The 9/11 Faith Movement

Here is the end of the bullshit about the plane having been able to produce such a signal crashing into the WTC’s, where most of their energy was of course lost in work and thus unable to travel through the structure to create a 0.9 seismic spike.
. 
Flight 93, supposedly crashed into the ground intact! 
All of it’s energy was thus propagated directly into the ground, and it barely registered as a seismic event at all.  Barely discernable from the background noise.

Another problem you have which can be seen on that same link, is that NO seismic spike was detected for the Pentagon strike at all.  It being lower, more solid and sustaining less damage should have generated the best signal without doubt.  Yet, not a peep out of the Pentagon when it is supposely hit by a similar plane to the two WTC’s.  Now why might that be?  Certainly if the Pentagon plane was seismically silent, then the two WTCs would also have been.  The signal recorded during the planes’ impact in the two WTCs cases, is quite clearly entirely due to explosives.  They of all four plane crashes should have been the weakest signals, they were not what made 0.9 and 0.7 scale seismic spikes.

Posted by Rabbit on Aug 16, 2006 at 12:48 AM

“You ask for courtesy when you are the most despicably decietful and discourteous person?  Go to hell.  I said I gave it, I did, anybody else can find it, you will ignore it again completely if I bother, so up yours Natalie.”

Translation:  I never really linked to any discussion (by anybody who knows what they’re talking about) that expresses puzzlement about the impact spikes.

Rabbit, forgive me if I trust the good folks with degrees in geology and stuff at Lamont over you when it comes to analyzing what should and what should not be transmitted from what energy and impact sources.  Even in the document by them that you just linked to, they express no amazement about the impact spikes from the WTC crashes. 

Actually, all the columns of the WTC are based in bedrock, so even the initial collision would have been transmitted, along with the remaining mass that hit the core columns.

There is a very good reason why the Pentagon impact wasn’t detected on seismotion-meters.  You’ll find a clue here.

Flight 93 didn’t hit bedrock directly, but crashing nearly straight down enabled enough energy to be transmitted down to it.  The relative sponginess of the top layers came close to masking it entirely.

It all makes perfect sense to me.  What am I missing?

Posted by Natalie on Aug 16, 2006 at 4:34 AM

WTH, the war against terror, otherwise known as TWAT, is a load of “codswallop”.

I’ve assured you many times that this was the case, but somehow you continue to believe that it is real.

One thing I know for sure is that I cannot prove you wrong.

In this sort of discussion, each one has to make his own puzzled and puzzling, way, and that depends on how open-minded we are.

Maybe Natty is just a shill and Scorp a clever but over-ideological GOP troll, (who cares ! ),  they do their job without addressing the fundamental questions of the effects of “globalisation” on American society.  You have pêrsonal experience of that, and scorpynat have nothing to say, because they are bush-lovers !.

For me BushCo are a bunch of criminals, going back to Iran/ Contra and the S&l’s scandals. And more.

You have google, check them out. Some disinfo there, but much else, too.

Posted by frog on Aug 16, 2006 at 1:03 PM

The geologists at Lamont-Doherty admit that they cannot explain the seismic data.  they labelled it according to what is supposedly a fact, but as pointed out above a seismic reading doesn’t tell what made the spike, and if the geologists only consider the collapses, then as they say, they cannot explain it, the say that it’s a subject of ongoing study, ring any bells?  No?  Well denying information which has been provided won’t win you any converts Bat, just diminish your own standing.  You are already microscopic.

You also lost totally on the Molten and vapourised steel, no explanation could be provided by you, and you failed patently to debunk it as fact.  This means your fairy tale is dead. 

The other side to the persecution of Truth seeking journalists.  Stormtroopers at work.  This is the USA that Natalie and Scorpy are bringing to you. This is now a common fate of journalists in America did you know WTH?  Many people are beginning to flee the US and some are seeking asylum now in foreign lands.

The 9/11 shills don’t like Bollyn as we know.  He is not the only truth seeker who has had to seek asylum or flee, just the latest.  The liars are getting desperate as the realisation of 9/11 truth appears to be reaching critical mass among the population. Lou Dobbs and CNN are now waking up, the high profile people speaking out and admitting they have finally looked at what the truth movement is saying and realised it isn’t disputable that we were lied too.

I always predicted that you fools would still be on the wrong side when the curtain fell, and as that day approaches this seems more and more likely.  Keep up the lies Natalie.  Do you think nobody else knows how to go back to when I first mentioned the Seismic case to you to see I did provide what you are denying I did?  By not repeating it again, I have left you to lie about it, which is better than if i had posted it again only so you could ignore it again. Sucked In Batgirl, Rabbit did provide refs and quotes, so sucked in! 

The final straw for many appears to have been the shocking brutality that the USA just pushed Israel into and suipported all the way. At this point the penny has finally dropped, Americans are waking up in droves, and realising they have a amjor problem.  Retrospectively they are now realising that we who have been fighting the good fight now for years have been right, and they are finally looking at the evidence which they once took the liars word for was not worth looking at.  The response is fantastic.  Rabbit is currently involved in another 9/11 discussion and the doubters are droppng like flys.  Some who try the old defence of the lies are collapsing in a heap and actually backing down at last, reading things which are given at last and pulling out of the debate shortly after with much backpedalling.  We know what that means!  As I hop around the net, I can see the 9/11 issue has grown wings and apart from the few tightly knit RW circle jerks, the discussions are totally dominated by believers in truth, while the faith brigade are left with their usal spurious denial and rhetorical slogans seeming more tattered and weary than ever before.

I would go out of my way at this point to NOT play your games Batgirl.  Unlike you, I don’t have to try and build some credibility. Rabbit never lost any.  Unlike you, Rabbit’s is on the winning side.  Hell you idiots are even referring to us as the truth movement!  What does that make you?

Rabbit claims victory over your scrawny Batself.  Everyone believes the rabbit, nobody believes the Bat.  Rabbit wants people to read everything, Bat wants people to only read what she says.  Rabbit never lied once, and admits an occassional mistake.  Bat has been proven lying repeatedly and never once admitted error.

Bye Bye Bad Bat.

Posted by Rabbit on Aug 16, 2006 at 6:08 PM

By the way Manning does believe the buildings were brought down with explosives, a read of his blog makes it clear, but he cannot be blamed for wanting to keep his head down, if you look at what had happened to Bollyn, like others before him, people are genuinely afraid of the US security apparatus.

Are we proud to be supporting a police state sinking into totalitarianism?  I’ll bet you are little Batgirl, I’ll bet you are hoping for some leather boots and a whip to go with your evil atittudes. 

I just hope you’ll be happy when that son gets drafted, and sent off with a backpack full of depleted uranium to kill women and children and secure the oil for the elitists.

Posted by Rabbit on Aug 16, 2006 at 6:26 PM

An interesting look at some of the lesser noted facts.  This author has made a compelling case for demolition as always and he completely debunks the Floor Truss theory which is based on provably false plans of the building. But he argues as suggested by Major earlier, that the buildings were built with explosive demolition charges in place.  The use of added charges and Thermate is still part of the picture, but C4 which appears to have been added at construction stage has a compelling argument in favour. 

He gives an interesting argument for the planes not being remote controlled, and for the buildings to have been timed rather than remote controlled.  I have wondered about the first building hit falling second and the second building falling first.  Even then it had not occurred to me that the first building hit was by far the worst damaged either.  Therefore it should have fallen first on all counts.

The answer he suggests is that the first plane hit the wrong tower, but this tower was already timed to go off first.  Remote piloting would have avoided this surely, and remote control of the detonations would have allowed the correction in order. It doesn’t make sense that they would have allowed the first to fall second and the second to fall first otherwise.

The fact that both towers fell almost identically and the tops fell in the wrong directions relating to the faces they were struck on are major factors that indicate the controlling aspects of the towers fall was completely separate from plane collisions and fires and that they were a demolition, controlled by timers.

Viewed from the east,  the top of the north tower falls to the south when the tower was hit hard on the north side. Damage there logically causes a failure there having the tower fall to the north.

In addition to the above, it is completely illogical that this building, hit first, hit hardest, burnt worst, would fall last, without demolition’s being involved.

Posted by Rabbit on Aug 16, 2006 at 8:48 PM

I think this should set the record straight about the falsehood propagated by those who think the charge of anti-semitism should silence all criticism of Israel.

Don’t look at the comments which will follow such a report on such a site as this, if you have just had your breakfast.

Posted by Rabbit on Aug 16, 2006 at 9:05 PM

Because, Natalie, I’m an American citizen. What are you? You may believe that Bush is some sort of God-like power that can’t be questioned by a mere voting citizen, but what do you call that? If not willful ignorance, or a lame attempt at suppressing a reasonable question, then what is it that makes an American suggest that other Americans have no right to expect accountability from their leaders or to ask for it? What are you?

Why don’t you just admit that you want a dictator or a totalitarian idealogue? Why make up a lot of paper-thin and transparent excuses for why Bush should be unlike any other president (I guess you didn’t notice Clinton getting impeached) and not be required to explain anything to anyone he doesn’t wish to explain anything to—-probably because he’s not in charge and doesn’t know the explanation.

But Natalie, Natalie, Natalie. Blaming Clinton? That’s pathetic. If you want to go back into history looking for blame, why not blame the FAA problems on Reagan?

I seriously doubt that the Pentagon was in rags over Clinton as well. Get real. Who wants the stream-lined war machine? Rumsfeld! Rumsfeld!

And Rumsfeld changed the rules of engagement in the summer before 9/11. Probably while W was on his record breaking vacation, you twit.

If you’re awake it’s disgusting. The best I can do is hope that you know not what you do.

Posted by wileywitch on Aug 16, 2006 at 10:36 PM

make that pompous twit

Posted by wileywitch on Aug 16, 2006 at 10:36 PM

So let’s see…..the fact that some 90% of Israel supported the action against the Hezbos, at least until Israel screwed it up, means….what..?

1) That the poll was rigged

2) Israelis are all liars, and tell pollsters the exact opposite of what they think

3) There is a tiny fringe element within Israel that is an embarrassment to the vast majority of the country, just like the “truth” movement is to the few sane members of the left in America.

3?  ding ding ding…...tell him what he’s won, Johnny!!!

Posted by Natalie on Aug 16, 2006 at 10:40 PM

OMG, wiley.

We’re all just human here.  I’m not the one directing blame everywhere EXCEPT where it belongs—brainwashed Islam.  You insist on blaming one particular administration for a mindset that had been in place for decades.  Suddenly, you expect that our intrepid air control / defense forces should have instantly known precisely what to do when something happens that has NEVER happened before, and when NOBODOY was operating on a POST 9/11 mindset.

Yes, Clinton deserves a substantial portion of the blame, if YOU insist on directing it OUR way.  He was in office during the incubation of the 9/11 plot.  Bush deserves his share too.  So does Reagan, and Carter.  Why in the hell can’t we get past politics and join together in some kind of unity against the TRUE villains in this world?

Why must some among us be so blind to this reality that they deny their very existence?

And, of course, true to conspiracy 101 SOP, whatever miniscule changes were made to the rules of engagement during the months preceeding 9/11 have been greatly overstated.

Posted by Natalie on Aug 16, 2006 at 11:28 PM

Lower your blustery bulloney smoke screen, Rabbit.  You know gooden well that the COLLEGE GRADUATES at Lamont don’t think that the impact spikes were cause by anything other than the jets.

You know gooden well that Manning doesn’t have a blog, and that you’re just blowing smoke from down low.

You know gooden well that your comparing the Pentagon and Penn seismic sigs to the WTC were uninformed.  You simply ignore the geologic differences and blow more smoke.

You know gooden well that Bollyn isn’t qualified to write for anything but the Star or the Globe, and that he’s simply making stuff up, just as he’s been exposed to have done numerous times in the past:

Bollyn:

No evidence has been produced to support the theory that the burning jet fuel and secondary fires “attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns directly caused the collapses,” Manning wrote, adding that the collapses occurred “in an alarmingly short time.”

Manning:

“However, respected members of the fire protection engineering community are beginning to raise red flags, and a resonating theory has emerged: The structural damage from the planes and the explosive ignition of jet fuel in themselves were not enough to bring down the towers. Rather, theory has it, the subsequent contents fires attacking the questionably fireproofed lightweight trusses and load-bearing columns <u>directly caused the collapses</u> in an alarmingly short time. Of course, in light of there being no real evidence thus far produced, this could remain just unexplored theory.”

Bluster and political bias don’t prove anything relating to science.  In fact, they raise suspicion as to the true strength of any scientific argument made by the biased blusterer.

Posted by Natalie on Aug 17, 2006 at 12:26 AM

Once again, Natalie—-you insist on discussing “blame” as if we were in group counseling together and not citizens of a supposedly “elected” government which is required by law to be held accountable to the public. Are you sure you’re not a liberal?

If I and other people don’t know the particulars it is because we haven’t been told the particulars.  And why not? That’s the question, Natalie—-why not? It is our information, not George W. Bush’s private story.

It was the nation that was attacked on 9/11—-not George and Dick.

Anyone with a vague idea about civics would get this. I see no reason to believe that Muslim hijackers are responsible for 9/11. All the fairy tales spun by the media can be stuffed up Rupert Murdoch’s ass.

So go ahead and start with the you don’t believe crap, because that’s absolutely right, sister. I don’t believe or have faith in things that can be proven, but weren’t even properly investigated. The people responsible for defense did not answer to the public. Keep your faith however you please, I, however do not worship or defer to government as if the people in those posts were not required to obey laws and regulations and to explain the work they do or do not do. I don’t see the president as if he were a pharoah or king. If telling the truth about a national, public event honestly on record is something he was not willing to do, then I have no intellectual choice, but to expect that he doesn’t want people to know for reasons other than national security. The “hijackers” know,  and government agencies were claiming to know who the hijackers were, so it’s not like he’d be giving away the plot.

Posted by wileywitch on Aug 17, 2006 at 8:04 AM

“I see no reason to believe that Muslim hijackers are responsible for 9/11.”

This is your basic problem, wiley.  This is at the root of all your confusion and misplaced anger.  You’re operating under a false premise that distorts everything you think related to the event.

No, I’m sorry.  Blaming the victims and making excuses for criminals is a classic characteristic of modern liberalism.

Free Mumia!!

Posted by Natalie on Aug 17, 2006 at 9:11 AM

Oh, now you’re playing the psychiatrist, huh? I don’t have any “problem” or “confusion” or “misplaced anger”, thank you. I’m doing just fine. This “blaming the victims” is your distortion, and “making excuses for the criminals” is your distortion.

There are no formal charges, there has been no thorough forensic investigation, there has been no binding inquiry under oath and transcribed for historical record, and there have been no convictions.

The “Muslim hijackers” are hypothetical and hearsay. The victims are dead. Their families grieve. And you won’t allow them the vindication of people who were responsible for the defense of their loved ones answering to them and the public?  You see no problem with the public not being given all the details of a detailed forensic investigation AS IT UNFOLDED (not after years have elapsed). 

You apparently think the president’s whims and “gut feelings” supercede all legalities, treaties, and human decency, and that any one who questions him has “a problem”. George has lots of problems. You’re one of them. Poor man shouldn’t be in a position of responsibility since he’s unwilling to take responsibility and to be held accountable.

You’re inability to understand or recognize or admit to the difference between “blame” and “responsibility” does not become you Natalie. Have you ever had a grave responsibility—-one in which a mistake or neglect on your part could lead to someone else’s death? Maybe you don’t get it because you have never been responsible? I don’t know. You either don’t get it, or must play the game as if you didn’t or as if “responsibility” and “blame” were one and the same.

Posted by wileywitch on Aug 17, 2006 at 9:28 AM

“I see no reason to believe that Muslim hijackers are responsible for 9/11.”

I sincerly hope you’re not in any kind of position where lives depend on you making correct decisions based on rational analysis.

When you falsely blame somebody for murder based not on evidence, but on unjustified or even justified hatred for that somebody, that is the height of irresponsibility.

“I see no reason to believe that Muslim hijackers are responsible for 9/11.”

Making excuses for criminals is my distortion?  My mistake.  You don’t make excuses for criminals.  You deny their very existence.  I think you need a psychiatrist!

Posted by Natalie on Aug 17, 2006 at 9:41 AM

Christopher Bollyn has been a Guest on David Duke’s Show a Number of Times

Hmm…..two peas in a pod, to put it undeservedly charitably.

Posted by Natalie on Aug 17, 2006 at 1:02 PM

There is video and sound of the first plane impact.  I don’t hear any explosions except that of the plane. 

But then again, I listened to a lot of loud music as a youth.

I’m wondering also about the second spike.  Were there any Rodriguez -like reports of explosions just before the 2nd jet impact into the south tower?  I don’t think so, but I could be wrong.

This, like the first spike, is within seconds of the time reported independently of the actual impact.  Is it really likely that these spikes were caused by anything other than the jet impacts?

I don’t think so.

Posted by Natalie on Aug 17, 2006 at 1:48 PM

“The work was the plastic deformation and sheering of Steel columns and all the sundry itmes like walls, desks, pot plants etc.”

I didn’t know Cheech & Chong had offices in the WTC.  The things you learn on the Internet.

Posted by Natalie on Aug 17, 2006 at 2:25 PM

Natalie, honey, get a dictionary and look up the word “believe”.

And then look up “responsibility”.

I have had positions of responsibility working under NORAD, and as a caregiver. In both cases, protocol, and facts were what mattered. Death was a very real threat that could be brought on by failure on my end. Dealing with reality was what kept people from dying, not “beliefs” or “imaginings”.

CAN the “belief” and “imagining” crap, Natalie. This isn’t Peter Pan. If you can’t see your leaders take the heat, baby, then maybe you got some growing up to do and maybe a psychiatrist can help you.

And when you find the “proof” that there were hijackers and they were Muslim, show it to Rabbit, et. al, so they can shoot it down for the hundredth time and make not a dent in your “beliefs” and what you “imagine” to be true because you “believe” that “no one” could have “imagined” otherwise.

Dolt.

Posted by wileywitch on Aug 17, 2006 at 4:27 PM

I’m sorry wiley, the burden’s on you.  YOU provide proof that the hijackers on the final FBI list aren’t the ones that were on those planes, and aren’t the ones that took them over.

YOU provide evidence to counter the security camera images of them getting on the planes.  YOU provide evidence that flight attendants didn’t relay the seat numbers of the ones who were slitting throats.  YOU provide evidence that flight school instructors confused them with the men who took hurried lessons from them.  YOU provide evidence that Saudi Arabia is all wet when they admit to their citizens being guilty.  YOU provide evidence why these same men have never surfaced in any picture or video to clear their name.  YOU provide evidence as to why they were all martyred personally by bin Laden. 

I don’t know why in the world you feel compelled to defend Muslims here.  They are quite proud of what they did, and they readily admit to doing it.  They proudly proclaim that they want to do it again.

Are you just overly trusting, or downright naive?

Posted by Natalie on Aug 17, 2006 at 5:41 PM

Rabbit’s heros at work, defending the principle of freedom from unnecessary information.

USA:  FOIA

IRAN:  FFIA

Posted by Natalie on Aug 17, 2006 at 6:54 PM

My God, Natalie. That’s so ass backward it’s amazing you said it. The burden of proof of who was behind 9/11 and why the organizations guarding our air space failed to respond in a timely manner to four off-course planes with transponders off is on me????

And the Commander in Chief should not be required to testify under oath because of people like me?

Well there’s the problem I guess, Natalie—-no one told me I was supposed to be running the government.

Posted by wileywitch on Aug 17, 2006 at 8:18 PM

Yes, we can all imagine wiley in charge on 9/11. 

Boys, don’t believe what you’re hearing, there is no such thing as middle eastern hijackers.  It’s all a plot by the government so they can take over the oil fields. 

You four—take your planes out to…..um….......well…..just get in those planes and shoot down every airliner you can find.  We simply can’t allow Bush to get away with this obvious false flag operation.

Quit looking at me like that!  I like can’t believe you fly-boys can’t see this plot unfolding!!  Bush’s goons are heading for the wtc, both towers, idiots, and then another goon’s heading for the Pentagon, where else?  And duh, the Capitol????

Get. in. the. planes.  Now!!

Transponders?  We don’t need no stinkn’ transponders.

Posted by Natalie on Aug 17, 2006 at 9:05 PM

Natalie, you are now busy smearing me with your imagination. Why don’t you go get the United States vs. Muslim Hijackers and Bin Laden case and show us the Official Case with the official charges made against the Muslim Hijackers and Bin Laden and how the jury decided. If I’m not mistaken,  you’ll find that in your imagination, but only if you believe.

“There can be miracles,
if you believe…” la la la la

Wiley would have stopped the training tapes as soon as she saw that there were hijacked planes in real time that weren’t on the war game scenario. Wiley already understands the importance of not mixing war scenarios and real-time in NORAD, and her research has shown her that after such a mix-up occurred, officials made changes so that that could not occur again in the missile warning sector.

If Wiley were in charge of the NEADS exercise (that included a scenario of hijacked planes being used as weapons that was being held on the September 11), there wouldn’t have EVER been tapes confused with real-time at NEADS and especially not in civilian air traffic control. Groups could practice the gaming on a separate set of scopes in which the exercise included tapes of normal air traffic and the attack scenario, and operated independently of real-time air traffic.

You don’t need a Phd. in anything to get this. You just have to stop playing the violin and insisting that I’m a heartless villain because I “believe” that competence is of supreme importance for people who have other people’s lives in their hands.

Wiley sure as hell wouldn’t have continued the hijack tape scenario after it was demonstrated that actual planes were hijacked and crashed into buildings, and Wiley would have sung BULLSHIT after hearing Condoleeza Rice say “no one could have imagined”.

Whether or not the planes coulda/shoulda/woulda been shot down matters not. The fact that the systems were unable to distinguish between what was real and what was a game was an egregious error. The fact that communications and protocols were in question when it was every leaders’ duty to know those protocols and procedures is pathetic, and if that supposed tape of the communications between NEADS and FAA official is real, then our FAA and NEADS needs to straighten up and fly right. All that emoting chatter is exactly what exercises are for——when the shit hits the fan, a good soldier or air traffic controller should stay cool, calm, and focused on the mission, even if their own lives are in danger. All bullshitting should stop when it is suspected that an attack is imminent or taking place.

They can emote on their own time, when no lives are in their hands.

Have you looked up “responsibility” yet, Natalie? If that isn’t enough to get through to you then I suggest that you enlist in the Air Force or Navy, and take your violins with you.

Posted by wileywitch on Aug 17, 2006 at 10:19 PM

OK wiley, maybe you should re-enlist and go straighten all those dummies out.  They obviously know nothing compared to you, and would benefit from your all knowing and all seeing leadership.

One thing I’m curious about is this notion that there were false blips “injected” onto FAA controller screens.  If true, I would certainly agree with you that this is a stupid idea.  What is your evidence for this being true?

For that matter, what is your evidence that exercises were more than a relatively brief source of confusion for NORAD?

Posted by Natalie on Aug 18, 2006 at 12:05 AM

The transcriptions of the tape that I already referred to. Now all of a sudden you’re concerned with details?  The same story says that NEADS was overwhelmed with false alarms of hijacking for hours after the attacks ended.

If you’re so sure I could not work with the details, what makes you so sure you can do something with the information all of a sudden—-the information that no one could have “imagined”.  You don’t need facts dear, you have faith and imagination.

Wiley did her time and did it well. Wiley dealt with a more profound threat than hijacked planes. Wiley dealt with the threat of global nuclear annihilation and did not say “shit”, or utter any unecessary words when it appeared that the Soviets had launched five missiles at us, with who-knew how many warheads on them. Wiley has proven her cool on many occassions, and has handled many emergencies quite well. Wiley would not accept a position she could not handle.

Wiley would have turned in her resignation if she had overseen that mess. If Wiley were president she would not believe that she was above the law. That doesn’t mean Wiley should be president. That just means Wiley has integrity and expects the same from leaders. 

And it is Bush—-the Commander in Chief who should have “kicked those dummies out” (as you say) instead of promoting them.

Look it up, Natalie- i-n-t-e-g-r-i-t-y.

Posted by wileywitch on Aug 18, 2006 at 12:31 AM

Wiley, I just carefully re-read the Vanity Fair article and I suggest you do the same. 

What I again take away from the article—which is probably about the best look into the reality of that morning anyone’s going to get—is that contrary to what you seem to believe, NORAD performed quite admirably that morning, all things considered.

What emerges from the barrage of what Nasypany dubs “bad poop” flying at his troops from all directions is a picture of remarkable composure. Snap decisions more often than not turn out to be the right ones as commanders kick-start the dormant military machine.

The actions of the hijackers were unprecedented and wholly unexpected.  Their turning off the transponders and carrying out the attack during busy morning traffic was pure evil genuis.  They had planned and practiced the operation for years, but they still had a certain amount of luck, which ran out with flight 93.

There was confusion originating mostly from American Airlines it turns out, passed on by civilian ATC.

NORAD did pretty much the best that could have been expected of them given the tools they had to work with.  Maybe not absolutely perfect, but damn close.  Re-read the article.

The 9/11 commission agrees, and by this time the kid gloves are off:

The focus of the pointed questioning that followed wasn’t on why the military didn’t do better, but rather on why the story Major General Arnold and Colonel Scott had told at the first hearing was so wrong….

Farmer says he doesn’t understand why the military felt the need to spin at all. “The information they got [from the F.A.A.] was bad information, but they reacted in a way that you would have wanted them to.  The calls Marr and Nasypany made were the right ones.”

I’m seeing plenty of i-n-t-e-g-r-i-t-y here.

There’s no indication in this article that any blips were injected onto civilian ATC screens.  Where are you getting that?

There’s no indication in this article that the exercises were much of a factor in the whole affair, especially after the initial few minutes during which time it was ascertained that this was real world.  Where are you getting that the exercises were such a big deal?

It would appear, unless you can make a credible case for the above two points being false, that you’ve been operating under three clear false premises.  There were no muslim hijackers, there were false blips injected onto civilian screens, and the excercises caused a big problem.

And, a fourth, that NORAD somehow didn’t do all that could have reasonably been expected of them.

American Airlines in my opinion deserves much criticism, but being angry at an airline would hardly be anything new or unusual.

——————————-

In order to find a hijacked airliner—or any airplane—military controllers need either the plane’s beacon code (broadcast from an electronic transponder on board) or the plane’s exact coordinates. When the hijackers on American 11 turned the beacon off, intentionally losing themselves in the dense sea of airplanes already flying over the U.S. that morning (a tactic that would be repeated, with some variations, on all the hijacked flights), the NEADS controllers were at a loss.

If nothing else, it might have given the public a more realistic sense of the limitations, particularly in the face of suicide terrorism, of what is, without doubt, the most powerful military in the world.

Pretty much what I first said, way back last reindeer season.  ;-)

Posted by Natalie on Aug 18, 2006 at 4:15 AM

SCIENCE…....SCIENCE…...............SCIENCE…...................

Fruit Bat

More than half the victims’ families support the 9/11 truth movment and are convinced the government had a hand in 9/11. I guess that screws your claim of us disrespecting the victims by seeking the truth.  A bit like anti Israeli Jews, like Neturei Karta makes your claims of anti-semitic rabbits, such a gratuitous slander.

Be warned Wiley, the Neo-Con’s have just pumped lots of resources into shilling for 9/11 lies and attacking 9/11 truth movement.

Natty is probably on overtime rates now.

Posted by Rabbit on Aug 18, 2006 at 5:56 AM

Obviously I’m bored or I wouldn’t bother!

Lower your blustery bulloney smoke screen, Rabbit.  You know gooden well that the COLLEGE GRADUATES at Lamont don’t think that the impact spikes were cause by anything other than the jets.

The geologists stated they could not explain the size or form of the spikes.  You give us a single quote where they said otherwise, LIAR.  Read it or deny it blindly, but others’ will read it.  See if I care.

You know gooden well that Manning doesn’t have a blog, and that you’re just blowing smoke from down low.

I shall prove Bill Manning has a blog, anytime I wish, but in the meantime your denial of it is enjoyable.  He has a blog and you were either incapable of finding it, (it took me five minutes weeks ago), or you just lie because it feels good.  If I post a link to Bill’s blog, does that mean it is you from whose arse the smoke is dribbling?

You know gooden well that your comparing the Pentagon and Penn seismic sigs to the WTC were uninformed.  You simply ignore the geologic differences and blow more smoke.

WTF is that bit of confused rambling? 
The Popular mechanics hit piece included falsified seismic data, FACT!
The seismic data for which I am the only one of us who has linked to the original, does not support the official fairy tale, and all anyone need do is look at it.

You know gooden well that Bollyn isn’t qualified to write for anything but the Star or the Globe, and that he’s simply making stuff up, just as he’s been exposed to have done numerous times in the past:

Bollyn is as qualified as any person needs to be to report the truth.  Since you cannot even mention the things which Bollyn reports, then we must take it you cannot challenge them which is why you just attack the man.

He has now been arrested and beaten by the US stormtroopers and will be joining the increasing numbers of Americans who are seeking political asylum in freer countries. 

You are bouncing around like a sloppy slapper, Batgirl.

Not a clue do you own, and converts have you none.  If this was a dual you’d be under the gun!

Posted by Rabbit on Aug 18, 2006 at 6:28 AM

Natalie, you are my only dark little indulgence on the internet right now. I’m busy with course catalogs and schedules, so soon, arguing with you is going to be an utterly complete waste of my time. Not the entertaining waste of time it has been.  I trust that Algebra and Public Speaking will be much more fun. I will try to get back to this melodramatic dung heap we are supposed to believe is the record from NEADS and FAA later, but now I just want you to ponder this little gem you quoted:

<i>

Posted by wileywitch on Aug 18, 2006 at 12:20 PM

“Was NEADS just a lingering hobby from the Cold War?”

There ya go.  I think you’re starting to get it.

Posted by Natalie on Aug 18, 2006 at 2:50 PM

Since someone mentioned CIA man Bill Christinson’s article, I will comment:

+

“Former” CIA spook Bill Christison, after 5 years, weighs in on 9-11 in such a way that we must accept certain theories, or GUESS WHAT:

“If the government could prove this evidence false, and its own story on these points correct, all the other data and speculation supporting the conspiracy theories would be undermined.”

Absolute nonsense.  This man’s credibility is zero.

According to Christison, if the World Trade Center wasn’t blown up with explosives (unproven either way), and a Boeing 757 can be shown to have hit the Pentagon (similarly unproven either way), then the government is off the hook.

This PSYOPS cannot stand.

We have a lot of other evidence of government hijinks around 9-11, and a lot of it MORE INCRIMINATING than these two “theories” that Christinson would have us bet the farm on.

1) For starters, as Daniel Hopsicker has documented:  The Florida flight school Huffman Aviation was a CIA and protected drug smuggling operation, and no one is being prosecuted or even investigated for the crimes connected to things like 43 pounds of heroin and another company which was located there (Skyway) with CIA Air America type operations that got caught with 5.5 TONS of cocaine on what appeared to be a “Department of Homeland Security” DC-9.

This is the tip of the iceberg, as Hopsicker showed that Mohamed Atta was already a pilot, with pilot’s licenses from other countries, and that he was not a fundamentalist Muslim, but rather an intelligence asset and drug runner.

We don’t hear shit about that from the 9-11 report, the FBI, or from Christinson (CIA).

2) We have the Pakistani ISI FUNDING THE 9-11 ATTACKS, which remains uninvestigated and unprosecuted.  The head of ISI Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmad remains conspicuously absent from the FBI Most Wanted List, even after he sent Mohamed Atta $100,000, on at least one occasion.  Pakistani ISI CREATED AL QAEDA at the instructions of the CIA, as the ISI serves as a proxy intelligence service for CIA.  The Afghan Mujahaden operation was the “largest” CIA operation in history.  This is unmentionable, obviously.

3) At the Genoa G-8 meeting, July 20 of 2001, George W. Bush was personally MOVED FROM A HIGH RISE HOTEL because of a “known Al Qaeda plot to assassinate Bush and other world leaders.”(LA Times 9-27-01).  Bush, it was reported on CNN, would not “stay with other world leaders because of a threat of terrorism.”  This incident calls into question Bush’s actions during the 9-11 attacks, staying in a publicly announced location (sitting duck) for 20 minutes AFTER the SECOND TOWER was struck.  With Norad and Secret Service being informed considerably sooner than that, the entire ordeal is ABSURD BEYOND DESCRIPTION. And the administration is guilty of high treason for LETTING THE ATTACKS HAPPEN WITHOUT ATTEMPTING TO STOP THEM (at the least).

Add to that mountains of further evidence, none of which relies on the Twin Towers being pre-wired, nor on missiles hitting the Pentagon.  Christinson is misleading and not to be trusted.

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State:
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

Posted by johndoraemi on Aug 18, 2006 at 5:19 PM

Who was Commander in Chief during 9/11 Natalie? And why wouldn’t he testify under oath and without Cheney holding his hand?

If you know anything at all about the military you hide it well, Natalie. The romantic view you want to convey is laughable to me, and I imagine to most people who have been in the military so that they don’t need to “imagine” or “believe” what it’s like to be in a high pressure situation and they know why repeated drilling is necessary to train people not to have all those “understandable” Scarlet O’Hara moments when they are supposed to be sharp.

For someone with your “understanding” of people not performing well under “unthinkable” pressure, you really should be dedicated to the cause of nuclear disarmament. But then again, you’re not really here to be honest are you?

Back to my catalog. It suddenly doesn’t look so dull.

Posted by wileywitch on Aug 18, 2006 at 6:28 PM

Wiley, I think your dismissive attitude is simply a whitewash to mask your weak case.  What exactly is it you think we should have done on 9/11?  Not what you wish we would have done, or that you imagine we would have done, but what should we have done or done differently given the mindset and SOP’s of the day?

You don’t seem to have a case, quite frankly, although I remain confused as to exactly what it is.  Everybody wishes those planes could have been stopped, certainly including the FAA and NORAD.  But I simply don’t see a case for incompetence or neglect here on anyone’s part, excepting possibly American Airlines.  If they were simply reluctant to admit that one of their planes crashed into the WTC and they knew better, then they are at great fault, although the most that possibly could have been prevented was the additional lives and property lost at the Pentagon.  Of course, if the terrorist’s luck had not run out with flight 93, then they might have the destruction of the capitol and however many more lives on their conscience. 

I don’t see anyone in the country calling for heads at any of these agencies.  Why you??  Why not use your energy to condemn the brainwashed bigots who were truly responsible for the events of 9/11?  But why would you?  You have yet to even acknowledge their existence.

NORAD, nor anyone, trained for or was tasked with specifically guarding against multiple simultaneous commandeering suicide hijackings before 9/11.  Even so, people did their level best to deal with the situation, attempted to intercept the last three planes, and brought down tens of thousands of passengers from the skies safely in a very short time.  There’s no telling how many other planned hijackings might have been foiled by this.  Maybe none, but obviously the prudent thing to do was to bring them down.  Civilian ATC did this job heroically.

Let’s imagine if the attack had come by sea.  The Coast Guard I suppose is technically tasked with “protecting our coastlines” or “guarding our country from seaborne threats”, or something along those lines.  If four high speed Miami Vice style speed boats laden with massive amounts of explosives began ramming into ports and busy marinas, four minutes and fifteen and thirty minutes apart, would it be realistic to expect that the Coast Guard could have stopped them?  Could anyone have stopped them in time?  Would this have been something the Coast Guard regularly trained for and expected?

The police are tasked with protecting the public, but if four suicide bombers started exploding themselves in one huge shopping mall before 9/11, even several minutes apart, would it be reasonable to expect that they could do anything about it?  Would they have trained for or expected something like this?  Surely they must have known it was a possibility, given what was going on with Palestinians.

I’m sure the Coast Guard and the Police would try their best, and they might stop the last one even, but when somebody decides to commit murder, especially when they don’t care about their own life, then the murderer has the upper hand, at least temporarily.  These are not excuses, this is just simple reality.

Any more on those injects, speaking of honesty?

Posted by Natalie on Aug 18, 2006 at 9:10 PM

As to Presidents and oaths, I think you’re under another false premise, that being that Bush had something to hide or had some personal reason for not testifying under the TV lights under oath by himself.  You guys would have loved that, wouldn’t ya Wiley?  A simple error in speech or innocently mistaken time line mutates into a lying under oath impeachable offense in an election year.  Nice try.

Now you must tell me why Clinton and Gore weren’t sworn in and didn’t testify in open session.  After all, they played an integral role in what eventually transpired on 9/11/01, and were both lame (dead) ducks politically.

In chapter 2, we described the growth of a new kind of terrorism, and a new terrorist organization-especially from 1988 to 1998, when Usama Bin Ladin declared war and organized the bombing of two U.S. embassies. In this chapter, we trace the parallel evolution of government efforts to counter terrorism by Islamic extremists against the United States…...

The FAA’s policy was to use intelligence to identify both specific plots and general threats to civil aviation security, so that the agency could develop and deploy appropriate countermeasures. The FAA’s 40-person intelligence unit was supposed to receive a broad range of intelligence data from the FBI, CIA, and other agencies so that it could make assessments about the threat to aviation. But the large volume of data contained little pertaining to the presence and activities of terrorists in the United States. For example, information on the FBI’s effort in 1998 to assess the potential use of flight training by terrorists and the Phoenix electronic communication of 2001 warning of radical Middle Easterners attending flight school were not passed to FAA headquarters. Several top FAA intelligence officials called the domestic threat picture a serious blind spot.

Moreover, the FAA’s intelligence unit did not receive much attention from the agency’s leadership. Neither Administrator Jane Garvey nor her deputy routinely reviewed daily intelligence, and what they did see was screened for them. She was unaware of a great amount of hijacking threat information from her own intelligence unit, which, in turn, was not deeply involved in the agency’s policymaking process. Historically, decisive security action took place only after a disaster had occurred or a specific plot had been discovered.

There’s plenty of blame to go around.  But let’s not lose focus on the real enemy.  It’s not Clinton, and it’s not Bush.

Any guesses?

Posted by Natalie on Aug 18, 2006 at 9:19 PM

3.6 ABSOLUTE TIME ACCURACY

Many of the news broadcasts on September 11, 2001, had the current time imprinted on the screen. These imprints are known in the industry as “bugs.” As these broadcasts were timed, it became apparent that there were small differences between times for the second aircraft impact based on these bugs and the time used as the basis for the database. Checks with several broadcasters indicated that the bugs should be quite close to the actual time because the clocks used as sources for the bugs are regularly updated from highly accurate sources, such as geopositioning satellites or the precise atomic-clock-based timing signals provided by NIST as a public service. Careful checks showed small time differences between different video recordings, but these were generally less than 1 s. These small discrepancies were likely due to variations in transmission times resulting from the different pathways that the video signals took to the sites where they were recorded. Based on four independent video recordings, the actual time of the second aircraft impact was determined to be <u>9:02:59</u> a.m., or 5 s later than the time assigned in developing the database. The estimated uncertainty is 1 s. Table 3-1 compares times for the major events taken from the database, adjusted to television time, and reported in the FEMA report (McAllister 2002). The times listed for the major events in the FEMA report (McAllister 2002) were based on seismic signals (and analysis) recorded by the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory (LDEO) of Columbia University at a location 21 miles from the WTC site in Palisades, New York. These signals have subsequently been reanalyzed by LDEO, working under a contract from the NIST WTC Investigation. (Kim, 2005) A reinterpretation of the types of seismic signals received resulted in slightly revised times for the major events. The results of this recent analysis are also included in Table 3-1. (<u>9:02:57</u>) The uncertainty for the first aircraft impact on WTC 1, the collapse of WTC 2, and the collapse of WTC 1 were reported by LDEO to be 1 s, while that for the aircraft impact on WTC 2 is 2 s. Recalling that uncertainties for times of the major events based on the television broadcasts are estimated to be 1 s, it can be seen from Table 3-1 that the two aircraft impact times derived by NIST and LDEO <u>now agree within the combined uncertainties.</u>

Times listed in Table 3-1 for the collapses of the two towers based on the television records and the revised LDEO analysis appear to differ significantly. These differences are likely due to different definitions used for the collapse times. The times based on visual analysis refer to the time when the collapse of a tower first became evident, while the times based on seismic records likely indicate the time when the falling debris first struck the ground. The differences between the two times were estimated to be approximately 9 s for WTC 2 and approximately 11 s for WTC 1 based on videos of the collapses. When the times required for falling debris to reach the ground are subtracted from the LEDO times, the collapse times also agree within the reported uncertainties.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_1-8.pdf  
pg. 22,23   (caution: 109 mb file size) 

Translation:  Trying to make the claim that there were any significant differences in the impact times between those reported by LDEO and those reported by other sources is silly and unfounded.

The only possible sources of the first small seismo-spikes are the plane impacts.  The towers were coupled to bedrock.

Posted by Natalie on Aug 19, 2006 at 1:52 AM

While harping on what you consider to be my heartless demands for accountability, preparedness, and competence from people with power, you want to hear some heartlessness in response to 9/11?:

“Looks like I hit the trifecta.”

Posted by wileywitch on Aug 19, 2006 at 1:49 PM

Wiley,

I have nothing against accountability, preparedness, and competence.  Your demands are not so much heartless, but unrealistic, and unfair in that you’re looking at it through hindsight.  If you can direct me to some of your writings before 9/11, where you layed out a case for preparing our defenses for mass suicide attack hijackings, then you will instantly gain total credibility and respect in my book.

If not, then your criticism of NORAD and the FAA is disingenuous, and along with your not saying a peep about the fact that these policies were in place for a long time under another administratiion, it’s rather selective as well.

Thank you for so promptly illustrating the type of distortion and mis-charachterization that would have resulted in Bush testifying under oath in public to the commission.

I’ve got one regret, the traveling team wasn’t complete, unfortunately. My wife didn’t come with me.

But I want you to know we are dealing with these issues in a way that I hope makes you proud, that we’re dealing with the issues. (Applause.) I’m doing everything I can to put the interests of the American people ahead of politics. (Applause.) I’m doing everything I can—everything I can to address these issues in a way that solves problems. So, for example, on the issue of economic security, I went at it in a way—the only way I knew how, which is in a straightforward, plain-spoken way.

An innocent attempt at humor, which was in no way meant to make fun of anyone but himself, is misconstrued as something else entirely.

This kind of distortion is what is heartless.

Posted by Natalie on Aug 19, 2006 at 2:31 PM

Natalie,

As Bush’s mistress, I’d say your blather is a bit biased.

But, in regard to your original points:

FAA regulations guide the actions of FAA controllers who are ordered to treat loss of radio contact (turning off a transponder) as an EMERGENCY, and to request military intercept.  This has been the LAW for many, many years, despite your irrelevant chatter about how hijackings weren’t in the local headlines for some years.  The LAW and the people whose livelihoods revolved around these issues still regard hijackings as a serious matter with established procedures.

Therefore, the actions of the air defenses on 9-11 are an issue of intense scrutiny precisely because they did not happen according to these established procedures.

Your nothing can be done attitude is inaccurate.  Fighter planes could have, and SHOULD HAVE intercepted the off course airliners.  This is what the Air Guard does, its reason for existence. 

Next, your complete ignorance of the events on the day of the attacks is problematic.  George W. Bush knew of airliners crashing into buildings, yet he stayed in a classroom reading to schoolchildren rather than actually attending to the important business of DEFENDING AMERICA.

People will absolve Bush for his actions by making up excuses (too stupid to know better?), but the cold hard reality is that the president was in danger, yet the Secret Service did not secure his person, as they are supposed to do in moments when “America is under attack.”

These are egregious and indisputable anomolies that you seem incapable of grasping, nevermind countering.

I could go on at length, but then you’ll just have to do some research on your own.

John Doraemi publishes Crimes of the State:
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

Posted by johndoraemi on Aug 19, 2006 at 6:47 PM

John,

If you’ve got a specific point to make, please do so.  Your sudden and rather arrogant entry into this thread after nearly 800 posts comes off as little more than programmed propaganda, and a plug for your blog that for some reason doesn’t allow comments.

I’m biased?

Posted by Natalie on Aug 19, 2006 at 7:35 PM

Looks like Rabbit ran for the tall grass. 

He knows that there’s no controversy over the spikes at LDEO, he knows the impact spikes coincide perfectly with when the planes struck and he knows there were no explosions reported coming just before the second hit anyway.

He knows Manning doesn’t have a blog, and if by chance he does, he certainly doesn’t believe in bombs and missiles.

He knows Chris Bollyn is about as reputable as a used car salesman, and if he doesn’t, he’s about as intelligent as a real rabbit.

What about it John?  Any Clinton “crimes of the state” you care to comment on?  How about Jimmy Carter?  Anything on him?  Any “bias” over there at COTS.BS.com possibly?  Do you believe in hijackers?  Missiles?  Lay it out for us.  We need this information for your Keepers Of Odd Knowledge profile.

Posted by Natalie on Aug 19, 2006 at 7:48 PM

.............................Natalie…....................

Posted by Rabbit on Aug 20, 2006 at 8:54 AM

By Douglas Herman

5-15-6

 
One of the most sacred beliefs about the four jumbo jets hijacked on September 11th, 2001, was that terrified passengers tried to communicate with those safe on the earth. The recent movie, “Flight 93,” elevates this belief to a sacrament.
 
In order to verify that cell phones would have functioned, a test would have had to be performed in 2001, from a Boeing 757-767, moving erratically through the sky, often at low elevation.  To my recollection, none were ever performed by any researcher, and certainly no reporter in the mainstream media.
 
Because NORAD fighter pilots never VISUALLY verified what happened aboard those four Boeings on 9-11, we will never know what occurred in the most crucial part of the plane, the cockpit. Instead we have been given play-by-play cell phone accounts of what occurred. Some of the accounts remain perplexing to say the least.
 
NORAD: Malice Aforethought?
 
There are three reasons why NORAD fighters did not intercept and visually inspect any of the hijacked Boeings. Being confused and unable to locate the hijacked planes appears suspicious, to say the least. Because imagine what those NORAD pilots might have seen.  (1) Arab hijackers-or pilots posing as Arabs. (2) Professional pilots frantically waving and holding signs indicating the plane was remote controlled. (3) No pilots at all.
 
How, you ask, could no pilots be at the controls? Recall the flight of Pro golfer Payne Stewart. The private jet flew, maintaining a steady airspeed and course—-but everyone aboard was dead. What the NORAD interceptors saw was frosted windows and no sign of life.
 
Now ask yourself: With four slow-moving jets to choose from, why couldn’t NORAD intercept and make visual contact with even ONE? Perhaps, if that visual inspection had occurred, the USAF pilot might have reported something highly suspicious. And I don’t mean sullen suicide pilots who forgot to pack their Korans.
 
They might have witnessed no visible sign of life. Or they would have radioed that the pilots were gesturing to them, signaling the plane was somehow flying itself. Without the poignant cell phone conversations, the entire “terrorist hijacking” would have been as fictitious as a Harry Potter fantasy novel. 
 
No hijackers, no war on terror. No war on terror, no billions for defense and security upgrades. No cell phone calls about Arab terrorists, no religious war to, ostensibly smash Islamic countries and steal their oil.

Now suppose those NORAD pilots had made visual contact and saw-gasp—-professional pilots frantically trying to regain control of their Boeing aircraft. The fighter pilots might have relayed the ominous message: “Cockpit pilots signaling they have NO control. Pilots holding sign: cannot regain manual control of stick!” 
 
Recall that not ONE Boeing pilot pressed a four digit signal indicating their planes were being hijacked. You would think at least one pilot would have gotten off a quick message.
 
Equally suspicious, NORAD fighter pilots were either rerouted AWAY from the Boeings, or commanded to fly at such slow speeds they could not intercept a commercial plane, even if given a week to do so. Why? Because fighter pilots could NOT be allowed to see into the cockpit.
 
Whatever was visible inside the four cockpits was too terrible to see. Not frantic fighting, but perhaps the opposite: an absence of any life.
 
Was NORAD a criminal conspirator on 9-11? Emphatically. Consider the long list of criminal derelictions that would convict them. These accusations are from 9-11 Research
 
Failures to scramble: NORAD, once notified of the off-course aircraft, failed to scramble jets from the nearest bases.
 
Failures to intercept: Once airborne, interceptors failed to reach their targets because they flew at small fractions of their top speeds.
 
Failures to redeploy: Fighters that were airborne and within interception range of the deviating aircraft were not redeployed to pursue them.
 
Indeed, once airborne, NORAD F-15s were flying slower than 450 MPH—-slower than World War II fighter planes! The top speed of an F-15 in pursuit is 1875 MPH.
 
Perhaps the only NORAD interceptor to actually intercept an alleged hijacked airliner, occurred with Flight 93, over Shanksville, Pennsylvania. However, the US government denied the Boeing was shot down although evidence indicates otherwise.
 
NORAD: many unanswered questions remain about September 11th, 2001. As a former Air Force serviceman, I am ashamed and angered by the evident fraud and intentional failure that indicate—-almost without a doubt—-a military coup occured.
 
Footnote:  One of the many incongruous scenes in the movie, United 93, occured when the terrorist pilot props a postcard of the Capitol Building on the steering yoke. As if one could just hijack a jumbo jet, head east to the ocean and fly around until seeing the dome.
 
Amateur historian and USAF veteran, Douglas Herman writes regularly for Rense and is the author of The Guns of Dallas. Read the reviews on Amazon.com
 
 
Robert Marr (Must Read)
 
Real History, Pakistan, and the World Trade Center.

Posted by Rabbit on Aug 20, 2006 at 9:15 AM

That’s the beginnings of a great fiction thriller novel, Rabbit, but if by chance you want to know what REALLY happened regarding NORAD, the FAA, and the airliners that morning, simply read the Vanity Fair article.

Also, there’s lots of docu-dramas based upon real events starting to appear on the History Channel and A&E., as the 5th anniversary of the murder of 3000 innocent Americans by brainwashed muslim bigots approaches.

The movie “Flight 93” is based on real events, as well as the movie “World Trade Center”.  Watch some of these presentations and maybe, just maybe you’ll start to get a feel for the REALITY of what happened that day.

Posted by Natalie on Aug 20, 2006 at 9:50 AM

Fruit Bat of the Faith based Myths of Magic Arabs.

Posted by Rabbit on Aug 20, 2006 at 10:07 AM

Batalie
Not everybody seems to share your “faith” in the events which allegedly occurred on flight 93.

I didn’t think anybody seriously doubted Flight 93 was shot down at this stage.  Are you one of those ones Batgirl?  What a surprise.

Posted by Rabbit on Aug 20, 2006 at 10:21 AM

Crabbitch, as you know, I am open to the possibility that flight 93 was indeed shot down.  There is no question, however, that the passengers were either solely responsible for its crash, or were engaged in the takeover of the plane during the theoretical missile hit.  There is simply too much voice testimony from passenger calls and the cockpit voice recorder to reasonably believe anything else.

If the plane was actually shot down, how does that support the theory that 9/11 was an inside job designed to provide an excuse to “control the world’s oil”, or whatever?  Wouldn’t the shootdown be contrary to the goal of the plot, which was to create endless excuses for imperializin’?

Are you suggesting that the our “magical” air defenses were able to engineer a shootdown within seconds of them realizing that their plot to hit the capitol was in jeopardy of being found out?  Does this really make any sense to you?

I’m skeptical that it was shot down, even more so now than when we last discussed this.  The recent revelations from the 9/11 commission and the Vanity Fair article add to my skepticism.

Posted by Natalie on Aug 20, 2006 at 12:41 PM

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0604/062104c1.htm

9/11 communication failures still baffle FAA, Defense officials

“The hijacking net is an open communication net run by the FAA hijack coordinator, who is a senior person from the FAA security organization, for the purpose of getting the affected federal agencies together to hear information at the same time,” he said.

Defense officials, for their part, said they do not know why NMCC missed out on the hijack net.

Was the military end so busy with war games of hijacked planes being flown into buildings that they couldn’t imagine hijacked planes being flown into buildings? 

If NEADS had no role but fighting Russian Bears, then why was the FAA reporting to them?

Doesn’t the U.S. military have satellites that could, at the word of a NORAD or Space Command Commander, take a photograph of a ‘needle in a haystack’, like they can take pictures of trucks, and boilers in Russian factories?

Who was in charge?
Who was in charge?
Who was in charge?
Who was in charge?

And when is it ever excusable in the military not to know who is in charge? Civilians that swoon over Top-Gun ignore this question—-you don’t get it.

And when is it ever excusable for someone in charge of air defense not to know the difference between a tape and reality? Civilians who think NORAD is like that movie with Matthew Broderick, go back to sleep.

Posted by wileywitch on Aug 20, 2006 at 9:06 PM

“What about it John?  Any Clinton

Posted by johndoraemi on Aug 20, 2006 at 9:43 PM

That all critical events have not been recorded, examined, investigated, catalogued, tagged, and the whole bag of snakes laid out over the course of five years,  by the proper government and independent authorities is damning enough to make the call for impeachment for failure to secure a crime scene, for suppressing evidence, for lying like cheap rugs,  etc.

It’ s just a hop, skip, and a jump from there to complicity. Why——five years after the event are things more muddy than ever? People who were responsible either clearly don’t want all the facts to be revealed, or are criminally negligent and incompetent.

Either way——impeachment and investigations for obstruction of justice is in order—-the whole cabinet and all their partners in crime.

War profiteers and mercenaries——sick ass rat bastards. When they’ve emptied the treasury for their big pay-off (the trifecta) I wish them the worst.

Posted by wileywitch on Aug 20, 2006 at 11:11 PM

.....................................................Bat….................................................

If the plane was shot down it proves, once again that we have been told lies; it does not have to contribute to the inside job scenario, more importantly it does not dispute this scenario either.

Quite organised lies, considerable efforts have gone to cover up the facts, and there was a time when this was considered a bad thing in the USA.

It all still adds to the over all premise which is the only thing I am saying is the point of the 9/11 truth movement’s existence. 

A <u>full</u> and <u>independent</u> investigation, needs to be carried out imediately.

About Muhamed Atta.  What we didn’t get told.  He was a Kitten Killer, who liked pork chops and Cocaine…..and was a lousy dancer!

Posted by Rabbit on Aug 21, 2006 at 12:27 AM

John, thanks for completing our survey.  You seem especially knowledgable about missiles. 

I forgot to ask about the towers.  Controlled demolition?

Perhaps I was unfair to label you as biased, although I certainly did get the arrogant part right.  You do seem to be an equal opportunity seeker of alternative explanations.  I guess a quick glance at your site was misleading as to the true depths and breadths of your quest for the truth.  After all, Bush and 9/11 are in vogue these days.

Who in your estimation was responsible for the additional bombs at Oklahoma City?  What was the purpose of the government trying to cover up their existence?  Are there any structural or civil engineers that support the notion that the truck bomb couldn’t have been solely responsible?  Seismologists?  Hmm…..seems to be some parallels here. 

Don’t you think that perhaps you’re reading a little too much into that G8 thing?  Why don’t you explain to me exactly why this is such a smoking gun.  Did you write about the obvious implications of the event before 9/11, and lay out why we should be on hair-trigger alert for multiple suicide commandeering hijackings?  Did anybody?

These are annoying questions.  Yes, I can see why you don’t opt for comments.

Posted by Natalie on Aug 21, 2006 at 2:04 AM

Natalie,  the simple fact that there wasn’t a thorough investigation of 93 carried out and reported the way any other aircraft disaster would be investigated screams ‘something rotten in Denmark’.

Once you’ve excused a hundred ‘little things’, you’ve made one big whopping excuse that in most circles is called “a cover up”. These things happen. Remember Nixon? That wasn’t made up by people who wear tin foil hats. To suggest that anyone who questions 9/11 and all the misleads, lies, failures, etc., that go with it is paranoid and/or delusional or a poor, misled, simpleton is nefarious in its own right.

And the questions still go begging, and THAT is WRONG. Americans deserve real answers not more PR. lies, and shilling.

Posted by wileywitch on Aug 21, 2006 at 8:51 AM

On July 25 2001 a radio host said an attack on the world trade center involving air liners being flown into the buildings would happen within the next two months and would be blamed on Osama bin Laden.

He also listed the open public, goverment information that he used to come to that conclusion.

Now some have said he was the only one to realise and share the information that the 911 event was about to take place. Which is not true. There where many, many, people and government agencys that where ringing the alarm bells.

I thought I would swing by and see whats going on. It looks like I have missed alot and this comment is based on Just the last few posts. It almost seems as if Natalie is saying that there was no way that the government could have had any idea that some thing such as 911 could or ever would have happend.

Please at least except that the government had more than enough information to at the verry least be prepared for it when it happend if not be able to stop it before it ever happend. That means NORAD and the FAA and ect.. should have been able to do there job.

Posted by honestjoe on Aug 21, 2006 at 9:14 AM

Well, honestjoe—-they didn’t get the itinerary and the little map with “you are here or here or here” with stars by Crawford,  Texas, granite bunkers, and a grade school in Florida; and the towers and Pentagon circled in red with “Terrorist Targets!!!” printed beside them.

Without the times and dates of attacks, air defense systems are helpless and emotional. Without exact coordinates, jet fighters can’t find planes. That’s why dogfights are so notoriously hilarious in that Key Stone Cops sort of way——chasing their tails, flying in the wrong direction, flying over the wrong country, etc. While people in tactical radar units scream “Shit! I can’t believe this is happening!  Is this happening? Or is this a simulation? Am I real? Could I just be a dream God is having?”

It’s amazing how important information is. This is the Information Age and you just can’t get enough, if you can afford it, otherwise—-you can’t have any.

That’s why the NSA must tap every phone call to a foreign nation. When the next set of terrorists says “We’re attacking the Walmart in Miami at the following coordinates (insert coordinates) at the following time (insert time), on the following date (insert date), and we’re using a jet——since that went off so well last time—-we’re using Southwest Airlines, flight 487(from Fresno), departing at (insert time) from gate 12. Have a nice day. Allah is the best God, and he will ensure that we kill all the Infidel Christians!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

Then our Commander in Chief will do some hard work by getting his Hollywood team together to make it appear that he has swung into action in his action gear to have a photo op and say some strong words.

And no one told Bush, when he went into office the part about “providing for the common defense”, or they didn’t make it clear that that meant making sure that our country had the means and methods to defend itself from things like the warning Clinton’s office laid at his feet, and not that he needed a lawyer on a regular basis.

Bill may have been in on it, by warning Bush about Al Queda and not his cabinet.

Posted by wileywitch on Aug 21, 2006 at 11:41 AM

Natalie

Im sure you are aware of CIA asset Randy Glass and the 1999 recordings of a meeting with CIA, Pakistani officials and arms runners bragging about how the towers where going to come down. You also must know about the top of Pakistani ISI funding 9/11 and how they met with the heads of the CIA on the morning of 9/11. So you must know that the government did have enough foreknowlege to at least prepare for a terrorest attack involving the world trade centers.

Johndoraemi

Forgive me for saying what has already been said if it has been, But I thought it was great news about the reopening of the OK city bombing and I have not been surprised to find alot of the same low life scum to be involved in the OK city bombing as 9/11.

wileywitch

LMAO! Bill may have been in on it, by warning Bush about Al Queda and not his cabinet. I agree.

Posted by honestjoe on Aug 21, 2006 at 1:10 PM

Wiley / John

““Reading too much into the G 8 thing ? “”

I remember the hype at the time on that one , just as I remember Algerian GIA and the Eiffel Tower, 1994 from that time  ,  and Bojinka 1995—which I learned about much later.

Nattyshill pretending there is a ginormeous difference between one suicide hijacking , and multiple ones, is her usual bullshit. 

Three conclusive cases above that this was POSSIBLE , had actually happened ONCE, been seriously planned ONCE, and was highly suspected on a THIRD occasion.

So how could NSA to POTUS say ” nobody would have imagined it” ?

Maybe Condi immediately forgot all the briefing concerned with real terrorist possibilities, because she was just so busy pushing the new anti-missile geo-strategic pork for her friends ?

OR she knew all the time, and just lied to camera, convinced that the really champion BIG LIES get through FIRST, ONCE AND FOR ALL, and the Public do not notice the subsequent contradictions and   denials.?

PS NATTY—- Nobody ouside the loop HAD to write about this at the time—it was well in the Public Domain, and the possibility was well known.

EXCEPT to you and Miz Condi. 

Posted by frog on Aug 21, 2006 at 1:15 PM

<i>Natalie, the simple fact that there wasn

Posted by Natalie on Aug 21, 2006 at 1:27 PM

<i>PS NATTY—- Nobody ouside the loop HAD to write about this at the time

Posted by Natalie on Aug 21, 2006 at 1:34 PM

NOPE.

Just bringing up the point that Condi was LYING  about this.

Are you trying to tell us she wasn’t ?

This is one of the thousands of discrepancies in the Official Story, which remain to be explained .

edit—I’m addressing an important point of detail in evidence given by the NSA of the USA . No More. This deserves a straight answer.

Posted by frog on Aug 21, 2006 at 1:46 PM

Frog, Natalie, & Condi,

Of course it could have been imagined

Posted by whattheheck on Aug 21, 2006 at 2:22 PM

whattheheck

Are you saying that because the government was given so much information warning about 9/11 from so many agencies within and outside the united states that they where unable to process and evaluate it fast enough to be perpared for the attack?

Posted by honestjoe on Aug 21, 2006 at 2:47 PM

Rescorla on Vietnam, Nicaragua; “the Muslims”, and how to make enemies HERE

There was a man with more brains, commonsense and guts than Condi and Co united.

Posted by frog on Aug 21, 2006 at 3:18 PM

Oh, Natalie GIVE UP!  Your retorts stink to high heaven, and you are, quite frankly starting to sound like a snorty little school girl. Wipe the snot off your nose.

You have explained nothing, especially why you think you understand NORAD and air traffic control better than I do, and why expecting the government to do its job is so cold and unfeeling.

I am not going to play your silly little game. You are a bore, that is only effective with people who want to believe and aren’t particular about how ridiculous the things they believe are so long as it makes them feel better.

As far as most intelligent people are concerned, you might as well be selling plans that make you lose weight in your sleep. And you know as well as I do, that there are people who would buy it, and the only reflection on you is that you would be snarky enough to sell it knowing it’s worthless trash.

Posted by wileywitch on Aug 21, 2006 at 4:37 PM

Just bringing up the point that Condi was LYING about this.  Are you trying to tell us she wasn’t ?

OK, so Condi was lying.  Or maybe she was just uninformed.  So what?  How does this even begin to provide proof of an “inside job”?  Does Condi seem to you to be the type that would sign off on such a plan?  Would this be the first time a politician or govt. official has said something inaccurate or self-serving?  Can you even begin to imagine the pressure that was on every member of the government to explain why they shouldn’t have magically been able to foresee and prevent the attacks?

This is one of the thousands of discrepancies in the Official Story, which remain to be explained .

That’s a little bit hypocritical, coming from someone who supports the “truth” movement, which is crawling with dozens of conflicting stories, theories, and yes discrepancies of what they imagine happened on 9/11.

Thousands?  Thou doth exaggerate.  Wouldn’t dozens be a little bit more reasonable?  Wouldn’t dozens be pretty much par for any major event in history?

edit—I’m addressing an important point of detail in evidence given by the NSA of the USA . No More. This deserves a straight answer.

Yeah right.  Just as soon as we get a straight answer as to why the “truth” movement feels they have the luxury to accuse unnamed dozens or hundreds of people of murder, using pseudo-science, out of context quotes, puffs of dust and reports of boom boom sounds.

I would suggest the “truth” movement put their money where their mouth is.  File that lawsuit, file those briefs, gather that “evidence”, and make that case.  If it’s so obvious and airtight, they shouldn’t have any problem getting it heard and prevailing.

Or is it just about venting, fantasizing, politicizing and capitalizing?

Posted by Natalie on Aug 21, 2006 at 4:45 PM

Honestjoe,

From all the turf wars between agencies, lack of interagency communications, cuts of personnel who raised embarrassing questions, etc. I certainly think that it is reasonable to have all the pieces of the puzzle, but no one person or group with access to all of it at the right time. THEN, throw in the miscellaneous pieces from other puzzles and not having the box cover with the picture on it. Not an easy call.

I doubt that we are a lot better equipped now by adding another layer. The Central Intelligence Agency was created out of the OSS post WW2 to act as that single source, but 5+ decades of bureaucracy building turned to into a typical bloated club. Truman recommended at its inception that it should be periodically dissolved to avoid becoming too powerful and to ingrown. (mentioned in his two volume memoirs)

I read a few years ago that the average American office worker now receives over one hundred contacts per day

Posted by whattheheck on Aug 21, 2006 at 4:55 PM

Bush told the truth for once!

When asked today “what did Iraq have to do with 9/11” He said “NOTHING!”

What is even better is that he said this when he was speaking about his “Feedom Agenda”.

Posted by honestjoe on Aug 21, 2006 at 4:59 PM

Wiley, three words:

Write.  Your.  Congress-person.

Have you done that? 

I simply don’t see any sentiment in the country for blaming NORAD and the FAA for 9/11.  I don’t see any appropriately knowledgeable person endorsing the views of the “truth” movement.

Why is that I’m defined as such a fringe outsider in your book?  Why is that you’re so intelligent, and the vast majority of the public is so damn stupid?

Why are computer programmers, website designers, radio talk show hosts, waterboys, janitors, historians, theologians and holocaust deniers right, while structural, civil, and fire engineers, firemen, airline pilots and demolition experts are all wrong?

Why is everything so bass-ackwards here?

Posted by Natalie on Aug 21, 2006 at 5:06 PM

whattheheck

What I find shocking is the large number of damn stupid bass-ackwards people that claim to know about gov. agencies and the intelligence they worked with. Such as Ray McGovern, Robert Bare, William Chritison, and ect… Whom all seem to think that there was plenty of warning {but not so much that the gov. could not process & evaluate} to act upon, if not stoping before it happend they feel the gov. should have at least been prepared.

Posted by honestjoe on Aug 21, 2006 at 5:46 PM

Whattheheck

It seems as though the worlds largest and most exspensive intelligence agencies would at the verry least be able to come to the same conclusions as othere smaller less funded agencies through out the world. They new but we didnt? People like Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Major General Albert Stubbleine III, Seem to think that could only happen on perpose within the gov.

Posted by honestjoe on Aug 21, 2006 at 6:05 PM

If we had listened to guys like these instead of Rumsfeld we would not be in such a mess.

Indeed.  However,  most sane members of the government were at least aware that there was a threat, and were at least attempting to understand it and counter it.  There was heightened security at airports, and there was a major effort to decipher the where and when of a possible attack, both during the Clinton and Bush administrations.

Folks like Frog, Rabbit, Wileywitch, John doe and Michael Moore are of the mindset:  “There is no terrorist threat in this country. This is a lie. This is the biggest lie we’ve been told.”—M. Moore

So one has to ask themselves:  Just how or why in the world would people of this mindset have done anything at all to prepare us for 9/11?  What gives them any moral authority to be criticizing Bush for not anticipating 9/11 when they don’t believe that terrorism is even a threat to us, and indeed aren’t convinced that the hijackers even existed?

Posted by Natalie on Aug 21, 2006 at 6:07 PM

Joe,

I can’t help but notice that you’ve gone from arguing that the towers were purposefully imploded, to arguing that we should have been able to stop the hijackers.  If the towers were purposefully imploded, surely the event would have had to be coordinated with the hijackings.  Why in the world would the gubmint even have wanted to stop the attacks?  What possible sense does it make to whine about inaction on the part of the Bush administration?

What’s up with that?

Posted by Natalie on Aug 21, 2006 at 6:16 PM

Natalie

I dont think people are saying that there where no hijackers at all. There saying that they dont belive the hijackers where controled by or funded by or assisted by Osama bin Laden, But where controled, funded, and assisted by a criminal group within our gov. who could stop them from being detained or help them with money, papers, conections and ect.. You know a group within our own gov. who could blend them in with able danger like ops.

Posted by honestjoe on Aug 21, 2006 at 6:31 PM

Natalie

Of course the towers came down in a controled demolition. I was just pointing out obvious red flags [you cant call them all mistakes] about our Itelligence agencies. By the way why has Osama still not been indicted for 9/11 and why does the FBI still not have the evidence to at least get an indictement?

Thanks for the wake up Rabbit.

Posted by honestjoe on Aug 21, 2006 at 6:50 PM

I dont think people are saying that there where no hijackers at all.

A small, small bit of progress.

There saying that they dont belive the hijackers where controled by or funded by or assisted by Osama bin Laden

Now why in the world would they think that, when there’s no evidence for it? (oh yeah, some of them actually think a missile hit the pentagon, my bad)  Why in the world would bin Laden himself claim credit for the attacks if he were innocent?  Does he have John Mark Karr syndrome?

But where controled, funded, and assisted by a criminal group within our gov. who could stop them from being detained or help them with money, papers, conections and ect.. You know a group within our own gov. who could blend them in with able danger like ops.

Someone’s been watching too much 24.  Even if there were middle eastern patsies that were controlled by us, wouldn’t my question above still apply?  Why all the complaining about failure to prevent, if you believe the hijackers were controlled by us?  It doesn’t make any sense.  Do you guys just like to complain?

Posted by Natalie on Aug 21, 2006 at 7:51 PM

Of course the towers came down in a controled demolition.

I should have known better than to commit blasphemy.  Of course they did.

I was just pointing out obvious red flags [you cant call them all mistakes] about our Itelligence agencies. By the way why has Osama still not been indicted for 9/11 and why does the FBI still not have the evidence to at least get an indictement?

Now what makes you think you necessarily know everything the FBI knows?  What makes you think there isn’t a sealed indictment against him?  What makes you think you can believe everything you read?  If you don’t believe the FBI when they tell you the history and origins of the hijackers, why do you suddenly believe them when they tell you they don’t have enough evidence to indict Usama?

What leads you or anyone to believe that Usama is innocent, independent of what the FBI says?

Posted by Natalie on Aug 21, 2006 at 8:11 PM

Rabbit sez:

A full and independent investigation, needs to be carried out imediately.

By whom, Rabbit.  Surely the gubmint can’t be involved, since they are all shills and liars.  Are there going to be any structual engineers invited to attend the investigation?  Firemen?  Bill Manning?  Representatives of the demolition industry?

I’ve asked you several times to outline the format of such an investigation.  Can you do it?

Posted by Natalie on Aug 21, 2006 at 8:17 PM

What’s with the “gubmint” crap, Natalie?

Posted by wileywitch on Aug 21, 2006 at 8:35 PM

You, Natalie, apparently see no reason for NORAD or the FAA to be held accountable for the protection of our air space. Are we supposed to believe that you’re innocent, or I’m the wicked witch of the west for thinking the military can be expected to defend us? Do you have any idea how ridiculous and hollow you sound?

Take a remedial shill course. Except for the truly desperate, you are merely making Rabbit, Frog, and others look like grown-ups next to you.

Posted by wileywitch on Aug 21, 2006 at 8:39 PM

Frog,

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6739227220487922409

There is a shot of Condi Rice in this video that will make your blood freeze.

I think the tape is over the top (for my tastes), but a lot of it probably true, and the picture of her—-OUCH!  She’s one evil looking harpy with some serious issues.

Posted by wileywitch on Aug 21, 2006 at 8:44 PM

Natlie

What I am complaining about is how it should be obvious by now that the laps in security, intelligence, and in our air defense shows that it was all a cordinated effort by a criminal group within our gov. That not only allowed but aided a false flag operation to take place within our country in order to draw our country into a war in the mid eastern countrys just as stated in the PNAC papers.
#1 The fact that the only money traced to the patsies came from Pakistani ISI wich is controlled by the CIA., and a consultant for an amarican defense contractor.
#2 Two of the patsies lived with a FBI informent in counter-terrorism specializing in arabic terrorist.
#3 Some of the patsies where trained by our military secialised training at that.
#4 The fact that the consultant for the defense contractor also was the owner of the quick check used to wire the money to the patsies and was partners with the guy who leased the planes the patsies trained with, partners on a casino boat.
#5 A casino boat that some the patsies had been identified as haveing visited owned also by Jack Abramoff
#6 The fact that the CEO of the firm in partnership was a Tom Delay appointee and that the firm claims to specialise in counter-terrorism

This is just a few of hundreds.

Posted by honestjoe on Aug 21, 2006 at 8:48 PM

And what’s with “a small bit of progress”?  Progress for whom, to what end? Have you got a little chart for “progress” on your desk? Do people who agree with you or say something you can use get little foil stars? Why are you here? Why are you so hell bent on defending organizations that never bothered to make a case? Why are you doing it? Why does this government leave so many questions unanswered and beg so many more, that after five years, this is still a controversy and an increasing number of Americans are beginning to doubt the “impressions” they’ve been given.

Opposition to the official story is growing. You’re getting weaker. How long have you been defending this administration? They don’t really defend themselves, do they?

Posted by wileywitch on Aug 21, 2006 at 8:53 PM

Of course it was known about all along.  There are many different directions from which foreknowledge of 9/11, in more or less detail but essentially all the elements which are supposedly involved were known about and even actively facilitated.  The story of Muhamed Atta linked to above is by itself a smoking gun for elements of the CIA conspiracy.

Bush Junta Complicity in 9/11

Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, a longtime Army intelligence officer, publicly claimed on August 15, 2005 that the 9/11 committee investigation was a cover-up. “Shaffer said that his unit had contacted the FBI repeatedly during 2000 to warn that a US-based terrorist cell was at work, but three times was forced to cancel meetings to brief the FBI at the instruction of the Strategic Operations Command (SOCOM), the Pentagon unit in charge of all counter-terrorism work.”

Wiley tells Batgirl she is making “Rabbit, Frog, and others look like grown-ups next to you.”

..................................................Well I guess that’s something then!

Posted by Rabbit on Aug 21, 2006 at 10:44 PM

Rabbit knows of others who are reading down this thread and who have been for a while.  I have not asked what they think of the Bat, but we may find out if they get this far.

Visitors coming to share our trolls, how nice.

Posted by Rabbit on Aug 21, 2006 at 10:55 PM

I was in the mood for understatement, Rabbit. I think I’ve already mentioned the girliness of her postures.

I admire your tenacity and endurance, and vivid memory, and am glad you have it, because I don’t.

I have nothing but contempt and pity for anyone who would spend so much time defending this administration——even if they’re getting paid. They aren’t winning. And in the U.S., that’s a sin in many eyes. As turncoat and unfair as it is that all those people who rallied behind the president after a disaster which has become the hallmark of his administration (they should patent “disaster”), are now turning against him, at least they are showing some snap.

The neocons are dead-enders, IMO. The dead-enders of the dead-enders are in for a let down and perhaps a career of flipping burgers or driving cabs.

Posted by wileywitch on Aug 21, 2006 at 11:02 PM

Except for the truly desperate, you are merely making Rabbit, Frog, and others look like grown-ups next to you.

A small, small bit of progress.  Where’s my chart? Perhaps if they grow up, they’ll develop the ability to distinguish legitimate scientific and engineering analysis from supermarket tabloid bulloney.

Posted by Natalie on Aug 21, 2006 at 11:45 PM

Natalie

Tell me if Im wrong but out of the list I gave you the only thing that 911 myths disagrees with is what was reported by the St Petersburg Times (911 myths says despite the many eyewitness, its not absolutly certain, since the FBI confiscated the video tapes and has refused to say) in regards to some of the patsies visiting Jack Abamoffs casino.

and the report from newsweek about the patsies training by U.S. military (911 myths claims this report cites records with discrepancies though they ultimately conclude that it is possible.

The rest you agree with right?

Posted by honestjoe on Aug 22, 2006 at 12:17 AM

HI HECK
Sorry to hear DSL not arrived yet. I think that you’d find video particularly interesting, so do recommend file it away for when you CAN see it . Rescorla was the original anti-commie Action Man, but evolved and learned… 

This on LTC Shaffer is not a video.

<blockquote> Nattyshill at work—-

OK, so Condi was lying.  Or maybe she was just uninformed.  So what?  How does this even begin to provide proof of an

Posted by frog on Aug 22, 2006 at 3:02 AM

This one just sent to Rabbit by Canada Dave  More evidence of WTC’s thought of as targets.

Posted by Rabbit on Aug 22, 2006 at 4:43 AM

honestjoe,

I have no doubt that people in the government systems had info the attacks were possible, likely, even imminent, but

Posted by whattheheck on Aug 22, 2006 at 9:13 AM

Natalie,

The term pig-ignorant comes to mind.

You don’t believe the federal government engages in criminal activity?

A lifetime of obvious facts to the contrary—

Have you ever even read about Iran Contra?  About the Kennedy assassination?  About Operation Northwoods?

Operation Northwoods
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/11_20_01_op_nwoods.html

You put forth this innocent girlscout routine, like the white house just has our best intentions at heart.  What absolute garbage.  That crap don’t play here, as should be obvious to you by now.  Time to change tactics.

They’ve been importing narcotics into this country since Viet Nam, and simultaneously rounding up poor minority dealers to send off to prison.  This has not stopped. 

A CIA-connected DC-9 was recently stopped by the Mexican army with 5.5 tons of cocaine on board in 126 identical black suitcases.  The plane was dressed up to appear it was from the Department of Homeland Security.  The ownership records tie it to Iran Contra players as well as a company located at HUFFMAN AVIATION in Venice Florida, where Mohamed Atta and others trained as pilots.

This exposure is the likely reason for Porter Goss’ (9-11 insider/conspirator) abrupt resignation.

How Much Cocaine Fits on a Department of Homeland Security Plane?
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/2006/06/how-much.html

In direct rebuttal to your song and dance:  When the National Security Advisor lies to the world about warnings of an attack, it’s criminal.  There were more pre-911 warnings than could ever have been expected.  The system was “blinking red” admits CIA director Tenet at the inquiry. 

They were ignored deliberately and stories concocted about how no one could ever imagine such a thing (which gullible idiots believe unquestioningly to this day).

We also have John Ashcroft telling the acting head of FBI, Thomas Pickard:

  BEN-VENISTE: And according to the statement that our staff took from you, you said that you would start each meeting discussing either counterterrorism or counterintelligence. At the same time the threat level was going up and was very high. Mr. Watson had come to you and said that the CIA was very concerned that there would be an attack. You said that you told the attorney general this fact repeatedly in these meetings. Is that correct?

PICKARD: I told him at least on two occasions.

BEN-VENISTE: And you told the staff according to this statement that Mr. Ashcroft told you that he did not want to hear about this anymore. Is that correct?

PICKARD: That is correct.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8517-2004Apr13_5.html

We also have evidence in the 9-11 commission that the acting head of FBI was kept out of the loop:

BEN VENISTE: “Mr. Pickard testified that as of the afternoon of September 11, 2001, he received three things that he did not know before: Number one, he received the Phoenix memorandum; number two, he received information about the Moussaoui arrest and the detailed background that I won’t go into now about who Moussaoui was and what we knew about why he was in the United States; and he received information that the FBI was looking for Mihdhar and al Hazmi, two of the individuals who it turned out participated in the 9/11 catastrophe.”

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04105/300543.stm

I’m tired of beating my head against the wall trying to educate someone who doesn’t want to learn. 

Yeah Natalie.  There is an Easter Bunny, and he loves you.

Posted by johndoraemi on Aug 22, 2006 at 9:43 AM

I would wager, john, that she knows full well this administration is corrupt AND incompetent. What a combination. That’s why they need so much PR——so many shills——so many young and stupid Republicans banging their gong.  So much repetition. And Rupert Murdock—-what a horrible joke the MSM is. 24/7 “news” and no journalism.

Once you step back from the media trance, and the starry eyed need to “believe” (in miracles) there is simply NO REASON TO BELIEVE THE OFFICIAL STORY.  Or is that STORIES?

And then more lies:

We’re going to Iraq to avenge 9/11.

Because Sadaam Hussein has WMD and we don’t want to find the smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud.

Because Hussein is an evil dictator that threatens his neighbors.

To liberate and democratize Iraq.

Why not?

Everything is going fine—-oil companies have never been doing better, Halliburton’s stocks have tripled since 2002, and they HIT THE TRIFECTA. LUCKY THEM.  STAY THE COURSE.

And then this horrible excuse for a leader stays on vacation while people in New Orleans drown. “Heckuva job, Brownie.” Now with that real estate, the fifth largest port in the world, and reserves in the Gulf, the Bush Monarchy has never been better.

Posted by wileywitch on Aug 22, 2006 at 10:04 AM

whattheheck

Dont you find it the lsast bit odd that the only people in our military and intelligence agencies who agree that the gov. bureaucracy is to blame for the failure in not stoping 9/11 before it happend or at the verry least being prepared for it ARE THE ONES WHO HAVE BEEN PROMOTED ,AWARDED AND GIVEN BONUSES ect… and it was spacificly the orders from them (those orders are clled bureaucracy now) that was the cause of the failures.

Posted by honestjoe on Aug 22, 2006 at 10:07 AM

Every time an American training team crashed a jet in Germany (regularly)  while I was there, we all held our breath for a moment and muttered prayers and best wishes for the mechanics. If it were found that a mechanical problem that a mechanic was responsible for caused the loss of a jet, or a jet and a pilot and/or navigator, it could be reasonably expected that the mechanic would end up in Mannheim and be dishonorably discharged after that.  And of course, he would be/feel responsible for causing deaths if they occurred—-which I imagine would be worse than any punishment, but that does not change the rule of law in an organization that is sworn to uphold the constitution and defend the nation. A mechanic could go to prison for the loss of a jet alone. 

9/11 has been a buck passing extravaganza. All of a sudden nobody knows who is responsible and no one can investigate cause and effect because of “intentions”.  And those guys get promoted when they should have resigned out of respect for the job. When air space is violated it is a “failure”. That’s not to say that individuals are “failures” or even an accusation that they had dark motivations, but it is a “failure”. Anyone who doesn’t get that should not be a high ranking person in the air defense industry. It’s so simple that shills can’t wait to screw this message up and start talking about “blame”.

Sheesh. I suspect it’s the frog in the boiling water trick (which includes Clinton, Papa Bush, and Reagan) but America has become accustomed to buying really cheap junk from the government and paying top dollar for it. It’s astounding that no one seems to be responsible for air defense, yet our miltary is being sent to destroy nations that haven’t been shown to have anything to do with 9/11, on behalf of 9/11. This is some nefarious shit. How anyone can look at the way 9/11 was treated from the start and not smell a rat is beyond me.

Posted by wileywitch on Aug 22, 2006 at 10:30 AM

WILEY
Eggsactly fucking right .

Now we have had 911 and no poor hungover, drunk,  or otherwise deadbeat mechanic has been charged with his failure to do his job properly.  He is so safe that there have been no systematic campaigns of denigration against him.

ALL the guys in the FBI who fucked up have been promoted, as has dear Miz Incompetent and Lying Condi. Those who rejected the “Phoenix memos” have been promoted.

WHY ?

SIMPLE .

Everyone else here except Nattyshill knows that certain elements close to the gub’mint have been commiting murder for a very long time.

One of the wonderful things about the USA, and most other countries around the globe, is that there is a seemingly inexhaustible number of PEOPLE who are prepared to fight back.

They often get murdered. Those of you who know this know why it is unnecesssary to provide yet more links.

People like Collen Rowley and Sibel Edmonds, and Karen Kwiatowski, and scores more,  are still alive because they are in the public eye.  Many hundreds of middle-ranking FBI, CIA, armed forces personnel have resigned, rather than participate in this new neo-nazi enterprise.

My very own take on this is that the homicidal maniacs currently in charge of the USA have already got away with Mass Murder.

All of this was predicated on the magic 911.

We now see the “adventures” in Afghanistan and iRAQ TURNING INTO NIGHTMARES   for those peoples,  and our troopps. Plus lebanon.

While they die, we wonder about the origins of their deaths, about whether the Kean Commission told any truths at all.

My own conviction, dating back to 1967, when I invented the “container nuke bomb”,( based on Army experience of the 155mm nuke artillery shell )  is that “nuke terrorism” of some variety is now possible, and has been for 40years.

Many false alarms have been already given, in way-out websites, but the next   US 911 will probably be NUKE .

This is the ultimate Poker- Game—- do you agree with frog rabbit wiley, or with Dick Cheney ?

WTH Without video, you cannot have seen WTC 1 2 and 7 go down as they did, as often as myself.

Been puzzling my brain ever since. I have not yet found a better explanation than Controlled Demolition. 

We nomal people would not do that, but those guys are not like US,, at all.

So when that nuke explodes, with “”“"Islamofascist”“” fingerprints all over it,  and they come to take away all your guns, for National Security, of course, you may well realise that you have been “had”.

Germany was confused and troubled before the Reichstag Fire, after that HITLER passed his PATRIOT ACTS.

And no US Congressmen had time to read it ....before signing ....

Posted by frog on Aug 22, 2006 at 3:55 PM

Somehow I have a hard time taking seriously all these negative views on America’s role in the world, all these indictments against the CIA as if they were a gang of thugs that murdered simply for fun or profit, and somehow took part in, or allowed to happen, 9/11.

Somehow I have a hard time taking seriously these kinds of conclusions coming from people who believe the WTC towers were brought down by “controlled demolition”, the Pentagon was hit by a missile, and the hijackers are still alive.  All these things have been proven dead wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt.

You know what I think?  I think that all these theories and suspicions about the CIA, drugs, connections to this, connections to that, are based on the same kind of mis or dis-information that has clouded your judgement on the towers, the Pentagon, and the hijackers.  I think you take any seemingly strange event or anomaly, and look at it through this distorted prism.

WTH has it exactly right.  The Goverment is simply not capable of taking care of everybody and every situation.  But that is not necessarily a bad thing, because that is not the basis on which the country was founded.  We weren’t ever supposed to be a nanny state. 

However, if we could take some of the trillions that are spent by the government on things that people should be working for and paying for themselves, we might have more for things that the government was actually meant for, like defense and intelligence.

If we had less animosity for and hamstringing of the intelligence and law-enforcement networks, (thank you liberals) and had not created situations where they were forced not to communicate and forced not to “profile”, (thank you liberals)  perhaps 9/11 would have indeed been prevented.

But how do you stop someone bent on destruction of himself and others in a free society????  That is the question.  It’s next to impossible.  But every time something is proposed that has the ability to possibly stop such acts, with only a small degree of interference and inconvenience into our taken for granted freedoms, the left goes bonkers.  “They’re taking away our freedoms” with the partriot act, “they’re creating a police state”, by allowing the NSA to listen in on conversations between suspected terrorists and people in this country.  “How dare they secretly track money transactions between terrorists.  That’s wrong!”

I just cannot take seriously people that on one hand complain that there wasn’t enough done to prevent 9/11, and on the other hand go ballistic over proposals that allow us to connect the dots on the next 9/11 style plot.

In fact, there was even talk about the recent foiled airliner bombing plot being yet another “false flag” operation, because heaven forbid, an act of terror would be stopped by the very methods they first complained weren’t used, and then complained were used.  Much easier on the mind to simply deny its existence, I guess.

Posted by Natalie on Aug 22, 2006 at 5:03 PM

Did you say that you invented a bomb, Frog?

Natalie—-there you go again with the Mary Had a Little Lamb——“I just don’t see how” defense. Everyone else in the world sees it, Natalie. Do you know what a tiny, tiny group of true believers or true deceivers you belong to? If you don’t see anyone behind you, honey, it’s not because you’re so far ahead——it’s because you’ve been “left behind”. 

Next time you see a falling star, say to yourself, “I just don’t see how that could be a reentry vehicle”. If you finish the sentence, it’s not because it’s not possible for a reentry vehicle to look like a falling star. Meditate on that. 

And stop giving your imagination so much credit. It doesn’t deserve that much credit.

Posted by wileywitch on Aug 22, 2006 at 5:48 PM

Its hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong. Thomas Sowell

And yet there are people that not only think thats ok to do but that those in power should be promoted for failure.

Posted by honestjoe on Aug 22, 2006 at 6:36 PM

<i>And stop giving your imagination so much credit. It doesn

Posted by Natalie on Aug 22, 2006 at 6:43 PM

All right, Joe!!!

Quoting my Sowell brother!!

<i>”

Posted by Natalie on Aug 22, 2006 at 7:24 PM

You’re really going to have to decide which path you’re going to go down here truthies, because as the old saying goes, you can’t have it both ways.

If you think 9/11 was an inside job, fine.  But you sound silly complaining about “responsibility”, “accountability”, and “failure to imagine” at the same time.

Because obviously, if it was an inside job, none of this stuff applies.  You don’t talk to cops like this if it’s found out that they’re on the take and purposefully let their drug supplier escape.  They’re simply criminals and are beyond being responsible, accountable, or even having a conscience.

Let’s choose a path here, because the further you go down both of them at the same tilme, the further apart your legs stretch.  Not to mention your credibility.

Posted by Natalie on Aug 22, 2006 at 7:39 PM

Natalie asks why havent more come forward about 9/11. As if there hasnt been more than enough and as if it has not been obvious tha the gov. does not look kindly to those who are honest and brave enough to do so. As seen again in the gov. response to one of there own who was.

Doubting Official 9/11 Story Is ‘Disloyal To The United States’
Listen about this awarded the Purple Heart fighting in Iraq and he is acused of what?

U.S. Army Intelligence Analyst Targeted For Suggesting New Independent 9/11 Investigation. Donald Buswell served almost 20 years in the army and is a hero for his service in Iraq and for stateing the truth.

After looking into this more I see that this is and has been going on with many, hundreds of true patriots in both the military and intelligence ageancies. So I guess Im just talking about what seems to be comenplace in the U.S. .

Posted by honestjoe on Aug 22, 2006 at 7:47 PM

Yes, Natalie. Here is the job I imagined for NORAD:

North American Aerospace Defense Command

The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) is a bi-national United States and Canadian organization charged with the missions of aerospace warning and aerospace control for North America. Aerospace warning includes the monitoring of man-made objects in space, and the detection, validation, and warning of attack against North America whether by aircraft, missiles, or space vehicles, utilizing mutual support arrangements with other commands. Aerospace control includes ensuring air sovereignty and air defense of the airspace of Canada and the United States.

You imagine the rest, because you are so good at it, in a funny sort of way that is useless when compared to reality, and the ACTUAL demands it has an inclination to make so unexpectedly. Then perhaps you can cherry pick some more and find a poll that says 89% of Americans didn’t know that NORAD exists then you can argue that you don’t see how an organization that most Americans weren’t aware of could have stopped an attack that no one could have imagined.

I’m a pragmatist and a realist, and for the most part think that what people “believe” is their business.  When a discrete event occurs—-like 9/11—-then it’s the business of every American and all the world affected by its repercussions (which is about all the rest of the world). “Beliefs” have no bearing on forensic evidence, the legitimacy of that evidence, and who all was involved. So why is America expected to believe the official “story”?

It just happens to be a story that most of the rest of the world doesn’t believe. If they didn’t have solid reasons to disbelieve, I would think the disbelief an interesting phenomenon. But why would they believe it? Where was the trial? When was the evidence presented to a jury in a lawful and binding court proceeding? When did the jury convict? Where are all the Grand Jury Indictments against the killers of the 3,000 dead? We’re talking about a mass murder with 3,000 victims? Where are all the crime shows that show us blow by blow reconstructions of the actual courses of events being recreated with evidence, and admissions of bafflement where bafflement occurs, and admissions of questions unanswered where questions are unanswered? So why are we talking about “official stories”?

Fuck “official stories”. 

When four aircraft are hijacked and fly around the Eastern United States and over air bases for forty minutes, that means that our airspace has been violated, and undefended. What don’t you get? Do you have any earthly idea what an obscenely long amount of time 40 minutes is in air traffic control? It’s preposterous.

Don’t tell me——next you’re coming back with the “Needle in the Haystack” aria. Right?

Posted by wileywitch on Aug 22, 2006 at 7:56 PM

Natalie

Here is another quote I strongly agree with though I dont care for everything he says or belives in.

Of course the people dont want war. but after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and its always a simple matter to drag the people along wether it’s a democracy, a facist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy, all you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger. Natalie guess how he exposed the country to greater danger.

As if on cue.
This was by Hermann Goering, wich Im quite sure you are aware of.

Posted by honestjoe on Aug 22, 2006 at 8:36 PM

Joe, I don’t accuse pacifists of being unpatriotic.  I only accuse them of being extraordinarily naive.  The true danger lies in doing nothing, chalking it up to an anomaly, and expecting the whole thing to just go away.  That would be Moore, Michael, as I’m sure you’re aware.

I don’t accuse truthies of being unpatriotic.  I accuse them of being extraordinarily gullible and unsophisticated in how they evaluate information.  Kind of like those people who buy the Star at the supermarket.

Posted by Natalie on Aug 22, 2006 at 9:08 PM

Wiley,

19 brainwashed bigoted islamic murderers took advantage of a generally trusting and unsuspecting nation on 9/11.  We tried our best to stop them.  We failed.  We learned.  We changed our mindset and our procedures.  We weren’t perfect, we made mistakes, but we’re only human.

Quit blaming the well intentioned people that tried to stop the attack, and feel horribly that they were not able to do so.  Redirect your misguided anger where it belongs.  Brainwashed, inhuman islam.

Posted by Natalie on Aug 22, 2006 at 9:21 PM

Why is so much time spent on the twin towers when Building 7 was so obviously a controlled demoliton? What more do we need to start rounding up suspects for questioning?

Please watch all the videos of Building 7’s collapse (CD) here:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html

and note the following:

All the videos show that none of the visible walls exhibit ANY SORT of trauma as they collapse smoothly and relatively evenly into the ground. They behave as if the steel columns immediately behind them are completely without substance, a FACT that is ONLY explainable by CD. The steel columns do not buckle, bend, jolt, jar, or otherwise stutter on their way down, nor does the outside facade of each wall show any indication that the bottom edge of each wall is “hammering” itself into the ground. The energy imparted into the bottom of each column translates into absolutely NOTHING visible on the steel columns and wall facings.

WTC 7 was a controlled demolition. Period.

Posted by Philr on Aug 22, 2006 at 11:08 PM

Trusting and unsuspecting defense forces. That’s almost funny, Natalie. (You appear to be becoming a parody of yourself.) That explains our unrivaled nuclear arsenal and the most expensive military in the world and all of human history—-we’re so trusting. Dang. Why didn’t I figure that out?

We attacked two countries that weren’t formally found to be involved with the attacks on 9/11, but bin laden might have slept in one, and there still has not been an explanation for attacking Iraq that has proven to be well grounded, realistic, or justifiable.

And then our wonderfully humane administration apparently just did not give a shit while New Orleans drowned. They were pretty busy turning down aid offered by other nations that would have saved lives and reduced suffering and desperation. There’s pride for you—-no thanks we’ll let the poor drown, it keeps them independent of government aid. Haliburton being dependent on no-bid, cost plus contracts is different—-they’re good ol’ boys.

Your repeated attempts to garner sympathy for the people who are supposed to protect and defend this nation are nothing but mawkish sentamentalism.

You seem not to be concerned with the actual protection of life and the preservation of dignity of peoples, or for government accountability. You seem only to be concerned with protecting the egos, reputations, and appearances of the corporate whores, yes-men lackeys, unqualified appointees, and profiteering leeches that ARE this administration—- serving themselves, and their crony families and friends while failing America, offending the world, and looting the treasury.

You want pity for our leaders, AND respect? Pick ONE, if you must, but they deserve neither.

“Brainwashed, inhuman islam”? Like the brainwashed, inhuman, islam children picking up cluster mines in their yards and turning into pink mists? Like the brainwashed, inhuman islam grandparents searching in the rubble of what was left of their family home and family after it was hit by a 400 pound bomb dropped from 30,000 feet in the middle of the night? Like the brainwashed, inhuman islam doctors working dead on their feet without the medical supplies and medicines that the occupiers are legally obligated to provide for all the “collateral damage” they do, but don’t provide for?

I know where your sympathies lie. With the administration——where sympathies lie, and money and power are the only things worthy of “love”. Pure political brainwash. Loyalty to the party. Stroking the status quo.

I wouldn’t be proud if I were you, Natalie. You defend mass murderers and war criminals, and play your cheap violin for the adults who were supposed to protect us, while conveniently ignoring the tens of thousands of children your beloved government officials are murdering, ostensibly because of the evil of islam or any number of explanations.

Sane adults don’t make it their mission to destroy “evil”. That’s called megalomania, and delusions of grandeur. It is diagnosable and sometimes treatable but not curable. Sane and reasonable adults do not dignify such despicable hubris and murderous indifference to innocence with support and excuses.

Posted by wileywitch on Aug 22, 2006 at 11:34 PM

Thanks for twisting and shaping everything I said to fit your wishes, Wiley.  It’s an excellent parallel to how the “truth” movement takes things out of context and misrepresents things.

Are you following in Chris Bollyn’s footsteps?

I didn’t say trusting and unsuspecting defense forces, I said trusting and unsuspecting nation, which is entirely accurate.

Our defense forces were not of the mind to defend us against our own civilian airliners, which strangely had never even once attacked us in the past.  Even so, they made an earnest attempt once the plot was made clear, which unfortunately was not until after the death warrants of some 2800 people were signed.

You know to whom I refer when I talk of brainwashed islam.  You know I’m not talking about hopefully still the majority of the “religion of peace”.

Sane adults don’t delude themselves into thinking that brainwashed and murderously religious people can be reasoned with, and they don’t treat the murder of 3000 innocent people and a direct hit on the nerve centers of our financial and military establishments as anything other than war.

Sane adults don’t let dictators get away with violating terms of a cease fire, and numerous UN resolutions for over a decade.  Sane adults don’t allow a window of opportunity to close, after which the dictator was bound, determined and able to resume his WMD ambitions as soon as the world’s will grew weak.

Don’t talk to me about a few tens of thousands of unintended civilian casualties in Iraq, when Saddam truly meant to kill and/or torture several hundreds of thousands of his own people.

No Chris….er…..Wiley.  You defend mass murderers and war criminals.  I think that’s much more accurate.  Do I distort your attitude?

OK, lets just say you are hell bent on preventing anyone from doing anything to interfere with their activities.  Is this your recipe for “peace”?

Posted by Natalie on Aug 23, 2006 at 12:32 AM

Ari Fleischer To Jimmy Carter: You

Posted by Natalie on Aug 23, 2006 at 12:44 AM

WILEY
No. Frog did not invent a bomb !

However, while examining the introduction of containerisation in 1967, I imagined this as the perfect vehicle for terrorism or extortion for criminal or political reasons.

The now very old 155mm nuke shell is but one example of a “suitcase” -sized weapon.

Some time after this was the subject of various books and films.

On the 22nd of July, the sixtieth anniversary of the   King David Hotel terrorist bombing was celebrated in Israel. 

Then as now “terrorism” was a tactic, a means to an end .

Posted by frog on Aug 23, 2006 at 1:36 AM

Sane adults treat mass murder as a crime, not an excuse for a crusade, Natalie.

Adults who are not bigots do not justify the bombing of nations based on the activity of NGO’s.  Adults who are truly civilized do not condone reducing cities to rubble and killing tens of thousands of people to supposedly kill one specific group of people, or even one specific leader,  that might be hiding anywhere in that country—-so HEY——just bomb the whole country. That’s abominable. That is not in any way commensurate with the spirit of democracy.

Responsible adults in positions of grave responsibilty take responsibility for their failures whether they could have done better or not.  You might want to look into that “cause and effect” concept Natalie. The concept of responsibility seems to elude you. You can’t seem to tell the difference between responsibility and blame. So, do the world a favor and don’t take a job where people’s lives are in your hands.

And ask yourself what other fundamental constructs of the frontal lobes that separate responsible adults from childish adults and people with high functioning autism, you may be missing. You appear to live in the land of logical fallacy where your only purpose is to inspire pity for poor American politicians with power and those poor military leaders, and to make it appear that anyone who questions the “official story” or why their even is an official “story” is either supporting terrorists or cold and unfeeling.

You keep going further off into left field dear, and are looking a bit frayed. Do you get paid vacations?

If you just can’t pull yourself away from your work, then how about showing everyone where I defended or made excuses for terrorists, Natalie.  Quote me and give the date and time.

You’ve defended this administration. So there you have it. You have also defended Israel which is in flagrant violation of all conventions and human decency.  So you’re on the record.

Show everyone where I’ve defended bombing cities and countries, collective punishment, torture, bombing hospitals, bombing power plants, bombing water treatment plants, bombing ambulances, shooting unarmed civilians; raping, murdering, and then burning civilians to cover up the crime, murdering people with aircraft…..show me where I’ve defended such practices as murdering civilians and destroying nations.

Posted by wileywitch on Aug 23, 2006 at 1:52 AM

Bush Now Says What He Wouldn’t Say Before War: Iraq Had “Nothing” To Do With 9/11

To justify the war, Bush informed Congress on March 19, 2003 that acting against Iraq was consistent with “continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”

, Vice President Cheney repeatedly cited “evidence” cooked up by Douglas Feith and others to claim it was “pretty well confirmed” that Iraq had contacts with 9/11 hijackers.

BUSH: The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East.
QUESTION: What did Iraq have to do with it?
BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what?
QUESTION: The attack on the World Trade Center.
BUSH: Nothing. Except it’s part of ... and nobody has suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a ... Iraq ... the lesson of September 11th is take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody’s ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq.

link, including short video

So how many americans still believe there WAS a connection ?

PS ; I asked the webmaster how come some of posts are flagged from Germany, no answer.
Unlikely that Wiley’s old comrades now at somewhere in germany would be so dumb.

The NSA has never publicly admitted that Echelon exists, but the program has been identified in declassified government documents. Republican and Democratic lawmakers have long criticized the program and have, in the past, engaged in fierce debate with the intelligence community over Echelon because of the ease with which it can spy on Americans without any oversight from the federal government.

  Mike Frost, who spent 20 years as a spy for the CSE, the Canadian equivalent of the National Security Agency, told the news program 60 Minutes in February 2000 how Echelon routinely eavesdrops on many average people at any given moment and how, depending on what you say either in an email or over the telephone, you could end up on an NSA watch list.

  “While I was at CSE, a classic example: A lady had been to a school play the night before, and her son was in the school play and she thought he did a—a lousy job. Next morning, she was talking on the telephone to her friend, and she said to her friend something like this, ‘Oh, Danny really bombed last night,’ just like that,” Frost said. “The computer spit that conversation out. The analyst that was looking at it was not too sure about what the conversation was referring to, so erring on the side of caution, he listed that lady and her phone number in the database as a possible terrorist.”

  Ironically, during the first Bush administration, a woman named Margaret Newsham, who worked for Lockheed Martin and was stationed at the NSA’s Menwith Hill listening post in Yorkshire, England, told Congressional investigators that she had firsthand knowledge that the NSA was illegally spying on American citizens.

  While a Congressional committee did look into Newsham’s allegations, it never published a report. However, a British investigative reporter named Duncan Campbell got hold of some committee documents and discovered that Newsham was telling the truth. One of the documents described a program called “Echelon” that would monitor and analyze “civilian communications into the 21st century.”

frog is still in france…...........

Posted by frog on Aug 23, 2006 at 3:31 AM

YO HECK
Here is another for your “videos to see with DSL”  file. Gonzo the Clown.

The link is to Prisonplanet, but the video is the Jon Stewart show on Alberto Gonzales, 4mins on a retard in action. The dangerous seven were “unable to advance their DEADLY PLOT “, he says.
Sounds like Mr Bean and one of his Cunning Plans to me.
The FBI man fesses up that this was “MORE ASPIRATIONAL THAN OPERATIONAL”. 

Jon points out that the result was achieved. A woman working near the Sears Tower was “scared”. And so were millions of other amerricans .........?
...................................................................................................................................

On a similar light/heavy note, Craig Murray’s book Murder in Samarkand is explosive, but does not destroy airliners in flight !

“Is that about terrorism?”, asked the lady that examined my onboard luggage. “Humm, well, it contains mentions of that, but it’s about your former ambassador to Uzbekistan and more about diplomacy”, I replied politely. “Does it have al-Qaida in it?” I looked a bit confused. “What?” - “Well, I have to check this with my manager, the rest of your stuff is fine, though.”
The manager then came after a minute or two. “Hello Sir, can you tell me about this book?” “Sure, it is about Craig Murray, former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan.” “Where, if I may ask, did you buy this book?” - “Well, it is available at any Waterstones here in Britain. I just bought my copy in the Angel branch yesterday.”
“I am afraid you cannot take this onboard, Sir.” You must be kidding me. I just spent 20 pounds on a book that, despite arousing some controversy in the UK, should not be banned onboard a flight to Germany. I understand that the terror plot (which coincidentally seems to have an Uzbek dimension) makes for some overwrought nerves.
But to ban a book widely available in book stores in the UK is just a joke. Now, cash-strapped, I have to wait for the paperback edition to be published. Already late for the flight and raging in front of the calm airport security manager, I must have overheard that they can - in exceptional cases - post confiscated material to a UK address. I recalled that onboard the plane…

link

Not all the retards are in warehouses worshipping some concocted neo-christian God, and asking their FBI-aeda infiltrator for combat boots .
...................................................................................................................................

More seriously , that well-known Commie mob the Cato Institute published this,( link in article),  about the war on terra.

I adopted the same “probability approach” in the seventies when living in SE London, working in NW. The bombs then were IRA, financed by the Irish/American community.

Posted by frog on Aug 23, 2006 at 9:47 AM

(Frog, I want to hear your stories.)

The neocons’  help and minions have bought into or are enforcing the idea that ideas are dangerous. People getting ideas into their head is a real problem, I mean what if they actually start to t-h-i-n-k? Shhhh. Am I speaking too loudly? You never know what might be the embodiment of evil. Knowledge is evil. And with that mental structure in place you can keep everyone off their toes and on the defensive with the absurd and the arbitrary, and proud of being dumb as a fence post.

I was talking to a lawyer last week who specializes in issues with the Social Security system. I said I felt like we were in a Dostievsky novel surrounded by petit bureaucrats rattling their sabers. He said it’s actually more like Kafka. I think we agreed on Kafkayevsky.

It’s like they want mentally fragile people to blow, and the strong to be wary of defending reason. Everytime we give in to one of these absurd demands or limits, the servants get a chemical SCORE in their brain and become increasingly habituated to exercising wanton control over people who aren’t threatening anyone.  Habituation often escalates into addiction and tolerance, so that they will need to be more forceful, more accusing, and more arbitrary to get their chemical buzz.

It’s up there with police using rubber bullets so they work past the natural aversion to pointing a gun at a civilian who is doing no harm and pulling the trigger. It has worked so well here that sometimes police around here unload all their clips of real bullets in residential neighborhoods to hit one guy in a vehicle.

The big SHOCK makes it all possible. The MONUMENTAL THREAT keeps it going, and it still requires 24/7 media reinforcement to keep people from refusing it wholesale.

Posted by wileywitch on Aug 23, 2006 at 10:28 AM

HI WITCH,

I forget which video it was, but one of them harps on, cutting from one bushnik to yet another, on MSM, and they are all saying the same thing “ELEVENTH of SEPTEMBER “. bla… bla… more bla… twenty times. “Bullet Points.”

Hypnotic stuff.    VERY BLOODY HYPNOTIC.

I remember back in 99 ?, NATO bombing bridges , I think it was Zagreb ,but maybe Beograd, and because I HAD believed the propaganda about the Racak murders, I went along with it. At FIRST .

I remember noticing then how I became hardened to the daily news of YET MORE BOMBING. It was like the weather forecast—“it’s fucking raining again”.

People were dying, infrastructures were being destroyed, and I had become HABITUATED.

Well, the old frog has woken up.

This whole 911 scenario has sent me (again) to the wildest corners of the net, and back once more to the sane frog you know;

One of natty’s ‘pointlets’ is we should make our minds up between attacking Cheneybush for MIHOP and attacking them for incompetence.

How I wish my old sparring-partner WTH had DSL . I’ve watched those three towers go down scores of times, and the only answer I can see is Controlled Demolition.

EVEN IF we take the official view of 19guys with boxcutters, because Cheney and Rumsfeld told us that is what they had, is it likely that this would have worked four times out of four ?

Too bad to be true.

So, wiley, we are in Kafkayevski - land.

The mentally fragile will surely blow.

The rest of us will get goddam close to blowing too, but we WILL not .

Some people have appointments with lamp posts, like Mussolini, and Bushblair will get theirs’, sometime.

Posted by frog on Aug 23, 2006 at 3:11 PM

Lagomorph Anatidae Mustelidae

Posted by scorp on Aug 23, 2006 at 4:50 PM

Chris Bollyn Misstatements

The uscrisis website starts with a copy of the PAL seismographic printouts showing the small-effect aircraft strikes on WTC Towers 1 and 2, followed by the much larger collapses of the Towers.  Then Bollyn makes this curious statement:

Two unexplained “spikes” in the seismic record from Sept. 11 indicate huge bursts of energy shook the ground beneath the World Trade Center’s twin towers immediately prior to the collapse.

The

Posted by scorp on Aug 23, 2006 at 4:53 PM

“Massive Explosions” AND Thermite Destruction of the Core Columns of the Towers

Lagomorph, you are arguing for destruction of the core columns of the Towers seconds before the aircraft strikes AND thermite destruction of the core columns, time undefined.  Can you give us any possible scenario where both destructions are necessary, plausible, or even possible?  Your utter fecklessness and fraudulence regarding either the “massive explosions” or thermite destruction is utterly absurd.  Arguing for both is surely perverted, demented, or worse.

Molten Metal

Your argument, if I understand it, is that “pools” of molten metal were in the basement, they remained hot for weeks, the pools contained sulfur, sulfur is a sure sign of thermate, and therefore the columns were destroyed by thermate, after they had been destroyed by “massive explosions” just before the planes struck the Towers. 

Well I agree that there was molten metal, even though the thermographic images you cited at http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2001/ofr-01-0429/thermal.r09.html showed that the fires were essentially out by 09/23, and these were strictly surface phenomenon at any rate.  The thermographic images do not show temperatures in the Tower basements.

There really was molten metal in the basement, but there are several reasons that it could not be thermite /thermate.  In the first place, no functional amount of thermite would create “pools” of metal, as I indicated above.  At best, destructive thermite would have created a few cubic feet of molten metal, presumably collected near the base of each column.  Additionally, if it had been thermite, it would have burned to termination in a matter of seconds, and no further heat would have been generated.  Yet some of the metal was molten weeks later, indicating an ongoing chemical reaction.

Now when carbon burns, it generates much heat; wood, coal, and gasoline are examples of burning carbon.  Given proper conditions, metals will burn as well, and produce very intense heat.  The oxidation of metals (rust) usually takes place at a slow rate, and heat is dissipated before it becomes noticeable.  Sulfurization of metals also generates intense heat.  So where would sulfur come from in the bowels of WTC?  From the wallboard; drywall, which covered every wall of every floor in WTC, is hydrated calcium sulfate.  All this drywall was well pulverized, and would react with hot metal, undoubtedly incorporating any available oxygen into the reaction as well.  But the iron and sulfur reaction would have continued in the absence of oxygen, producing very hot temperatures for “weeks”, as you have pointed out.

And take a look at the pictures on the algoxy and 911truthseekers websites.  You may (or may not, depending on your known tolerance and appreciation for silly nonsense) wish to avoid the 911truthseekers commentary, since he is arguing that the rebar in the concrete floors was coated in C-4, and that explosive charges were placed within the WTC Towers’ floors at the time of construction, years and years before 09/11.

The algoxy site shows several photos taken from different angles and locations of the North Tower immediately after the collapse, and one photo of the South Tower.  The core of North Tower is (briefly) intact well above the surrounding forty-story buildings, as is the South Tower for a very brief period.  Does that look as if the core columns had been cut by explosives, or thermite, or explosives and thermite, or by any other means, in order to destroy the Towers?  Hell, no, you idiot. 

I presume you are not arguing that the core columns were cut AFTER the collapses of the Towers, but if you could clarify just what it is that you are arguing, we would appreciate it.

Then take a look at 911truthseekers site: about one-quarter of the way down the extended page, there is a big lump of metal supposedly taken from the WTC site.  Do you see the mangled rebar entrained in the solidified metal?  Do you suppose the metal was molten before the collapse, or after?  If this molten metal came from thermite that caused the collapse of the Towers, how did the rebar get mangled and entrained?  Remember that a thermite reaction is complete in a few seconds.  Besides, the reported amount of molten metal is far more than thermite cutting charges would have generated. 

You really need to learn to think more clearly, and avoid embarrassing yourself in public.

Posted by scorp on Aug 23, 2006 at 4:58 PM

Yeah, it’s a kick in the butt, Frog. I highly recommend to all television viewers that they stop watching television, stop listening to the radio, and stop reading newspapers and magazines for six months. Stay out of talk about current events. Read a lot of classics and catch up on some mending. Garden, whatever. Stay in the present and the immediate. After six months of disciplined MSM blackout,  and focus on the world that is manifest around oneself, turn on the television. Trust me. It will be surreal. You’ll never see it the same way again.

One of the reasons it’s so difficult to truly communicate about important things is that most Westerners are immersed in the language and visual communications of mass marketing and public relations. This is the language of lying to convince people they need to buy things that couldn’t sell themselves on merit.

To escape the commodification of everything just for half a year is enough to realize how all the priceless gifts of life count for nothing in “the market” and media, and the worthless junk costs too much. 

Socially engineered cynicism and faux innocence is ubiquitous, but it has to be constantly maintained and hammered through the echo chamber because it conflicts with what would——in an uncontaminated mind—-be obvious.

Posted by wileywitch on Aug 23, 2006 at 5:00 PM

Frog & Wiley,

I

Posted by whattheheck on Aug 24, 2006 at 6:48 AM

Wiley and Heck,

I gave away the TV at christmas, but still get much amusement watching, for example,  the ocasional jon stewart on this. Need some laughs , too ... and the political satire is closer to the mark than other more long-winded stuff.
The BBC and frog radio news is mostly garbage, propaganda even, so I often switch off after a few mins.
Too addicted to give this up completely,  enjoy the learning that goes with it too much . An eternal student .

On our previous discussion on globalisation, this man
byron dorgan looks very interesting. 
Sadly true that only a TINY minority of pols anywhere on the globe are addressing this seriously, that new religion of freetrade ‘n competitivity at any price.
Far more interesting than more bloody beating of wardrums.

This one on back to nature, internet deprivation, and terror porn
is GOOD .

See y’all, off to do a little work.

PS checked at amazon—- one buyer there put thru to a callcentre in…....india

Hells teeth !

Posted by frog on Aug 24, 2006 at 7:57 AM

When you can’t even get your theories past the liberal Bush hating and tolerant nuthouse gatekeeper Jerry Springer, I would submit that you’ve got real problems.

(Truthie interview starts after a few minutes of news & comment—stream or download 20 mb mp3)

Posted by Natalie on Aug 24, 2006 at 1:19 PM

http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson.htm

Hi, Natalie. I see you’re getting more pathetic and desperate.

What makes you think that proper investigations of air crashes were done—-other than faith, and “of course”, and “it would seem”?

When you can’t get beyond “Bush hatred” as the ad hominem to deflect criticism of this administration on this board, then I DO submit (not ‘would” submit, as if it were a hypothetical submitting) that you’ve got real problems. You might want to improve your sagging defenses by practicing at home with :

              Pol Pot
              Pinochet
              Steve Baldwin
              Tom Delay
              Milli Vanilli
              Elliot Abrams
              Stalin
              Steven Segall
              Paris Hilton
              Chairman Mao
              Bill Clinton
              Jerry Spring
              Hillary Clinton

You need to beef it up, baby. Perhaps making excuses for others will help you find your way out of this rut. Your beloved’s polls are reaching staggeringly low numbers, so I can see why you might be having a problem with confidence. I think these little exercises will help.

Now that 89% of polled Americans are not averse to the idea of impeachment, you would be well advised to tighten up. Good luck. You’re going to need it. And the ‘splaining you might have to do if Justice is finally served——whoo doggy!  I think it’s really going to suck to be you one of these days and your fellow sycophants won’t be banding together either to help you.

Maybe Oprah will have you on as a guest, and you can do the repentent- I believed in him-now I’ll never be a virgin again hang out.

Posted by wileywitch on Aug 24, 2006 at 4:15 PM

“Sane adults treat mass murder as a crime, not an excuse for a crusade, Natalie.”

I guess to be consistent, you’d have to classify former President Clinton as insane, because after all, he led the nation into a war against Serbia on reports of genocide and war crimes, and thousands of civilian casualties resulted.  Because of reluctance to commit ground troops, there was massive damage to infrastructure and damage to facilities that resulted in great environmental harm, as was the case in Lebanon recently.  The reason for going to war, massive genocide, turned out to be not so massive after all.  Misled?  Lied to?

Are you consistent?  Did you cry and scream about the Kosovo war and the shaky ground on which it was based, or did you like most of the anti-war left, remain strangely silent throughout?

Posted by Natalie on Aug 24, 2006 at 4:36 PM

Nattyshill

Somewhere back on this thread I even posted that the “Racak” massacre Clinton (probably) refered to in that speech had been set up.

Yup. The American and European people were lied to, misled .

Thanks for bringing up the subject.

He can join bushblair wesclarke and Co at the Hague.

Posted by frog on Aug 24, 2006 at 5:04 PM

Not to point too fine a point on your gross and desperate reach to frame Clinton for a “crusade” in the Balkans—-Clinton didn’t declare “a war on terrorism” or imply that the Muslim world harbored all eville.

Say whatever you want about the man—-I think little of him, and certainly don’t support him or his slimy wife. You may notice, I put them both on your list for practice, but at HOME. Nothing Clinton, Richard Nixon, or Abraham Lincoln did has a bearing on the legal, ethical, moral, and existential responsibilities of the current administration.

Are you playing dumb, or do you just not get the fact that who currently staffs the executive branch has more bearing on current events than what Clinton did? These people have responsibilities. The presidency is not a contest among presidents.  It’s a reality thing. People who deflect blame from Bush by talking about Clinton sound like thumb-sucking babies. You should really not lower yourself to that level Natalie, especially among people who don’t care for Clinton—-many who aren’t even Democrats. It’s both lame, and senseless.

Posted by wileywitch on Aug 24, 2006 at 5:46 PM

I shall repeat:

Are you consistent?  Did you cry and scream about the Kosovo war and the shaky ground on which it was based, or did you like most of the anti-war left, remain strangely silent throughout?

It would be refreshing indeed if you could point me to some of your writings that condemned Clinton for doing so many of the same things you condemn Bush for.  Of course I understand that perhaps you weren’t all that into the Internet at the time, or perhaps hadn’t delved into the world of online discussion.

So I guess honesty may have to suffice.  Did you at the time think to yourself that gee, what does this guy think he’s doing, bombing and killing innocent civilians when mere police action, and dipolomacy should be enough?

Or, was the mere fact that Clinton didn’t say anything politically incorrect like the word “evil” enough to call off your dogs?  (BTW, from day one, Bush has gone out of his way to differenciate between “the religion of peace”, and brainwashed islam.)

Although obviously Bush has the responsibilty to deal with the reality of the present, why are you so reluctant to discuss the role previous presidents and policies had in dealilng or not dealing with,  the rise of islamic terror?  Might just possibly the preceding eight years have had something to do with it?  Might the brainwashing of thousands of young muslims have had something to do with it?  Might a skewed interpretation of the koran have had something to do with it?  Might all this have gone on largely before Bush was even in office? 

Aren’t you rather selective or silent in whom you blame things on???

Why don’t you ever put blame where it truly belongs? (clue…it’s not us)  Are you playing dumb?

Posted by Natalie on Aug 24, 2006 at 7:38 PM

I don’t cry and scream Natalie. And I’m not selling canned peas. I’m not selling anything. This “consistency” thing is for sales people and quality control for the mass produced product. 

Am “I” consistent? What a stupid question. I seriously doubt that you even think that you’re talking to ME, doll face. You’re talking to someone who might buy what you peddle.

Consistency. Har. So, should we let a mass murderer go because we didn’t complain about the last one enough? What the hell are you even talking about? These stupid talking points! “Fairness” is “both sides”.  Are there any good sales going on in your black and white construction?  I need a new blazer.

Clinton doesn’t have a goddam thing to do with 9/11 except for the fact that his staff left a warning about Al Queda being a threat.

http://www.bartleby.com/66/24/64624.html

Consistency is a virtue for trains: what we want from a philosopher is insights, whether he comes by them consistently or not.

Parents are led to believe that they must be consistent, that is, always respond to the same issue the same way. Consistency is good up to a point but your child also needs to understand context and subtlety . . . much of adult life is governed by context: what is appropriate in one setting is not appropriate in another; the way something is said may be more important than what is said. . . .

You might want to give special consideration to the last one.

Consistency is a quality essential for Shills, autistic children, and baking. Most of the rest of us aren’t too busy forcing the world into two little boxes with a set of school-girl rules for the purpose of defending criminals.

If you want credit for consistency, however, I’ll give it to you. You’re consistent.

Posted by wileywitch on Aug 24, 2006 at 8:50 PM

Perhaps, Natalie, you should just blow Clinton and get it out of your system.
Nobody is talking about Clinton. The topic is 9/11, which occurred under the Bush Administration, and you’re just prattling on about CLINTON, CLINTON, CLINTON.

I think you have some unresolved issues.

Posted by wileywitch on Aug 24, 2006 at 8:56 PM

Charles N. Pegelow

B.S. Civil Engineering 1972, Lamar University
B.S. mathematics 1972, Beaumont, Texas

Use of the following national and industry codes: ASIC, API RP 2A, ANSI58.1(AISC), UBC, DNV, ASME Div. VIII Vessel.

All the engineers who have come forward to date the shiils have said dont count because they are retired or from another country or that the cunstruction of steel buildings was not there particular field of engineering and ect.. So I wonder what there going to say about this one? Well I will just say it will be worth your time to look up and research because we have been lied to.

Posted by honestjoe on Aug 24, 2006 at 9:30 PM

Ok, so I guess you’ve made it quite plain you don’t have much regard for consistency, and that indeed you aren’t consistent about matters of going to war.  You apparently just bend and bow to the political wind.  Don’t worry, you’re in good company.

Thank you for making that so clear!!

No, Wiley, consistency is good.  Not completely unbending, but basic consistency is a good thing.  Ask pretty much anyone.  You have refused to criticize dear Bill, and you scold me for even bringing him up.  You are of the shallow opinion that policies and procedures of the preceding eight years are beyond consideration, and that history began on January 1, 2001.

That’s just silly.

Posted by Natalie on Aug 24, 2006 at 9:48 PM

Keep going, Natalie. It’s like a field study in anthropology to watch how you define people, judge their judgement, and draw all kinds of conclusions from what appears to be a little checklist, or flow chart, or the Diagnostic Manual of Political Beliefs—-a very thin volume—-that is getting thinner by the minute.

One thing you apparently feel the need to express as a great law is that no opinion or observation about George W. Bush can be made solely on the behavior of George W. Bush and/or his administration. He and Clinton (in your mind) appear to have some sort of symbiotic relationship that makes all judgements of Bush nil if the same judgements have not been made of Clinton. It doesn’t matter that planes weren’t hijacked and flown into buildings while Clinton was in office (in your mind),  all that matters is that any criticism or observation of Bush that is negative can be magically dissolved with any mention of wrong-doing on the part of Clinton, who can magically dissolve as well, as far as I’m concerned.

Who the hell is defending Clinton? The topic is 9/11 and the handling of 9/11 by the Bush administration.

Why you disavow the views of people who refuse to abuse this fallacious logic as “consistently” as you do is your problem. This “criticising Bill” ritual that you demand is bizarre. I consistently refuse to entertain your little fetishes that you consistently impose when you can’t pull anything else out of your intellectually thin defense of this administration and its handling of 9/11 and the threat of terrorism.

Posted by wileywitch on Aug 25, 2006 at 12:26 AM

No Wiley, your topic is the handling of 9/11 by the Bush administration.  The topic of this article is that the only evidence the 9/11 “truth” movement has for its “theories” is faith.  Apparently faith in the belief that because Bush went to war in Iraq, that makes it a certainty that 9/11 was an inside job. 

You, having joined in supporting these theories that would have the whole thing planned and executed by our own government, have rendered your discussion about our air defense’s response or Bush’s failure to anticipate completely nonsensical.

You post this:

Conclusion

With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged. Regarding the planes that allegedly flew into the WTC towers, it is only just possible that heavy aircraft were involved in each incident, but no evidence has been produced that would add credence to the government’s theoretical version of what actually caused the total destruction of the buildings, let alone proving the identity of the aircraft. That is the problem with the government’s 911 story. It is time to apply the precautionary principle.

And at the same time, you criticize NORAD and Bush and Cheney for not stopping terrorists that you apparently believe didn’t even exist.

You are a field study in twisted logic.

Posted by Natalie on Aug 25, 2006 at 1:05 AM

This is almost too funny.  The truthies are fighting amongst themselves, plunging steeply downward in a fashion reminiscent of flight 93.

Nothing doth more hurt in a state than

That cunning men pass for wise.

—Francis Bacon

Posted by Natalie on Aug 25, 2006 at 1:16 AM

Natlie

Thank you for the link. Did you read it all by any chance?

  Yes we have a divide but for one point and that is none dispute that the gov. story is not true. I also noticed that none have fallen from the truth to join or agree with the gov. lie. But I see that even more, much more are not excepting the gov. lie and or joining the growing movement of truth. A large portion of the growing numbers of concernd people are engineers who are still active.

Posted by honestjoe on Aug 25, 2006 at 7:43 AM

Natalie. You twist again. All you really say, repeatedly, is that the “official story” is true, and that anyone who disagrees with it or questions it has some inherent fault.

Now you’re trying to “prove” that I’m “inconsistent” by wracking up all your projections and twistings of my words.  Hijackers can be dead AND put on trial, you know. It seems the government doesn’t believe in the hijackers——No trial. No mounds of evidence. No case.

From the beginning, I’ve been asking WHY NORAD FAILED. They clearly, failed, silly girl, we were attacked.  From the beginning I’ve asked why they were not removed from their positions after such an egregious failure.

You just carry on about “blaming” and cry and scream about those poor people who failed to do their jobs. By running tapes in real time, perhaps, and screwing things up even for air traffic controllers? Who knows? It hasn’t all really been laid out by the government.

From the beginning I’ve asked why there was no formal crime investigation——there was none.

From the beginning I’ve asked why Bush would not testify under oath. You claim it’s because of people like me. Veterans who served in NORAD, or home caregivers, Independents or what? What is it about people “like me” that make the president not testify under oath or allow transcripts during one of the nation’s most important inquiries (note “inquiry”—-not “investigation”).

It is the believers of the “official story” that are working on faith. The fact that it is referred to as the “official STORY” says enough, for anyone who wants to know the truth to start digging.

Oh and thanks for that quote, Nat—-it describes almost everyone in the administration. And boy is our state hurting now.

Posted by wileywitch on Aug 25, 2006 at 10:19 AM

Natalie. You twist again. All you really say, repeatedly, is that the “official story” is true, and that anyone who disagrees with it or questions it has some inherent fault.

That’s because <u>nobody</u> has presented <u>any</u> credible or substantive reason as to why it’s not (basically) true, and for people to cling to alternative theories with no evidence to back them up does indeed indicate an inherent fault.  Not complicated.

Now you’re trying to “prove” that I’m “inconsistent” by wracking up all your projections and twistings of my words.  Hijackers can be dead AND put on trial, you know. It seems the government doesn’t believe in the hijackers——No trial. No mounds of evidence. No case.

And I did prove your inconsistencies.  I didn’t have to twist any words or project anything to ascertain that you both 1) believe that 9/11 was an inside job, and 2) that our military and our administration should be held accountable for not stopping something that they presumably intended to execute.  That’s not only inconsistent, it’s goofy.

I didn’t have to twist anything to make it clear that you are uninterested in pursuing question as to policies and procedures that were in effect for eight years and more before 9/11, and feel that the following eight lousy months should be the only window in time worth looking into.  That’s not only goofy, it’s dangerous.

I didn’t have to twist anything to establish that your standards for criticizing presidents for their reasons for going to war are bendable and shapable.  You predictably invoke the “nuance” defense.

From the beginning, I’ve been asking WHY NORAD FAILED. They clearly, failed, silly girl, we were attacked.  From the beginning I’ve asked why they were not removed from their positions after such an egregious failure.

Failures happen all the time.  They don’t necessarily indicate negligence.  Clinton and his government failed to stop the 93 WTC bombing.  They failed to detect and prevent Tim McVeigh from killing 168 people.  Could they have reasonably been expected to?  Of course not.  Did Clinton testify under oath about these incidents?  Of course not.  Funny that there doesn’t seem to be any call for hearings into the failure and negligence of NORAD.  Could that possibly be because there’s no cause to do so?

You just carry on about “blaming” and cry and scream about those poor people who failed to do their jobs. By running tapes in real time, perhaps, and screwing things up even for air traffic controllers? Who knows? It hasn’t all really been laid out by the government.

When you do know, make a coherent case.  You have the NORAD tapes, and you have the flight data and the cockpit communications.  You’ve got timelines galore.  Until you can narrow things down to something slightly more focused than “we need an investigation”, you are what is referred to among lawyer types as a nuisance.  You’ve not helped yourself by apparently falsely claiming that there were “injects” onto civilian radar screens.

From the beginning I’ve asked why there was no formal crime investigation——there was none.
From the beginning I’ve asked why Bush would not testify under oath. You claim it’s because of people like me. Veterans who served in NORAD, or home caregivers, Independents or what? What is it about people “like me” that make the president not testify under oath or allow transcripts during one of the nation’s most important inquiries (note “inquiry”—-not “investigation”).

My goodness, there’s been investigations galore.  The FBI’s been all over all of the crash sites and beyond, the NTSB has been all over everything, the victims have all been identified at Pennsylvania and the Pentagon, several passenger’s DNA has been identified at ground zero, along with hundreds of building occupants.

The investigation continues to this day, which is hardly unusual or strange in a case this monumental.

I was kind of joking about you being the reason Bush didn’t testify under oath in public.  However, you and the conspiracy community provide an illustration of how an innocent misstatement or forgotten timeline would have been exploited.  The whole investigation had turned into a political Bush-wacking festival.  What’s more, the committee was extremely satisfied with his testimony, and thought he was very forthcoming and helpful.  The same with Clinton/Gore.

Everything’s not subject to public view in this country.  We live in a representative republic, <u>not</u> a democracy.  There are very good reasons for that.

But beyond the politics, I don’t believe that it would normally be considered prudent to put your President under oath when he’s not being accused of a crime.  How does that look to the rest of the world when your leaders or former leaders have to be put under oath?  It looks like they’re on trial for something.  Is that a good message to send?

I’ve said this before.  I’ve answered your question.  Now why won’t you even begin to speculate as to why Clinton and Gore didn’t testify under oath in public view?  You can use some of my answers if you want.

“Hijackers can be dead”

Ahh….a small, small tiny morsel of progress.  You just have to know how to pick it out from the chaff.

Posted by Natalie on Aug 25, 2006 at 2:33 PM

Joe, what are you?

Are you a “thermitian”, or a “no planer” guy?

Can you list for us the types of active engineers and their resumes that have signed on as I guess either thermitians or no planers?

Posted by Natalie on Aug 25, 2006 at 2:52 PM

Natalie, why don’t you just make the case for the “official story” for us?  In a nutshell. It seems that the burden of proof should be on the accusers and those that claim that they know the truth and are acting according to that which they know.

Whatever you think of the people who question 9/11—-which is the majority of literate people in the world—-and however much you would like to typify them as subsets of an order of people who are not to be believed; no one in the “truth movement” is launching aggressive attacks against nations or cities based on unproven accusations.

The administration is. So, show me the court case.  Show me where 19 hijackers have been indicted, tried in a court of law, and found GUILTY by a jury or judge.

At least show me where Bin Laden is on the FBI most wanted list.

If you can’t do that, then tell me why you think all good Americans should trust a man who responds to 9/11 with,  “Looks like I hit the trifecta” and illicits laughs from his entourage.

Posted by wileywitch on Aug 25, 2006 at 3:24 PM

Hi Wiley;

Maybe you and I do disagree about Clinton and Kosovo, I dunno.

Nattyshill’s evidence was, as so very often, a shot in her own foot .

First off she gave us the PRESIDENT, explaining why to go to WAR, then she gave us, free, the evidence that he had been either LYING or just WRONG.

I know Clinton was lying, because the initial ‘causus belli’ was set up by the OSCE.

Natty’s valuable point is that PRESIDENTS do lie to the American People, make WARS and subsequently do get found out .

Well done BattyNatty.

PS       I do not agree with him on many things, but that guy has more character in his one remaining little finger than GWB in his whole body.  Max Cleland on the 911commission will strike most people as a thoroughly HONEST reaction to a completely FLAWED Inquiry.

Let’s start with the 9/11 commission. What are your concerns about how it’s dealing with the White House?

First of all, as someone who co-sponsored legislation creating the 9/11 commission, against great opposition from the White House, this independent commission should be independent and should not be making deals with anybody. I start from there. It’s been painfully obvious the administration not only fought the creation of the commission but that their objective was the war in Iraq, and one of the notions that was built on was there was a direct connection between al Qaida and 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. There was not.

So therefore they didn’t want the 9/11 commission to get going. What you have is the fear from the White House that the commission would uncover pretty quickly the fact that one of four legs that the war stood on was nonexistent. So they slow-walked it, and they continue to slow-walk it. They want to kick this can down past the elections. We should not be making any deals; we should stick to our original timetable of [completing the final report by] May. However, we’re coming up on Thanksgiving here and we’re still struggling over access issues. It should be a national scandal.

What have some of the access problems been?

In May, the commission asked the FAA to give us the documents we’re looking for. We’ve had to subpoena the FAA. We’ve now had to subpoena documents from Norad, which they have not given us. I for one think we ought to subpoena the White House for the presidential daily briefings, to know what the president knew, what the administration knew, and when they knew it so we can determine what changes ought to be made in our intelligence infrastructure, our warning system, so that we don’t go through this kind of surprise attack again.

Now, it’s not partisan; Bill Clinton has already agreed to come personally before the 9/11 commission. But a majority of the commission has agreed to a bad deal.

And what is the deal?

A minority of the commissioners will be able to see a minority of the [PDB] documents that the White House has already said is pertinent. And then a minority of the commissioners themselves will have to brief the rest of the commissioners on what the White House thinks is appropriate.

So the minority of commissioners will get a briefing on the documents?

Yes, but first they have to report to the White House what they’re going to tell the other commissioners

Really, chaps, can you imagine that anyone elsewhere would want to become “DEMOCRATIC with AMERICAN VALUES ” when this is how things are NOT done in the USA ?

Posted by frog on Aug 25, 2006 at 3:28 PM

WW -

<blockquote>Consistency. Har. So, should we let a mass murderer go because we didn

Posted by scorp on Aug 25, 2006 at 4:32 PM

Frog, I was under a self-imposed news blackout during the whole ordeal in the Balkans and will admit I know next to nothing about it. Whatever the case, it doesn’t excuse any misbehavior on Bush’s part. Two wrongs don’t make a right. I had a class full of four and five year olds in day care who knew that much. All this posturing that pulls Clinton out of the closet just boils down to nanna-nanna-boo-boo and has no bearing on the realpolitik.  Christ these true-believers would blame Clinton if Bush nuked Cuba out of some misplaced sense of tradition.

I’m not a leftist, scorp. And I’m not a Democrat. And I’m not “fine” with dead Rwandans”. And I’m not an imperious ass.

You know damned well Hussein was a U.S. ally when he was gassing the Iranians and the Iraqi Kurds who fought with the Iranians during the Iran/Iraq war.  You know we sold Hussein those chemical and biological agents. You know we would not call people who joined a foreign military and fought against us “our people” as if we still cared very deeply about them, after they shot at us.

So, why don’t you show us all how “President” Bush is ending genocide and promoting democracy. Start with “Shock and Awe”. It’s just a little skip to CARPET BOMBING. And how about “collective punishment”.  And how about being unable to control a single road in Iraq, and losing Afghanistan. 

Don’t forget DU. How noble of him to share our industrial radioactive waste with the world.

Make your case Scorp.  Make it without comparisons to Democrats. If the best you can do is to say that he’s better than what you think is the worst, then what is so grand about that?  What, based on his own merit, has Bush done to make the world a better place?  And why is it, that only a shrinking minority of Americans and almost no one else in the rest of the world agrees? Bush is brilliant and 98% of the world’s population just doesn’t appreciate that?  Boo-fucking Hoo. Maybe—-just maybe——Bush and his cabinet is actually responsible for the ire that most of the world feels for them, and the distrust that most of the world has for him.

Posted by wileywitch on Aug 25, 2006 at 4:55 PM

Look….the neo-con agenda is over….it’s just a matter of time at this point , the end results of your gullibility and or simple-minded duplicity are yours….wear it well , because those will be the only clothes you will have for quite sometime….your emperor is naked and you are in rags….

The list of conservatives that are beginning to separate themselves from the feeding frenzy is growing…Like starving rats…you guys are turning on each other…demonizing your own ; because now they have decided that the time for integrity…has arrived….

But Redhorse has to give you guys and gals your proper due…..because you walk the walk on this here ITT website like all is hunky-doory….but we all know that is not true….....

Your ideology is so foggy ; that many of your own loyalist are folding…broken and belittled by the very lies that the scorpy one is still believing…....

All those hurtful lies…
No respect….at home or in the international community
All alone
Looking and felling stupid….worst yet….being stupid….is it really working…really ?
This is the neo-con agenda…just like your Zionist / Nazi predessors of the first and second world wars ; you guys and gals are doomed to the eternal hell of your own misguided insane pathos…....

A healthy democracy…with 42% of the population STILL believing Saddam had WMD’s….these ARE your responsibilities…you can’t pass the buck much longer…...

SCAAAAAANDAALIST…..........just SCANDALIST…..........! ! !

Posted by Redhorse on Aug 25, 2006 at 6:31 PM

Frog…Rabbit ; one of you gentleman gave out a link not so long ago….It was for a website on the Zionist agenda….
This Horse cannot find this information in his notes or history folder….I have also been reviewing your former posts…but have had little luck….

All of natures creatures on this side of the forest would be appreciative for your assistance with this information ; aiding in our research….
Thank you…..

Posted by Redhorse on Aug 25, 2006 at 6:49 PM

It wouldn’t hurt to give the 58% a little credit would it,  Redhorse? Is denigrating all Americans important to you?

You seem to express joy at the prospect of American people suffering. Am I misreading you? Did you enjoy watching people in New Orleans drown?

Posted by wileywitch on Aug 25, 2006 at 7:55 PM

Natlie

Sorry I didnt get to you sooner I just got back and I have a house full.

Well so far I have not come across any reason to belive that no planes hit the twin towers but I do know that no plane hit building 7. AS for the pentagon something hit it but I am not sure enough to say what though I am leaning away from a 757.

As for thermite/thermate I think that it could have been used but I dont think it was enough to cause the explosive force that was needed to polverise the concrete or eject the steel the distance that has been recorded. There is a lot more that needs to be explaind than what thermite/thermate can do alone. Now I have been looking into the superthermate but Im still not sure that has enough explosive force needed to cause that kind of damage.

The engineers that I have been writting about have only been talking about the fact that the twin towers could not have come down the way that they did do to the impact of jet airliners and fire alone. I do have to admit that they dont think thermite/thermete alone would be enough to cause the kind of damage seen. Though I do not know of them rueling out its use all together and I still think that Steve Jones is doing important research.

So I guess these new engineers dont fit into the options you have offerd.

Posted by honestjoe on Aug 25, 2006 at 8:32 PM

Honestjoe, you seem to be such a nice guy. You might want to be a bit wary of letting “nice” get in the way. Everyone who disagrees with Natalie doesn’t fit in her options.

It was carried out by 19 Islam hijackers with boxcutters. I wonder why there were 19 hijackers and four planes. 

ANYWAY, the hijackers, like all “Islamofascists” hate our freedoms. So they crashed aircraft into two towers of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and a field in Pennsylvania.

The towers collapsed according to theories written after the fact.

The part of the Pentagon that was hit was being remodeled. So the terrorists did not do their homework. Probably because they were spending so much time in titty bars waving the Koran.

Whatever materials the hijackers’ passports were made of should be what black boxes are made of now, because all of a sudden black boxes don’t survive plane crashes and at least one of those passports were FORD TOUGH..

Case closed. Anyone who asks questions supports the hijackers, supports terrorism, hates their own freedoms, refuses to hold the “evil-doers” accountable, supports evil, and probably voted for Clinton and is too brain-dead to understand why Monica Lewinsky is so much more impeachable than an illegal aggressive attack on a sovereign nation that posed no threat to anyone. Must be those knockers, hey?

Posted by wileywitch on Aug 25, 2006 at 8:57 PM

Posted by wileywitch on Aug 25, 2006 at 9:01 PM