Military insider reveals 9/11 stand-down!
- Thread starter Jazzz
- Start date
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Ummm...all this does is reconfirm some of the stuff that came out in the 9/11 hearings and the recent stuff about how both military and civilian ATC completely fucked up on 9/11 - the point about Cheney is new, but I'd prefer to see this as a sworn affadavit that has legal weight, and ideally someone that can offer supporting testimony (and would be easily verified under and FOI request to the Pentagon). Incidentally, this actually contradicts a lot of the 9/11 ATC tapes and the picture that emerged from them, the 9/11 Commission's revalation that NORADs internal airspace radar system wasn't working properly etc.
As for the 'training excercise' - well for something that was 'Top Secret' it became pretty fucking well known about 1 day after 9/11 since, way back in the early post-9/11 period the fact that that precise scenario was played out in training was one of the pieces of 'evidence' used to support the conspiracy theories.
Far from 'dynamite' Jazz - there's one possibly new piece of verifiable evidence here (and TBH that may already have been recorded somewhere in the 9/11 litertature), but nothing that serves as some kind of 'smoking gun'.
As for the 'training excercise' - well for something that was 'Top Secret' it became pretty fucking well known about 1 day after 9/11 since, way back in the early post-9/11 period the fact that that precise scenario was played out in training was one of the pieces of 'evidence' used to support the conspiracy theories.
Far from 'dynamite' Jazz - there's one possibly new piece of verifiable evidence here (and TBH that may already have been recorded somewhere in the 9/11 litertature), but nothing that serves as some kind of 'smoking gun'.
kyser_soze said:
This makes the 9/11 conspiracy thing really frustrating, on the one hnd people say that if it was a conspiracy then lots of people would have to be in on it knowingly or otherwise to some extent, then something that's top secret is revealed people say that it can't have been top secret.
Someone saying that Cheney gave the stand-down order is new, and indeed dynamite. There is plenty else in there too - sorry Kyser, don't agree at all. And if you knew about the training exercises the day after 9/11, you must have been involved in them, because it was years before they became public knowledge.kyser_soze said:
ka-boom?
whimper
whimper
There's a document posted up with his post entitled 'proof of Lauro's military record'. He's also been on the Alex Jones showFreddyB said:
CENTCOM Sergeant Details Traitorous Stand Down Orders On 9/11
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Thing is there was nothing 'Top Secret' about those excercises - there's records that indicate that the idea of running wargame excercises that included plane attacks was in fact only seriously considered in 2000/2001.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
No it wasn't - from the earliest days of 9/11 conspiracy one of the key pieces of 'evidence' was that the USM was conducting wargames which involved planes being used as missiles (you yourself mentioned it frequently)
And I'm sorry, but this guy manages to repeat all the 'soft spots' on the conspiracies to date - planned demolition, deliberate stand down of the planes etc. As a military commander, he would be fully aware that Rummy's order to stand down would be available if he were to put in an FOI request...why does he provide NO CORROBORATION of anything he says?
kyser_soze said:
Have you ever tried putting in a FOIA request? I've had one turned down myself on the basis of national security, and that was over the Birmingham affair where there was apparently no danger to national security. Go figure.
For years the refrain from editor on these boards has been 'if this was really what happened, where are the all the whistleblowers?' well here's one, and you are now asking for documented proof?
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Jazzz said:
Possibly because whistleblowers usually blow the whistle with corroborating evidence, not just a post on several websites.
And apols regarding the excercises - I was thinking of a publicly released think tank document that covered the same ground. Will check dates next time
editor
hiraethified
So, how come none of his many, many work colleagues are lining up to back him up and corroborate his amazing story?Jazzz said:
And if it was all a big invisible-missile-explodin' conspiracy and this guy is supposedly blowing the lid on it all, why haven't the govt shut him up in double quick time?
poster342002
PROPER leftwing socialist
Whether any of this is true or not I really don't know - but what I will say is that people rarely ever back-up whistleblowers (in any scenario) on account of protecting their own backsides. It just simply isn't worth it for most people.editor said:
goldenecitrone
post tenebras lux
Hmm, his surname certainly rings a bell. Chavez, Chavez, you don't think...nah, he's not that much of a prankster.
editor
hiraethified
Actually, you've got our facts badly wrong according to this bonkers site: http://911review.com/means/wargames.htmlJazzz said:
(it has credible sources for its claims but I can't be arsed to look them up)
This might, however, clarify it for you:
http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change
editor
hiraethified
Except how many people would be prepared to keep quiet if they discovered that they'd been party to the biggest-ever mass slaughter of US citizens in a terrorist attack, the destruction of two of America's most prestigious buildings and what amounted to a humiliating attack on the country they love?poster342002 said:
poster342002
PROPER leftwing socialist
God knows, but I was merely describing the presures people can come under when considering whether to support a whistle-blower or or keep their job, house, marriage etc etc.editor said:
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
Painful tho it is 
I agree with poster - it's very rare for whistleblowers to come in groups (altho often if one person stands up in a court situation others will follow), but my scepticism comes from the lack of corroborative evidence, that we just take this guy at his word.
As I've said before, if you are going to accuse the USG of active collusion with 9/11, which has led to a period of international strife I can't remember seeing since the 1970s, dragged the US into 2 wars; indirectly affected the situation in Israel and made life a lot worse for the Palestinians and used as a justfication for the Lebanese assault; seen several acts of brutal terrorism; and a global death toll that is probably around the 150K mark by now, if not higher (OK, not as high as Sudan has managed all on it's own but that's another bugbear)...then I want to be as damned sure as possible that those providing the evidence and the evidence itself is absolutely and utterly beyond reproach.
And that's before you even look at the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty', but habeus corpus is another matter altogether...
I agree with poster - it's very rare for whistleblowers to come in groups (altho often if one person stands up in a court situation others will follow), but my scepticism comes from the lack of corroborative evidence, that we just take this guy at his word.As I've said before, if you are going to accuse the USG of active collusion with 9/11, which has led to a period of international strife I can't remember seeing since the 1970s, dragged the US into 2 wars; indirectly affected the situation in Israel and made life a lot worse for the Palestinians and used as a justfication for the Lebanese assault; seen several acts of brutal terrorism; and a global death toll that is probably around the 150K mark by now, if not higher (OK, not as high as Sudan has managed all on it's own but that's another bugbear)...then I want to be as damned sure as possible that those providing the evidence and the evidence itself is absolutely and utterly beyond reproach.
And that's before you even look at the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty', but habeus corpus is another matter altogether...
poster342002
PROPER leftwing socialist
To obtain which, you need extraordinary investigation. What one normally gets, however, is bog-standard whitewash that works backwards to reach a pre-determined conclusion.slaar said:
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
poster342002 said:
True, but that's no different from the conspiracy mob either - they are working backwards from the proposition 'Obviously the USG did it'
editor
hiraethified
Sure, but nothing's happened to this bloke - he's still free to go on the wonderful Alex Jones show and babble away to the loons.poster342002 said:
I'd also suggest that most people would find it nigh-on impossible to hold back forever from speaking out if they discovered that they'd been part of an horrific murderous plot to slaughter thousands of innocent civilians and blow up a large chunk of NYC.
RaverDrew said:
it was a gag, drew, much like the gags you sometimes post. Why is it different if i do it? and why are you giving me quite so much shit lately?
poster342002
PROPER leftwing socialist
Like I say, I've no idea about this particular claim. I'm trying to keep an open mind about it all, really. I don't buy into "lizards" or anything like that, but do try to maintain an enquiring mind.
What I do think, however, is that whenever officialdom exonnerates itslelf with yet another whitewash investigation into something - and predictably "finds no evidence" of it's own wrongdoing, I tend to raise an eyebrow and not take it at face value.
What I do think, however, is that whenever officialdom exonnerates itslelf with yet another whitewash investigation into something - and predictably "finds no evidence" of it's own wrongdoing, I tend to raise an eyebrow and not take it at face value.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
I think we're in the same boat on this TBH - don't believe the official account, but don't think the conspiracy types have a credible narrative or evidence to support it.
Similar threads
- Locked
