quote:

Originally posted by Krypton Why did NORAD stand down? Why did Cheney or Bush have to give authorization for interception? Why did NORAD seemingly fail to do its duty, but every other time they are called to intercept by Air Traffic Control (not the WHite House), they did their job within minutes... First of all, authorization of interception is not needed from the White House, otherwise, they would be busy all year long looking at radars and calling NORAD over 100 times a year.. NORAD was not incompetent, they were just following orders..

You need approval from the President to shoot down an airliner filled with American citizens. Especially when the threat is unknown - it was difficult pinpointing what planes were hijacked, etc. In fact, air traffic controllers were calling in hijacked planes whenever a pilot didn't respond to hailing - which occured fairly often unfortunately. Had NORAD acted impulsively without presidential approval, we probably would have had 10 airliners shot down and there would be a thread about over-reaction instead of under-reaction.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov You need approval from the President to shoot down an airliner filled with American citizens. Especially when the threat is unknown - it was difficult pinpointing what planes were hijacked, etc. In fact, air traffic controllers were calling in hijacked planes whenever a pilot didn't respond to hailing - which occured fairly often unfortunately. Had NORAD acted impulsively without presidential approval, we probably would have had 10 airliners shot down and there would be a thread about over-reaction instead of under-reaction.

Dude, no jets were even tailing the airliners. There's your problem right there. Air Traffic Control has all the authority to call in NORAD to intercept planes that have diverted off-course, which radar would indicate (not that hard), and planes in distress and loss of radio signal. This happens more than 100 times a year. And the average time is 20 minutes.

The Air Force also strangely were having a drill specifically about hi-jackings, and on top of that when 911 was happening, they were only going 300-400 miles per hour instead of 1800mph to intercept. Strange..

Watch the videos. If you find a video or article refuting it post it up.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN perhaps you'd like to explain to me why the government was haemorrhaging information so badly that even new york's cabbies knew something about the super secret conspiracy?

i never said it was a conspiracy, u did.... again i'm just reporting what i know and heard directly from my friend who actually lives in New York. Oh and its easy for you to say since you live all the way in australia, yea you don't live in New York so i don't expect an australian guy to tell me that this and that didn't happen, plain and simple you just wern't there. If your dumb enough not to look at these facts and blindly go with the evidence that your told then i don't know what your smoking, not only that but there were many other cases in which people were trying to get the word out but everyone thought they were crazy. Bush Knew about the threats months before that fateful day and that was reported on many newspapers but he hasn't said a word to try and stop it!

___________________
"real social change for the oppressed people's can only be brought through a revolution by the people."

quote:

Originally posted by SiLveR_NrGy_985 i never said it was a conspiracy, u did.... again i'm just reporting what i know and heard directly from my friend who actually lives in New York. Oh and its easy for you to say since you live all the way in australia, yea you don't live in New York so i don't expect an australian guy to tell me that this and that didn't happen, plain and simple you just wern't there. If your dumb enough not to look at these facts and blindly go with the evidence that your told then i don't know what your smoking, not only that but there were many other cases in which people were trying to get the word out but everyone thought they were crazy. Bush Knew about the threats months before that fateful day and that was reported on many newspapers but he hasn't said a word to try and stop it!

Going by it's definition alone, THE ONLY WAY THAT IT COULDN'T BE a conspiracy would be if all those involved were somehow acting alone, on their own accord and in an uncoordinated manner.

[[ LINK REMOVED ]]

Excellent video Trancer-X


I wonder if we ll ever be able to see the actual videos that are being held by the FBI from that day.

___________________
Mystic Mind - DJ Mixes
http://soundcloud.com/mystic-mind

Facebook page
https://www.facebook.com/DJMysticMind

i was going to watch this seriously until i discovered it was a "no plane" pentagon movie ahhhh, you boys crack me up. just goes to show that americans can convince themselves of just about anything

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i was going to watch this seriously until i discovered it was a "no plane" pentagon movie ahhhh, you boys crack me up. just goes to show that americans can convince themselves of just about anything

Yeah, seriously! That's almost like how some people could be convinced that a bunch of lackey's with no commercial flight experience managed to pull off amazing feats of aviation in planes that weren't even built to handle such high G-force maneuvers after unsuccessfully training to fly on rinky-dink Cessna's

Oh, wait. Nevermind. That's my government's "official" story

Edit:

Anyway, I've pretty much come to the conclusion that you don't even want to learn the truth but would rather fight everyone tooth and nail in your desperate attempt to maintain your narrowly defined, imperceptively painted view of reality.

Damn this world must be a peaceful place with blinders on.

Last edited by Trancer-X on Oct-09-2007 at 08:32

quote:

Originally posted by Trancer-X Yeah, seriously! That's almost like how some people could be convinced that a bunch of lackey's with no commercial flight experience managed to pull off amazing feats of aviation in planes that weren't even built to handle such high G-force maneuvers after unsuccessfully training to fly on rinky-dink Cessna's

i knew that's what your response would be. more "theory"

neither you, nor any of your ilk, have provided me a shred of evidence/argument to explain why you ignore the hundreds of people that quite clearly saw a plane crashing into the pentagon, some of whom had that big fucking jet passing within metres of them. none of you have EVER provided me or anyone else with a plausible explanation of where flight 77, her passengers, her crew actually went. nor how the wreckage (and dead bodies from the flight) actually got there.

until you do all of that you can whinge about air maneuvers til the cows come home!! again, nothing more than smoke and mirrors, pointing at supposedly inconsistent evidence whilst ignoring gaping holes in your own thesis. that kind of argument doesn't stand up anywhere mate.

quote:

Anyway, I've pretty much come to the conclusion that you don't even want to learn the truth but would rather fight everyone tooth and nail in your desperate attempt to maintain your narrowly defined, imperceptively painted view of reality.

yeah, whatever buddy. you just keep acting the whole "internet detective" role and come back to me when you can provide some answers.

quote:

Damn this world must be a peaceful place with blinders on.

and it must be really fucking entertaining where you live, that or you cower from all the fear you sell yourself never a boring day when god whispers to you or the government reads your thoughts.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i knew that's what your response would be. more "theory"

LOL - I was just repeating my own government's "theory" What, don't you believe it now that I said it?

quote:

neither you, nor any of your ilk, have provided me a shred of evidence/argument to explain why you ignore the hundreds of people that quite clearly saw a plane crashing into the pentagon, some of whom had that big fucking jet passing within metres of them. none of you have EVER provided me or anyone else with a plausible explanation of where flight 77, her passengers, her crew actually went. nor how the wreckage (and dead bodies from the flight) actually got there.

I guess that same thing could also be said about the very same people who said that they DIDN'T see any plane, any wreckage (or any debris which would be consistent with a large commercial plane hitting a reinforced concrete wall at 500+ MPH)

quote:

until you do all of that you can whinge about air maneuvers til the cows come home!! again, nothing more than smoke and mirrors, pointing at supposedly inconsistent evidence whilst ignoring gaping holes in your own thesis. that kind of argument doesn't stand up anywhere mate. yeah, whatever buddy. you just keep acting the whole "internet detective" role and come back to me when you can provide some answers.

I don't really understand what you're saying but the smoke and mirrors seems to be the tactic that the FBI and our other alphabet agencies are using in the attempt to thwart any real inquiry or investigation.

I mean Jeez, even the 9/11 Commission insiders have written about how they were set up to fail in their investigation.

quote:

In their book Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission on their experience serving as co-chairs of the Commission, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton devoted the first chapter on how they believed the Commission was set up for failure. Hamilton listed a number of reasons why they thought this, including the late start of the Commission and the very short deadline imposed; the insufficient funds, 3 million dollars, initially allocated for conducting such an extensive investigation (later the Commission requested and received additional funds, but the chairs still felt hamstrung); the many politicians who did not want the Commission formed; the continuing resistance and opposition to the work of the Commission by many politicians, particularly those who did not wish to be blamed for any of what happened; and the denial of access by various agencies to documents and witnesses. "So there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation...e_United_States

quote:

and it must be really fucking entertaining where you live, that or you cower from all the fear you sell yourself never a boring day when god whispers to you or the government reads your thoughts.

Actually, life is rather good here in Baltimore but that's not about to stop me from trying to do my part in order to keep it that way

Whatever else you're going on about is beyond me but you can make all of the baseless assumptions that you like.

quote:

Without Precedent: The Inside Story of the 9/11 Commission, by Thomas Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, is a book about the September 11, 2001 attacks and the 9/11 Commission that investigated them. The book was released on August 15, 2006 and chronicles the work of Kean (Commission Chairman) and Hamilton (Commission Vice-Chairman) of the 9/11 Commission, which some consider one of the most important independent government commissions in American political history. In the book, Kean and Hamilton write that the 9/11 Commission was so frustrated with repeated misstatements by officials from The Pentagon and the Federal Aviation Administration during the investigation that it considered a separate investigation into possible obstruction of justice by Pentagon and FAA officials. [21] The book is published by Alfred A. Knopf.

Sept. 11 Panel Doubted Officials

By HOPE YEN, Associated Press Writer

Friday, August 4, 2006
Commission Chairman Thomas Kean, left, and Vice Chairman

(08-04) 23:19 PDT WASHINGTON, (AP) --

The Sept. 11 commission was so frustrated with repeated misstatements by the Pentagon and FAA about their response to the 2001 terror attacks that it considered an investigation into possible deception, the panel's chairmen say in a new book.

Republican Thomas Kean and Democrat Lee Hamilton also say in "Without Precedent" that their panel was too soft in questioning former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani — and that the 20-month investigation may have suffered for it.

The book, a behind-the-scenes look at the investigation, recounts obstacles the authors say were thrown up by the Bush administration, internal disputes over President Bush's use of the attacks as a reason for invading Iraq, and the way the final report avoided questioning whether U.S. policy in the Middle East may have contributed to the attacks.

Kean and Hamilton said the commission found it mind-boggling that authorities had asserted during hearings that their air defenses had reacted quickly and were prepared to shoot down United Airlines Flight 93, which appeared headed toward Washington.

In fact, the commission determined — after it subpoenaed audiotapes and e-mails of the sequence of events — that the shootdown order did not reach North American Aerospace Command pilots until after all of the hijacked planes had crashed.

The book states that commission staff, "exceedingly frustrated" by what they thought could be deception, proposed a full review into why the FAA and the Pentagon's NORAD had presented inaccurate information. That ultimately could have led to sanctions.

Due to a lack of time, the panel ultimately referred the matter to the inspectors general at the Pentagon and Transportation Department. Both are preparing reports, spokesmen said this week.

"Fog of war could explain why some people were confused on the day of 9/11, but it could not explain why all of the after-action reports, accident investigations and public testimony by FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue," the book states.

The questioning of Giuliani was considered by Kean and Hamilton "a low point" in the commission's examination of witnesses during public hearings. "We did not ask tough questions, nor did we get all of the information we needed to put on the public record," they wrote.

Commission members backed off, Kean and Hamilton said, after drawing criticism in newspaper editorials for sharp questioning of New York fire and police officials at earlier hearings. The editorials said the commission was insensitive to the officials' bravery on the day of the attacks.

"It proved difficult, if not impossible, to raise hard questions about 9/11 in New York without it being perceived as criticism of the individual police and firefighters or of Mayor Giuliani," Kean and Hamilton said.

Congress established the commission in 2002 to investigate government missteps leading to the Sept. 11 attacks. Its 567-page unanimous report, which was released in July 2004 and became a national best seller, does not blame Bush or former President Clinton but does say they failed to make anti-terrorism a high priority before the attacks.

The panel of five Republicans and five Democrats also concluded that the Sept. 11 attacks would not be the nation's last, noting that al-Qaida had tried for at least 10 years to acquire weapons of mass destruction.

In their book, which goes on sale Aug. 15, Kean and Hamilton recap obstacles they say the panel faced in putting out a credible report in a presidential election year, including fights for access to government documents and an effort to reach unanimity.

Among the issues:

_ Iraq. The commission threatened to splinter over the question of investigating the administration's use of 9/11 as a reason for going to war. The strongest proponent was original member Max Cleland, a Democratic former senator who later stepped down for separate reasons.

If Cleland had not resigned, the commission probably would not have reached unanimity, according to the book. Ultimately, commissioners decided to touch briefly on the Iraq war by concluding there was no "collaborative relationship" between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida; the administration had asserted there were substantial contacts between the two.

_ Israel. The commission disagreed as to how to characterize al-Qaida's motives for attacking the U.S., with Hamilton arguing that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the presence of U.S. forces in the Middle East were major contributors.

Unidentified members believed that "listing U.S. support for Israel as a root cause of al-Qaida's opposition to the United States indicated that the United States should reassess that policy," which those commission members did not want.

Ultimately, the panel made a brief statement noting that U.S. policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Iraq are "dominant staples of popular commentary across the Arab and Muslim world."

_ Access to detainees. The panel pushed for direct access to detainees, at one point proposing to be at least physically present or to listen by telephone during interrogations so they could gauge credibility and get unvarnished accounts.

The administration resisted, citing concerns about national security. Officials also said they feared setting a precedent of access by a nongovernment entity that could undermine the administration's position that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to detainees classified as "enemy combatants."

The commission agreed to submit questions and receive written responses. Later, allegations emerged of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay that probably played a factor in the government's resistance, the book states.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c.../w124141D43.DTL