NORAD on 9/11: What was the U.S. military doing that day?

tunaman

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-895995587805019501&q=zwicker&pl=true

Everybody also keeps ignoring the FACT that the US military were involved in extensive war games that morning.

http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/story1a012802.html

6 A.M.: WAR GAMES

Lt. Col. Dawne Deskins figured it would be a long day.

Sept. 11 was Day II of "Vigilant Guardian," an exercise that would pose an imaginary crisis to North American Air Defense outposts nationwide. The simulation would run all week, and Deskins, starting her 12-hour shift in the Operations Center as the NORAD unit's airborne control and warning officer, might find herself on the spot.

Day I of the simulation had moved slowly. She hoped the exercise gathered steam. It made a long day go faster.

8:40 A.M.: REAL WORLD

In the Ops Center, three rows of radar scopes face a high wall of wide-screen monitors. Supervisors pace behind technicians who peer at the instruments. Here it is always quiet, always dark, except for the green radar glow.

At 8:40, Deskins noticed senior technician Jeremy Powell waving his hand. Boston Center was on the line, he said. It had a hijacked airplane.

"It must be part of the exercise," Deskins thought.

At first, everybody did. Then Deskins saw the glowing direct phone line to the Federal Aviation Administration.

On the phone she heard the voice of a military liaison for the FAA's Boston Center.

"I have a hijacked aircraft," he told her.

American Airlines Flight 11, headed to Los Angeles, had veered off course, apparently toward New York. The liaison said to get "some F-16s or something" airborne.

Forty-one minutes earlier, Flight 11 had left Logan Airport with 81 passengers. For the last 27 minutes, it had not responded to ground control.

Deskins requested Flight 11's latest position, which an operator put up on the screen.

Flight 11 wasn't there.

Someone had turned off its transponder, the device that identifies the plane to ground control.

Boston Center could still track it on primary radar, but the operators in Rome would be hard-pressed to find it amid the jumble of blips on their screens.

We'll direct the intercept, the liaison told Deskins. Just get something up there.

Deskins ran up a short flight of stairs to the Battle Cab and reported the hijacked plane -- real world, not a simulation.

"He says it's going to New York," she said. A thought flashed: Why is he going to New York?

8:43 A.M.: SEARCH

Master Sgt. Maureen Dooley started doing the math.

If Flight 11 cruised at a normal speed, maybe 350 knots, in a certain direction, it would be right -- she directed a technician to zero in on a sector northeast of New York -- there!

They saw blips, dozens of them -- the swarm of a Tuesday morning aerial rush hour. Somewhere in there was Flight 11.

"You have the urgency to do what you're trained to do," Dooley said. "But you also have that personal urgency, which is saying, `Oh, my God!"'

By now, Powell was on the scramble line to Otis Air Base in Falmouth, Mass., one of two Air National Guard units controlled by the Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS), telling it to upgrade its "readiness posture." Direct phones and e-mails flashed to NORAD in Colorado and CONR, its Continental U.S. Region headquarters in Florida.

At 8:43 a.m., Dooley's technicians, their headsets linked to Boston Center, heard of a second plane, United Flight 175, that also was not responding. It, too, was moving to New York.

The FAA was still trying to contact Flight 11. If this followed past scenarios, the hijackers would start making demands, the first of which might be to land at JFK International Airport.

Dooley's technicians centered in on a radar blip that might be Flight 11. They watched it close on New York City.

8:46 A.M.: SCRAMBLE

The Battle Cab, a long, glassed-in office, overlooks the Ops Room like a low-slung balcony in a darkened theater. In a corner booth, an officer waits for the unthinkable: the coded message indicating America is at war.

Six minutes after Boston Center's call, NEADS scrambled two armed F-15s at Otis Air Base on Cape Cod.

"We had no idea where the aircraft was," recalled Maj. James Fox, who gave the order. "We just knew it was over land, so we scrambled them towards land."

Weapons directors guided the jets, as radar technicians talked to the FAA -- a headset to one ear, a phone to the other.

Deskins ran to a nearby office and phoned 1st Air Force Chief Public Affairs Officer Major Don Arias in Florida. She said NEADS had a hijacked plane -- no, not the simulation -- likely heading for JFK.

"The entire floor sensed something wrong," Chief of Operations Control Lt. Col. Ian Sanderson said. "The way this unfolded, everybody had a gut sense this wasn't right."

Alot of people are afraid to admit that they have been duped. That is the hardest thing for most people to get over, the fact that they have been made a fool of by the perps of 9/11.

I haven't even touched on the inconsistencies and contradictions at the pentagon, or flight 93 that supposedly crashed but left no wreckage. The following site has done extensive research on the pentagon...

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/

Manic Moran

Didn't we go over this bloke a couple of months ago?

Got to love his pulling a number out of his arse at five minutes into the video.

NTM

tunaman

The lack of moral courage in people to confront these awkward questions is pathetic.

From the 9/11 commission...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5233007

At 8:21, American 11 turned off its transponder, immediately degrading the available information about the aircraft. The controller told his supervisor that he thought something was seriously wrong with the plane.

At 8:24:38, the following transmission came from American 11:

American 11: We have some planes. Just stay quiet, and you’ll be O.K. We are returning to the airport.

The controller only heard something unintelligible; he did not hear the specific words “[w]e have some planes.” Then the next transmission came seconds later:

American 11: Nobody move. Everything will be O.K. If you try to make any moves, you’ll endanger yourself and the airplane. Just stay quiet.

Hearing that, the controller told us he then knew it was a hijacking.

So by 8:25 at the very latest, there was no doubt flight 11 had been hijacked.

Yet the official story remains that Bush was not informed of anything until at least 8:55, when he said he was told of a plane crash, yet officially there was no mention of Bush being told of planes being hijacked for another 10 minutes.

Is it just possible the official version of events is a lie? because I find it impossible to believe the president of the US was never informed of this information.

The following video is called The Great Deception and proves that by asking just a few obvious questions, the official story quickly becomes an impossibility.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6895068144140381538&q=great+deception&pl=true

Capt'n Midnight

Everyone knows the CIA was heavily involved on September 11 1973

tba

Right suppose its all true, what should we do?

Freelancer

Right........Oh sod it, I could not be arsed.....Keep living the delusion. The NWO control the mainstream media, like NBC, and google, which is were you are getting all this. How does that work?

Hobbes

tba wrote:

Right suppose its all true, what should we do?

Exactly. The current administration is untouchable.

tunaman

tba wrote:

Right suppose its all true, what should we do?

Spread the word, as by doing nothing you will become complicit in the killing of 3,000 innocent civilians.

State-sponsored terrorism is nothing new, except in the case of 9/11 we have plenty of documented evidence which proves beyond doubt, people in the US government had prior knowledge, which makes their version of events impossible.

Have you ever heard of project paperclip?

It involved the US military bringing hundreds of nazi scientists into the US after WWII, so they could continue their work. This in turn led to many sick projects like MKULTRA, and lesser known projects such as MKDELTA, MKNAOMI, BLUEBIRD and CHATTER.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MKULTRA

In reality the nazi's didn't lose the war, they just moved to the US.

If people let them away with mass murder in broad daylight, then who knows what sick project they will think of next.

tunaman

Freelancer wrote:

Right........Oh sod it, I could not be arsed.....Keep living the delusion. The NWO control the mainstream media, like NBC, and google, which is were you are getting all this. How does that work?

I never said they had complete control YET, but that is their ultimate aim.

The following site is a very comprehensive 9/11 timeline, which includes links to a huge amount of sites. However many of the links have already been removed or are restricted, so people really need to start connecting the dots while they still can.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

tunaman

Hobbes wrote:

Exactly. The current administration is untouchable.

It is not just the US government. Think about it for a minute, all the incriminating evidence is widely available, so I think it's safe to assume any country with a half decent intelligence agency would have quickly realised it was an inside job.

In january 2002 Andreas von Bülow, former German Minister for Research and Technology and a long-time member of German parliament, suggests in an interview that the CIA could have been behind the 9/11 attacks.

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=andreas_von_bulow

In july 2003 he releases a book called “Die CIA und der 11. September” (The CIA and September 11), in which he alleges US government complicity in 9/11. Von Bulow was Federal Minister of Research and Technology under Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, and before that was high up in Germany’s Ministry of Defense. [Der Spiegel (Hamburg), 10/8/2003] He argues that 9/11 was a covert operation in which the CIA and the Israeli Mossad played a role. He suggests remote control could have been used to direct the hijacked planes into their targets; that the WTC towers collapsed due to explosives; that no planes crashed into the Pentagon or in Pennsylvania; and that the CIA had faked mobile phone calls from Flight 93 passengers.

So Glad

I have discussed this to death a while ago on a september 11th thread but it is useless. Depite the solid facts, people would just rather agree with the given explanation so it is easier to deal with and pretend everything is ok. I could type allot about this but unfortunatly it is 4 in the morning and I am tired. All I can say is the American government are a bunch of scumbags who would really do anything to be in the lead. Keep on talking Tunaman.

So Glad

Freelancer wrote:

Right........Oh sod it, I could not be arsed.....Keep living the delusion. The NWO control the mainstream media, like NBC, and google, which is were you are getting all this. How does that work?

Actually, if that is true, how do you know anything? If every piece of information given to us by anyone high up is false, how can you believe anything?

So Glad

Much to the dislike of everyone who still doesn't care, I think I'll take this opportunity to go over that day and why so many people have started to believe september 11th was staged or let happen. First and formost, George Bush did know that september 11th would happen. He and his associates were given such documents declaring that a terrorist attack involving planes was imminent. For example, Pentagon officials canceled thier flights on september the 11th because of security concerns. Here is a list of warning that were distributed and such:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html#eve

So now that were are sure enough that the American government did have some awareness (contrarry to what the American government claim) that this would happen, why wouldn't they try, in the LEAST, to stop it? We are talking about a country that goes to war when they think someone is doing something sneaky behind thier back, just to be on the safe side. Given the enormity of the American defence (NORAD, Pentagon, Area 51 (that does not exist), White House) I would tend to think that they would try thier best to save thier citizens lives.

Having read too much material on this matter, I have no doubt someone was trying everything they could do to thwart any type of defensive menouvers. On september 11th many mock tests were initiated by the airforce simulating terrorist attacks. More than usuall. This left, I think, 3-6 plane to defend the whole of America. These planes were routed when the first plane hit a tower at Wall Street but were given mixed messages and ended up being sent out to the atlantic ocean, miles away from where they knew the hijacked plane was.

Too much is un-explained and people think they should avoid answering them because we all seen it happen and we don't want to hurt peoples feelings or whatever but I believe otherwise. It doesn't matter much because we will all be submerged in water in 15-20 years or so from now so it doesn't bother me anymore. Have a nice day.

gilroyb

So Glad wrote:

I have discussed this to death a while ago on a september 11th thread but it is useless. Depite the solid facts, people would just rather agree with the given explanation so it is easier to deal with and pretend everything is ok.

I'm sorry, 'solid facts'? I looked at the timeline that was posted above, which seemed to have an interesting selection of anti semetic rumours which have no basis. Feel free to link to the other thread you're talking about and I'll read your arguement there.

the_syco

tunaman wrote:

The Battle Cab, a long, glassed-in office, overlooks the Ops Room like a low-slung balcony in a darkened theater. In a corner booth, an officer waits for the unthinkable: the coded message indicating America is at war.

Sorry, but this sounds too much like someone writing fiction.

So Glad wrote:

So now that were are sure enough that the American government did have some awareness (contrarry to what the American government claim) that this would happen, why wouldn't they try, in the LEAST, to stop it?

Find a figure of how many "facts" and "tip-offs" that the US goverment got per day since the cold war ended... and you'll see why they had reason to be skeptical. As for the people cancelling flights, can you get me a link for that, as it sounds like BS.

=-=

Another thing you must consider: most hi-jackers want either money, or their fellow soldiers released from an American jail. And yet... I see people saying that the planes should have been shot down when they headed towards a city (which most likely had an airport).

If those planes had been shot down, what would it have acomplished? The twin towers would have stood for another day, someone would goto jail for the manslaughter of the passengers, or at least sent to jail for a long time, and the hippies would cry for the blood of some politican.

Jimi-Spandex

It's all the jews fault tbh.



Why hasn't this loon been banned yet?

blu_sonic

the thing is people look for conspirocy in everything, we could take it a face value or go down the US did it route or whatever, it doesn't bring any of those people back nor does it save anyone who were killed subsequently by the "coalition forces", remember the wedding that was just wiped out becase they thought it was rebel forces in afganistan?

Regardless of the theories it was a horrible day to be the same species as those killers

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

tunaman

the_syco wrote:

Sorry, but this sounds too much like someone writing fiction.

Talk about avoiding the issue. Face the facts.

Find a figure of how many "facts" and "tip-offs" that the US goverment got per day since the cold war ended... and you'll see why they had reason to be skeptical.

How about you find the evidence to back up your ridiculous assumption?

They always take threats seriously, as they always think worst case scenario.

Another thing you must consider: most hi-jackers want either money, or their fellow soldiers released from an American jail. And yet... I see people saying that the planes should have been shot down when they headed towards a city (which most likely had an airport).

Who said the planes should have been shot down?

Most intelligent people have been questioning just how 4 ponderous airliners had free reign over the most protected airspace in the World.

We are talking about fighter jets with top speeds in excess of 1500mph, yet they never even got close to any of the airliners.

gilroyb

tunaman wrote:

Who said the planes should have been shot down?

We are talking about fighter jets with top speeds in excess of 1500mph, yet they never even got close to any of the airliners.

You don't seem to think they should have been shot down, so what should the fighters have done when they caught up with the airliners? It's not like a bus that you can burst the tires of and bring to a halt.

tunaman

blu_sonic wrote:

the thing is people look for conspirocy in everything, we could take it a face value or go down the US did it route or whatever, it doesn't bring any of those people back nor does it save anyone who were killed subsequently by the "coalition forces", remember the wedding that was just wiped out becase they thought it was rebel forces in afganistan?

Regardless of the theories it was a horrible day to be the same species as those killers

Even if you believe the myth called "the official story", the fact remains that the CIA armed Bin Laden. Another unknown fact is that the FBI are not even after him for his role in 9/11. He isn't even NO.1 on their wanted list.

http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/topten/fugitives/laden.htm

Dick Cheney even admitted in a very recent interview they have no evidence...

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060329-2.html

Q: I want to be clear because I've heard you say this, and I've heard the President say it, but I want you to say it for my listeners, which is that the White House has never argued that Saddam was directly involved in September 11th, correct?

THE VICE PRESIDENT: That's correct. We had one report early on from another intelligence service that suggested that the lead hijacker, Mohamed Atta, had met with Iraqi intelligence officials in Prague, Czechoslovakia. And that reporting waxed and waned where the degree of confidence in it, and so forth, has been pretty well knocked down now at this stage, that that meeting ever took place. So we've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden [sic] was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming. But there -- that's a separate proposition from the question of whether or not there was some kind of a relationship between the Iraqi government, Iraqi intelligence services and the al Qaeda organization.

tunaman

gilroyb wrote:

You don't seem to think they should have been shot down, so what should the fighters have done when they caught up with the airliners? It's not like a bus that you can burst the tires of and bring to a halt.

At 8:25 there was no doubt that flight 11 had been hijacked, so why does Bush claim that he thought it was a terrible accident after he saw it crash at 8:46, just before he went into that classroom?

The fact remains they never got near any of the planes. Does that not ring any alarm bells with you?

gilroyb

tunaman wrote:

The fact remains they never got near any of the planes. Does that not ring any alarm bells with you?

I'd actually have been a bit more concerned to think that in the very short time available to them that they would have been able to get a fighter by then. As of then, there was no evidence that an airliner would actually be used by hijackers as a weapon. If they got a military fighter involved in shadowing the airliner without planning to do anything to the airliner, it would only exacerbate the issue, (which was expected to be the plane landing at JFK and demands being made).

What did you want the fighter planes to do if they caught up with the airliner(s)?

tba

Tunaman I know all this, what do you want me to do? Go on the streets and tell people not to vote for people who do this kind of thing? Set up my own party to claim a better executive, fight for freedom or rebel? I have a good idea why don't I set up my own country where pixies roam the land, chocolate flows from unicorns asses and people never sin or die.

Your living in a dream world if you think I am going to do all that just because you come on here and say I should, why would follow your example.

All your posts are about this, your like a ****ing broken record. Why not post something positive for a change, try make a joke or talk about the weather.

Your like that damn guy at a party that everybody avoids because all you talk about is that one topic you constantly obsess over, OMG, your wrecking my HEAD!

tunaman

gilroyb wrote:

I'd actually have been a bit more concerned to think that in the very short time available to them that they would have been able to get a fighter by then.

I am being extremely generous stating that they knew of a hijacking at 8:25, as there are reports of the transponder being turned off between 8:13 and 8:21. Flight control manager Glenn Michael later says, “We considered it at that time to be a possible hijacking.”

The US military were not contacted till 8:37, and even then the pilots of the fighter jets were just warned to get ready. The actual scramble order does not come until the pilots are already waiting in the fighters: “We went out, we hopped in the jets and we were ready to go—standby for a scramble order if we were going to get one.” [BBC, 10/1/2002] Duffy continues, “I briefed Nasty on the information I had about the American Airlines Flight. About four-five minutes later, we got the scramble order and took off.” [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 7/3/2002] However, the official notification to scramble these fighters does not come until 8:46 a.m. The six-minute (or more) delay between unofficial and official notification has not been explained.

As of then, there was no evidence that an airliner would actually be used by hijackers as a weapon. If they got a military fighter involved in shadowing the airliner without planning to do anything to the airliner, it would only exacerbate the issue, (which was expected to be the plane landing at JFK and demands being made).

What did you want the fighter planes to do if they caught up with the airliner(s)?

They should have escorted it, which is standard procedure. Where have you got the idea that fighter jets being scrambled would only makes things worse?

Rick Findley later states, “At that point all we thought was we’ve got an airplane hijacked and we were going to provide an escort as requested. We certainly didn’t know it was going to play out as it did.”

tunaman

tba wrote:

Tunaman I know all this, what do you want me to do? Go on the streets and tell people not to vote for people who do this kind of thing? Set up my own party to claim a better executive, fight for freedom or rebel?

Well if you know all this and do nothing then you are complicit in the mass murder of 3,000 innocent civilians. The only reason they can do what they want is because they use fear to control people, and make us feel powerless.

Your living in a dream world if you think I am going to do all that just because you come on here and say I should, why would follow your example.

There is much more at stake than you think, this 'war on terror' was created by those in power to take away all our rights and freedoms. We have all become the suspected terrorists. Don't just take my word for it, go and do your own research and see what you find.

All your posts are about this, your like a ****ing broken record. Why not post something positive for a change, try make a joke or talk about the weather.

This is reality. The problem is naturally we all want to avoid thinking about the hard problems.

If we keep letting self-serving governments do what they like, and lie to us then they will keep taking away all our freedoms in the name of 'the war on terror'. If this war existed do you really think the borders of the US and UK would be left wide open?

the_syco

tunaman wrote:

Talk about avoiding the issue. Face the facts.

Facts? If the storyline was factual, it'd be clear, and to the point. Writing about waiting for something that may happen is not a clear factual report, but someone's take on the situation, and trying to pimp their own writing skills at the same time.

tunaman wrote:

However, the official notification to scramble these fighters does not come until 8:46 a.m. The six-minute (or more) delay between unofficial and official notification has not been explained.

The only explanation that I can think of is that once it found out about the airlines being hijacked, that they proberly tried to get more infomation. Something to consider, tho: the president would have heard about the hijacking by 8:50am, and would not have left to goto the school (in case he was the intended target), but did.

gilroyb wrote:

I'd actually have been a bit more concerned to think that in the very short time available to them that they would have been able to get a fighter by then.

Then be concerned, as its standerd procedure to have 2 planes follow a hijacked plane. True, there's not as many airbase's on a state of readiness as there one was (100 during the Cold War, only about 6 now), and there's also not one near the two most likely targets, but the plane, at full wack, should have gotten there in half the time, or at least a ¾ times faster, but it didn't.

tunaman wrote:

If this war existed do you really think the borders of the US and UK would be left wide open?

Actually, they're kind of closed, but we're not talking of a few inches, we're talking about a few thousand miles here. Not every mile is covered, so people can, and will, get through.

Manic Moran

A domestic hijacking is a simple law enforcement issue, though a high-profile one. Is the President going to be immediately notified of every domestic law enforcement problem? Not as if hijackings are dealt with by Presidential fiat; such things usually remain the realm of the FBI and the FAA unless and until they decide they need to get Delta Force involved. I don't think his not knowing anything about it 20 minutes later is particularly much of an issue.

the president would have heard about the hijacking by 8:50am, and would not have left to goto the school (in case he was the intended target)

The Secret Service may be paranoid, but I don't think even they think anyone can somehow get a hijacked airplane from the Pennsylvania area to a small school in Florida all that quickly, even if anyone decided to tell them.

NTM

llanero

Pure and Utter rubbish.
It's right up there with the Flat Earth Society, the chem-trail loons and the Holocaust nay-sayers.

Kernel

llanero wrote:

Pure and Utter rubbish.
It's right up there with the Flat Earth Society, the chem-trail loons and the Holocaust nay-sayers.

Once again, you cannot enter a debate with an unsubstantiated statement like 'pure and utter rubbish' without explaining why is it so.

As regards flat earth, yes, of course that is rubbish, it has been disproven. Chemtrails have not, and much evidence exists for them. We just don't know what their purpose is, or where they come from - that they are a real occurance is not in doubt by reasonable standards.

The holocaust? Well, many people would say that the numbers of people (particularly Jews) killed in the holocaust are wrong or inflated, but I would never say such a thing, because I could be imprisoned in some European countries for doing so - the same countries which lauded freedom of speech so much during the infamous Danish cartoons debacle. Also, people who say such things (having looked at the evidence and capacity for murder in concentration camps) are labelled 'anti-semetic' and 'racist', even when they are not.

radiospan

tunaman wrote:

In july 2003 he releases a book called “Die CIA und der 11. September” (The CIA and September 11), in which he alleges US government complicity in 9/11. Von Bulow was Federal Minister of Research and Technology under Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, and before that was high up in Germany’s Ministry of Defense. [Der Spiegel (Hamburg), 10/8/2003] He argues that 9/11 was a covert operation in which the CIA and the Israeli Mossad played a role. He suggests remote control could have been used to direct the hijacked planes into their targets; that the WTC towers collapsed due to explosives; that no planes crashed into the Pentagon or in Pennsylvania; and that the CIA had faked mobile phone calls from Flight 93 passengers.

Yeah, but planes *did* go missing, people *were* on those planes! What happened to those planes? Those people?

There definately is a huge goverment cover-up over something on 9/11, but some conspiracy theorists go to far, IMO.

If the goverment was responsible, wouldn't Al-Qaeda and/or Bin Laden be the first to come out and say that they weren't behind it? (Come to think of it, I think OBL did deny involvement in the days after September 11th...)

Freelancer

No to mention that the timescale is 30 minutes after the plane went missing.

The chain of command doesn't go "radar operator" to "president", not everyone has a "hotphone" to the president. It'll take more than a few minutes for the info to reach norad, pass up the chain of command to the whitehouse, to the presidents staff to the president.

Also y'know if they had planned this and knew it was going to happen do you not think Bush's reaction could have been y'know, better? Roosevelt knew Pearl Habour was going to be attacked and drafted the day of infamy speech ahead of time. What was Bush's reaction? "We're going to get these folk" And then Piss off and hide for a day? If this was stagemanaged to evoke a state of fear, and at the same time stoke support for the president, why didn't they do a better job? He turned up on tv a day later and did a crap job.

Are you really telling me then managed fake flying three passenger jets into three buildings, rigging up controlled explosions, and flying missles over the heads of commuters live on national tv, and then didn't have a plan what to do next? Or what do when it happened? Just stick Bush keeping reading my pet goat for fifteen or so minutes? Cop on.

I never said they had complete control YET, but that is their ultimate aim.

So they've got control of some of the media, not just all of it.

Be a dear and tell us which ones, I mean you've been inside the looking glass for oh what a few weeks now? This is a pretty sh*tty conspiracy theory, they can fake three planes flying into buildings and dupe the world, but they can't control google?

tunaman

the_syco wrote:

Facts? If the storyline was factual, it'd be clear, and to the point.

Exactly, so why is the official story full of inconsistencies and contradictions?

http://killtown.911review.org/911smokingguns.html

Actually, they're kind of closed, but we're not talking of a few inches, we're talking about a few thousand miles here. Not every mile is covered, so people can, and will, get through.

Kind of closed? They are completely wide open. What about the millions of Mexicans who have literally strolled across the border into the US?

It is as if the US and UK have been inviting attacks, from as it turns out, a non-existant threat.
This is despite their illegal detention and torture of innocent people, which looks like a desperate attempt to provoke muslims Worldwide.

tunaman

Freelancer wrote:

Also y'know if they had planned this and knew it was going to happen do you not think Bush's reaction could have been y'know, better? Roosevelt knew Pearl Habour was going to be attacked and drafted the day of infamy speech ahead of time. What was Bush's reaction? "We're going to get these folk" And then Piss off and hide for a day? If this was stagemanaged to evoke a state of fear, and at the same time stoke support for the president, why didn't they do a better job? He turned up on tv a day later and did a crap job.

So your twisted logic is because they didn't do a perfect job, it means they couldn't have done it?

Do you really think Bush decides what he does and says?

Wake up to reality, he is just a puppet.

This is a pretty sh*tty conspiracy theory, they can fake three planes flying into buildings and dupe the world, but they can't control google?

They have control over the mainstream media which is where around 90% of people get their news, TV is incredibly powerful as we saw not just on 9/11, but also when JFK was taken out.

For the great enemy of truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived and dishonest--but the myth--persistent, persuasive--of our forebears. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. - John F. Kennedy, Yale, 6-11-1962

The persistent myth is 'the war on terror', and their promise that if we give up our freedoms they will guarantee our protection from this unknown enemy, who lurk around every corner.

Dathai

Looks like someone read a Michael Moore book!

tunaman

Dathai wrote:

Looks like someone read a Michael Moore book!

The man who has nothing to say just has to say something.

LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE.

Manic Moran

Show me something conclusive and uncontrovertable and I'll look at it.

NTM

Kernel

Manic Moran wrote:

Show me something conclusive and uncontrovertable and I'll look at it.

NTM

Well, incontrovertibly, you and many other young soldiers were sent to invade and occupy Iraq under false pretenses of WMD's. Don't you think that has anything to do with oil/economics and Haliburton? If the real reason you and others are in Iraq is for oil and the stability of the western economy, then people are fighting, killing and dying for corporate profit margins effectively.

It sounds better if the republicans call it 'freedom' though.

Freelancer

tunaman wrote:

So your twisted logic is because they didn't do a perfect job, it means they couldn't have done it?

No, just why if they planed this brilliant and insanely complex hoax why didn't they think about why didn't they plan what bush said next and where he was?

Do you really think Bush decides what he does and says?

Wake up to reality, he is just a puppet.

Wake up to reality? Moi?

You're the one claiming he's a puppet, why didn't the people pulling the strings have a script and a plan for him on the day?

They have control over the mainstream media which is where around 90% of people get their news, TV is incredibly powerful as we saw not just on 9/11, but also when JFK was taken out.

Riiiight....

So why don't they have a control over google where you get all your videos and the majority of the internet users use to check information, and they don't control it? Your conspiracy is full of holes.........

For the great enemy of truth is very often not the lie--deliberate, contrived and dishonest--but the myth--persistent, persuasive--of our forebears. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. - John F. Kennedy, Yale, 6-11-1962

You can quote JFK doesn't mean he believed you

The persistent myth is 'the war on terror', and their promise that if we give up our freedoms they will guarantee our protection from this unknown enemy, who lurk around every corner.

Hmmmm interesting point and when you're finished with

OMG SKUL N BONES!!!!!!!

FúCK ASCROFZ WUZ ON THE PRIVATEZ JETZ!!!!

WAKE UP PEOLPLZE NORAD WUZ IN ON ITZ!!!!!!

I'd recommend some grown up "books" (not simplisitc videos on google video and inane conspiarcy websites) instead of your infantile "theres a NWO ruling our lives!!!!!!" to garner an actual education on whats going on today

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/Author=Pilger%2C%20John/203-4725432-0157566
Some John Pilger perhaps

Som Chomsky
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/203-4725432-0157566

And perhaps this
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/014101038X/qid=1144244487/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_2_1/203-4725432-0157566

Alternatively if you'd rather live in juvenile fantasy land go ahead.

tunaman

Manic Moran wrote:

Show me something conclusive and uncontrovertable and I'll look at it.

NTM

I could show you hundreds of pieces of evidence which on their own are suspicious, but if you put all the pieces together then there no doubt it was an inside job.

Just look at any 9/11 video on the net which includes live footage at the time of reports of multiple explosions on the lower floors. A huge number of police and firefighters were among the witnesses interviewed.

Just watch WTC 7 being demolished. The owner slipped up and even admitted they 'pulled it'. The towers themselves exploded instead of just collapsing as we were told. They fell at the rate of 10 FLOORS PER SECOND.

I challenge anybody who believes the official story to present all your conclusive evidence right here, as the only evidence I've found to support the official story has been faith based.

The only hard evidence we have that any arab hijackers were even on the planes is a passport that amazingly managed to survive the raging inferno that destoryed a 110 story building.

tunaman

Freelancer wrote:

No, just why if they planed this brilliant and insanely complex hoax why didn't they think about why didn't they plan what bush said next and where he was?

You're the one claiming he's a puppet, why didn't the people pulling the strings have a script and a plan for him on the day?

To make him look like the idiot he is continually portrayed as. We all know how accident prone he is aswell thanks to the media. Why they do this is probably so people like you can claim that the plan wasn't perfect, or he is too stupid to come up with a plan for a new pearl harbour(9/11) which was used as a pretext for war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Have you not read the PNAC document?, whose founders just happen to include Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Perle.

The document was produced in september 2000 and it includes the following chilling statement.

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor."

So why don't they have a control over google where you get all your videos and the majority of the internet users use to check information, and they don't control it? Your conspiracy is full of holes.........

Well they have to maintain the illusion of freedom, so by letting you put an X on a piece of paper every few years they make you think you are living in a free and democratic country. To keep up this illusion of freedom they have to create a problem first, for example in the case of videos on the net it could be internet child porn, wait for the people to cry 'what are you going to do about this?', and then they as usual will provide us with the solution, which in this case could well be the creation of internet 2.

http://www.internet2.edu/

The solution usually means making their job easier by giving them more power, and taking away some of our freedoms. They never try to tackle the root cause of the problem, as that would make sense, and society might actually move forward.

gilroyb

tunaman wrote:

To make him look like the idiot he is continually portrayed as. We all know how accident prone he is aswell thanks to the media. Why they do this is probably so people like you can claim that the plan wasn't perfect, or he is too stupid to come up with a plan for a new pearl harbour(9/11) which was used as a pretext for war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Have you not read the PNAC document?, whose founders just happen to include Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Perle.

The document was produced in september 2000 and it includes the following chilling statement.

"Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor."



Well they have to maintain the illusion of freedom, so by letting you put an X on a piece of paper every few years they make you think you are living in a free and democratic country. To keep up this illusion of freedom they have to create a problem first, for example in the case of videos on the net it could be internet child porn, wait for the people to cry 'what are you going to do about this?', and then they as usual will provide us with the solution, which in this case could well be the creation of internet 2.

http://www.internet2.edu/

The solution usually means making their job easier by giving them more power, and taking away some of our freedoms. They never try to tackle the root cause of the problem, as that would make sense, and society might actually move forward.

Makes you think...

Manic Moran

tunaman wrote:

The towers themselves exploded instead of just collapsing as we were told. They fell at the rate of 10 FLOORS PER SECOND.

Go jump out a skyscraper. See if you don't fall at about 10 floors per second.

Be sure to film it so we have a record. Then we can all say 'Yep! Galilleo was right. All bodies accelerate at the same speed regardless of how heavy they are"

NTM

Freelancer

tunaman wrote:

To make him look like the idiot he is continually portrayed as.

That doesn't make a gram of sense. Why portray the leader of the free world as an idiot when you control the media? Why not protray him as a suave intelligent brilliant man. They control the media don't they? They planned 9/11? Why not have him on the ground hours after the "fake" plane attacks making a heroic speech and digging for survivors. Not have him arrive days after the bombings.

If Rumsfield et all had planned this, why didn't they plan a better response from their president?

Well they have to maintain the illusion of freedom, so by letting you put an X on a piece of paper every few years they make you think you are living in a free and democratic country. To keep up this illusion of freedom they have to create a problem first, for example in the case of videos on the net it could be internet child porn, wait for the people to cry 'what are you going to do about this?', and then they as usual will provide us with the solution, which in this case could well be the creation of internet 2.

http://www.internet2.edu/

The solution usually means making their job easier by giving them more power, and taking away some of our freedoms. They never try to tackle the root cause of the problem, as that would make sense, and society might actually move forward.

southpark wrote:

Are you high or just incredibly stupid?

I assure you I am not high

That makes not a whit of sence tunaman, if the NWO controlled all the majority of the worlds media, why don't they control the rest, and why don't they control google? You can fling any wacky alternative unversity project, at me but thats not a rebuttal........

Kernel

Freelancer, once again, tunaman is providing some plausible and interesting ideas on the subject, but you inexorably refuse to accept the possibility of his points being correct in any way. It's tedious reading your unbelievably entrenched and narrow minded responses. Indeed, in many cases you don't even respond to many of the points raised by tunaman.

Has it become personal for you now or something?

Freelancer

Kernel wrote:

Freelancer, once again, tunaman is providing some plausible

How on earth is any of his nonsense plausible?

Its a mixture of speculation and conjecture with a heavy dash of purile nonsense.

and interesting ideas on the subject, but you inexorably refuse to accept the possibility of his points being correct in any way.

No he takes a fact, and then adds a piece of conjecture that is just nonsense.

It's tedious reading your unbelievably entrenched and narrow minded responses.

Its tedious reading all this nonsense.

Indeed, in many cases you don't even respond to many of the points raised by tunaman.

Because I'll raise a problem with his lunacy conspiracy theories and he'll follow on with some spurious non sqetiur about Charlie Sheen or something.

He cannot handle having holes pointed out in his theories.

He'll just link to another insipid google video.

Has it become personal for you now or something?

I dunno why are you still defending this tedious nonsense........

tunaman

Freelancer wrote:

How on earth is any of his nonsense plausible?

Its a mixture of speculation and conjecture with a heavy dash of purile nonsense.

Good description of "the official story" of 9/11.

How can people keep ignoring all the overwhelming evidence?

What about WTC 7?

It is obviously a controlled demolition. We have all seen videos of them and it is the 1st thing that comes to mind when seeing the video. WTC7 housed offices for the CIA, FBI, NSA, Secret Service, SEC and Rudy Giuliani.

The owner even admitted they decided to pull it.

What about the numerous reports of multiple explosions on the lower levels of the twin towers?

What about the multiple eyewitness accounts of explosions from extremely reliable sources like firefighters and police?

What about the following evidence from an MIT engineer who describes in great detail how the official story is an impossiblity as it defies the laws of physics?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1822764959599063248&q=wtc+7&pl=true

What about the molten steel found in the basements of the towers 5 weeks later?

http://www.4-freedom-privacy.com/articles/sonic-pulses-afp.html

Peter Tully, president of Tully Construction of Flushing, N.Y., told AFP that he saw pools of "literally molten steel" at the World Trade Center.

Tully was contracted after the Sept. 11 tragedy to re move the debris from the site. Tully called Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition, Inc. (CDI) of Phoenix, Md., for consultation about removing the debris. CDI calls itself "the innovator and global leader in the controlled demolition and implosion of structures." Loizeaux, who cleaned up the bombed Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, arrived at the WTC site two days later and wrote the clean-up plan for the entire operation. AFP asked Loizeaux about the report of molten steel on the site. "Yes," he said, "hot spots of molten steel in the basements." These incredibly hot areas were found "at the bottoms of the elevator shafts of the main towers, down seven [basement] levels," Loizeaux said. The molten steel was found "three, four, and five weeks later, when the rubble was being removed," Loizeaux said. He said molten steel was also found at 7 WTC, which collapsed mysteriously in the late afternoon.

Construction steel has an extremely high melting point of about 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit. Asked what could have caused such extreme heat, Tully said, "Think of the jet fuel." Loizeaux told AFP that the steel-melting fires were fueled by "paper, carpet and other combustibles packed down the elevator shafts by the tower floors as they 'pancaked' into the basement." However, some independent investigators dispute this claim, saying kerosene-based jet fuel, paper, or the other combustibles normally found in the towers, cannot generate the heat required to melt steel, especially in an oxygen-poor environment like a deep basement.

This Tully lad is pleading with you to "think of the jet fuel" and don't forget their ridiculous pancake theory aswell.

Alternatively you can wake up to reality and stop ignoring all the overwhelming evidence.

Manic Moran

Accidental fires can, according to Wiki, hit temperatures above 2,000 Centigrade in the right conditions, both in forests and in cities.

Should be enough to melt metal, methinks.

NTM

gilroyb

tunaman wrote:

What about WTC 7?

Makes you think...

Teg Veece

Manic Moran wrote:

Accidental fires can, according to Wiki, hit temperatures above 2,000 Centigrade in the right conditions, both in forests and in cities.

Should be enough to melt metal, methinks.

NTM

Not true. Check out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xs51xKHUnNs&search=911%20revisited

Apologies if this has already been posted but I think it sums up the theory of controlled explosives rather nicely.

Manic Moran

Teg Veece wrote:

Not true. Check out
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xs51xKHUnNs&search=911%20revisited

Apologies if this has already been posted but I think it sums up the theory of controlled explosives rather nicely.

Heaven forbid that I should question the use of a conspiracy video as evidence to support the conspiracy theory.

Let's try a few more neutral source. For example the Oklahoma Dept of Health website indicates that the temperature in a common house fire can hit 1,100 Farenheit in under four minutes.
http://www.health.state.ok.us/Program/injury/factsheets/house_fires.htm.

That's four minutes, think it could get hotter in a half hour, fanned by a breeze?

Or check out this experiment conducted in 1999 by the British.
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/Timber/default.htm

They recorded ambient temperatures in excess of 1,000 Centigrade, which gets us to about the 2000fahrenheit mark, and that was a disused building with no jet fuel involved.
http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/Timber/fig2.gif

That's before you get to the temperatures of firestorms, which tend to be a bit rarer, but a lot hotter.

It really isn't too far beyond the realms of possibility to get to a steel melting point in an uncontrolled fire.

NTM