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

[kyser_soze]

Amazing. They can release stuff which shows that they lied through their teeth, made the whole official investigation a complete farce, and that just means we can trust them? Brilliant. You have to hand it to them.

With the risk of kicking this all up again, excerpts from these ATC recordings, as well as the whole brouhaha about air defence in the US (or lack of it) was investigated during the 9/11 commission and was a very late admission by the USAF/Pentagon which is how the process to get these tapes released started - the commission already knew the Pentagon lied.

The main problem for you of course is that this is not a denial, or even a denial denial - this is an institution that has been found out despite efforts to keep a very embarassing situation under wraps (which is why they tried to cover it up in the first place)

 

[Jazzz]

Mobile phones can obviously work in an aircraft, hence this recent retreat from the UK/US flight path on account of a mobile phone ringing, so all the bullshit about fake spouses talking to their fake relatives about to collide with the World Trade Center was a lie then, eh Jazzzbot?

Looks like the whole thing was feasable after all.

Well they can certainly work NOW, since

Mobiles in aircraft edge closer

Soon you could be using your mobile phone on flights as easily as you do on the High Street.

A two-year investigation has shown that mobiles can be used on planes without interfering with navigation systems.

Plane maker Airbus, which carried out the research, said the positive result paved the way for the widespread use of mobiles on aircraft.

Airbus said it was planning to put in-flight mobile phone technology on its aircraft by 2006.

High life

Before now many airlines have banned the use of mobile phones during take-off, flight and landing because of fears that they will interfere with aircraft systems and disrupt the two-way radio used by pilots.

But the two-year research project carried out by Airbus and backed by the European Commission has found that handsets can be used safely on aircraft in flight.

The trials, carried out on an A320, successfully tested both voice calls and the sending of text messages to and from phones onboard the aircraft.

To make it possible to use a mobile on a plane, Airbus installed a picocell that creates a small mobile phone cell onboard the aircraft.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3665848.stm

Strange, how they needed to install technology to 'make it possible' - if it was possible beforehand, eh pk?

And what year are we in? Oh it's 2006, isn't it?

I've just had a look at this security scare. A plane was turned back for an unattended ringing mobile, but crucially, it was shortly after take off. Now it's been accepted that - even without this technology - a signal might get through at very low altitudes, so nice try pk but no argument here.

 

[editor]

Well they can certainly work NOW, since
Strange, how they needed to install technology to 'make it possible' - if it was possible beforehand, eh pk?

You've managed to completely misread that article. Well done.

 

[WouldBe]

Plus with an aircraft flying along the streets of Washigton, decapitating street lamps as it goes, that should be low enough to be able to make phone calls.

 

[Jazzz]

Don't you think it's about time guys?

From "Stop Belittling the Theories About September 11" by Bill Christison www.dissidentvoice.org

Let’s address the real issues here. Why is it important that we not let the so-called conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11 be drowned out? After spending the better part of the last five years treating these theories with utmost skepticism, I have devoted serious time to actually studying them in recent months, and have also carefully watched several videos that are available on the subject. I have come to believe that significant parts of the 9/11 theories are true, and that therefore significant parts of the “official story” put out by the U.S. government and the 9/11 Commission are false. I now think there is persuasive evidence that the events of September did not unfold as the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission would have us believe. The items below highlight the major questions surrounding 9/11 but do not constitute a detailed recounting of the evidence available.


<editor: FAQ busting cut and paste removed>

 

[Yossarian]

Wow! A cut and paste about September 11 conspiracy theories! That's something I've never seen on the Internet before!

 

[Crispy]

That 'pico-cell' would be required for making calls when the plane is out of range of a normal cell. That is what is 'made possible'

If you're in range of a normal cell, you can make a call from inside a metal tube no problems. Try turning your mobile on when you're flying over the UK some time (at the same height as the flight on 9/11 of course)

As for the quoted text, I can't believe you're still posting that stuff when you know exactly what the reaction will be.

 

[editor]

From "Stop Belittling the Theories About September 11" by Bill Christison www.dissidentvoice.org

For the last fucking time.

DO NOT POST UP REAMS OF CUT AND PASTE.

 

[Crispy]

See?

 

[Jazzz]

What I see Crispy is the head-stuck-in-the-sand nonsense from people who don't have the guts to confront the truth. I make no apology for the C&P. Here's the resume of the guy that wrote it - a new addition to the fold of truthseekers.

Bill Christison is a former senior official of the CIA. He was a National Intelligence Officer and the Director of the CIA's Office of Regional and Political Analysis before his retirement in 1979.

But CIA top brass aren't good enough for urban75, are they? We know better. Such radicals indeed.

 

[WouldBe]

But CIA top brass aren't good enough for urban75, are they? We know better. Such radicals indeed.

What does a political analyst know about science and engineering?

 

[editor]

But CIA top brass aren't good enough for urban75, are they?

I see you're cutting fast and loose with the facts as usual.

He's an ex CIA official, actually.

And he's very, very 'ex' too seeing as he hasn't worked for them for way over a quarter of a century, for fuck's sake!

 

[detective-boy]

And he's very, very 'ex' too seeing as he hasn't worked for them for way over a quarter of a century, for fuck's sake!

Fucking hell! That's even more out of date than "Former Flying Squad Commander John OConnor" ...

* Looks forward to another 21 years of TV punditry ... *

 

[free spirit]

Well they can certainly work NOW, since

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/3665848.stm

Strange, how they needed to install technology to 'make it possible' - if it was possible beforehand, eh pk?

And what year are we in? Oh it's 2006, isn't it?

I've just had a look at this security scare. A plane was turned back for an unattended ringing mobile, but crucially, it was shortly after take off. Now it's been accepted that - even without this technology - a signal might get through at very low altitudes, so nice try pk but no argument here.

jazz - mobiles work now on planes if they're in range, they always have done, and I can't see why anyone would doubt it unless they thought there was some magic forcefield round planes that blocked the signal.

I've had my phone ring before when on a plane, and received a text when I'd forgotten to switch it off. The only reason you're not allowed to use phones on planes is the fear that they might interfere with the planes electronic systems / radio communications.

Mobile phone signals can travel much further straight up into the atmosphere than across land because there's no buildings, trees, mountains etc. to block the signal.

 

[fela fan]

It won't be long now before we can hear how elements of the US establishment were involved in 911 happening. Bush's watch is nearly over. Just some more damage to do in iran, maybe kill a few thousand in syria too, and then once the nutter's out of power, maybe we can see some truths emerging.

Instead of all this 'conspiracy nutter' nonsense. The rich and powerful have got away with things for too long now, mainly coz of the lexicon that emerged to deflect reasoned adult debate on hot topics such as this.

 

[editor]

It won't be long now before we can hear how elements of the US establishment were involved in 911 happening. Bush's watch is nearly over. Just some more damage to do in iran, maybe kill a few thousand in syria too, and then once the nutter's out of power, maybe we can see some truths emerging.

Instead of all this 'conspiracy nutter' nonsense. The rich and powerful have got away with things for too long now, mainly coz of the lexicon that emerged to deflect reasoned adult debate on hot topics such as this.

I see you've also managed to completely avoid the topic here too, preferring to deliver a loon-stirring "we will overcome" speech rather than addressing the supposed 'points' about the 'impossibility' of making mobile calls from planes.

 

[kyser_soze]

Fucking hell! That's even more out of date than "Former Flying Squad Commander John OConnor" ...

* Looks forward to another 21 years of TV punditry ... *

You'll be flogging electronic awnings with 'controls so easy even a dog can use them' á la John Stalker too...

Interesting article - there's a couple of bits in there that are new-ish, but much that is old and unsubstantiated (for example, his comment on the forensic investigation on the whole 'controlled demolition' theory showing traces of explosives etc but then doesn't link out to or place a source; very frustrating!) and a new argument - so many people are questioning it that something *must* have happened that was more than the 9/11 commission (well that's not hard!).

I think even as a retired CIA operative he garners slightly more credibility than the average link we get on these threads, but what interests me is his angle on the congressional elections and turning this into an electoral issue to get people pushing for a proper investigation into what happened - part of me says 'Yay' and part says 'What's his agenda?' - is he offering support to anybody running in congress etc.

 

[Jonti]

The 9/11 commission would not have been commissioned at all, were it not for vigourous campaigning by relatives, principally the Jersey girls. Even then, a very great many of the questions the relatives wanted to be answered were either ignored, or answered inadequately. You can read the list of the relatives' unanswered questions here.

One of the women involved, Kristen Breitweiser, spoke to her husband in the second WTC tower, after the first tower had been hit. Despite the fact that the second plane was on the way (on the way, off course, and on radar) her husband was not evacuated.

This is what she says in a (famous!) interview with Phil Donahue ...

I want to know why my husband was told to return to his desk when ... it was an excruciating 11 minutes for the controllers to think about that airliner heading dead center on my husband’s building. Eleven minutes on an express elevator in tower two would have been my husband’s life.

In October, I received my husband’s wedding band, which I wear on my finger. And it was recovered with a part of his finger. And that’s all I have, is his wedding band, which is a miracle. It was recovered from ground zero, and I recovered a part of his finger.

Of course she wants her questions answered.

You would, wouldn't you?

 

[Jonti]

I see you've also managed to completely avoid the topic here too, preferring to deliver a loon-stirring "we will overcome" speech rather than addressing the supposed 'points' about the 'impossibility' of making mobile calls from planes.

The topic is the Pentagon lies to the 9/11 Commission.

Seems to me a prediction that liars generally will be unmasked is tolerably on-topic. I hope he's right. How about you?

 

[editor]

The topic is the Pentagon lies to the 9/11 Commission.

Actually, you'll find 'the topic' is also whether phones worked on the planes or not, as brought up by the thread starter.

 

[Jonti]

also

 

[Jonti]

The officialloonies are starting to realise they are naked, it seems.

I mean, the way the apologists in this thread pretend it's entirely reasonable (!) and OK for the Pentagon (Rumsfield's feifdom) to lie to the country it is supposed to serve is hilarious.

 

[editor]

also

Yes, that's correct: "also."

 

[editor]

The officialloonies are starting to realise they are naked, it seems.

I mean, the way the apologists in this thread pretend it's entirely reasonable (!) and OK for the Pentagon (Rumsfield's feifdom) to lie to the country it is supposed to serve is hilarious.

Which "apologists"?

Where has anyone stated that it's "OK for the Pentagon (Rumsfield's feifdom) to lie to the country"?

Back up your accusations please. With names and examples.

 

[Jonti]

Yes, that's correct: "also."

So you agree Fela wasn't off-topic then. That's good.

 

[kyser_soze]

I mean, the way the apologists in this thread pretend it's entirely reasonable (!) and OK for the Pentagon (Rumsfield's feifdom) to lie to the country it is supposed to serve is hilarious.

I think what you will find is that some of us said is was understandable that the Pentagon lied, for reasons of institutional prestige and simple buck passing; none of us said it was 'reasonable' or 'OK' for them to do so.

 

[editor]

So you agree Fela wasn't off-topic then. That's good.

Ah. I see you're trying to be clever. At the point where fela drifted in to add his usual vague nonsense, we were discussing whether mobiles would work on planes or not. I believe the last 12 posts or so had been on that topic, hence my comment.

Are you going to answer my question and back up your accusations about "the apologists in this thread" now please?

 

[Jonti]

Which "apologists"?

Where has anyone stated that it's "OK for the Pentagon (Rumsfield's feifdom) to lie to the country"?

Back up your accusations please. With names and examples.

Did I say that?

...the way the apologists in this thread pretend it's entirely reasonable (!) and OK for the Pentagon (Rumsfield's feifdom) to lie to the country it is supposed to serve is hilarious.

Ooh, look. I didn't.

Not unless pretend = state

I find your attitude odd. If you are so concerned about inaccuracies on these boards, why has my complaint about being lied about on these boards (by one of your mods) been ignored? That aside, you could always take a look at #31.

Kyser Soze kinda makes the point, tho' I'm sure he'd bridle at being described as an apologist for Pentagon lies, and I don't think that is his intention at all.

...some of us said is was understandable that the Pentagon lied, for reasons of institutional prestige and simple buck passing...

We could easily get into semantics here. Understanding something has the affect of making it possible to reason about it. What is understandable is reasonable. And vice versa.

 

[squeegee]

Which "apologists"?

Where has anyone stated that it's "OK for the Pentagon (Rumsfield's feifdom) to lie to the country"?

Back up your accusations please. With names and examples.

Read his post. Any questions that are not accepting of the media's and governments stories are rubbished here in the same way they are in right-wing circles and I have experience of both and it feels exactly the same.

I would be more inclined to believe that you, Editor, are simply looking for hard proof if you occasionally showed some magnanimity in agreeing with the very real concerns expressed, when good points are raised. But you never do. You just use high court language (names, evidence, hard facts blah blah). This is not a court of law it's a bulletin board...for discussion.

It's not just Muslims who think the government are lying murderers. I don't believe a thing they say. Do you? I'm suspicious of what went on at 911, 7/7 and 3/11 as well as all these arrests and shootings. I have my theories and, guess what, it doesn't make me mad.

You are not the Grand Inquisitor or the font of all knowledge. And your technique (evidence evidence evidence) is terribly flawed when you accept the words written in newspapers and what the security services decide to tell you. That's evidence according to you? Ha!

According to you and the right-wing papers (like the Guardian, who today had a nasty pro-Israel article written by their favourite Yankee fascist Lionel Shriver - the Telegraph and Mail being basically fascist papers) this makes me a conspiraloon. Cos I question and believe that a small group of businessmen are provoking war to make money and to control a society of people who are beginning to wake up and realise their power and unity.

The stifling of debate is the language of the apologist. You might not be aware that's what you're doing....but that's what you're doing and it mirrors what goes on in the mainstream. You only have to say conspiracy and the whole argument is thrown out. How convenient for the murderers and wramongers and fascists of all descriptions.

You allow these murdering cunts to get away with it cos you're more concerned with "proving" people's sanity is under question. I agree with you that there should be as much hard fact as possible. But we have to keep asking questions and try to allay our suspicions.

And you NEVER win debates on these subjects. You just attack the individual. Who needs names and threads. It's common knowledge to anyone who has ever tried to have an honest discussion of the war on terror here.

If you were at least honest enough to admit what YOUR suspicions are. But you're more concerned in using vitriolic language to stifle the very real concerns that we are appeasing brutal tyrants trying to lock down a whole planet. You're more concerned with trying to slander posters by accusing them of being insane because you know you can't deal with the points they make. That makes you seem dishonest in the extreme.

 

[Crispy]

You can read the list of the relatives' unanswered questions here

I'd like to see answers to those questions too.