9/11 military tapes released - Pentagon lied to the 9/11 commission

[look again]

Oh, and could someone point me in the direction of any new, credibly-sourced evidence being posted here please, otherwise......

You mean apart from all the evidence I presented from NIST, that makes the fire theory redundant?

US Army: Doubting Official 9/11 Story Is ‘Disloyal To The United States’

http://tinyurl.com/jumue

Under Fire! U.S. Army Intelligence Analyst Targeted For Suggesting New Independent 9/11 Investigation

FT. SAM HOUSTON, Texas — Forty-one-year-old Sergeant First Class Donald Buswell is a hero. Having served over 19 years in the United States Army, Buswell has seen a lot of terrain. On April 15, 2004, he was injured in a rocket attack while serving a tour in Iraq. For this, SFC Buswell was given a Purple Heart. And until recently, Buswell was an Intelligence Analyst stationed at Ft. Sam Houston, Texas.

But if one were to ask Buswell’s Commanding Officer what he thinks of the Sergeant, the response would likely sound a little bit more like, "No comment."

Such were the words given to The Iconoclast by Lieutenant Colonel Jane Crichton after inquiring why SFC Buswell is the focus of an investigation initiated by Colonel Luke S. Green, Chief of Staff at Fifth Army in Ft. Sam Houston.

According to unnamed military sources contacted by The Iconoclast, SFC Buswell "used his Government issued email account to send messages disloyal to the United States …" Because of these statements, SFC Buswell could soon find himself dishonorably discharged, court marshaled, or worse.

So much for the freedom loving United States of America.

Freedom to question?

Not in this country either.

 

[laptop]

Ermm... would the above be from The Iconoclast...


A satire site?

E2A: A rather messily and amateurish far-right one, by the looks of it.

 

[look again]

Ermm... would the above be from The Iconoclast...

A satire site?

E2A: A rather messily and amateurish far-right one, by the looks of it.

It seems to make no difference to people like you where the information comes from. Even the evidence from the 9/11 commission and NIST gets ignored when it suits you.

 

[laptop]

It seems to make no difference to people like you where the information comes from. Even the evidence from the 9/11 commission and NIST gets ignored when it suits you.

Eh?

I asked: is the big cut-and-paste you just put up from a satire site? Which is what the Iconoclast I found is. Which - for the hard-of-thinking - means what is says is not true. Which means - for the even-harder-of-thinking - that source does make a difference.

TTL(look again) ::= another 10 posts...

 

[Backatcha Bandit]

The point here - as (eventually) conceded by our own resident *expert* on avionics - is that the controlling of such aircraft from the ground could be achieved in the realm of software, with no need for any physical addition to the flight control systems. No more than a few lines of code.

Sorry that's bollox I said no such thing.

I rather feel you qualify as a 'mendacious little worm'. You don't half post some utter shite.

Just to make clear I have at no point stated that remote control by any means is impossible.

Is it possible with existing hardware? Yes quite probably

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=1676149&postcount=102

The only thing that's clear is that you can't be trusted.

Something else that pretty clear from reading a few old threads is that you really do know fuck all - even about the subject you claim to be an expert in. Cable operated flaps? You fucking clown.

So tell me again why anyone should give anything else you post the slightest attention? Deceitful little ninny.

**goes off to fry onions**

 

[Loki]

er, WouldBe saying "Is it possible with existing hardware? Yes quite probably" is not the same as saying "Yes it is possible with no physical alteration to the plane at all, all you need is to add a few lines of code while no-one's looking innit".

Seems to me you've made that leap all by yourself.

I sincerely doubt you can add modify the software over the radio to a commercial plane in mid-flight just like that, you'd need to do it to the plane while it's parked. And you'd prolly need to find a way to override the pilot's manual control since I doubt commercial planes are set-up for ground control to override just like that.

Of course it's "possible" to fly a plane by remote control, kids have been doing it for decades in parks.

 

[squeegee]

Oh, and could someone point me in the direction of any new, credibly-sourced evidence being posted here please, otherwise......

Why does it have to be new, when all the old stuff has still not been answered by government or mainstream media, and is in fact being ignored.

Credibly-sourced? Well that's open to interpretation, of course. I think we can all agree that Alex Jones has an agenda, or at the very least does not research all his stories thoroughly enough, but basically, it seems no matter how senior an academic is, if they question the government story, that qualifies as making them a non-credible source. Well not to me, and not to the families of the bereaved looking for answers.

All the questions raised by the petition in a fair and just world would have already been addressed, rather than swept under the carpet or attributed to loons or whatever.

Witholding evidence, ignoring FAA guidelines onm investigating the crash site and the plane wreckage. All of this leads to suspicion. But no one here who challenges those suspicious can give a logical reason why the evidence would be witheld.

To protect individual politicians and personnel from admitting guilt to a monumental fuck-up? What, a whole government covering for a few incompetents????? Hardly likely.

About as likely as pixies flying the planes into the tower.

ANYTHING might have happened, but we are interested in what is the most likely thing to have happened.

And all this old evidence clearly points to a government cover-up. And the only reason a government would cover up, would be complicity in the crime.

Or can someone suggest a more likely alternative reason why the government would withold or destroy evidence of the single greatest crime committed on American soil?

Edited: Other than the systematic massacre of Native Americans to steal their land and create a "home of the free" – as long as you ain't an injun – remember there still ain't no apology for this or for for the enslavement of millions of men, women and children of African descent. You really trust this government? No? Then you must be suspicious that they did have a hand in 911. You must be. So why deny it?

 

[kyser_soze]

36% of americans state that they think the US govt had advance knowledge of 911

Yeah, and over 50% of Americans think that the world was created in 7 days or intelligent design. The same percentage of Americans STILL believe, despite Bush stating the opposite, that Saddam had a hand in planning 9/11.

What does that tell you?

Now leaving aside the hysterical return of the remote controlled planes theory (will we be back to invisible stealth cruise missiles next?), not ONE of you conpsiracy bods has come back with a response to my point about habeus corpus and how that reflects on your approach to this.

Nor have you made any comment, with the persistent repeating of the link to 'scholars demand 9/11 evidence released' (if you're a sub squegee...) that Ed, Crisy, Wouldbe, laptop, Bob The Lost and I are all in agreement that there are unanswered questions and that ALL available evidence should be released. None of us are in disagreement there.

And again I ask - if this evidence IS released, and doesn't satisfy your chosen positions on this, would you accept that and move on? I doubt it.

 

[squeegee]

And again I ask - if this evidence IS released, and doesn't satisfy your chosen positions on this, would you accept that and move on? I doubt it.

That's a loaded question, but if it were proved that there was an alternative credible reason for witholding and destroying information, and if the subsequent case is not a fudge as in Hutton or the 911 commission, of course I would move on.

But I doubt that would happen, and I'm sure in your hearts, you doubt that would happen too.

(And I did eventually correct Scholars but then I am working while posting most of the time)

Have fun

 

[squeegee]

Nor have you made any comment, with the persistent repeating of the link to 'scholars demand 9/11 evidence released' (if you're a sub squeegee...) that Ed, Crisy, Wouldbe, laptop, Bob The Lost and I are all in agreement that there are unanswered questions and that ALL available evidence should be released. None of us are in disagreement there.

Then why don't Ed, Crispy and the rest just say it here? Since that seems unlikely I will just have to accept your word on it.

 

[squeegee]

if you're a sub squeegee...)

I am, and thought I'd done a good job of editing down the scholars' petition to a few short lines, covering all the main questions. Obviously not to the satisfaction of the Editor

 

[kyser_soze]

Then why don't Ed, Crispy and the rest just say it here? Since that seems unlikely I will just have to accept your word on it.

I'm not gonna cheat and go back and edit it neither

 

[squeegee]

I'm not gonna cheat and go back and edit it neither

You kidder, you

 

[editor]

Re: the fact-free 'remote control' theory.

Will conspiraloons please elaborate why the flight attendant on Flight 11 rang up ground staff in Boston to report a hijack, describing how hijackers "stabbed passengers and then diverted the plane" but failed to mention that the plane was now flying under remote control?

Or could they explain why the Christian Science Monitor reported that air traffic controllers heard hijackers instructing the pilots in English from inside the cockpit of American Airlines Flight 11?

A flight controller in Nashua handling the flight told the paper: "One of the pilots keyed their mike so the conversation between the pilot and the person in the cockpit could be heard.

"He was saying something like, 'Don't do anything foolish. You're not going to get hurt.'"

Any ideas?

 

[editor]

I am, and thought I'd done a good job of editing down the scholars' petition to a few short lines, covering all the main questions. Obviously not to the satisfaction of the Editor

Correct. It was a pointless slab of cut and paste, something that conspiraloons seem extraordinarily partial on posting up here. Don't do it again.

 

[Crispy]

Then why don't Ed, Crispy and the rest just say it here? Since that seems unlikely I will just have to accept your word on it.

Christ man, do I have to go back and quote myself?

 

[editor]

Christ man, do I have to go back and quote myself?

Endless repitition appears to be compulsory when you're dealing with conspiracy fans. They can't get enough of seeing the same thing said over and over and over again, no matter how dodgy the original source!

 

[squeegee]

Correct. It was a pointless slab of cut and paste, something that conspiraloons seem extraordinarily partial on posting up here. Don't do it again.

Can you explain how it was pointless, since all those questions support the case for reasonable suspicion of government complicity in the terrorist attacks on the US on Sep 11, 2001?

If it's because you agree that they are relevant questions, and that I'm going over old ground, then why can't you just say that? I'll happily move on from that. But you haven't done so, have you?

 

[squeegee]

Endless repitition appears to be compulsory when you're dealing with conspiracy fans. They can't get enough of seeing the same thing said over and over and over again, no matter how dodgy the original source!

Conspiraloon, endless fact-free, evidence untroubled, fruitloop, reams of pointless cut and paste, evidence please, not one shred of credible evidence, sources please, no not those sources, etc etc

Who is endlessly repeating? Maybe all of us, eh?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Conspiraloon, endless fact-free, evidence untroubled, fruitloop, reams of pointless cut and paste, evidence please, not one shred of credible evidence, sources please, no not those sources, etc etc

Who is endlessly repeating? Maybe all of us, eh?

It feels like it. Bin time!

 

[WouldBe]

I never said thermate was used.

Cheif conspiraloon Steve Jones claims it was and is being blindly followed by the conspirasheep.

According to well accepted calculations free-fall speed would have been 9.2 seconds. The 9/11 commission stated that the south tower came down in 10 seconds, which is virtually free-fall speed. In effect the buildings came down at the rate of 11 floors per second, and destroys the pancake theory, which relies on the lower floors providing resistance.

So the tower dodn't fall at freefall speed and clearly some resistance was present to cause this slower fall speed.

 

[editor]

Can you explain how it was pointless, since all those questions support the case for reasonable suspicion of government complicity in the terrorist attacks on the US on Sep 11, 2001?

Because, dear slow witted one:
(a) Most readers here are perfectly capable of clicking on link and
(b) The FAQ makes it quite clear what is acceptable:

Do not post up huge reams of cut and paste text, but make things easier for others by summarising the article and including a link to the unabridged version.

HTH HAND

 

[editor]

Conspiraloon, endless fact-free, evidence untroubled, fruitloop, reams of pointless cut and paste, evidence please, not one shred of credible evidence, sources please, no not those sources, etc etc

Silly boy. Those comments are in response to the fruit'n'nut claims.

It's not me starting the threads!

 

[squeegee]

Do not post up huge reams of cut and paste text, but make things easier for others by summarising the article and including a link to the unabridged version.

Which is EXACTLY what I did. How very revealing

 

[editor]

Which is EXACTLY what I did. How very revealing

Clearly you are unable to comprehend the concept of "summarising an article."

It was page long slab of needless cut and paste.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

To be fair he did trim some of it off, still C&Ping but not the worst example by a long way.

 

[squeegee]

To be fair he did trim some of it off, still C&Ping but not the worst example by a long way.

Some of it off

Did anyone see the original article? The edit was less than a page, but who wants them on a page where everyone can see it? I mean how many people actually read the links?

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Some of it off

Did anyone see the original article? The edit was less than a page, but who wants them on a page where everyone can see it? I mean how many people actually read the links?

You mean you don't?

I don't put links up for shits and giggles. I've spent a lot of time reading through the uneducated bullshit on prison plannet to humour your fellow conspiraloons, i'd appreciate it if you'd return the courtesy.

 

[squeegee]

Yes Bob, I do, but I wonder if others do

 

[WouldBe]

I rather feel you qualify as a 'mendacious little worm'. You don't half post some utter shite.

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=1676149&postcount=102

The only thing that's clear is that you can't be trusted.

Bravo for posting a quote from one thread relating to a quote on another thread and not posting all my quote.

Yes I did say that but I finished it with "I don't think it was used in this case". Completely taken out of context. What a suprise.

Here's the info that you found

Besides containing the navigation function, the Boeing 747-400 FMCS Future Air Navigation System (FANS) also contain communication / data link and automatic dependent surveillance (ADS) functions.

from http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=1673284&postcount=209

The ADS function is uni-directional not bi-directional and is simply used so the carrier can see where their aircraft are in real time. You cannot remote control an aircraft via this link.

Cable operated flaps? You fucking clown.

Again I suspect this quote is taken out of context. Again no suprise.

And yes I do have memory problems. These boards are full of references to my failing memory. My tagline used to read "Mind like a swiss cheese".

What's your excuse?