911 - please don't flame me
- Thread starter Ae589
- Start date
- Status
Bonfirelight
Crocodile
sparticus said:
Whilst i always read them, i dont normally get involved in these threads.
But this has got to be the funniest thing i've seen in ages.
EDITOR IS GIANT LIZARD SCANDAL
perhaps?
Editor is just editor who has his views as a poster.
He also has his board to take care of in his owner/editor role.
I wish we could get one sane 911 thread that debates the issues, not the posters. No bloody lizards, or CT stuff. People just seem unable to help themselves.
Now how about some reactions to that link?
He also has his board to take care of in his owner/editor role.
I wish we could get one sane 911 thread that debates the issues, not the posters. No bloody lizards, or CT stuff. People just seem unable to help themselves.
Now how about some reactions to that link?
FridgeMagnet said:
I agree totally. And all the material any of us could ever want to inform us, to help back up our beliefs, to change our minds, to learn, is on that link i put up again a few posts back. There is simply hours and hours of reading available on it. And that's without even clicking onto any of the links in it!
It is a blindingly brilliant piece of research. I cannot even begin to think how many man hours went into it. And all done by trawling through mainstream media from around the world.
FridgeMagnet said:
i agree. i think someone should start a "definitive 911 debate" thread and let the whole thing run on that - any other threads on the subject getting binned. perhaps even put it up as a sticky - or is that too much - i don't want to be seen to be encouraging conspiracy fans to flock to u75 in their droves.
Look I TOTALLY withdraw any and all comments about how people contribute or moderate these boards. In apologising for unintentionally diverting discussion away from the evidence, I thought I had already done this in my last post. If anyone REALLY wants to debate the finer points about how 911 and CT threads are managed and how this leads to (unknowingly) furthering a cover-up of the evidence.. fine. Start another thread. You can even call it Sparticus is a wanker if you like. Personally I won't be adding my views on the subject again.
Anyone fancy discussing the evidence, starting with someone setting out simply the key events in a timeline for the 2 hours from when the first plane was known to be hijacked to when the planes were scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base AFTER all the hijacked planes had crashed.
Ian
Anyone fancy discussing the evidence, starting with someone setting out simply the key events in a timeline for the 2 hours from when the first plane was known to be hijacked to when the planes were scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base AFTER all the hijacked planes had crashed.
Ian
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
OK, here's my position on LIHOP...
I agree that it could have happened that way, but...the one thing that this site DOESN'T do is tell us how much OTHER intelligence was coming in, or what they was.
Was it contradictory to the examples in the book?
Were the examples in the book all collated and analysed by the same people, in the chronological order they appeared in?
How many other pieces of intel were delivered to the USG over the period this article covers.
My issue here is not the evidence itself, it's the selective way it's being used in hindsight. There is NO referral to contrary evidence presented to the USG...indeed, the way this is written, the intel it refers to seems to be the ONLY data that was received in the period up to 9/11.
I agree that it could have happened that way, but...the one thing that this site DOESN'T do is tell us how much OTHER intelligence was coming in, or what they was.
Was it contradictory to the examples in the book?
Were the examples in the book all collated and analysed by the same people, in the chronological order they appeared in?
How many other pieces of intel were delivered to the USG over the period this article covers.
My issue here is not the evidence itself, it's the selective way it's being used in hindsight. There is NO referral to contrary evidence presented to the USG...indeed, the way this is written, the intel it refers to seems to be the ONLY data that was received in the period up to 9/11.
editor
hiraethified
Great idea!fubert said:
Perhaps sparticus can host this fascinating uber-thread on his own server space so he can repeat LIHOP all day long without fear of criticism.
In fcta, why don't the conspiracy fans get their own bulletin board together?
It's not that hard to do and it would spare them having to engage with any 'senior levels' helping 'cover-up' USG complicity in 9/11.
Payne Stewart's F16 tea party
There is surely no feature of 9-11 that is more worth of discussion than the failure to 'intercept' Flight 11, 175 and 77 (I am leaving open the possibility that flight 93 was intercepted in a secretive, unofficial version of events).
Now posters here may think that 'intercept' implies shooting down. This is not the case. Intercept just means getting a fighter or two up there to make contact and provide an escort. It is imperative if anything goes amiss that this happens as soon as possible. The fighters will be able to report on the physical appearance of the plane (eg, looking in the cockpit) as well as influence the situation with their presence.
It does not matter whether the plane contains malicious intent - proper defence will view any plane that veers off course (and hence out of FAA control) as a potential threat and a major incident.
Here is what happened when, prior to 9-11, Payne Stewart's Lear Jet veered off course and contact was lost. Note that this was a small private plane and no point was there any particular reason to think foul play was present.
I make that at least ten fighters escorting Payne Stewart - including one refuelling tanker! This gives a very good flavour of the seriousness in which the situation was taken and the ability of the military to protect its airspace.
.... What the hell happened on 9-11?
There is surely no feature of 9-11 that is more worth of discussion than the failure to 'intercept' Flight 11, 175 and 77 (I am leaving open the possibility that flight 93 was intercepted in a secretive, unofficial version of events).
Now posters here may think that 'intercept' implies shooting down. This is not the case. Intercept just means getting a fighter or two up there to make contact and provide an escort. It is imperative if anything goes amiss that this happens as soon as possible. The fighters will be able to report on the physical appearance of the plane (eg, looking in the cockpit) as well as influence the situation with their presence.
It does not matter whether the plane contains malicious intent - proper defence will view any plane that veers off course (and hence out of FAA control) as a potential threat and a major incident.
Here is what happened when, prior to 9-11, Payne Stewart's Lear Jet veered off course and contact was lost. Note that this was a small private plane and no point was there any particular reason to think foul play was present.
I make that at least ten fighters escorting Payne Stewart - including one refuelling tanker! This gives a very good flavour of the seriousness in which the situation was taken and the ability of the military to protect its airspace.
.... What the hell happened on 9-11?
fubert said:
No. Fuck off! You are not reading properly, or you are trying to intentionally derail things:
We've fucking had all the accusations of CT and related crap on all the threads. Whether it's conspiracy or not, folk here just indulge in poster attacking. Fair or not, that's what happens.
Fucking hell, forget the conspiracy stuff in your own eyes. Read the bloody website man. Read it. Look at it. Unless you just want to wallow in accusing folk of conspiracy stuff.
kyser_soze said:
Fuck man. Kyser, that website does exactly that: it tells us about all the intelligence coming in from various nations, before, during, and after the attacks. What it doesn't tell us is the US intelligence. So if we knew that, and added it to what the site is telling us, then we'd all be accepting LIHOP as a default.
editor said:
He's now apologised and retracted twice.
Yet you seem to have not read this, or are deliberately ignoring it.
Just as you seem to be doing with the website i found, and that is linked on this thread, and that i've been calling to be the basis of this thread.
But it looks like you, and others, are trying to steer the thread away from this website, which was the way it was going on the first page.
But the second page seems to be reverting to type: and that is CT accusers being desperate to get the topic back onto 'conspiracy theories'.
It seems to me that certain folk are not interested in debating the issues.
If they were, they'd have a fucking look at the website. If you read it for one hour, i defy you, I CHALLENGE you to refute what it's telling you.
kyser_soze
Hawking's Angry Eyebrow
fela fan said:
No no no, you;ve got me wrong mate. I'm not just talking about 9/11 related intel, I'm talking about ALL the intel the USG received in that time, 9/11 related or not.
Then we'd have some perspective about what the USG had to 'filter' before coming up with this specific collection of intel featured in the site. S
Simply put, this site makes it seem as if the only intel the USG received in the pre 9/11 period was related to two planes smacking into a building.
fubert said:
You fucking deceitful pig. This thread had a chance on the first page of getting down to debating properly what went on over 911.
"All this conspiracy stuff" my arse. So are you saying to the forum that everything about 911 is 'conspiracy'? Have you even looked at the site? Why do you have to reduce it all to 'conspiracy'?
What the fuck are you on? Do you know the meaning of debate?
Keep it to one thread!!! Fucking hell. We've done 'conspiracy' to death. Here is a website, entirely compiled from mainstream media souces, and you're on about bloody 'conspiracies' and keeping them to 'one thread'.
God there's some self-deluded souls amongst us.
kyser_soze said:
Sorry for getting you wrong kyser.
But you need to read more if you wish to stick to your last paragraph's claims! The whole timelines go back to the 70s!! Let me find a link i've read on it and post it for you. This site gives its readers massive background to the events, leading up to them from the late 70s right the way through to 9/11/01, and beyond until 2003.
You just could not get more extensive if you tried and tried and tried.
Here, kyser, try this link:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/...=complete_911_timeline&timeperiod=1979 - 2000
It comes from the right hand side of the page under '1979-2000'.
There are others, but this is a good one. You'll need a couple of hours to read it, there's over six pages of it. But it covers a wee bit more than two planes crashing into the towers!!
http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/...=complete_911_timeline&timeperiod=1979 - 2000
It comes from the right hand side of the page under '1979-2000'.
There are others, but this is a good one. You'll need a couple of hours to read it, there's over six pages of it. But it covers a wee bit more than two planes crashing into the towers!!
Have you looked at the website editor? It satisfies all the criterion you've always asked for. It indulges in no conspiracies. It is no Vialls type site.
It is all sourced from mainstream media articles.
It is extensive.
Or are you more interested in pink handbags rather than furthering your understanding and knowledge of what led up to the attacks, and what followed?
Go on, have a look at it. Granted, it'll take up a few hours of your time. But then, if you were interested in learning more about the events of 911, what led up to them, what the USG did during them, and what they tried not to do after them, you'd think that time worthwhile...
It is all sourced from mainstream media articles.
It is extensive.
Or are you more interested in pink handbags rather than furthering your understanding and knowledge of what led up to the attacks, and what followed?
Go on, have a look at it. Granted, it'll take up a few hours of your time. But then, if you were interested in learning more about the events of 911, what led up to them, what the USG did during them, and what they tried not to do after them, you'd think that time worthwhile...
As Fela says it's all there for you to read taken from mainstream news sources but to make it easier here is a Blue Peter version. Bare in mind the response time of circa 20 minutes to Payne Stewart's plane (link by Dr J). Given the air defenses around NYC and Washington this response time should be no problem to match or come near.
8.13am Flight 11 loses radio contact presumed hijacked. Given the prior intelligence warnings this should have alerted all concerned that NYC and Washington were potentially under attack. But ignoring any prior warnings and acting according to standard operating procedures, flight controllers should immediately notify FAA who should immediately notify NORAD and scramble any of the numerous F15's (top speed 1875 mph) or F16's (top speed 1500mph) stationed around NYC and Washington to intercept the plane (soon to become planes).
So what happens ........
8.25am Boston notifies other flight control centres BUT not NORAD until sometime between 8.30 and 8.40am (WHY the delay and the discrepency in times
8.42am Flight 175 presumed hijacked. Now alarm bells should definately be ringing, someone should be running around, ringing Bush and Rumsfeld et al, seems not. Now I realise hindsight is a wonderful thing, but if I were head of NORAD or the FAA I would know that this is something big and I would want all my senior commanders on the phone right now and want fighters patrolling the skies above NYC and Washington.
8.46am Flight 11 hits North Tower
8.46am 3 F16's reported in the air on exercise in N Carolina 200 miles from Washington and 2 x F15's scrambled from Otis 190 miles from NYC
8.46am Flight 77 veers off course (North), Last radio contact at 8.50am
9.02am FIight 175 hits south tower.
9.06am Bush informed of the second plane hitting the WTC
9.16am FAA informed Norad that 93 hijacked
9.24am FAA informed Norad that 77 hijacked
9.38am Flight 77 hits the Pentagon
“During the hour or so that American Airlines Flight 77 [is] under the control of hijackers, up to the moment it struck the west side of the Pentagon, military officials in [the Pentagon's National Military Command Center (see After 8:46 a.m.)] [are] urgently talking to law enforcement and air traffic control officials about what to do.” [New York Times, 9/15/01]
Hey guys, I've got an idea. Why not scramble one of those nice fighter jets, the ones that travel at over 1500 mph from a base 10 miles from the Pentagon and see if you can at least intercept it. Once you have intercepted you can then debate the finer points of whether or not to shoot it down
10.06am Flight 93 crashes (shot down)
"For 60 decisive minutes, the military and intelligence agencies let the fighter planes stay on the ground" Herr von Buelow, former State Secretary in the German Ministry of Defense
Of course there is some confusion as to when planes were scrambled. I've given the best case scenario, but if you believe General Myers it was not until AFTER the pentagon was hit. What?
Richard Myers then acting (and since then promoted, he is no longer acting) Joint Chief of Staff and Air Force General testified on Sept 13 2001 (pg 150 of War of Freedom Nafeez Ahmed) before the Senate Armed Services Committee.... When asked "Was that order (to scramble fighter aircraft...) that you just described given before or after the pentagon was struck? Do you know?" He admitted he did know " That order to the best of my knowledge was AFTER the pentagon was struck." Asked 3 times, each time he confirmed the same. At no time in this testiminy did Myers indicate that he did not know, had not been in a position to know or might be mistaken. A spokesman for NORAD Major Mike Snyder confirmed Myers testimony. (As reported in the Boston Globe Sept 15).
Then we have Cheney Sept 16 Meet the Press with NBC corrspondent Nick Russert who observed that "The first hijackings was confirmed at 8.20am the pentagon struck at 940am and yet it seems we were not able to scramble fighter jets in time to protect the pentagon and perhaps even more than that" Cheney did not dispute Russert's assertion and further suggested that it was the President who made the decision to scramble after the pentagon crash
Then the official story changes contradicting these initial reports until we have the times I give above. Even here there is some dispute as to who told what to whom when, but this is a best case scenario. Incompetence? Yes. Cover-up? Yes. Impeachable crime, they knew in advance and they LIHOP? it's hard to have another conclusion IMO, especially given the events since 9/11.
Ian
8.13am Flight 11 loses radio contact presumed hijacked. Given the prior intelligence warnings this should have alerted all concerned that NYC and Washington were potentially under attack. But ignoring any prior warnings and acting according to standard operating procedures, flight controllers should immediately notify FAA who should immediately notify NORAD and scramble any of the numerous F15's (top speed 1875 mph) or F16's (top speed 1500mph) stationed around NYC and Washington to intercept the plane (soon to become planes).
So what happens ........
8.25am Boston notifies other flight control centres BUT not NORAD until sometime between 8.30 and 8.40am (WHY the delay and the discrepency in times
8.42am Flight 175 presumed hijacked. Now alarm bells should definately be ringing, someone should be running around, ringing Bush and Rumsfeld et al, seems not. Now I realise hindsight is a wonderful thing, but if I were head of NORAD or the FAA I would know that this is something big and I would want all my senior commanders on the phone right now and want fighters patrolling the skies above NYC and Washington.
8.46am Flight 11 hits North Tower
8.46am 3 F16's reported in the air on exercise in N Carolina 200 miles from Washington and 2 x F15's scrambled from Otis 190 miles from NYC
8.46am Flight 77 veers off course (North), Last radio contact at 8.50am
9.02am FIight 175 hits south tower.
9.06am Bush informed of the second plane hitting the WTC
9.16am FAA informed Norad that 93 hijacked
9.24am FAA informed Norad that 77 hijacked
9.38am Flight 77 hits the Pentagon
“During the hour or so that American Airlines Flight 77 [is] under the control of hijackers, up to the moment it struck the west side of the Pentagon, military officials in [the Pentagon's National Military Command Center (see After 8:46 a.m.)] [are] urgently talking to law enforcement and air traffic control officials about what to do.” [New York Times, 9/15/01]
Hey guys, I've got an idea. Why not scramble one of those nice fighter jets, the ones that travel at over 1500 mph from a base 10 miles from the Pentagon and see if you can at least intercept it. Once you have intercepted you can then debate the finer points of whether or not to shoot it down
10.06am Flight 93 crashes (shot down)
"For 60 decisive minutes, the military and intelligence agencies let the fighter planes stay on the ground" Herr von Buelow, former State Secretary in the German Ministry of Defense
Of course there is some confusion as to when planes were scrambled. I've given the best case scenario, but if you believe General Myers it was not until AFTER the pentagon was hit. What?
Richard Myers then acting (and since then promoted, he is no longer acting) Joint Chief of Staff and Air Force General testified on Sept 13 2001 (pg 150 of War of Freedom Nafeez Ahmed) before the Senate Armed Services Committee.... When asked "Was that order (to scramble fighter aircraft...) that you just described given before or after the pentagon was struck? Do you know?" He admitted he did know " That order to the best of my knowledge was AFTER the pentagon was struck." Asked 3 times, each time he confirmed the same. At no time in this testiminy did Myers indicate that he did not know, had not been in a position to know or might be mistaken. A spokesman for NORAD Major Mike Snyder confirmed Myers testimony. (As reported in the Boston Globe Sept 15).
Then we have Cheney Sept 16 Meet the Press with NBC corrspondent Nick Russert who observed that "The first hijackings was confirmed at 8.20am the pentagon struck at 940am and yet it seems we were not able to scramble fighter jets in time to protect the pentagon and perhaps even more than that" Cheney did not dispute Russert's assertion and further suggested that it was the President who made the decision to scramble after the pentagon crash
Then the official story changes contradicting these initial reports until we have the times I give above. Even here there is some dispute as to who told what to whom when, but this is a best case scenario. Incompetence? Yes. Cover-up? Yes. Impeachable crime, they knew in advance and they LIHOP? it's hard to have another conclusion IMO, especially given the events since 9/11.
Ian
Backatcha Bandit
is not taking your calls
What do people make of the anomalous financial activities that would appear to indicate foreknowledge?
Also of note was a Reuters article from Dec '01:
There is a bit more on CIA/Wall Street connections in this interview with Mike Ruppert.
The Natural Law Party have a well referenced page up that has collected snippets of articles which include many regarding finance and 11/9/01. An interesting archive.
Also of note was a Reuters article from Dec '01:
There is a bit more on CIA/Wall Street connections in this interview with Mike Ruppert.
The Natural Law Party have a well referenced page up that has collected snippets of articles which include many regarding finance and 11/9/01. An interesting archive.
editor
hiraethified
If you believe it, that would simply a few more hundred people to the ever-growing humongous list of people supposedly complicit in the conspiracy.Backatcha Bandit said:
I've lost count of how many different trades, skills, armed forces and sciences that would have to have been involved.
It's probably in the tens of thousands by now, if not even higher.
Strange how no-one's uttered a peep in al this time, innit?
I mean, you'd think Americans would be a tad miffed at finding their work being used to mass slaughter innocent fellow-Americans, wouldn't you?
Backatcha Bandit
is not taking your calls
Backatcha Bandit
is not taking your calls
Snopes.com covered this in a bit of detail:
Are Snopes 'Conspiracy Theorists', too?
Are Snopes 'Conspiracy Theorists', too?
editor
hiraethified
I'm not making any claims, although it does seem rather strange that this amazing 'story' doesn't seem to have been worthy of further comment in the mainstream press for the subsequent two years.Backatcha Bandit said:
But if you think that elements within the stock market were forewarned and complicit in 9/11, I'm all ears.
So, what proof have you got?
And how do you explain the silence from the other companies who must have lost out millions - if not billions - through the illegal actions of companies with 'inside knowledge'?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
