or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › Learn the Truth about 9/11!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Learn the Truth about 9/11! - Page 3

post #81 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

The official storyline is somewhere near this:

That 19 Islamic fundamentalists took over 4 commercial airplanes and flew them into targets in DC and NYC (and a field in PA), because they "hate our freedoms"; and the Administration at the time knew nothing beforehand (ie the attacks were a complete surprise) and the anticipation/prevention of such attacks was the result of "a lack of imagination".

Before I reply to the points you made, do you agree with this position? Or a modified version of such? Knowing where you stand on this might save me a lot of typing. (This is for both Frank and SDW).

This is getting ridiculous. You've included some subjective elements to the story, such as the government "knew nothing" and getting into the reasons the attack happened. Both of those points can be at least debated, and I suspect this is why you're trying to make the discussion about them.

But no, we're talking about what actually happened. 19 Islamic Fundamentalists hijacked four commercial airplanes. One crashed in a field in PA, (possibly due to passengers fighting back). Two others hit the trade towers, which then collapsed after the explosions and ensuing fires. Another struck the Pentagon, causing significant damage and loss of life.

That's what happened. Most of the "9/11 Truthers" dispute elements of that, pointing out possibilities like:

1) The government planned the attacks
2) The government knew about them and did nothing.
3) The towers didn't fall from the planes and fires. They were brought down with explosives.
4) A missile hit the Pentagon, not an airliner.
5) There were no muslim hijackers, only government agents or others. The 19 faces we saw wee fabrications.

So let's talk about those. Because I guarantee you believe at least a few of those points.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #82 of 157
Can we hear again the reasoning behind POTUS remaining in a static and vulnerable position for 8 minutes when his chief of staff has just informed him the US was under attack?

No immediate danger to the POTUS? Bull. There was an unknown attack commencing, requiring full protection just in case. At the very least, he needed to start leading the country in a time of crisis.

From Wiki:
The president stated later that he decided to continue the lesson rather than alarm the students.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septemb...of_the_attacks

As a teacher, I can say that he instilled more alarm in more students (and indeed many people in the country and around the world) by not acting promptly.

Has anyone analyzed his speech at the school that day that seemed rather well-written for something that would have had only five minutes or less to throw together?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #83 of 157
What about the two crashes that left almost no debris?

The PA crash site has less debris than the Challenger crash, yet more than the Pentagon crash. In the latter, though no engines supposedly survived the crash, suggesting a very destructive crash, there was a pristine piece of identifiable plane body lying conveniently off to the side for a reporter to find. oops, what about the hole in the building? Where did those engines go? David Copperfield is under investigation at the moment; was he going to divulge the secret?

Where are the video tapes? Where are the tapes? Again, where are the tapes? Two or three choice frames that show nothing do little to appease a thirst to know what really happened.

There are so many questions and so much doubt because of the behavior of the government. If they were a little more open and forth-coming, things might be different. They haven't been, and so people naturally doubt.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #84 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

The official storyline is somewhere near this:

That 19 Islamic fundamentalists took over 4 commercial airplanes and flew them into targets in DC and NYC (and a field in PA), because they "hate our freedoms"; and the Administration at the time knew nothing beforehand (ie the attacks were a complete surprise) and the anticipation/prevention of such attacks was the result of "a lack of imagination".

Before I reply to the points you made, do you agree with this position? Or a modified version of such? Knowing where you stand on this might save me a lot of typing. (This is for both Frank and SDW).

No, because you've "colored" your verbiage and overstated the government's lack of knowledge in regard to knowledge obtained by lower level subordinates prior to 9-11. It should read something like this;

That 19 hijackers of apparent Middle East descent took over 4 commercial airplanes and flew them into targets in DC and NYC (and failed to hit their intended target on one of these flights due to a group of passengers who thwarted the hijackers intended efforts), who were suicidal and wanted to inflict maximum damage on highly visible targets in America; and that the Bush Administration, at the time of the attacks, had no definitive information at the highest government levels as to the the specific nature with respect to the actual targets, the date of the actual hijackings, and the specific airline flights involved, and the prevention of such attacks was not possible due to lack of certifiable actionable intelligence at the highest levels of the Bush administration.

This timeline seems to be fairly fact based;

An overview of how Al Qaeda's rise and international reach gradually came into focus for U.S. intelligence.

A couple of other relevant links;

Kevin R. Ryan Terminated at Underwriters Laboratories

Quote:
.
.
.
"UL does not certify structural steel, such as the beams, columns and trusses used in World Trade Center," said Paul M. Baker, the company's spokesman.
.
.
.
The company said Ryan "was not involved in that work and was not associated in any way with UL's Fire Protection Division, which conducted testing at NIST's request."

The company said it "fully supports NIST's ongoing efforts to investigate the WTC tragedy. We regret any confusion that Mr. Ryan's letter has caused 9/11 survivors, victims' families and their friends."

"We prefer to base our conclusions, and NIST would say the same, on science rather than speculation," Baker said. "We anxiously await the outcome of the NIST investigation."
.
.
.

Kevin Ryan's Open Letter to Purdue President France Córdova on 9/11 Research (dated 6 July 2007)

I can't quote it since the whole thing is an over-the-top rant/screed/manifesto. Not professional discourse by any means. \
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #85 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

What about the two crashes that left almost no debris?

The PA crash site has less debris than the Challenger crash, yet more than the Pentagon crash. In the latter, though no engines supposedly survived the crash, suggesting a very destructive crash, there was a pristine piece of identifiable plane body lying conveniently off to the side for a reporter to find. oops, what about the hole in the building? Where did those engines go? David Copperfield is under investigation at the moment; was he going to divulge the secret?

Where are the video tapes? Where are the tapes? Again, where are the tapes? Two or three choice frames that show nothing do little to appease a thirst to know what really happened.

There are so many questions and so much doubt because of the behavior of the government. If they were a little more open and forth-coming, things might be different. They haven't been, and so people naturally doubt.

I was setting up a reply to this because there are mounds of evidence and photographs all over the internet for both crashes.

But my browser froze. So fuck it, get on Google and search yourself, it's out there. If you can't find it you are a....sorry I've just have had enough of answering these claims...it's all there, you just have to look.
post #86 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

What about the two crashes that left almost no debris?

The PA crash site has less debris than the Challenger crash, yet more than the Pentagon crash. In the latter, though no engines supposedly survived the crash, suggesting a very destructive crash, there was a pristine piece of identifiable plane body lying conveniently off to the side for a reporter to find. oops, what about the hole in the building? Where did those engines go? David Copperfield is under investigation at the moment; was he going to divulge the secret?

Where are the video tapes? Where are the tapes? Again, where are the tapes? Two or three choice frames that show nothing do little to appease a thirst to know what really happened.

There are so many questions and so much doubt because of the behavior of the government. If they were a little more open and forth-coming, things might be different. They haven't been, and so people naturally doubt.

United_Airlines_Flight_93 Crash

Quote:
The aircraft impacted at approximately 563 mph (906 km/h or 826 fps), at a 40 degree angle.

The PA impact was at a steep, ~40 degrees (or thereabouts), Tan(40) = 0.84 = slope of impact (e. g. TAN(45) = 1, as in 1V:1H slope)! It hit bare ground, and with an LOA = 155.25 ft, took all of 0.19 seconds to penetrate the ground! \ 7000 series aluminum and titanium are just a little wee bit stronger strength wise and modulus wise is many orders of magnitude higher than top soil or silts or clays that exists at the crash site!

As to the Pentagon impact, the security cameras are for security clearance purposes only and the frame rate, as saved, is only 1 FPS! You do have to stop and show some form of government identification, why save several hundred frames of everyone going through the security gates? Oh, and one engine was found and photographed.

I could go on and on about the Pentagon impact (and provide numerous links), since I know the lead investigator, but why bother, no manner of factual evidence is ever going to convince you people otherwise. \

Oh, I also know the current ASCE president.
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #87 of 157
I have looked, but I don't completely buy it. I am not sure that the planes didn't strike as suggested; I do have my doubts, but that's that and I will keep looking. I also have major problems with the emergency response to the crisis as it unfolded. If we accept everything or even most of what is claimed to have happened on that day, then the attackers knew exactly where and how to hit us and get away with it... almost too well.. and the system failed, utterly, something the attackers might have anticipated.

My main question was the one in the previous post, the one that was not answered and is the more important question: what about the sitting Bush?

And that Osama had been fingered before the end of the day? This alone suggests they knew more than they are saying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septemb...of_the_attacks
11:30: Before sleeping, Bush enters into his diary: "The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today...We think it's Osama bin Laden."

Pearl Harbor was used as a catalyst to get the US into WWII, for better or for worse. 9/11 was also used to start a war, for better or for worse.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #88 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

I have looked, but I don't completely buy it. I am not sure that the planes didn't strike as suggested; I do have my doubts, but that's that and I will keep looking. I also have major problems with the emergency response to the crisis as it unfolded. If we accept everything or even most of what is claimed to have happened on that day, then the attackers knew exactly where and how to hit us and get away with it... almost too well.. and the system failed, utterly, something the attackers might have anticipated.

My main question was the one in the previous post, the one that was not answered and is the more important question: what about the sitting Bush?

And that Osama had been fingered before the end of the day? This alone suggests they knew more than they are saying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septemb...of_the_attacks
11:30: Before sleeping, Bush enters into his diary: "The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today...We think it's Osama bin Laden."

Pearl Harbor was used as a catalyst to get the US into WWII, for better or for worse. 9/11 was also used to start a war, for better or for worse.

... from the get go, based on past (pre 9-11) history alone. That would have been my belief anyway, but like I"ve always said, I'd need some corroborative evidence to turn that belief into a high probability fact.

On the other hand, you have Bush and the neocon artists, where beliefs are "factually" based (e. g. where Iraq had WMD's becomes Iraq has (and is building or acquiring new) WMD's (including nuclear) and was directly involved in the 9-11 attacks (although I never bought that last one). \

Unfortunately, most of Americans (including myself) took the neocon bait hook, line, and sinker (RE: Iraq, although I always thought the initial force size was too small to secure Iraq after occupation, the neocon artists screwed that one up big time). \

BTW, prior to 9-11 I always carried a small (3 inch) pocketknife, wherever I went, including flights, I always took in out and placed it in the small security container with my keys, etceteras, and I always got it back. And that always made me wonder, why did they let me keep my pocketknife (nee weapon).
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #89 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

I have looked, but I don't completely buy it. I am not sure that the planes didn't strike as suggested; I do have my doubts, but that's that and I will keep looking. I also have major problems with the emergency response to the crisis as it unfolded. If we accept everything or even most of what is claimed to have happened on that day, then the attackers knew exactly where and how to hit us and get away with it... almost too well.. and the system failed, utterly, something the attackers might have anticipated.

My main question was the one in the previous post, the one that was not answered and is the more important question: what about the sitting Bush?

And that Osama had been fingered before the end of the day? This alone suggests they knew more than they are saying.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septemb...of_the_attacks
11:30: Before sleeping, Bush enters into his diary: "The Pearl Harbor of the 21st century took place today...We think it's Osama bin Laden."

Pearl Harbor was used as a catalyst to get the US into WWII, for better or for worse. 9/11 was also used to start a war, for better or for worse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Can we hear again the reasoning behind POTUS remaining in a static and vulnerable position for 8 minutes when his chief of staff has just informed him the US was under attack?

No immediate danger to the POTUS? Bull. There was an unknown attack commencing, requiring full protection just in case. At the very least, he needed to start leading the country in a time of crisis.

From Wiki:
The president stated later that he decided to continue the lesson rather than alarm the students.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septemb...of_the_attacks

As a teacher, I can say that he instilled more alarm in more students (and indeed many people in the country and around the world) by not acting promptly.

Has anyone analyzed his speech at the school that day that seemed rather well-written for something that would have had only five minutes or less to throw together?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

What about the two crashes that left almost no debris?

The PA crash site has less debris than the Challenger crash, yet more than the Pentagon crash. In the latter, though no engines supposedly survived the crash, suggesting a very destructive crash, there was a pristine piece of identifiable plane body lying conveniently off to the side for a reporter to find. oops, what about the hole in the building? Where did those engines go? David Copperfield is under investigation at the moment; was he going to divulge the secret?

Where are the video tapes? Where are the tapes? Again, where are the tapes? Two or three choice frames that show nothing do little to appease a thirst to know what really happened.

There are so many questions and so much doubt because of the behavior of the government. If they were a little more open and forth-coming, things might be different. They haven't been, and so people naturally doubt.

You've pointed some interesting questions, some curiosities, and some things that don't pique my interest at all. But you've presented absolutely zero evidence, only speculation....which is of course my point.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #90 of 157
Trying to avoid answering again, SDW? You are getting pretty good at it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_timeline

Evidence:
8:55 Bush told a plane hit a tower (though he was told it was a small plane)
9:03 Bush enters classroom
9:05 Card tells Bush, "America is under attack"
9:15 Bush leaves the classroom
9:29 Bush gives speech from the school, even taking a moment of silence
9:35 Bush leaves the school
9:55 Air Force One leaves the ground

That is an entire hour that POTUS is on the ground at a publicly known location that is completely unprotected. Fifty minutes after learning the country is under attack. Nobody knows the scope of the attack, so the worst must be assumed. Air Force One is also on the ground at the airport the entire time. Both are essentially sitting ducks.

Once airborne, AFO then dances around to be as stealthy as possible, the prez disappears. So, once in the air, they take evasive action, thinking the threat is real enough. However, it was not real enough while Bush was at school. He thought he would not alarm the students.

Why did the Secret Service (the SS) not whisk him away? It did not seem to be on their minds, either.

Why did Bush stay at the school?
Why was he allowed to stay unprotected?

Why?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #91 of 157
post #92 of 157
Flight 77:











Hi-res photos of charred victims recovered or still strapped in their seats.

See? Not hard to find.
post #93 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

On the other hand, you have Bush and the neocon artists, where beliefs are "factually" based (e. g. where Iraq had WMD's becomes Iraq has (and is building or acquiring new) WMD's (including nuclear) and was directly involved in the 9-11 attacks (although I never bought that last one). \

Unfortunately, most of Americans (including myself) took the neocon bait hook, line, and sinker (RE: Iraq, although I always thought the initial force size was too small to secure Iraq after occupation, the neocon artists screwed that one up big time). \

BTW, prior to 9-11 I always carried a small (3 inch) pocketknife, wherever I went, including flights, I always took in out and placed it in the small security container with my keys, etceteras, and I always got it back. And that always made me wonder, why did they let me keep my pocketknife (nee weapon).


Thankfully, I was not in the states in 2001 an was able to avoid getting drawn into the dribble; I was able to balance my news intake between a variety of international sources that did not all follow the party line. I think it would have been very difficult living in the US through all of this.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #94 of 157
Thanks Artman, I have found lots of stuff. I still don't buy the whole thing (not just the planes and buildings) which I think prevents me from buying many of the individual parts.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #95 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Thanks Artman, I have found lots of stuff. I still don't buy the whole thing (not just the planes and buildings) which I think prevents me from buying many of the individual parts.

Re. The Pentagon:

If you have any doubts as to what impacted that morning, this analysis looks sound.

"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #96 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Trying to avoid answering again, SDW? You are getting pretty good at it.

,

Evidence:
8:55 Bush told a plane hit a tower (though he was told it was a small plane)
9:03 Bush enters classroom
9:05 Card tells Bush, "America is under attack"
9:15 Bush leaves the classroom
9:29 Bush gives speech from the school, even taking a moment of silence
9:35 Bush leaves the school
9:55 Air Force One leaves the ground

That is an entire hour that POTUS is on the ground at a publicly known location that is completely unprotected. Fifty minutes after learning the country is under attack. Nobody knows the scope of the attack, so the worst must be assumed. Air Force One is also on the ground at the airport the entire time. Both are essentially sitting ducks.

Once airborne, AFO then dances around to be as stealthy as possible, the prez disappears. So, once in the air, they take evasive action, thinking the threat is real enough. However, it was not real enough while Bush was at school. He thought he would not alarm the students.

Why did the Secret Service (the SS) not whisk him away? It did not seem to be on their minds, either.

Why did Bush stay at the school?
Why was he allowed to stay unprotected?

Why?

Do you work for the SS? Do you know all the security measures used to protect the POTUS during public events? 747 in stealth mode? The military has a bunch of planes, and radar systems, but why assume they had eyes in the sky.

The last known hijacked plane;

Quote:
10:03:11: United Airlines Flight 93 is crashed by its hijackers 80 miles (129 k) southeast of Pittsburgh in Somerset County, Pennsylvania.[6] Later reports indicate that passengers had learned about the World Trade Center and Pentagon crashes on cell phones and at least three were planning on resisting the hijackers; the resistance was confirmed by Flight 93's cockpit voice recording, on which the hijackers are heard making their decision to down the plane before the passengers succeed in breaching the cockpit door. The 9/11 Commission believed that Flight 93's target was either the United States Capitol building or the White House in Washington, D.C.

So given that GWB was at least 2 hours flying time from any known hijacked plane, given that he was in Sarasota, Florida, and given that none of us have a clue as to SS security measures, and/or additional military support, ... I guess we'll just assume he had prior knowledge of the specifics of the attacks that day. \
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #97 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Trying to avoid answering again, SDW? You are getting pretty good at it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_timeline

Evidence:
8:55 Bush told a plane hit a tower (though he was told it was a small plane)
9:03 Bush enters classroom
9:05 Card tells Bush, "America is under attack"
9:15 Bush leaves the classroom
9:29 Bush gives speech from the school, even taking a moment of silence
9:35 Bush leaves the school
9:55 Air Force One leaves the ground

That is an entire hour that POTUS is on the ground at a publicly known location that is completely unprotected. Fifty minutes after learning the country is under attack. Nobody knows the scope of the attack, so the worst must be assumed. Air Force One is also on the ground at the airport the entire time. Both are essentially sitting ducks.

Once airborne, AFO then dances around to be as stealthy as possible, the prez disappears. So, once in the air, they take evasive action, thinking the threat is real enough. However, it was not real enough while Bush was at school. He thought he would not alarm the students.

Why did the Secret Service (the SS) not whisk him away? It did not seem to be on their minds, either.

Why did Bush stay at the school?
Why was he allowed to stay unprotected?

Why?

These are questions. Say it with me...QUESTIONS.

They do not constitute "evidence" of anything. All you did was repost the same thing you did before in timeline format. I AGREE that Bush remaining was odd. But it proves absolutely nothing.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #98 of 157
Quote:
Evidence:
8:55 Bush told a plane hit a tower (though he was told it was a small plane)
9:03 Bush enters classroom
9:05 Card tells Bush, "America is under attack"

It IS these ten minutes I don't get...


9:15 Bush leaves the classroom
9:29 Bush gives speech from the school, even taking a moment of silence
9:35 Bush leaves the school
9:55 Air Force One leaves the ground



You really wonder what was going on in that mind of his then...\

Again, it comes to this. First time in American history that terrorists; hijacked 4 planes, overtook the controls, flew them into prime targets within a span of two hours.

Cheney knew what to do (had for thirty years). Rumsfeld knew what to do. Bush could very well have been out of the loop. Or realized just how much of a puppet he really was next to Cheney and Rumsfeld.
post #99 of 157
That little sign behind him says it all. He knows that reading makes a country great.

He is the decider, and he decided that reading was very important.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #100 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

That little sign behind him says it all. He knows that reading makes a country great.

He is the decider, and he decided that reading was very important.



post #101 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

Do you work for the SS? Do you know all the security measures used to protect the POTUS during public events? 747 in stealth mode? The military has a bunch of planes, and radar systems, but why assume they had eyes in the sky.

The last known hijacked plane;

So given that GWB was at least 2 hours flying time from any known hijacked plane, given that he was in Sarasota, Florida, and given that none of us have a clue as to SS security measures, and/or additional military support, ... I guess we'll just assume he had prior knowledge of the specifics of the attacks that day. \

Bush's whereabouts on the morning of September 11 was public domain: anyone visiting the White House website 48 hours in advance of the attacks would have known the president's location accurately "to the square yard"... or certainly accurately enough to have taken him out, as well as his entire entourage, and the lives of 200 kids and teachers. The Secret Service knew that a terrorist attack was ongoing, and decided that the president could not have been a target? How and why? The presidential SS detail's mission is to "protect the life of the president at all times, and with their own if necessary".

The day's events were drastic enough that the SS would have most likely assumed that there could be "other elements", in addition to hijacked airplanes, involved in the series of attacks, which were still ongoing during the time Bush was at the school. There were reports that a car bomb had exploded out side the State Department, and also that a van containing "tonnes of explosives" had been stopped by police in a NYC tunnel. and men "dressed in traditional Arab clothing" were detained. There was even an incident the previous night outside the compound where Bush was staying (the night of 9/10), which could have been a possible assassination attempt. (Please excuse the source website, but this did happen). The Secret Sevice allegedly foiled an assassination attempt only hours beforehand: they would been in a heightened state of alert even before the attacks started, and hence even more motivation to get Bush out of the danger zone ASAP, like instantly, rather than hang out for another 50 minutes!

The reasonable assumption that additional terrorists who might have targeted the president (there are numerous of ways to have done that which do not involve hijacked airplanes), and could have been in the area, should have sent the SS into action instantly to protect Bush and get him out of the possible danger zone ASAP. A junior presidential SS agent, on hearing that a 2nd plane had hit the WTC echoed that same sentiment, and decided: "we're out of here".. but this course of action was overidden by his superiors. When Air Force One eventually took off, it was without a military escort to start. (AF1 does not usually have a fighter escort, but in a dire emergency situation like what happened on 9/11, one might have expected that additional protection would have been appropriate)....

Contrast the president's "protection" with that of VP Cheney, who, as soon as it was apparent that an attack was ongoing, was literally "picked up and carried" by agents, who whisked him to a "secure, undisclosed location" where he remained for days afterwards.....
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #102 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

There was even an incident the previous night outside the compound where Bush was staying (the night of 9/10), which could have been a possible assassination attempt. (Please excuse the source website, but this did happen). The Secret Service allegedly foiled an assassination attempt only hours beforehand: they would been in a heightened state of alert even before the attacks started, and hence even more motivation to get Bush out of the danger zone ASAP, like instantly, rather than hang out for another 50 minutes!

You don't have to worry about your source there (though it would be nice that news outlets did archive these on the interwebs), I distinctly remember hearing about the "surface to air missiles on the roof" mentioned before 9-11 on the evening news. It was (as I mentioned before) when I was out of work and was surfing the web and watching TV aimlessly (what a depressing time that was).

I recall also the Republican Convention of 2000 here in Philadelphia. Overnight, the city became a police state. There were police, SWAT, FBI, SS, plainclothes sunglass wearing sentinels, helicopters, trucks, vans and black shiny SUVs and sedans everywhere. This isn't paranoia, they woke me up that morning with squawking walkie talkies, helicopters and all. There were over 50 police cars and other vehicles lined up down Pine Street. Ten blocks away from the convention center(?).

And that brings me to another observation. After the first WTC bombing occurred (yes, on Clinton's watch), that was when I noticed the ratcheting of overwhelming police protection and other high security operations going out of control. It reached it's peak and hit home for me that morning on 2000.
post #103 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

You don't have to worry about your source there (though it would be nice that news outlets did archive these on the interwebs)

There is plenty of material on the possible attempt on the president's life on other websites. I only quoted the History Channel link for the benefit of those here who refuse to acknowledge material as being "reliable" unless presented by a corporate/mainstream source. In this case the source is jointly owned by Hearst, Disney and General Electric and as such, it would be unrealistic (in the utmost) to consider being an impartial and unbiased source in these circumstances. But as this material is repeated elsewhere with fair consistency, I opted for the link to the History Channel.... for obvious reasons.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #104 of 157
Teh Steve owns part of Disney...

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #105 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

There is plenty of material on the possible attempt on the president's life on other websites. I only quoted the History Channel link for the benefit of those here who refuse to acknowledge material as being "reliable" unless presented by a corporate/mainstream source. In this case the source is jointly owned by Hearst, Disney and General Electric and as such, it would be unrealistic (in the utmost) to consider being an impartial and unbiased source in these circumstances. But as this material is repeated elsewhere with fair consistency, I opted for the link to the History Channel.... for obvious reasons.

Could you supply me with some credible links to this Hearst/Popular Mechanics "cabal" or whatever it is? I'm well aware of the Hearst stranglehold on the press in the 20's and 30's, but I haven't seen anything as far as it's control or sway with Popular Mechanics on any issue (including their 9-11 reports).
post #106 of 157
Let's be thankful that PBS (with Frontline and Nova) and HBO for their broadcast of the French documentary "9|11", which I think is the only true story of 9|11 only because they were there from the very beginning. Uniquely their story as much as the New Yorkers and America's.
post #107 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

Bush's whereabouts on the morning of September 11 was public domain: anyone visiting the White House website 48 hours in advance of the attacks would have known the president's location accurately "to the square yard"... or certainly accurately enough to have taken him out, as well as his entire entourage, and the lives of 200 kids and teachers. The Secret Service knew that a terrorist attack was ongoing, and decided that the president could not have been a target? How and why? The presidential SS detail's mission is to "protect the life of the president at all times, and with their own if necessary".

The day's events were drastic enough that the SS would have most likely assumed that there could be "other elements", in addition to hijacked airplanes, involved in the series of attacks, which were still ongoing during the time Bush was at the school. There were reports that a car bomb had exploded out side the State Department, and also that a van containing "tonnes of explosives" had been stopped by police in a NYC tunnel. and men "dressed in traditional Arab clothing" were detained. There was even an incident the previous night outside the compound where Bush was staying (the night of 9/10), which could have been a possible assassination attempt. (Please excuse the source website, but this did happen). The Secret Sevice allegedly foiled an assassination attempt only hours beforehand: they would been in a heightened state of alert even before the attacks started, and hence even more motivation to get Bush out of the danger zone ASAP, like instantly, rather than hang out for another 50 minutes!

The reasonable assumption that additional terrorists who might have targeted the president (there are numerous of ways to have done that which do not involve hijacked airplanes), and could have been in the area, should have sent the SS into action instantly to protect Bush and get him out of the possible danger zone ASAP. A junior presidential SS agent, on hearing that a 2nd plane had hit the WTC echoed that same sentiment, and decided: "we're out of here".. but this course of action was overidden by his superiors. When Air Force One eventually took off, it was without a military escort to start. (AF1 does not usually have a fighter escort, but in a dire emergency situation like what happened on 9/11, one might have expected that additional protection would have been appropriate)....

Contrast the president's "protection" with that of VP Cheney, who, as soon as it was apparent that an attack was ongoing, was literally "picked up and carried" by agents, who whisked him to a "secure, undisclosed location" where he remained for days afterwards.....

... let's just go ahead and make up stuff!

Are you sure Bush was in that classroom? I mean I wasn't there, were you?

And since Bush's whereabouts were precisely known, everyone knew where he was, it must be super easy to just walk right in wearing an IED, nah that won't work, you'd have to get one of the kid's to wear it!

How about we fly something in there, nah that won't work, for obvious reasons anywhere Bush would be would have to be a no fly zone like the White House, you think?

And were you in a plane chasing AF1 to confirm that it never had a fighter escort? Or that you have better surveillance and counter measurements than the U. S. Federal Government?
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #108 of 157
We could go and interview all the kids and the teacher and the media people and the parents and the staff who were there on that day... but that really won't be necessary because they would all probably be lying anyway. Was anybody else watching the news? It was late night for me but I was watching all night and I recall videos from the school, which were live.

Maybe they were a fake feed from some safe location, but that would only fuel the conspiracy possibilities even more.

The guy was at the school. There are plenty of videos and photos showing this. One even appears here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma_E....mentary_School

This article claims AFO had no fighter escort.

You can also read up on the visit to the school by the president at the school's homepage:
http://www.sarasota.k12.fl.us/Emma/9....01.index.html

Photos here:
http://www.sarasota.k12.fl.us/Emma/9...ogallery6.html

and trhe bad news is announced:
http://www.sarasota.k12.fl.us/Emma/9...ogallery7.html

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #109 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post


And were you in a plane chasing AF1 to confirm that it never had a fighter escort? Or that you have better surveillance and counter measurements than the U. S. Federal Government?

If the feds had such great stuff, 9/11 might not have happened. Nor would a lot of other bad things.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #110 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

If the feds had such great stuff, 9/11 might not have happened. Nor would a lot of other bad things.

I'm talking about security measures used for the POTUS, not J6P! \
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #111 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by franksargent View Post

... let's just go ahead and make up stuff!

Are you sure Bush was in that classroom? I mean I wasn't there, were you?

And since Bush's whereabouts were precisely known, everyone knew where he was, it must be super easy to just walk right in wearing an IED, nah that won't work, you'd have to get one of the kid's to wear it!

How about we fly something in there, nah that won't work, for obvious reasons anywhere Bush would be would have to be a no fly zone like the White House, you think?

And were you in a plane chasing AF1 to confirm that it never had a fighter escort? Or that you have better surveillance and counter measurements than the U. S. Federal Government?

Oh c'mon! You know as well as I do what security is like around Bush these days. Any official function he attends attracts protesters 100s or even 1000s, but Secret Service makes damn sure they dont get anywhere near him, sometimes by as much as 4 miles, about the same distance NASA keeps spectators at bay during a Space Shuttle launch (!). It's getting to the point where 'we the people' are regarded as the enemy. Perhaps they should organize a moving hologram of the president to make speeches...? (j/k).
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #112 of 157
Amazing silence on the movements of POTUS that morning.

That he was at the school is very well documented by, well, live TV feeds seen around the world.
Nobody is making this up.

The country is under attack.

That he was there is well documented.
That he just sat there is well documented.
That the SS let him sit there is well documented by their inaction.


Why?

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #113 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Amazing silence on the movements of POTUS that morning.

That he was at the school is very well documented by, well, live TV feeds seen around the world.
Nobody is making this up.

The country is under attack.

That he was there is well documented.
That he just sat there is well documented.
That the SS let him sit there is well documented by their inaction.


Why?

post #114 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

Amazing silence on the movements of POTUS that morning.

That he was at the school is very well documented by, well, live TV feeds seen around the world.
Nobody is making this up.

The country is under attack.

That he was there is well documented.
That he just sat there is well documented.
That the SS let him sit there is well documented by their inaction.


Why?

Why not? What could he do at that point anyway. Make a public announcement, "Run for your lives!" \
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #115 of 157
The world should worry.

Thanks for the answers.

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply

 

Your = the possessive of you, as in, "Your name is Tom, right?" or "What is your name?"

 

You're = a contraction of YOU + ARE as in, "You are right" --> "You're right."

 

 

Reply
post #116 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister View Post

The world should worry.

Thanks for the answers.

[CENTER][/CENTER]
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #117 of 157
Death to all 911 zombies!
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
Every eye fixed itself upon him; with parted lips and bated breath the audience hung upon his words, taking no note of time, rapt in the ghastly fascinations of the tale. NOT!
Reply
post #118 of 157
Yeah, this is over. Seems the original poster never returned and now we have another truther troll here. Let. It. Go.
post #119 of 157
OK.. before this thread is locked.. some material about Dick Cheney and his role on 9/11:

Why did Cheney, a politician with zero military experience, (who also dodged the Vietnam draft on a multiplicity of occasions) do the following:

Altered the NORAD scramble protocol in the months leading up to 9/11. All scramble orders, rather than being routine protocol that happened automatically by default, had to have specific authorization?

If the normal scramble protocols had still been in place on 9/11, there is no way, (especially considering that the previous system had worked almost flawlessly for many years), with an average of 70 to 100 emergency scrambles per annum, that any of those 4 hijacked flights would have reached their destinations without a very prompt challenge. SOP would have made sure that the Air Force would have intercepted the rogue flights within a few minutes of being commandeered. And considering that the 4 flights took place over the most heavily monitored airspace on earth, and within a few minutes flight time of as many as 20 Air Force bases...

Secondly: Why did the hijackers of AA 77 allow so much time to hit their target (the Pentagon) by heading out as far as the Kentucky border before turning back and arriving back at their point of departure? Knowing the scramble routine, from all their research and mock runs, the hijackers would have made sure that they got control of the plane ASAP, and headed straight to their proposed target ASAP to avoid certain interception.... whuch under normal circumstances would have happened within a few minutes, considering all the alert AFBs in the region. But no... they took their sweet time and dawdled .. being in control of a hijacked plane for some 50 minutes.... c'mon folks.. common sense dictates that something is clearly messed up here.

As a result of Cheney's decision, 3 of the 4 flights succeeded in their mission. If this represents a case of off-the-scale ineptitude and incompetence on the part of the Vice President (at the very least), why has no action been taken against him? Nobody has even been permitted to ask him about this.

Then, consider the fact that Cheney lied to the 9/11 Commission regarding his whereabouts on the morning of 9/11. His testimony (he refused to testify under oath btw) conflicts with that of many others, including former transportation Secretary Mineta, who placed Cheney in the PEOC some 35 minutes before Cheney himself claimed he was there.

And what were those orders that Cheney was referring to when challenged by a young staffer who kept reminding Cheney... "the plane is 50 miles out... the plane is 30 miles out.. the plane is 10 miles out... do the orders still stand", Cheney barked "of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary?"

What else could that order have been, other than "that plane is not to be intercepted". Also, by refusing to warn those in the Pentagon that a rogue plane was headed their way and likely to attack, Cheney has some culpabililty (perhaps as an accessory before the fact) to the murder of 189 people in that building.

There is so much more to Cheney's possible role in allowing the 9/11 attacks to happen, at the very least. But this thread might get locked soon... (such is the degree of mass denial and psychological dysfunction afflicting so many people re. this subject). And it is appropriate that Cheney be subject to some harsh questioning, under oath, with nothing barred, when and if the American people and the world is permitted to have some closure on this, courtesy of a real 9/11 investigation, as opposed to that ugly hairball that got sicked upon us all.

If Cheney is innocent, then I have confidence that a non biased investigation will find him such. But here is the 2.3 trillion dollar question? Would he (and his cronies) ever submit to such examination?

Forget about the Twin Towers and "controlled demolitions". Forget about "devices under planes". Forget about the "hole in the Pentagon being too small". These are distractions, and although anomalous, they cannot be used to prove that 9/11 was an inside job, especially considering that the salient evidence was removed from the crime scenes and disposed of ASAP.

If it was all about "incompetence", I leave you all with this question:
WHY HAS NOBODY BEEN FIRED?

And if there is any evidence that our officials had any part in allowing the attacks to happen for political gain, then they should be brought to trial as accessories before and after the fact to the mass murder of 3000 people (and other crimes).

If they let it happen, then they made it happen.
Same end, just a different course... but both equally guilty.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #120 of 157
Sammi Jo. Not that this might mean anything. But Cheney has been in the Washington scene for over thirty years and was Secretary of Defense under George H. W. Bush from March 1989 to January 1993. He does know what he's doing. Believe me.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AppleOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › Learn the Truth about 9/11!