up interceptions after Sept.11th. This suggests that NORAD felt that they were not doing it often enough beforehand. This is inconsistent with your claim that they were doing it all the time.
Yes it is. Renowned investigative news journalist wrote a book about flight 007. In the book Hersh points out that there was a massive US military exercise in the Pacific at the time of the KAL shootdown. KAL 007 was cold war baloney.
9/11 is colder war baloney. 9/11 was just another gladio operation. NATO countries have bombed and killed innocent civilians before in order that the public demand increased security, and even when conjuring false pretexts for war.
So, your evidence that the planes were not intercepted as part of a fals flag operation is your unsupported assertion that some other unrelated airline tragedy is also a false flag operation.
Fidel, evidence usually consists of those things that are independently verifiable by another person.
More than 60% of the world's oil and natural gas lie in Muslim lands.
This was the reason for false flag on 9/11.
This is the fascist scapegoat style of reasoning that causes hundreds of millions of people to be demonized by a western world inquisition against hundreds of millions of peaceful Islamists, and against all anti-capitalist heresy in general. It's an ongoing blood-for-oil sword operation. The war on democracy continues.
This could just as easily (and much more plausibly) have been the reason for manipulating the media to turn an intelligence failure into a cause for war. You can get the exact same effect without the complicated and risky false flag operation.
Mon, 2010-09-06 01:09
#34
[url=http://tv.globalresearch.ca/2010/09/911-cameraman-faces-extradition-unit... Cameraman Faces Extradition to United States[/url] grtv
An American cameraman who says September 11 was a lie is facing extradition from Argentina to the United States on alleged murder charges. Kurt Sonnenfeld, a man who was provided provisory refugee status seven years ago, is now wanted by the US government on murder charges. He is the only cameraman that filmed crucial images of Ground Zero in New York after the Twin Towers collapsed.Sonnenfeld, who lives in Buenos Aires with his Argentine family, says the footage proves that 9/11 was a lie. He still has the 22-hour footage that US authorities want.
"I have promised to give my footage to the big investigators that are credible and widely known - investigators who will be able to detect anomalies that I or other people without scientific education might miss. With that in mind, I hope that there are many things they can discover that disprove the current official story of what happened," Sonnenfeld told a Press TV correspondent.
9/11 film footage from ground zero not viewed yet by the public? For a bunch of fascists who are supposedly trying to ignore the issue, they sure are excited about Sonnenfeld's video footage.
Mon, 2010-09-06 08:05
#35
So, NORAD seems to have significantly stepped up interceptions after Sept.11th. This suggests that NORAD felt that they were not doing it often enough beforehand. This is inconsistent with your claim that they were doing it all the time.
[size=12]67 times in ten months. That's 6.7 times per month on average before 9/11.
On 9/11 we are led to belive that amtaeur Cessna pilots dominated NORAD air space for nearly two hours while dubya continued reading stories to children.
So, your evidence that the planes were not intercepted as part of a fals flag operation is your unsupported assertion that some other unrelated airline tragedy is also a false flag operation.Fidel, evidence usually consists of those things that are independently verifiable by another person.
You still haven't proven to us or yourself that "al-Qaeda" is a real terrorist organization. Do realize how silly it is to believe in an invisible enemy that doesn't exist?
And, there is more evidence for people who are interested.
In 2004 before a senate hearing committee of the joint chiefs of staff of the US military, Senator Mark Dayton asked, [i]“Did NORAD”– the military organization responsible for defending U.S. airspace–”conduct exercises or develop scenarios, prior to September 11, 2001, to test a military reaction to an aircraft hijacking which appeared destined to result in a suicide crash into a high-value target?”[/i]
General Richard Myers outlined [b][i]“five exercise hijack events” that NORAD had practiced for between November 1999 and October 2000, which all[/i][/b] [url=http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=108_senate_hea... a suicide crash into a high-value target.”[/url]
There were warnings from intelligence agencies all over the world leading up to 9/11. The Neocons did nothing in response. That's treason and dereliction of duty at the highest levels.
This could just as easily (and much more plausibly) have been the reason for manipulating the media to turn an intelligence failure into a cause for war. You can get the exact same effect without the complicated and risky false flag operation.
This makes no sense at all. The Neocons at least tried to justify breaking US and international laws to Congress before there was a vote on the matter. Without the prior false flag, it's open aggression Nazi Germany style. In fact, even the Nazis pulled a false flag with the Gleiwitz incident before invading Poland. And that was before there was even a UN.
According to international law as written in the UN Charter, [i]disputes are to be brought to the UN Security Council, which alone may authorize the use of force.[/i] Without this authorization, any military activity against another country is illegal.
The US didn't want to wrangle with the UN, so they looked to the next clause in the UN Charter, which was to choose to attack a country they believed to be an imminent threat to America based on the 9/11 false flag attack which they themselves are either indirectly or directly responsible for it happening. And then they proceeded to break international laws as as well as US law when they attacked Afghanistan, a desperately poor country US hawks claimed to be harboring "al-Qaeda" terrorists who were all actually trained in terrorism on US and European soil.[/size]
Mon, 2010-09-06 16:59
#36
67 times in ten months. That's 6.7 times per month on average before 9/11.
On 9/11 we are led to belive that amtaeur Cessna pilots dominated NORAD air space for nearly two hours while dubya continued reading stories to children.
And far more often in the ten months after 9/11.
Fidel, they did not dominate NORAD air space. They simply eluded detection for about twenty minutes.
You still haven't proven to us or yourself that "al-Qaeda" is a real terrorist organization.... That's treason and dereliction of duty at the highest levels.
None of that is evidence that US military planes routinely intercepted hijacked and off course planes in minutes.
This makes no sense at all. ...And then they proceeded to break international laws as as well as US law when they attacked Afghanistan, a desperately poor country US hawks claimed to be harboring "al-Qaeda" terrorists who were all actually trained in terrorism on US and European soil.
None of that contradicts what I said.
Mon, 2010-09-06 17:29
#37
[size=12]67 times in ten months. That's 6.7 times per month on average before 9/11. [/size]
On 9/11 we are led to belive that amtaeur Cessna pilots dominated NORAD air space for nearly two hours while dubya continued reading stories to children.
And far more often in the ten months after 9/11.
[size=12]And? What does this have to do with the fact that military jets were scrambled an average of nearly 7 times a month [i]before[/i] 9/11 as opposed to NORAD's perfect record of zero times for nearly two hours while school children baby sat Presinit dubya on 9/11? [/size]
Fidel, they did not dominate NORAD air space. They simply eluded detection for about twenty minutes.
[url=http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/]NORAD Stand-Down on 9/11[/url]
[b]Layered Failures[/b]The air defense network had, on September 11th, predictable and effective procedures for dealing with just such an attack. Yet it failed to respond in a timely manner until after the attack was over, more than an hour and a half after it had started. The official timeline describes a series of events and mode of response in which the delays are spread out into a number of areas. There are failures upon failures, in what might be described as a strategy of layered failures, or failure in depth. The failures can be divided into four types:
[list][*] Failures to report: Based on the official timeline, the FAA response times for reporting the deviating aircraft were many times longer than the prescribed times.
[*] Failures to scramble: NORAD, once notified of the off-course aircraft, failed to scramble jets from the nearest bases.
[*] Failures to intercept: Once airborne, interceptors failed to reach their targets because they flew at small fractions of their top speeds.
[*] Failures to redeploy: Fighters that were airborne and within interception range of the deviating aircraft were not redeployed to pursue them.[/list]
You still haven't proven to us or yourself that "al-Qaeda" is a real terrorist organization.... That's treason and dereliction of duty at the highest levels.None of that is evidence that US military planes routinely intercepted hijacked and off course planes in minutes.
[size=12]And there is no evidence that there was a single Muslim person belonging to an invisible enemy sometimes referred to as "al-Qaeda" on any of the hijacked planes on 9/11. So that must mean that only those who want to believe in the bogey man will do so. I, on the other hand, refuse to believe in such nonsense. There is no law that says you have to believe in the bogeyman either. And I highly recommend that you don't for lack of proof on the part of Murder Inc. as well as their bought and paid-for stooges in Ottawa. I just think it's time that we outgrew the bogeyman. Just say to yourself, I can't do it anymore.[/size]
Mon, 2010-09-06 18:35
#38
The Last Believer: From Omar's Mistake to Obama's Atrocities
http://www.chris-floyd.com/articles/1=latest-news/2018-the-last-believer...
"...the Terror War is a win-win situation for America's militarists, among whom Obama now stand's foremost..."
Mon, 2010-09-06 19:00
#39
This was the reasoning that Mullah Omar expressed to one of his top foreign affairs advisers, Abdul Salam Zaeef, the Taliban ambassador to Pakistan, as Jonathan Steele recounts in an excellent article in [url=http://www.lrb.co.uk/v32/n17/jonathan-steele/diary]the latest London Review of Books[/url]. Omar simply could not conceive that the United States would simply shred all notions of law and due process to launch a devastating attack on an entire country, in order – ostensibly – to get revenge on handful of men: men whom the Taliban were more than willing to give up – in accordance with the rule of law and due process. But the dossier of “hard proof” of bin Laden’s guilt promised by Colin Powell in the few remaining days of peace after 9/11 never materialized([u]and still has not materialized[/u]).
Sorry, kids, but the bogeyman is not real. We will refuse to be scared by trick or treaters donning Elvis bin Laden Halloween masks next month. The gig is up. EbL and his army of darkness are "blown"! You read right here on babble.
Tue, 2010-09-07 00:52
#40
Fidel, who are you arguing with and why? As far as I can tell everyone here believes that al-Qaeda was more than a hundred guys who had each others cell phone numbers. Now it's a brand.
There is also large evidence of major blunders by various parts of the US government and military. There is lot's of CYA coverup going on. It is clear that the 9/11 attack was exploited to launch illegal wars.
All of the this is generally accepted here (I sit to be corrected if that is not true).
So why do you go on accusing people here that they are complicit in crimes when they are just applying Occam's Razor? Incompetence is FAR more likely an explanation than false flag.
BTW, the assertion that there were flight delays because of slow flying speeds is false. Fighter aircraft can reach maximum speeds only at very high altitudes. The flight envelopes followed by the fighters included afterburners and were designed to reach the target areas as soon as possible.
Tue, 2010-09-07 01:39
#41
Fidel, who are you arguing with and why? As far as I can tell everyone here believes that al-Qaeda was more than a hundred guys who had each others cell phone numbers. Now it's a brand.
Not me. I don't believe in bogeymen. They had no problems tracking Pablo Escobar and his gangsters around the world by cellular phone signals. They were tracking their own bogeymen with Able Danger etc. "Al-Qaeda"s hijacking specialist. Sargent Ali Mohammed, was and probably still is on the US Army and CIA/US taxpayer payroll.
There is also large evidence of major blunders by various parts of the US government and military. There is lot's of CYA coverup going on. It is clear that the 9/11 attack was exploited to launch illegal wars.
Exploited yes. The whistleblowers are saying there was exploitation in this way for many years leading up to 9/11. And they exploitated their own security leaks and holes in the years and months leading up to 9/11. They were quite familiar with the superstars of 9/11 terror before 9/11, and their partnerships with some of them dated back to the 1980s. If you did business with the people who murder your wife and neglect to mention that in a phony investigation followed by a mock trial with no one held accountable, I suppose it's not an indictable or impeachable offense. Not until there is a real investigation and war crimes trial in a World Court of law, because that's where this 9/11 business needs to be dealt with.
So why do you go on accusing people here that they are complicit in crimes when they are just applying Occam's Razor? Incompetence is FAR more likely an explanation than false flag.
I have done nothing of sort. And if people were to apply Occam's philosophy on the matter, then like Taliban leaders in 2001, Occam's flock would have to assume that there is no real evidence of bin Laden's or "al-Qaeda" guilt in 9/11. And I suggest that until someone shows you the goods, you don't have to believe in the bogeyman either. Just say no to al-CIA'da conspiracy theories is what I recommend.
BTW, the assertion that there were flight delays because of slow flying speeds is false. Fighter aircraft can reach maximum speeds only at very high altitudes. The flight envelopes followed by the fighters included afterburners and were designed to reach the target areas as soon as possible.
It would depend on how far away war planes were situated that day. And as Marge Gunderson of Fargo movie fame might have said about 9/11, it was a beautiful day.
Tue, 2010-09-07 08:03
#42
Fidel, who are you arguing with and why? As far as I can tell everyone here believes that al-Qaeda was more than a hundred guys who had each others cell phone numbers. Now it's a brand.
- easy, podnuh - outside of the MSM, there are a LOT of questions about the so-called al Quaeda - I can't give you a figure on what a Babble 911 vote might show, but I can assure you it would not be 'everyone here' falling in line with your belief ....
There is also large evidence of major blunders by various parts of the US government and military. There is lot's of CYA coverup going on.
- there is indeed a lot of coverup going on - but when you consider that the destruction of the WTC buildings cannot be explained by the OCT, and thus the involvement of some very high people in the US gov't was necessary, the case is quite strong that it is not to cover up 'blunders' - it is to avoid spending the rest of a lot of lives in jail somewhere - this was a major, major crime, and there surely is a lot at stake for a goodly number of very powerful people to see that it is never opened up to public scrutiny
....
So why do you go on accusing people here that they are complicit in crimes when they are just applying Occam's Razor?
-- actually, Occam's Razor would say that something that looks exactly like many controlled demolitions we all have seen should be first considered as another controlled demolition - it is the OCT people who are jumping through all kinds of hoops, and making up all kinds of fantastical stories, and twisting all kinds of things to try to make a case that a relatively small plane crash and a short-lived, small fire caused huge steel buildings to collapse as they never have before, and could not have on that day without some kind of serious assistance beyond those little fires and relatively insignificant plane crashes. You ought to not be talking about Mr Occam - he's not really your bud here. One could write books about the OCT and Occam - the whole thing is a fantasy that requires an endless number of things to happen that would have ol Occie rolling in his grave to see his name and theory abused in this way - try reading one of Griffin's books, and you might see things a bit more clearly.
Tue, 2010-09-07 08:59
#43
...And? What does this have to do with the fact that military jets were scrambled an average of nearly 7 times a month [i]before[/i] 9/11 as opposed to NORAD's perfect record of zero times for nearly two hours while school children baby sat Presinit dubya on 9/11? ...Just say to yourself, I can't do it anymore.
None of that is evidence that US military planes routinely intercepted hijacked and off-course planes in minutes.
You also seem to be ignoring the evidence that I already quoted, and linked to, showing that there were Muslim terrorists on those planes.
So, you seem to believe one idea, even though there is no evidence for it. At the same time, you are deliberately ignoring evidence for somehing you do not wish to believe.
Tue, 2010-09-07 09:25
#44
[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4700589.stm][color=black][u]Profile: Prince Turki al-Faisal[/color][/u][/url]
During the 1980s he had contact with Osama bin Laden and, in 1998, sought unsuccessfully to have the al-Qaeda chief extradited from Afghanistan to Saudi Arabia.In December 2004, Prince Turki accepted substantial libel damages and an apology from the magazine Paris Match over claims he himself was linked to the 11 September attacks.[..]
The ambassador weighed into the controversy surrounding US filmmaker Michael Moore's documentary Fahrenheit 9/11, when he condemned it as "grossly unfair" to Saudis.
He accused Moore of failing to carry out proper research and dismissed his claims the Bush administration helped high-ranking Saudis to leave the US immediately after the 11 September attacks.
Did Michael Moore defame the bin Laden family concerning 9/11?
But what's this?:
[url=http://www.judicialwatch.org/printer_5286.shtml]Judicial Watch Investigation Uncovers FBI Documents Concerning Bin Laden Family and Post-9/11 Flights[/url]
The redacted documents were obtained by Judicial Watch under the provisions of the FOIA and through ongoing litigation (Judicial Watch v. Department of Homeland Security & Federal Bureau of Investigation, No. 04-1643 (RWR)). Among the documents was a declassified “Secret” FBI report, dated September 24, 2003, entitled: “Response to October 2003 Vanity Fair Article (Re: [Redacted] Family Departures After 9/11/2001).”
[url=http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2005/osama.pdf][color=blue]Unclassi... document on Saudi Flight 207[/color][/url] (pdf)
And yet [url=http://www.judicialwatch.org/archive/2005/osama.pdf]The 9/11 Commission Report(pdf)[/url] says this:
The CIA worked hard with foreign security services to detain or at least keep an eye on bin Laden associates. Tenet spoke to 20 of his foreign counterparts.
But immediately after the 9/11 attacks, they couldn't get bin Laden's closest associates(members of his own family) out of the country fast enough? Why is there no mention of this by the 9/11 Commission Cover-up?
Tue, 2010-09-07 09:39
#45
.....
So, you seem to believe one idea, even though there is no evidence for it. At the same time, you are deliberately ignoring evidence for somehing you do not wish to believe.
- now if that isn't about as good of a description of the average OCT believer as you could find, I don't know what is - and is, of course, a perfect precis of one of the OCT bibles, the 911 Commission Report .... as very thoroughly explained by DR Griffin - often.
Tue, 2010-09-07 12:14
#46
Sure, but only after the truth movement pointed out the technical flaws in their made up stories about cellular phone calls.[url=http://physics911.net/cellphoneflight93]"Mom? This is Mark Bingham."[/url] Enough to make any mother suspicious if you ask me. And then they were "cut off."
The way I see it, cell phone use would have been spotty and difficult, but possible, while Airfone use would have been no problem at all.
The FBI originally said there were about a dozen cell phone calls which originated from UA flight 93 when that plane was at 40,000 feet altitude. Then in 2006 during the Zacarius Moussaoui trial, the alleged 20th hijacker, the FBI changed their story and said there were only two cell phone calls and the rest were by airfone. So if we go by the FBI's newest and latest lies stated in 2006 about the two cell phone calls, why did so many UA93 passengers' relatives specifically report receiving cell phone calls from UA flight 93?
Why does Deena Burnett still maintain that she received 3-5 cell phone calls from her husband Tom Burnett with Tom Burnett's cell phone ID showing up on her home telephone's caller ID display? Deena Burnett stated this about Tom's caller ID several times publicly as well as in a book she wrote.
[url=http://www.brickhousesecurity.com/spoofcard-cellphonecallrecorder-voicec... ID spoofing/voice changer equipment[/url]
[url=http://forums.techguy.org/random-discussion/72063-colin-powell-being-tre... anyone sound like General Colin Powell over a phone these days?[/url]
This is simply incorrect.Quote:
The Boston Globe reported on its web site Thursday that it had obtained a copy of the complete manifest list of the planes hijacked from Boston.The Globe said according to the manifest, Mohamed Atta, one of the suspected terrorists, was assigned seat 8D in business class on American Airlines Flight 11, directly across the...(snip)
Well I just don't understand it. Because [url=http://letsrollforums.com/aa11-passenger-lists-gerard-t9770.html?s=e4ea8... Washington Post[/url] published a "partial list" the next day. There are no Muslim names on the lists provided to them.
I don't see Mohammed Atta's name on any of [url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/11/victims-list.htm]USA Today's 9/11 passenger lists[/url] published in September of 2001.
And Gerard Holmgren reported that CNN's 9/11 passenger lists didn't have one single Muslim sounding name listed anywhere the day after 9/11. I checked, and CNN's 9/11 passenger/victims page now says, "page not found"
Don't you find it strange? Were only some news agencies provided fake passenger lists? Was Boston Globe's passenger list faked, too? I don't think they could use any of those lists in a real court of law with real lawyers and jury scrutinizing the evidence. In fact, they didn't. If they did, then the alleged hijackers would probably get off. The 19 alleged hijackers/patsies probably were killed, but there is no evidence they died on any of the 9/11 flights. Not really. What they did was a mock investigation, and they produced a whitewash report for public consumption.
Wed, 2010-09-08 12:28
#47
The FBI originally said there were about a dozen cell phone calls which originated from UA flight 93 when that plane was at 40,000 feet altitude. Then in 2006 during the Zacarius Moussaoui trial, the alleged 20th hijacker, the FBI changed their story and said there were only two cell phone calls and the rest were by airfone. So if we go by the FBI's newest and latest lies stated in 2006 about the two cell phone calls, why did so many UA93 passengers' relatives specifically report receiving cell phone calls from UA flight 93?
Why does Deena Burnett still maintain that she received 3-5 cell phone calls from her husband Tom Burnett with Tom Burnett's cell phone ID showing up on her home telephone's caller ID display? Deena Burnett stated this about Tom's caller ID several times publicly as well as in a book she wrote.
I do not understand why you believe that people changing their story is an admission of deception.
People often change their stories as new information comes to light. That is how science (and critical thinking in general) works.
Besides, I would like to see some evidence of your claims, so that we can discuss this from an informed perspective.
Well I just don't understand it. Because [url=http://letsrollforums.com/aa11-passenger-lists-gerard-t9770.html?s=e4ea8... Washington Post[/url] published a "partial list" the next day. There are no Muslim names on the lists provided to them.
I don't see Mohammed Atta's name on any of [url=http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/11/victims-list.htm]USA Today's 9/11 passenger lists[/url] published in September of 2001.
And Gerard Holmgren reported that CNN's 9/11 passenger lists didn't have one single Muslim sounding name listed anywhere the day after 9/11. I checked, and CNN's 9/11 passenger/victims page now says, "page not found"
Don't you find it strange? Were only some news agencies provided fake passenger lists? Was Boston Globe's passenger list faked, too? I don't think they could use any of those lists in a real court of law with real lawyers and jury scrutinizing the evidence. In fact, they didn't. If they did, then the alleged hijackers would probably get off. The 19 alleged hijackers/patsies probably were killed, but there is no evidence they died on any of the 9/11 flights. Not really. What they did was a mock investigation, and they produced a whitewash report for public consumption.
The news articles to which you have linked are lists of the victims. Thus, they do not include the names of the hijackers.
Wed, 2010-09-08 13:50
#48
I do not understand why you believe that people changing their story is an admission of deception.People often change their stories as new information comes to light. That is how science (and critical thinking in general) works.
[size=12]That's true, it is evidence of nothing. But the FBI changing their story about the 'cell phone flight' UA 95 doesn't exactly instill confidence in all of us enough to justify bombing and invading Afghanistan and occupying it militarily for nine years, does it?
As we were saying before, there is no hard proof that there were any Muslim hijackers boarding any of the 9/11 flights. Apparently the alleged hijackers themselves were not even proficient single engine pilots. Hani Hanjour was failing his flight training courses in Arizona. And yet we're supposed to believe he guided a commercial airline jet through combat maneuvers into the Pentagon. [url=http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/deceptions/badpilots.html]Rick Garza[/url], a flight instructor at Sorbi's Flying Club, had this to say about the two alleged hijackers originally thought to have piloted Flight 77, Khalid al-Mihdar and Nawaq al-Hamzi: [i]"It was like Dumb and Dumber, I mean, they were clueless. It was clear they were never going to make it as pilots."[/i]
The news articles to which you have linked are lists of the victims. Thus, they do not include the names of the hijackers.
[url=http://911review.org/Sept11Wiki/PassengerList.shtml]Here[/url] is the official info about these "hijackers". Many of the real identities are still alive. The FBI ignored these facts during 2001-2002 and never updated their suspect list.[url=http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/passengers.html]Moussaoui trial exhibits[/url] 2006
The problem here is that the government side has a whole lot of circumstantial evidence. They are asking you to have a leap of faith and believe their version of events. There is just as much circumstantial evidence pointing right back at them and linking themselves to what was, and in all likelihood, an inside job on 9/11. There is more evidence for the US Government side having committed mass murder and perpetrating international terrorism over the years than there is for any of the alleged 9/11 hijackers. There is no way to look at 9/11 except through a very critical and a very jaundiced eye at who the accusers are in this case. [/size]
Wed, 2010-09-08 16:00
#49
...there is no hard proof that there were any Muslim hijackers boarding any of the 9/11 flights.
Yes, there is. I even linked to it and quoted the relevant text.
I then pointed out that you were ignoring the evidence. Ane here you are doing it again.
Apparently the alleged hijackers themselves were not even proficient single engine pilots. Hani Hanjour was failing his flight training courses in Arizona. And yet we're supposed to believe he guided a commercial airline jet through combat maneuvers into the Pentagon. [url=http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/deceptions/badpilots.html]Rick Garza[/url], a flight instructor at Sorbi's Flying Club, had this to say about the two alleged hijackers originally thought to have piloted Flight 77, Khalid al-Mihdar and Nawaq al-Hamzi: [i]"It was like Dumb and Dumber, I mean, they were clueless. It was clear they were never going to make it as pilots."[/i]
Combat maneuvers? I do not think crashing a plane into a building requires good piloting skills, nor does it count as combat maneuvering.
[url=http://911review.org/Sept11Wiki/PassengerList.shtml]Here[/url] is the official info about these "hijackers".
Many of the real identities are still alive. The FBI ignored these facts during 2001-2002 and never updated their suspect list.[url=http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/passengers.html]Moussaoui trial exhibits[/url] 2006
That's not official information. Those are just 9/11 conspiracy sites that confuse the victim lists with comprehensive passenger lists.
The problem here is that the government side has a whole lot of circumstantial evidence. They are asking you to have a leap of faith and believe their version of events. There is just as much circumstantial evidence pointing right back at them and linking themselves to what was, and in all likelihood, an inside job on 9/11. There is more evidence for the US Government side having committed mass murder and perpetrating international terrorism over the years than there is for any of the alleged 9/11 hijackers. There is no way to look at 9/11 except through a very critical and a very jaundiced eye at who the accusers are in this case.
If there is so much evidence, then why is it so difficult to provide examples of this evidence?
Wed, 2010-09-08 16:47
#50
[size=12]
...there is no hard proof that there were any Muslim hijackers boarding any of the 9/11 flights.
Yes, there is. I even linked to it and quoted the relevant text.
I then pointed out that you were ignoring the evidence. Ane here you are doing it again.
I'm sorry but your one passenger list is proof of nothing. It certainly does not look good for Mohammed Atta who was arrested by the FBI before 9/11 and released on orders of DoD lawyers. But it still proves nothing.
Combat maneuvers? I do not think crashing a plane into a building requires good piloting skills, nor does it count as combat maneuvering.
[url=http://pilotsfor911truth.org/]These people[/url] would disagree with you.
That's not official information. Those are just 9/11 conspiracy sites that confuse the victim lists with comprehensive passenger lists.
You've shown us a list, and I've shown you several more from three other US news agencies produced that same week of 9/1 that don't jive with Boston Globe's. Why is it that? Apparently you are willing to have a leap of faith concerning this bit of circumstantial evidence whereas I am not willing. I don't believe in your 9/11 deities, sorry. Some of us require real proof.
The problem here is that the government side has a whole lot of circumstantial evidence. They are asking you to have a leap of faith and believe their version of events. There is just as much circumstantial evidence pointing right back at them and linking themselves to what was, and in all likelihood, an inside job on 9/11. There is more evidence for the US Government side having committed mass murder and perpetrating international terrorism over the years than there is for any of the alleged 9/11 hijackers. There is no way to look at 9/11 except through a very critical and a very jaundiced eye at who the accusers are in this case
If there is so much evidence, then why is it so difficult to provide examples of this evidence?
Cart before horse. It's a general rule of law that any invisible army of darkness which does not exist should be considered innocent of all charges until proven guilty. And the emphasis is on hard proof here. You don't have any, and neither does cosmetic US Government have any. Sorry, it's just the way it is.[/size]
Wed, 2010-09-08 21:29
#51
I'm sorry but your one passenger list is proof of nothing. It certainly does not look good for Mohammed Atta who was arrested by the FBI before 9/11 and released on orders of DoD lawyers. But it still proves nothing.
CNN itself states quite clearly that those lists are not the official ones.
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/memorial/index.html
Click on the link above, then click on "About this site" and you will get this text:
This memorial lists those who died in New York City, Washington, D.C. and Pennsylvania when terrorists hijacked four U.S. planes on September 11, 2001. It is based on records compiled by Legacy.com.
Legacy.com is not part of the US government, so the CNN lists can not be considered official.
The official lists can be downloaded here:
http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution...
Screenshots of the manifests:
http://www.911myths.com/images/2/25/Flight_11_Manifest_Moussaoui.gif
http://www.911myths.com/images/b/bf/Flight_77_Manifest_Moussaoui.gif
http://www.911myths.com/images/9/91/Flight_93_Manifest_Moussaoui.gif
http://www.911myths.com/images/3/3c/Flight_175_Manifest_Moussaoui.gif
[url=http://pilotsfor911truth.org/]These people[/url] would disagree with you.
Well, until they produce a solid argument supported by verifiable evidence, it does not matter what they think.
You've shown us a list, and I've shown you several more from three other US news agencies produced that same week of 9/1 that don't jive with Boston Globe's. Why is it that? Apparently you are willing to have a leap of faith concerning this bit of circumstantial evidence whereas I am not willing. I don't believe in your 9/11 deities, sorry. Some of us require real proof.
It has nothing to do with faith. The Boston Globe published the official manifests while CNN did not. This is obvious as soon as you do some research into where they got their lists.
Cart before horse. It's a general rule of law that any invisible army of darkness which does not exist should be considered innocent of all charges until proven guilty. And the emphasis is on hard proof here. You don't have any, and neither does cosmetic US Government have any. Sorry, it's just the way it is.
I'm sorry, but that does not explain why you seem to be unable to provide evidence that 9/11 was a false flag operation.