Any news on docu-drama talked about not so long ago? the 'might' have happened at 9/11-2001 by KrelleK

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
there *IS* no large scale, all encompassing conspiracy, not only is it logistically impossible, but folk, govt, biz, private, are all too damn selfish and turf based...

The official story of 9/11 is the story of a large-scale TERRORIST conspiracy. They have a huge global network of evil people, training more evil people in Evil People Camps, financed by a complicated global network of rich, evil people. They managed to insert 19 evil people into our borders and bide their time for years until some of them were trained to fly planes on simulators. Then they hijack 4 planes with boxcutters (one from a Vietnam airforce veteran pilot), fly them in US airspace without interference for hours, crash three of them into extremely difficult targets with extremely difficult maneuvers, and demolish 3 infidel capitalist buildings simply with fire (one of them wasn't even hit by a plane).

You can just hear their Evil Conspiracy Laugh afterwards. Bwahahahaha. They probably said, "Fear us. We are not just evil and rich, but also VERY, very lucky. Of all the things that could have gone wrong with our evil plan, only one of them didn't turn out as well as the others. So we rule, and you shall perish. We will destroy you because our conspiracy powers rock!"

----
I give up. I'm just an arrogant ass.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 14, 2010 8:46 AM

*blink*

Once again, you move the goalposts when your demands are met - you're so very predictable, Geeze.
Seriously, what the fuck do you want, a signed confession or something ?
I mean, for all that you know I tend to get my hands on... things, you never thought to ask what lead *me* to that conclusion in the first place ?

Firstoff, it was a pretty blatant "hit-piece" - yes, some of those claims are ridiculous, but it's telling that the authors and editors went after those instead of stuff that was damn well worth debating or investigating, and some of that shit is laughable, especially the pentagon yard photo - you'd think if they were gonna plant "debris" like that they'd at least match the paint scheme of the flight, yes ?

So, question to that - why would they do it ?
Well, a shitload of reasons, and really that proves dick either way, which is why I didn't address that.

But now we get into it - see, why and how did they get a completely unprecedented level of access which *HAD* to be cleared by someone way the hell up the chain, and why PopMech instead of some other magazine ?

As for why do it, well, that's pretty obvious too - some folk want their gross incompetence and/or exploitation of the event explained away in a nice neat little package, and thought they had a venue to do so.

As for why PopMech, THAT is where this connection raises it's head - someone way the hell up the chain decided they could trust PopMech to play along, and why would they think that, what would put the notion in their head to trust PopMech when much of the media was starting to ask uncomfortable questions, what would they have that any other news org or magazine would not ?

And HOW exactly, did that access work ?
Cause for a fact the "national security" type folk don't just hand that shit out, weren't going to tell people downline to just spill their guts to whatever reporter PopMech sends em, no way, no how - hadda be a single contact, someone... trustworthy.

You forget how well I understand the pysche of such folk, but really this is a simpler concept.
Lemme spell it out for you.

Do you know what skip-tracing is ?
Do you know how 95%+ of these dickheads are found ?
Simple, you run down a list of their relatives and figure out which one they decided to hole up with.

So when the question of why PopMech, and what would be the access point came up - what *immediately* comes up as the most likely one ?
And I put no more stock in those denials than I would some relative stonewalling me at the door while their relation tries to slip out the back window - most of government is just crime writ larger to begin with, so you're working with essentially the same mentality here.

That is damn well enough for me to call it - unless you have some *OTHER* explaination that fits the facts of...
A: Selection as Primary Source.
B: Unprecedented Access.
C: Single Point of Contact.

And while you're at it, since you wanna keep goin with this, and having found Krell his DocuDrama, the thread serves no other purpose.

What about those Stock Trades ?
How bout that Odigo warning ?
What about the anomoly of the conditions they want us to assume, versus the actual transmissions from the firefighters on site ?
Who scheduled the FEMA bio-terrorism exercise (TRIPOD) that had them conventiently located on-site the day before ?
Who scheduled the MASCAL drill that all but evacuated exactly that section of the Pentagon on that day ?
Who scheduled the amazingly coincidental NRO drill that morning ?

In fact, those questions themselves lead to some interesting discussion maybe worth having, but that's all the time I got for this at the moment.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 14, 2010 9:57 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

*blink*

Once again, you move the goalposts when your demands are met - you're so very predictable, Geeze.

Bullshit.

I've been asking for the same thing over and over again. Actual evidence of the Chertoff/Chertoff connection that you allege. Just that.

What I get is supposition and surmise that starts with the thesis that IT ALL "HAD" TO BE A CONSPIRACY, and works its way back from there. If you want there to be a conspiracy, then of course, anything that supports the conspiracy will lead you to conclusions.

If I were a suspicious person, I'd suspect that when you tried to find any actual, rational, factual evidence of a Chertoff/Chertoff conspiracy, you couldn't come up with anything that'd pass the smell test.

As to:

Quote:
That is damn well enough for me to call it - unless you have some *OTHER* explaination that fits the facts of...
A: Selection as Primary Source.
B: Unprecedented Access.
C: Single Point of Contact.

I'd have to ask the same thing about these "Facts". Any proof side from surmise?

But I don't even care anymore.

I made a mistake thinking I could get reasonable answers, and am going back to my stand of not arguing religion.

Most religious folk start with the concept of God, and structure their arguments around proving that concept - ignoring or demonizing any person or idea that conflicts with it.

Now we've got people who start with the concept of Conspiracy, and structure their arguments around proving that concept - ignoring or demonizing any person or idea that conflicts with it.

Have fun with you God, Frem.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 14, 2010 10:23 AM

FIVVER

My favorite is this:

Quote:
I mean, for all that you know I tend to get my hands on... things, you never thought to ask what lead *me* to that conclusion in the first place ?

Frem is quite addicted at larding his post with such crap implying that he's privy to sources of information that we, the great unwashed, aren't.

Frem, that 'Nah, nah, nah. I know something that you don't' may be cute in elementary school but in an adult it's pretty pathetic.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 14, 2010 12:35 PM

KRELLEK

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

But I don't even care anymore.

I made a mistake thinking I could get reasonable answers, and am going back to my stand of not arguing religion.

Most religious folk start with the concept of God, and structure their arguments around proving that concept - ignoring or demonizing any person or idea that conflicts with it.

Now we've got people who start with the concept of Conspiracy, and structure their arguments around proving that concept - ignoring or demonizing any person or idea that conflicts with it.

Have fun with you God, Frem.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

and again I ask, where is the religion in this

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 14, 2010 12:41 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Now we've got people who start with the concept of Conspiracy, ...

The official story does that too, Geez. They start with the concept of a Terrorist Conspiracy, and structure their arguments around it. There are tons of holes with no hard evidence in the official conspiracy story, but people also believe it like a religion, holes be damned.

Whoever hijacked the planes HAD to be working for Osama bin Laden. Really? Where exactly is the hard evidence that the dead hijackers got their orders from him? Isn't it all circumstantial? Yet everyone accepts the relationship without question.

----
Arrogant and proud of it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 14, 2010 12:43 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

It just doesn't jell, I'm afraid. Who could have the organisational capacity to orchestrate such an elaborate hoax, which would include access to all media at the time, faking air traffic control reports, firefighter testimonies, multitudes of calls from people within the buildings as well as on the passengers airlines??? who would be able to fake the death of so many airline passengers, cover up with their families?

Who would really sacrifice the lives of so many Americans, so influencial financial and military personnel? I'm sure that even Bush, bastard that he is, would not have done such a thing.

And in the end, to what purpose this diabolical cover up that would require the participation of so many people, so many agencies who would all have to have been okay with the murder of masses of American civilians...I mean, really. It's a nonsense.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 14, 2010 11:08 PM

Geeze, you're asking ME, personally, for something which would REQUIRE a bloody warrant and criminal investigation.

You're also trying to pin stuff to me I didn't say.
ALL I asserted was that the official story was bullshit.

And yes, I did make the specific assertion that Ben lied about the matter, which the evidence points to rather strongly.
Again, what the hell do you want, a signed confession with thumbprints and DNA coding ?

How else does such a glaring anomoly make SENSE - offer me something, anything ?
You wanna talk "faith", well let's talk Reasonable Suspicion/Reasonable Doubt.

I have a reasonable suspicion based on the matter that Ben is a liar.
You have a reasonable doubt, and believe him to be telling the truth.
Should I demand you hook him up to a polygraph, then ?

Lemme point out what this argument looks like from my end...

Quote:
Geeze: The taser didn't kill him, he just happened to die.

Me: I don't believe the official story.

Geeze: You don't have any proof.

Me: They tased him nine times.

Geeze: You don't have proof that's what killed him.

Me: So he just happened to die, at that moment, of a heart attack?

Geeze: You have no proof otherwise.

Comes a time when you have to make *some* kind of reasonable inference based on your own experience and assessment of the evidence - for example, I could ask if you, personally, with your own eyes, in person, SAW planes hit those buildings - and then proceed to dismiss any assertation from you that such a thing happened because you were not there...
Come on, that's ridiculous.

I have a reasonable suspicion, you have a reasonable doubt.
I could just as easily play the same game with you, that you are trying to play with me.

And I really need to address Fivver here.
Fivver: Point of FACT - I *DO* have contacts and sources most people don't, although that has more to do with knowing WHO to ask and HOW, as a lot of information does happen to be "public access" if anyone would freakin bother, I'm not tryin to be an ass, just assuming that if you give a shit enough to argue the point you'd AT LEAST poke your nose into it enough to likely stumble over much of the same info I did.
And if all it took was ten minutes of a search engine, you could AT LEAST invest the same goddamn effort, IMHO.

As for anything else, if you were around for it, you might recall me having almost this exact same argument with Signym over additional explosive charges being found in the Oklahoma Federal Building, and it went in much this same damn circle till I managed to find *and post* excerpts from the official fucking transcripts, which are public information, mind you - just no one thought to even ask for em, much less look them over.

Or how about calling the Jessica Lynch story bullshit - based on the AAR of the 507th Maintenance Company, which *IS* publicly available HERE.
http://www.army.mil/features/507thMaintCmpy/AttackOnThe507MaintCmpy.pd
f

Or perhaps you'd like to read some of the legal documents related to the FLDS/El Dorado fiasco, particularly the testimony of the Hill County Mental Health Center Personnel about just how terribly abusive the CPS people were ?

NONE of these required special access or clearances - and most definately AARs and Radio Comm transcripts are both quite often public and a damned gold mine of information, especially when you can cross-compare it with official statements, or video.
The latter has proven an invaluable tool as of late for exposing police abuses, mind you.

Nor would cultivating or using other sources be as difficult as one could imagine, especially if you can pass yourself off as a member of the Press - people love to talk, and with a little encouragement (hint: take a sympathetic angle) they will spill far more information to you than they ever intended to.

And on a very rare occasion, when the opportunity presents itself, I'll actually go personally to stick my nose in it and give it the ole mark I eyeball treatment, which I did for McCains little speech about the glories of nuclear power just down the road here - and to the worst possible audience, which I found terribly amusing and good cause for McCain to have some hard words with his campaign manager: and yes, I used Press credentials to get in there.
In fact, I recall Geeze had to put in his two cents about that one as well.

So it's more assuming you have enough interest to give the matter AT LEAST a cursory once-over, than trying to be a dick about it - and assuming you're such a damn fool that you're unwilling to even do that before giving argument (unless you're Rappy, in which case....)

Anyhows, by far the simplest way to answer Geeze's question would be to run a bog-standard credit and background check on the both of em and cross compare, but I ain't exactly too keen on tryin such a stunt, since while Ben would not likely even notice - you try that on a former director of homeland security and you're likely to spring a hundred red flags, all pointing at YOU, and making you the target of a whole lot of suspicion and annoyance on behalf of DepHomeSec - and that's IF the records are publicly available, which they *should NOT be*.

And there's reasons for that beyond covering up the usual corruption and financial chicanery top gov officials indulge in...
Imagine if some Pakistani call center employee got a little pissed about our interference with his nations government, and decided to pull a bit of identity theft, then masquerading as a government official, proceeded to set our own security state upon itself as an act of sabotage ?
Don't for a moment think it couldn't happen, or hasn't been tried - it's one of the most logical arguments AGAINST a security state to begin with, and the larger and more complex it grows, the easier that trick is likely to get to do.

So yeah, therein lies the problem with the simple solution, same for offline records and whatnot, what with identity theft being rampant and a tighter lock on such things, plus time and travel expenses, in addition to the red flags/lack of clearance problem.

And Geeze *knows* this, that's why he's askin - seems the game lately, demand an impossible level of proof and dismiss someones argument entire when they cannot provide - yes, I would also chide CTS for this, provided I knew whether or not the level of proof she's demanding is impossible or not... I dunno the science involved even enough to comment, and try to stick with stuff I *DO* know something about.

Oh, and since no one batted at the ball I rolled earlier - something about that jumped out at me, not necessarily that they were doing these drills, cause they always are, and while the readiness doesn't hurt, the purpose is more along the lines of building excuses for more funding cause they "need" more people, and more of this, and that needs replacement, and this needs upgrading, yadda fuckin yadda, so in ANY case there's a damn good chance a drill of SOME kind is running, though it does tend to bollocks up the works when the real thing pops.

Nah, it was something else in that pattern of events that looked a bit familiar...

Anyone here ever had to work around a really dumbass, incompetent boss who utterly refused to face up to certain realities ?
And would without a doubt, blow a total fucking gasket on you and fire your ass if you tried to force the issue ?
So you worked AROUND it, didn't you ?

I am beginning to suspect that at some levels of our government we weren't caught out nearly as flatfooted at it seemed, but those who set up a response without being obvious about it (and thus having to explain it and risk said gasket blowing) sure as hell aren't going to come out and admit that shit cause it would spike their current political careers - the very office politics I mentioned a bit earlier, yes ?

However that very preparedness ITSELF gives ammo by the fistfull to conspiracy theorists, which is why I'd like to see the air cleared a bit of what *can* be explained, and pare some of this crap off to look at the meat and bones of the issue.

But no one seems to wanna do that, cause everyone seems to have a damn agenda.

-Frem

ETA/PS: Magons, I earnestly wish that last bit you said was as credible as it sounded - but our Govt came up with more than one plan (See Also: NORTHWOODS) to do exactly that...
Thankfully Kennedy shitcanned it, but it's mere existence gives more ammo to conspiracy theorists on this one, sadly enough.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 15, 2010 3:18 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

I got my mom to watch Governor Jesse Ventura's 9/11 docudrama last night. And Plum Island.

The heavens fell.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 15, 2010 5:15 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
And yes, I did make the specific assertion that Ben lied about the matter, which the evidence points to rather strongly.

Evidence?

Quote:
Seriously, you really think imma take the word of someone who penned an obvious hit-piece at face value?

Ben Chertoff didn't "pen" the articles. He was one of several researchers. Also, it's only an "obvious hit-piece" if you've already made up your mind about a 9/11 conspiracy by the government.

Quote:
Krell, Geezer is offended that I refuse to take at face value, without a whit of evidence, the mere word of a person with every reason to lie, who already displayed suspicious behavior by failing to disclose up front the relation.

Why should Ben Chertoff lie? Why should PM lie? Why would many or all the sources they used lie? Why haven't all the sources they must have quoted out of context or ignored called them out? (Yeah, I know, because they're all in on the conspiracy and they have to cover up) Did anyone ever use the common skip-tracing techniques you have discussed to find out if the Chertoffs were really related, or knew each other at all?

Quote:
Ok then, perhaps you would offer some other explaination as to why the Pop Mech hit piece contained substantial information which had not at the time, been released to the public - which also coincidentally made assessment of it's accuracy impossible since they were unwilling to share that information.

Could it be that PM did good investigative work? As you noted, "...this is gonna be tricky since what was and wasn't released at the time is very difficult to determine, be advised that you're all but asking the impossible here, but I'll try." Maybe with more resources they could find more? Maybe because they went directly to sources, rather than trying to find previously published info, they got more?

Quote:
But now we get into it - see, why and how did they get a completely unprecedented level of access which *HAD* to be cleared by someone way the hell up the chain, and why PopMech instead of some other magazine?

They asked? They probably asked reasonable questions, instead of "Why'd you cover up the (pick one) at the WTC?" They have a reputation for good reportage? Also, only a portion of the information used in the articles came from the government. Unless all the folks listed here http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911
-myths-sources were in on it too, that argument doesn't hold water.

Quote:
So when the question of why PopMech, and what would be the access point came up - what *immediately* comes up as the most likely one ?

The editors thought it'd sell more magazines? They were a technology magazine and thought since they had knowledge and contacts in the scientific and engineering world it would be something they could do? They sent researchers and reporters out to talk to lots of folks?

Quote:
That is damn well enough for me to call it - unless you have some *OTHER* explaination that fits the facts of...
A: Selection as Primary Source.
B: Unprecedented Access.
C: Single Point of Contact.

"Selection" is an assumption on your part. I've noted above what seems to be a good reason that PM might have decided on their own to publish.

Unprecedented access is another assumption. Maybe they just asked. Could be that they were a reputable magazine, not some conspiracy blogger. Note that they also went to a lot of folks outside government.

Single point of contact? So we're back to the unproved Chertoff/Chertoff connection. The list of sources above shows lots of contacts both in government and the private sector.

-----------------------------------

All your assumptions above have a sort of circular logic that depends on the primary assumption - that there was a massive government conspiracy that needed covering up. Take the conspiracy goggles off and there's plenty of reasons for PM to decide to do an article on 9/11 theories, and for them to get access to information from government and private sources.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 15, 2010 6:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Who would really sacrifice the lives of so many Americans, so influencial financial and military personnel? I'm sure that even Bush, bastard that he is, would not have done such a thing.

This is the crux of the debate I think.

The entire 9/11 event was a conspiracy, by either THEM or US. It is much easier to believe THEY (foreigners) implemented the conspiracy, not US. It is emotionally inconceivable that any of US would do it to OURSELVES. So it must be THEY.

Once that emotional truth is set in our minds, we stopped looking at the evidence. It is like a murder mystery, where you rule out a suspect simply because the person you know could not POSSIBLY be that heartless. So it HAS to be someone else, someone you don't know and to whom you can ascribe that kind of cruelty.

Truthers only want to re-open the case and look at ALL possibilities, be open to ALL the suspects based on the evidence, and not limit the list of suspects to what we will emotionally allow.

----
Arrogant and proud of it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 15, 2010 6:51 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
seems the game lately, demand an impossible level of proof and dismiss someones argument entire when they cannot provide - yes, I would also chide CTS for this, provided I knew whether or not the level of proof she's demanding is impossible or not...

Frem, you'll have to go back to the thread to read my reasons for demanding the impossible level of proof. I did it to make a point, actually, several points.

For one, I wanted to catch them in a blatant lie, claiming to have shown me said impossible level of proof. That part worked. Maybe it was evil, but it was very satisfying.

But more importantly, I wanted them to realize it WAS impossible and WHY it was impossible. The reason climate science doesn't have standards of proof THAT high is the same reason why I don't have THAT high a level of confidence in them.

Read my last post on this thread (Prove CTS Wrong)
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=46232

Then read my last post on this thread (Great GW Debate) to see if I REALLY required an impossible level of proof to change my mind.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=46205

ETA: I should clarify that the data I asked for is not actually impossible to calculate. It doesn't exist because they don't calculate it that way. It is impossible to find because it doesn't exist.

----
Arrogant and proud of it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 15, 2010 6:54 AM

You're incorrect in my "primary assumption" being that of a massive, overbearing conspiracy, Geeze, and yet you have repeatedly tried to assign that belief to me despite me not holding it, AND me finding the very idea preposterous.

If there's any "primary assumption" it's that I found it extremely suspect PopMech would be given such a level of access without word from someone way the hell up the chain of command to do it, which lead to questions of who and why.

I also don't see how after the fact ass covering somehow counts as "conspiracy" other than so many folk engaged in it - but that's no more "conspiracy" than crabs walking in lockstep is a hive mind, it's just a matter of people who think in mostly the same direction reacting in similar fashion to the same stimulus.

-Frem
I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 15, 2010 7:59 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
If there's any "primary assumption" it's that I found it extremely suspect PopMech would be given such a level of access without word from someone way the hell up the chain of command to do it, which lead to questions of who and why.

I went over reasons they could have been given access before, but here it is again.

Couldn't be that they were given access (which doesn't seem that extraordinary to me, and extends to a lot of private sources instead of just government) because they asked, they were a reputable magazine in the science and technology field, and were the first such outfit trying to put together the complete story?

Edit to add: anything to back up the assertion that PM was the only media outlet to be given access to the 9/11 information they used in their articles by the government or anyone else?
-------------------------------

But let me ask you, what parts of the PM debunking/hatchet job (take your pick) do you think were a cover-up?

1. It was something other than the airliners full of people (missles with or without holograms, remote controlled tankers, whatever) that hit the WTC and Pentagon.

2. The military should have been able to intercept the airliners. (BTW, this sort'a contradicts the "It wasn't airliners" idea.)

3. Flight 93 was shot down by military/CIA/other aircraft.

4. The WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolitions/thermite/etc. rather than steel weakened by fire.

That, in condensed form, is pretty much what the PM articles were about.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 15, 2010 9:09 AM

http://buildingwhat.org/

-----
The military should have been able to intercept the airliners or whatever they were.

My husband is a private pilot and completed his training to be an air traffic controller. He tells me it is not unusual for a small airplane to stray too close to prohibited airspace. Within minutes of crossing the line, the Air Force shows up to redirect the plane or shoot it down. That is what they do routinely. Pilots who know this find it strange. For example here:

Quote:
http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots.html

Based on my experience as a commercial pilot, I do not believe that it's possible for four large commercial airliners to have gone off course for as long as they did and as far as they did and were not intercepted by Air Force pilots, without the explicit cooperation of highly placed people in the military and government.

In fact, go to that page and look at all the questions raised by our own Air Force veterans and commercial pilots. There are professionals who do their jobs well who find the events hard to believe.

Everything that happened on 9/11 was extremely improbable, so improbable that they need to be considered more carefully. The string a chain of highly improbable events together, one after another, and you have yourself a very fishy story.

There is nothing wrong with questioning a fishy story. It doesn't make us "nutjobs" or "conspiracy whacko's."

----
Arrogant and proud of it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 15, 2010 10:36 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by canttakesky:
The military should have been able to intercept the airliners or whatever they were.

As Frem quoted above from the PM article:

Quote:
On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. No computer network or alarm automatically alerted the North American Air Defense Command (NORAD) of missing planes. "They [civilian Air Traffic Control, or ATC] had to pick up the phone and literally dial us," says Maj. Douglas Martin, public affairs officer for NORAD. Boston Center, one of 22 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regional ATC facilities, called NORAD's Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) three times: at 8:37 am EST to inform NEADS that Flight 11 was hijacked; at 9:21 am to inform the agency, mistakenly, that Flight 11 was headed for Washington (the plane had hit the North Tower 35 minutes earlier); and at 9:41 am to (erroneously) identify Delta Air Lines Flight 1989 from Boston as a possible hijacking. The New York ATC called NEADS at 9:03 am to report that United Flight 175 had been hijacked—the same time the plane slammed into the South Tower. Within minutes of that first call from Boston Center, NEADS scrambled two F-15s from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Mass., and three F-16s from Langley Air National Guard Base in Hampton, Va. None of the fighters got anywhere near the pirated planes.

Also from the PM article:

Quote:
Why couldn't ATC find the hijacked flights? When the hijackers turned off the planes' transponders, which broadcast identifying signals, ATC had to search 4500 identical radar blips crisscrossing some of the country's busiest air corridors. And NORAD's sophisticated radar? It ringed the continent, looking outward for threats, not inward. "It was like a doughnut," Martin says. "There was no coverage in the middle." Pre-9/11, flights originating in the States were not seen as threats and NORAD wasn't prepared to track them.

And:

Quote:
In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts. Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). "Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ," FAA spokesman Bill Schumann tells PM. After 9/11, NORAD and the FAA increased cooperation, setting up hotlines between ATCs and NORAD command centers, according to officials from both agencies. NORAD has also increased its fighter coverage and has installed radar to monitor airspace over the continent.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911
-myths-planes#intercepts

Also consider that up to 9/11, authorities considered hijackings to be hostage situations, not terrorist attacks.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 15, 2010 3:38 PM

OUT2THEBLACK

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21907

"...9/11 Truth Organization Unearths Striking Video Photo WTC Evidence

by Eli Rika

Global Research, November 14, 2010
.911truth.org/ - 2010-11-06

Over the last century, the most astounding historical discoveries of man-made artifacts have often been accomplished by well-funded, highly experienced researchers. From the excavation of King Tut's tomb to the sighting of the sunken Titanic, stunning finds have required immense financial and human resources, as well as the leadership by distinguished. So, how did a mountain of never-before-seen footage used in NIST's World Trade Center investigations get exposed to the light of day last month? Was it the work of a billionaire adventurer?

Not quite. You can thank an upstart non-profit, the International Center for 9/11 Studies http://www.ic911studies.org/ , whose efforts have at last borne fruit.

The International Center for 9/11 Studies was founded in 2008 by Director James Gourley http://911blogger.com/node/18196, a Texas lawyer who began questioning the events of 9/11 after watching a presentation given by David Ray Griffin on C-SPAN.

"I was just floored by what I was hearing," Gourley explained, "and I've been looking into 9/11 ever since then."

In order to encourage a better understanding of the 9/11 attacks and promote scientific study of these tragic events, Gourley assembled a small team of trusted colleagues, which includes physics instructor David Chandler

, activist Dr. Graeme MacQueen http://911blogger.com/node/22234, and Justin Keogh, the Center's Chief Technical Officer. The Center has partnered with other key researchers in the past, including physicist Steven Jones

and chemist Niels Harrit

.

Since its inception, the Center has contributed to groundbreaking work on the technical analysis of the WTC building destructions. Gourley, who has a chemical engineering background, co-authored several papers that exposed evidence that the Twin Towers and WTC Building 7 were destroyed by means of controlled demolition. His critique of official-story defender Zdenek Bazant's crush down/crush up collapse theory was published as part of a formal discussion in the mainstream Journal of Engineering Mechanics http://911blogger.com/node/18196. Gourley's contributions also extended to the peer-reviewed paper detailing the active thermitic material discovered in the WTC dust http://www.ae911truth.net/store/product_info.php?cPath=27&products_id=
107, which was published in the Bentham Open Chemical Physics Journal http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm . In addition, the Center collaborated with Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth http://www.ae911truth.org/, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice http://stj911.org/, and other scientists and engineers to submit 26 pages of comments on the NIST WTC 7 Draft Report within the three-week deadline.

Uncovering the data NIST used in its WTC investigations proved to be a little more difficult. The Center filed a FOIA Request with NIST on January 26, 2009, seeking disclosure of "all of the photographs and videos collected, reviewed, cited or in any other way used by NIST during its investigation of the World Trade Center building collapses." NIST initially ignored this request, and for months dismissed attempts by the Center to gain acknowledgment of its receipt.

Undeterred, Gourley filed a lawsuit on May 28, 2009 to get the data released. Since then, NIST has been periodically turning over images and video from its archives. So far, the Center has received over 300 DVDs and several external hard disk drives related to the NIST Reports -- more than three terabytes of data -- and NIST has indicated that additional records will be released in the future.

The first section of data to be partially analyzed by the Center is the Cumulus Database, a collection of more than 6,500 video clips that NIST had gathered from residents, first responders and news organizations that were filming in New York City on September 11, 2001. Even though the Center has only been able to look through a small fraction of this enormous archive, several remarkable video sequences http://911blogger.com/news/2010-08-31/international-center-911-studies
-secures-release-thousands-photos-and-videos-nist have already been located and posted online.

In one unsettling video clip, two firefighters who had just escaped from one of the Twin Towers discussed how secondary explosions http://911blogger.com/news/2010-10-06/new-video-911-firefighters-revea
l-huge-explosions-towers-collapsedinside the building caused the lobby to collapse.

One of the firefighters is so concerned about explosives that he says, "There may be more. Any one of these buildings could blow up." The official accounts of the events have excluded the more than 100 witnesses citing the sights and/or sounds of explosions.

The release of this video generated so much interest that searches for it skyrocketed to #1 on Google Trends http://www.infowars.com/911-firefighters-reveailing-“huge-explosions”-
in-wtc-tops-google-trends/ on October 6, 2010.

In another clip, a low frequency explosion

can be heard just before the East penthouse of WTC Building 7 falls.

One of the most mysterious pieces of footage to be exposed shows a massive amount of dust and a large object being ejected

from a window a few stories below the jet impact zone of one of the Towers.

"The size and speed of the expelled material indicate that an explosion must have caused this event," Gourley said after examining the video.

Several clips show clear evidence of editing that Gourley described as "suspicious."

This includes a video of WTC Building 7 from which the penthouse collapse sequence

is missing. In another clip

that begins just after WTC 7 starts to fall, the soundtrack is strangely silent, and does not turn on until after the building has been completely destroyed.

In addition to these, a video recorded after the collapse of the Twin Towers was released, in which Michael Hess http://giulianipartners.com/mhess.aspx, the Corporation Counsel for New York City, can be seen calling for help

from the 8th floor of WTC Building 7. This footage further corroborates the testimony of Barry Jennings http://barryjenningsmystery.blogspot.com/, the former Deputy Emergency Manager of the New York City Housing Authority, who reported that he and Hess were trapped on the 8th floor after an explosion inside the building destroyed the stairwell beneath them.

The Center is preparing other data collections for public download, and working with NIST to attain additional volumes of information that are still being withheld. Center volunteers are also analyzing a computer model

of Building 7 that NIST reluctantly released to determine whether the parameters used in their investigation were scientifically legitimate. David Chandler will continue to provide his technical expertise by publishing a video that contains a detailed analysis of the recordings. Justin Keogh has been adding material to his website http://0x1a.com/ to assist those who wish to explore the extensive amount of written material pertaining to the WTC catastrophe.

In the meantime, the Cumulus video clips, which total about 86 GB in size, have been made available online, and instructions for download can be viewed here http://911blogger.com/news/2010-10-02/international-center-911-studies
-nist-cumulus-video-database-released .

This collection alone is so massive that the Center cannot analyze all of the footage in a timely manner with its limited assets. Many hours of video have yet to be thoroughly reviewed. At first glance, the current lack of resources may seem to be disappointing, but this dilemma actually presents one of the greatest opportunities for independent researchers, technical professionals and others to help bring new evidence to light.

"The more people there are that look at it, the better," Gourley said when asked about the need for assistance. "There might be a bombshell hidden in there, and you never know until you go through it all." The international attention http://www.businessreviewcanada.ca/blogs/editor/wtc-collapse-search-ta
kes-internet-storm that some of the footage has garnered also suggests that other as-yet-unseen evidence could make headlines around the world.

The treasure trove of data that the International Center for 9/11 Studies has worked so hard to obtain is waiting earnestly for a few good men and women to sift through it, and unearth all the information that has been buried for years. Anyone with Internet access now has the potential to make discoveries that will bring us closer to justice for the victims of that fateful day more than nine years ago. "

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements contained in this article.

To become a Member of Global Research

The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com

www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.

For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com

© Copyright Eli Rika, .911truth.org/, 2010

The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=21907

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, November 15, 2010 9:11 PM

Actually, Geeze, it struck me as inexcusably bad journalism - yes, while their primary focus seemed to be on dismissing the kooky end of things, it was that they went *exclusively* with stuff which was out-there, and on top of it fumbled a couple balls that they really shouldn't.

Even the tone of the article struck me sideways, kinda like it would if a Libertarian magazine suddenly decided to endorse deficit spending, that "wait.. what?!" reaction, which is what drew my suspicions in the first place.

As for the question of access, hell, you should remember just as well as I do that *at the time* the only thing we, and most media outlets, were getting from them was The Official Story and a whole lot of stonewalling.

And it was what they *didn't* say or address that rooked me too, they stuck to the softballs only, when there WERE things within their venue to chew on, like the cell phone calls, stuff that couldn't be so easily explained away.

Far as failure to intercept, given that as you mentioned it was seen as a hostage situation (which up till then most hijacks were) even if the military aircraft *had* reached them they wouldn't have gotten clearance to engage anyway, not initially, besides which they were limited to subsonic speed by the official regs and some still suspected it was part of a drill, scheduled or not - not sure how familiar you are with disaster response, but because of the inherent chaos and disorder, when a situation pops, unless you have near-absolute reason to do otherwise, you stick to the gameplan in order to avoid fucking up the situation worse.

Only place that gets murky is United 93, and personally - I dunno about that one, no ones ever offered me a substantially convincing argument either way, and I highly doubt anyone is gonna make public the "Crash Survivable Flight Data Recorder" information from the fighters which were nearby, if that data was even retained.
Be a handy way to put paid to the matter one way or the other, that.

While I do have some small interest in digging through aircraft "incidents" (one reason I am so damn fond of the Boeing 737 series, it's damn hard to wreck one) I am far from an expert, but sure as hell looks to me like that one broke up, or started to before impact, which *still* goes either way, cause when you exceed the tolerances of an aircraft by a large margin that can happen, cause it damn near happened to ME when I decided to get a little wild with a Dominator Ultralite - anything light enough to fly has a certain fragility about it and gravity is a damn harsh mistress, so once you've gone "flying brick" the result can be anything from shearing some important bolts (and that is a sound you never, EVER wanna hear in an ultralite!) to pieces coming off, to the whole damn thing coming to pieces on you - case in point, this C-130 breaks up in almost the exact fashion United 93 seems to have just prior to impact.

That said, I am not exactly sure what difference that one makes either way, or why it seems to matter to people so much...

But it seems *my* interest in the matter runs sideways to most peoples, probably cause my reasons for wanting to know some of these things are wholly different than most of the other folk sticking their nose into it, everyone makes assumptions, but no one ever asks.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, November 16, 2010 2:44 AM