Debunk-a-LIHOP

[gumboot]

Yeah, i've read that Sibel isn't relevant because she began working for the FBI after 9/11. Several times. Watch the video. That's so ignorant as the stuff of the twentysomething fantasy writer from the green isle who doesn't know what NORAD timeline he should use to "debunk" common 9/11 CT's. Why should i prefere his word above Robert Bowman's? There is no reason. If you want to continue this line, count me out.

Um... I'm a filmmaker, and I'm not from Ireland. And you, once again, have no idea what you're talking about.

Personally I think Sibel Edmonds raised very important concerns that should have been addressed, and her treatment by her superiors should also be addressed. Her experience shows the FBI isn't functioning properly. That should worry any sensible American.

What her experience absolutely doesn't show is that the US government was involved in the 9/11 attacks, which is what some conspiracy theorists like to pretend.

-Gumboot

 

[beachnut]

Her name is Eleanor Hill, one of the leading heads of the "9/11 inquiry":
Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities before and after the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001
http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/conspiracytheories/report.html

Full report including classified passages:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/fullreport.pdf

Thank you..

Oliver, just wait, in a short time Old Bush will be gone, and the next set of crooks will takeover.

My grandmother use to say, we had to vote for the next set of bums to get the current set of bums out. Seems like politics have been the same for 4,000 years, only the names have changed. So do not think things are getting worse, it may be better than it was, or will be soon.

There are some good people in with the crooks, and if there is something going on for real, it gets exposed sometimes. Watergate and many other stupid things have been exposed over the years. The classified mark outs will be released after the threat to collecting assets has passed. If you were an agent your name may be marked out, if you like we can unmark it so the people who want to kill you since you infiltrated their group can do so after they know you, or the fact you know the guy who is being marked out. What to do? Sounds like bs to me too.

 

[Childlike Empress]

@gummi: You have no competence at all to speak about NORAD and the changed procedures pre-911. Bowman has. If you were concerned about Sibel Edmonds' evidence at all you wouldn't act like you do on this forum.

Her evidence, corrobatated by so many other people, leads to an (worldwide) underground network that at least let 9/11 happen, if not participated actively in it.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Right, so all that researching Gumboot did was for naught?

(incidently, did it occur to you that the evidence points at B, nto A)

As for Oliver: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence

 

[Totovader]

The question is was it really incompetence? Was it intentional? Was it both? I believe LIHOP is just barely possible, with a low probability of being true, but I cannot rule it out on what we know now. Nothing would be lost by appointing a special prosecutor and giving that person broad authority to investigate this Administration - the financial malfeasance over war spending ought to be enough to lock some people away for a long time, and MAYBE, while looking though all the emails and memos something rotten about the months before 9/11 might turn up.

So, I rankle at the suggestion that this is something I say only for political reasons; I really have my doubts given Bush's strong ties to the Saudis and the Bin Laden family, and I don't think you can tell me that those ties are insignificant or not worrisome in an American President.

-Ben

Nothing would be lost? Using tax dollars on a political witch hunt with no consideration of the victims families is quite a big loss. With no evidence whatsoever to support- what you admit is something of a "low probability"- and just as absurd and ridiculous as any MIHOP theory- rankle all you want, "doubts" just don't cut it. I understand your need to dislike the President/the Administation, etc- but hate leads to bias, bias leads to ridiculous assertions, and ridiculous assertions make one look like a baffoon.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Right, so all that researching Gumboot did was for naught?

Essentially, yes. Remember that a main source of CT's surrounding 9/11 is secrecy. That's why "we", the 9/11 skeptics, can't agree on a single "coherent" story.

 

[gumboot]

@gummi: You have no competence at all to speak about NORAD and the changed procedures pre-911. Bowman has.

That's true, I personally have no experience with either the FAA or NORAD. None whatsoever. I would strongly advise anyone to totally disregard my personal testimony regarding the matter.

But the problem is, what I have done, which Bowman hasn't, is provide evidence that supports a particular conclusion. The evidence I present trumps Bowman's personal opinion by quite a hefty margin. Don't blame me for that. It's not my evidence, and I have no control over what evidence Bowman presents.

Evidence wins. Always. Cheapshot here is an eyewitness and expert witness on NORAD and FAA procedures, particularly in regards to 9/11. Yet had his account conflicted with the evidence I'd gathered, I'd be asking him to explain why that was.

If you have issues with the evidence I have presented, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, your assertions are even more worthless than mine.

-Gumboot

 

[twinstead]

Essentially, yes. Remember that a main source of CT's surrounding 9/11 is secrecy. That's why "we", the 9/11 skeptics, can't agree on a single "coherent" story.

The official story is nothing if not 'coherent'.

 

[gumboot]

Essentially, yes. Remember that a main source of CT's surrounding 9/11 is secrecy. That's why "we", the 9/11 skeptics, can't agree on a single "coherent" story.

If there's so much "secrecy" surounding 9/11 why is it so easy to find so much information about virtually every aspect of it? The problem is not secrecy. It's incompetent researchers with confirmation bias.

-Gumboot

 

[T.A.M.]

There is incompetence in every field. As you know when a new president takes over there is not a new NSA, CIA, FBI, Military, ETC. I served for 28 years in the USAF, we did not stop working for any president due to politics, nor did I get new bosses due to their politics. You can blame the administration and the administration will blame the previous administration, but the buck stops with us.

So how can an incompetent administration get reelected after 9/11? Why, because it was not the administration that failed. If you blame the administration you have to blame the entire government, and then all the people who work in the government, and I was in the Air Force so it was my fault for obeying the stand down order, that was never given.

But I love Monday Morning Quarterbacking, doesn't everyone?

1. I appreciate your taking the blame, and I am not saying that it was only the admin that displayed incompetence. In fact, it was more arrogance and ignorance at the executive level...the incompetence, where it is to be found, was likely in the middle...not the bottom guys, not the top of the food chain, but in the middle ground dog pound where turf warring, and shifting the blame remains supreme.

2. An incompetent administration got re-elected for a number of reasons, politics, FEAR, A poor game plan on the part of the opposition, and some (not I) even say through cheating.

But you are right, Monday Morning Quarterbacking is wonderful, but not of much value...lol

TAM

 

[beachnut]

That's true, I personally have no experience with either the FAA or NORAD. None whatsoever. I would strongly advise anyone to totally disregard my personal testimony regarding the matter.

But the problem is, what I have done, which Bowman hasn't, is provide evidence that supports a particular conclusion. The evidence I present trumps Bowman's personal opinion by quite a hefty margin. Don't blame me for that. It's not my evidence, and I have no control over what evidence Bowman presents.

Evidence wins. Always. Cheapshot here is an eyewitness and expert witness on NORAD and FAA procedures, particularly in regards to 9/11. Yet had his account conflicted with the evidence I'd gathered, I'd be asking him to explain why that was.

If you have issues with the evidence I have presented, I'd love to hear it. Otherwise, your assertions are even more worthless than mine.

-Gumboot

I spent 28 years in the Air Force. I am afraid you would be better at NORAD stuff than I, and I doubt CE can figure out the change made does not impact 9/11. In fact, it I have look up stuff to be sure you do not have to waste time and correct me.

Bowman? What a fool. When I see someone who believes Bowman, I know they are full of false information, as you say it; You use facts to make your conclusions. Who knows what Bowman uses, it is not facts.

 

[gumboot]

1. I appreciate your taking the blame, and I am not saying that it was only the admin that displayed incompetence. In fact, it was more arrogance and ignorance at the executive level...the incompetence, where it is to be found, was likely in the middle...not the bottom guys, not the top of the food chain, but in the middle ground dog pound where turf warring, and shifting the blame remains supreme.

Personally I retained "incompetence" for failure to carry out the required duties. I wouldn't attribute 9/11 to incompetence so much, because I think the problem was the entire system, from top to bottom, wasn't designed to prevent a 9/11 type attack.

Take a really bad example - the translating team Sibel Edmonds was with. They were intentionally translating material slowly to try boost their funding. Is that incompetence? Or is that team leaders driven to extreme measures to get the resources they so desperately needed?

When the Phoenix FBI office had its counter-terrorism investigations stopped due to lack of funding was that incompetence? Or was that top directors channelling precious few resources into the area that was (reasonably) perceived to be a bigger problem - drugs. (and let's face it, international terrorism had killed a handful of american civilians in 20 years, how many had the drug trade killed?)

When airlines and airports get lax on security is that due to incompetence? Or is that a struggling industry trying desperately to improve customer satisfaction just a little?

You get the point.

I don't think the US was incompetent. I think the US was complacent, and just a bit arrogant, and most important of all, they were too busy trying to deal with hundreds and hundreds of other much more visible problems. It's not that no one saw international terrorism as a threat. It just wasn't serious enough to address at the cost of everything else.

And frankly, looking at what has happened since 9/11, I wonder if maybe they were right. International terrorism, for all its spectacle, isn't a big enough problem that we should waste precious few resources trying to stamp it out.

-Gumboot

 

[Childlike Empress]

Bowman? What a fool. When I see someone who believes Bowman, I know they are full of false information, as you say it; You use facts to make your conclusions. Who knows what Bowman uses, it is not facts

Bla bla. Again. Bowman trumps you, gummi and me (perhaps in this order) by far when it comes to seriously adress NORAD issues and if he talks about changed procedures pre-911, we should listen.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Nothing to see here.

 

[Oliver]

Bla bla. Again. Bowman trumps you, gummi and me (perhaps in this order) by far when it comes to seriously adress NORAD issues and if he talks about changed procedures pre-911, we should listen.

I don't know if I still comprehend the discussion about Bowman.
Isn't he a MIHOP'er and not a LIHOP'er?

 

[gumboot]

Bla bla. Again. Bowman trumps you, gummi and me (perhaps in this order) by far when it comes to seriously adress NORAD issues and if he talks about changed procedures pre-911, we should listen.

I'd tend to agree with you on this. But what happens after we listen, and find his argument wanting? What then?

I've never called for or supported the silencing of those that question the accepted account of 9/11. I stand for the countering of those who blindly continue to push false claims in the face of conflicting evidence.

Let them speak. But let us respond.

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

I don't know if I still comprehend the discussion about Bowman.
Isn't he a MIHOP'er and not a LIHOP'er?

Basically, yes. He thinks standard hijacking protocols, which would have resulted in a successful intercept in a matter of minutes, were changed by the Administration immediately prior to 9/11 to ensure NORAD could not stop the attacks.

The problem is Bowman has no evidence - either in the form of regulations or real world events - to support his opinion.

The combination of a wide range of evidence dating back at least a decade prior to 9/11 suggests that the protocols for a hijacking had not significantly been changed for years, and that NORAD had virtually no chance whatsoever of stopping the four flights on 9/11 (I still maintain that the 121st Fighter Squadron would have taken down UA93 if it reached DC, and NORAD's fighters may also have been in a position to do so).

-Gumboot

 

[beachnut]

Personally I retained "incompetence" for failure to carry out the required duties. I wouldn't attribute 9/11 to incompetence so much, because I think the problem was the entire system, from top to bottom, wasn't designed to prevent a 9/11 type attack.

Take a really bad example - the translating team Sibel Edmonds was with. They were intentionally translating material slowly to try boost their funding. Is that incompetence? Or is that team leaders driven to extreme measures to get the resources they so desperately needed?

When the Phoenix FBI office had its counter-terrorism investigations stopped due to lack of funding was that incompetence? Or was that top directors channelling precious few resources into the area that was (reasonably) perceived to be a bigger problem - drugs. (and let's face it, international terrorism had killed a handful of american civilians in 20 years, how many had the drug trade killed?)

When airlines and airports get lax on security is that due to incompetence? Or is that a struggling industry trying desperately to improve customer satisfaction just a little?

You get the point.

I don't think the US was incompetent. I think the US was complacent, and just a bit arrogant, and most important of all, they were too busy trying to deal with hundreds and hundreds of other much more visible problems. It's not that no one saw international terrorism as a threat. It just wasn't serious enough to address at the cost of everything else.

And frankly, looking at what has happened since 9/11, I wonder if maybe they were right. International terrorism, for all its spectacle, isn't a big enough problem that we should waste precious few resources trying to stamp it out.

-Gumboot

TAM has a point, and add your ideas on the topic. I was going to write more but it would bore you guys.

We loose 50,000 people on the roads each year. The terrorist are behind a whole list of risks.

A balanced program would be nice. I hate swinging from one extreme to another.

Bowman is still a fool, and has not one solid fact to support 9/11 truth.

TAM and gumboot have more credibility than Bowman by a factor of 10 to 100, OOPS I was WRONG, 1,000 times more credible. Fact!

 

[Childlike Empress]

Gumboot, you are the author of the piece most of the people here are considering THE source of debunking the mem that the american military miserably failed in responding to the terrorist attacks of 9/11. I think your cop-out isn't appreciated by most of the reading audience.

@Oliver:

Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

 

[beachnut]

Basically, yes. He thinks standard hijacking protocols, which would have resulted in a successful intercept in a matter of minutes, were changed by the Administration immediately prior to 9/11 to ensure NORAD could not stop the attacks.

The problem is Bowman has no evidence - either in the form of regulations or real world events - to support his opinion.

The combination of a wide range of evidence dating back at least a decade prior to 9/11 suggests that the protocols for a hijacking had not significantly been changed for years, and that NORAD had virtually no chance whatsoever of stopping the four flights on 9/11 (I still maintain that the 121st Fighter Squadron would have taken down UA93 if it reached DC, and NORAD's fighters may also have been in a position to do so).

-Gumboot

I agree, 93 may of been shot down if it had made it closer to DC. That team of terrorist were the weak ones, I think.

The changes seem to of made the intercepts quicker (bs stuff, the changes did not do anything), I was impressed the FAA and the Air Force did a good job getting planes up for something they really did not know was an attack until the second impact.

Does any 9/11 truther understand how many people in the FAA... Never mind, these 9/11 truth people are not using their brains, they are just drones. Good job on the NORAD stuff, I have study up just to understand your posts.