How 9/11 was done

[Heiwa]

There is nothing the French have that we want.

Thanks! Source?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Here is the sentence again: 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.

You claim that from your understanding of English it is obvious that the last thing they wanted was a New Pearl Harbor.

Yes, what do you think "catastrophic" means?

Now, note also that the whole of the rest of the paper is predicated on the notion that such a thing will not happen. For example, if you look at that whole paragraph:

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. Domestic politics and industrial policy will shape the pace and content of transformation as much as the requirements of current missions.​

Finally, note that the "process of transformation" they're talking about involves increased military R&D, that's what they're discussing. Now there is no particular reason why 9/11 should have catalysed increased R&D spending; and I have never seen any PNAC member making the case that it should. And in fact it hasn't. Can you name one new weapon produced as a response to 9/11?

Pearl Harbor led to a massive increase in spending, 9/11 did not. This is because although the number of dead is comparable, the enemies were not. It would take a scare over Russia or China or someone like that.

This may give you a sense of perspective:

 

[Heiwa]

1. How is OBL's involvement fake???? prove it? We have his confession video. We have the fact that he is the leader of Al Qaeda, which planned said attacks. We have confession from KSM. We have OBL present during a meeting with Bin Al shebh, who was a co-conspirator. We have many of the hijackers as Al Qaeda members, or attendees at their training camps.

What do you have. the fact that the FBI website does not list him as "wanted" for the attacks, despite the fact that on his page there is a multi million dollar reward put up by the american pilots association for his capture.

The rest of your post is paranoid nonsense, speculation, insinuation, and as expected, VOID OF FACTS OR EVIDENCE.

TAM

You have a video with OBL confessing? Source! Where? To whom? Why?

You have a confession of KSM? Source! Etc.

Plenty of people confess about anything. Can't you do better than that?

We need evidence that is checked in a court of law. Not hear-say! Or propaganda.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Washington will do nothing to either of those countries unless there is a provocation.

Define provocation? Like Iranians making legitimate use of nuclear energy?

I'm under the impression that you believe that this war is profitable to the US. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The Iraq conflict has been a tremendous money pit that we can't continue throwing money down. This "lust for conquest" is unaffordable. And I resent being tarred with the imperialist barbarian label.

I know darned well what the catastrofic result of the Iraq safari was. But that was not what our neocon cakewalk croud had promised. They (Wolfowitz ) maintained that oil revenue would pay for the desert party. Ah the splendor of Straussian thought! Lying as an art! The lust is unaffordable NOW, not in 2003.

Regarding the label... are you a member of the US-government? In that case: carry your badge with honour.

There is nothing the French have that we want. You have a hyperinflated notion of Bush's image and approval ratings.

Are you sure? How about financial and economic parameters? Today the Deutsche Bank rated GM's target course to 0 (zero). The GM stock plummeted 25%. It is likely all 3 American car manufacturers are going to fold soon.

http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/0,1518,589582,00.html

The Great Depression will be Kinderspiel compared to what is now coming. And then there is peak-oil.

Maybe America cannot afford war in the current situation. But America can dump the dollar and release itself of its debt burden. The Chinese and Japanese are not going to like that. Depression can be a stimulus to war as we have seen in the thirties. Geostrategists will be in high demand.

 

[T.A.M.]

At any rate, it was indeed one of these one-way conversations with no intimate knowledge necessary of the relationship of the callers.

"'Mom, this is Mark Bingham. I just want to tell you that I love you. I am on a flight from Newark to San Francisco. There are three guys on board who have taken over the plane and they say they have a bomb. You believe me don't you, Mom? I'm calling you from the air phone.' And then we were disconnected," Hoaglan said, her voice breaking.

But, the mother acknowledged that it was his voice indeed.

http://www.ufowijzer.nl/tekstpagina/911DRGriffin1.html

Dutch site that has an interview with David Ray Grifin:

"Maar spraken ze werkelijk met andere mensen. Als je de transcripties leest die ons zijn verschaft, dan lijkt het niet alsof ze een interactief gesprek voeren, het zijn allemaal éénrichting dingen die iedereen kan hebben gezegd, het is meer zoals: “Hallo mam, we zitten achterin het vliegtuig, we maken ons klaar om iets te gaan doen, ik moet nu ophangen, dag.” Ze hadden geen gesprekken waaruit blijkt dat ze echt met hun zoon, man of vrouw spraken. En we hebben een heel goed bewijs dat dat zeker niet het geval is met het bekende geval van Mark Bingham, die zegt: “Hallo mam, dit is Mark Bingham.” Wie heeft ooit met zijn moeder gesproken en daarbij zijn achternaam genoemd? Dat is zo absurd!"

Translation: but did they really speak with other people? If you read the transcripts that have been given to us then it seams that they are not having an interactive conversation. It is all a onewaystreet conversation of things that anybody could have said. It is like: hello Mum, we are in the back of the plane and now we prepare to do something; I have to hang up. Bye! They did not have conversations from which it becomes apparent that they are talking with a son, father or mother. And we have very good evidence that this is certainly not so in the well known case of Mark Bingham who said: "hello this is Mark Bingham". Who ever called his mother and used his lastname? That's so absurd.

Griffin suggests that this call was fake. That is, if the call was made, it was not by Bingham himself.

OK. This does not address the point that was raised about the delay. Just collecting facts.

1. David Ray Griffin is far from a good source to start with.

2. Griffin also suggested that the airfones were not working on the flights that day, and was later proven wrong. He is a charlatan of the highest order.

3. Once again an opinion based on speculation. Is this the level of "evidence" you plan on bringing here, because if it is, you can stop now.

4. They are not "transcripts" (verbatim dictations of what was said based on a word for word TRANSCRIPTION from an audio source), but rather in the case of Bingham, a recollection of the conversation from the Mother. A mother who is listening to her son tell her he is on a hijacked plane, knowing full well what has happened to other hijacked planes that day. Do you think, perhaps, she might have left out the occasional sentence that she may have said to Mark, as he was relaying the info? I think, if we had an actual transcript, it would become clear it was a two way convo.

5. If memory serves, there was a call from one of the passengers, where she actually tells a friend or relative to go to her safe, and then gives her, over the phone, the combination to the safe...explain how a prerecorded voice could do that?

Ridiculous, old, tedious, and so 2006.

TAM

 

[Dr Adequate]

And we have very good evidence that this is certainly not so in the well known case of Mark Bingham who said: "hello this is Mark Bingham". Who ever called his mother and used his lastname?

Well, according to Mark Bingham's mother, Mark Bingham did.

Apparently the hoaxer could fool Bingham's own mother but can't fool David Ray Griffin.

---

The further fatuity of this argument is that it cuts both ways. The Truthers wish to argue this way: "People don't use their surnames to introduce themselves to their mothers. Therefore Mark Bingham would not have done so when phoning Bingham's mother. Therefore the phone call was not made by Mark Bingham."

But now try it this way: "People don't use their surnames to introduce themselves to their mothers. Therefore no hoaxer pretending to be Mark Bingham would have done so when phoning Bingham's mother. Therefore the phone call was not made by a hoaxer pretending to be Mark Bingham."

An apparent anomaly in the "official story" is only an argument for a conspiracy theory if it ceases to be an anomaly in the light of the conspiracy theory.

 

[T.A.M.]

You have a video with OBL confessing? Source! Where? To whom? Why?

You have a confession of KSM? Source! Etc.

Plenty of people confess about anything. Can't you do better than that?

We need evidence that is checked in a court of law. Not hear-say! Or propaganda.

ok smart ass, then as you say above, you will then take all that was presented at the Moussaoui trial as valid right???

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution.html

So I can now assume, that all of the information and evidence at that site is valid, in your opinion, as it was presented in, and accepted by, a court of law.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/terrorism/july-dec01/video_12-13a.html

Let me guess, PBS is in on it to. You guys are too funny.

TAM

 

[9/11-investigator]

I really want to go back to this because 9/11-investigator has totally ignored it and all the rest of Gumboot's postings.

9/11-investigator says that:

I want to know how they knew to intercept and record Mark Bingham.

See here's a call that many CT's claim was faked, but how did the conspriators know to fake a call from him? Mark was never booked on Flight 93, he was supposed to take Flight 95 at 6:05am, not Flight 93 at 8:00am. How did the conspriators know that he'd miss his flight? How did they know that he would be out drinking the night before resulting in him oversleeping and missing his plane? He was then rushed to the airport by a friend and managed to catch 93 at the very last minute? Since he was never booked on the flight, and since he got onto it at the very last moment (he was the last passanger on and according to the accounts had to run to catch it) how could the conspirators possibly known he would be on the plane?

Interestingly he wasn't the only one that did last minute changes. Even the pilot wasn't supposed to be flying that day, he changed his schedule so he could have the friday off to spend with his wife, it was their wedding anniversary. How did the conspriators know that these people would change their plans and be on Flight 93?

Maybe just wasted 1 hour of my life due to false information from you. There is nothing to be found about Bingham and 'flight 95'. I do find that Bingham nearly missed his flight93. Now get your facts straight will ye.

ICT still stands.

 

[gumboot]

No response to any of my points I see, 9/11-investigator.

It's all well and good that you come here with your tail wagging, some dead animal firmly clenched in your teeth, eager to show Mommy and Daddy what you have found. It's rather endearing.

But we've seen it all. We have seen and digested every single point you have offered and we have cross-referenced literally thousands of sources to determine what is accurate and what is it. Your theories are hollow. Your evidence is nonexistent. Do not insult our intelligence. Do us the respect of bothering to actually check your information before bringing it to us.

Mommy and Daddy don't want to look at every dead and decomposing theory you've found lying about on the internet.

 

[9/11-investigator]

No response to any of my points I see, 9/11-investigator.

Maybe that's because you have not behaved like many here?

But I am in a good mood. Just give me the number of the post you want to see addressed and I'll give it a look.

 

[calebprime]

9/11-investigator, gumboot knows his stuff.

If you want to Respekt someone, answer his posts.

 

[T.A.M.]

Its simply more trolling, and this into page 5, and no evidence has been provided by him. Welcome to ignore 911 investigator.

Someone let me know if he actually, at any point, brings any evidence to prove his "theory".

Use google and the search term "JREF" with any topic...it will help you find the answers you seek.

TAM

 

[gumboot]

Maybe just wasted 1 hour of my life due to false information from you. There is nothing to be found about Bingham and 'flight 95'. I do find that Bingham nearly missed his flight93. Now get your facts straight will ye.

ICT still stands.

Your research efforts are pathetic.

Some of the passengers had never planned to be on the flight. Nacke had booked his seat only the night before.

...

Jeremy Glick was supposed to have been on Flight 93 a day earlier, but missed the Monday flight after getting stuck in traffic on his way to Newark Airport.

...

Another passenger, Lauren Grandcolas was on her way home to Marin County, north of San Francisco, after attending her grandmother's funeral in New Jersey. Originally scheduled on a later flight, she had been pleasantly surprised to easily get a standby seat on Flight 93 at the airport.

Source

When they reached the airport they split up. Steiner was flying on Northwest. Snyder wanted to build up frequent flier miles on her United account. That morning, she called to check on her flight, Flight 91, due to leave after 9 a.m. She moved up to Flight 93 for an earlier start.

...

Dahl [Captain] was planning to take his wife Sandy to London for their fifth wedding anniversary Sept. 14, and by moving up his flight schedule, they would have more time together overseas. Sandy, a United flight attendant, went onto United's computer system and shifted him to Flight 93.

...

Wanda Green wasn't originally supposed to be on Flight 93. The 49-year-old divorced mother of two grown children had been scheduled to fly Sept. 13, but Green, who also worked as a real estate agent, realized she had to handle the closing of a home sale Sept. 13. She'd phoned her best friend, fellow flight attendant Donita Judge, who opened United's computerized schedule and shifted Green to the Sept. 11 flight.

...

She [Sandy Bradshaw] was in economy because she'd picked up Flight 93 late in the planning. Ordinarily, she liked working first class. It was a good fit with her gregarious ways.

Source

These two articles alone give you four passengers and three crew who only got put on Flight 93 at the last moment. Explain that one away, please.

 

[gumboot]

Maybe that's because you have not behaved like many here?

But I am in a good mood. Just give me the number of the post you want to see addressed and I'll give it a look.

I'll start showing you respect when you start showing the posters here respect. It is insulting to be expected to take you seriously when you regurgitate years-old nonsense.

Let's start with a single rather simple point. You claim Huntleigh USA handled security and boarding for all four flights. That means three airport security contracts and four airline security contracts. I call BS. Huntleigh USA did not have the security contracts.

You think they did? Prove it. Show to us that you've actually done any research, instead of just believing whatever some Conspiracy Theorist told you.

 

[Sparky]

Thanks! Source?

Let me rephrase.

There is nothing the French have that I want.

 

[defaultdotxbe]

Here is the sentence again: 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.

You claim that from your understanding of English it is obvious that the last thing they wanted was a New Pearl Harbor.

you may have noticed that the PNAC document is (IIRC) 90 pages long, the fact that you cite the quote as being from page 51 indicates its considerably longer than the 1 sentence you choose to be entirely representative of it

from reading the entire document, yes, it is obvious they did not want a "new pearl harbor"

 

[9/11-investigator]

Your research efforts are pathetic.

You're being boorish again, gunboot. And we do not like that. Clean your act up otherwise you'll never get a girlfriend.

And you are completely missing the point: it is not about finding people who missed a flight and got flight93 as a second choice, it is about finding people who missed a flight and got flight93 as a second choice and made a phone call.

Try to let that sink in.

 

[9/11-investigator]

I'll start showing you respect when you start showing the posters here respect. It is insulting to be expected to take you seriously when you regurgitate years-old nonsense.

Let's start with a single rather simple point. You claim Huntleigh USA handled security and boarding for all four flights. That means three airport security contracts and four airline security contracts. I call BS. Huntleigh USA did not have the security contracts.

You think they did? Prove it. Show to us that you've actually done any research, instead of just believing whatever some Conspiracy Theorist told you.

I copied that wisdom from Bollyn. I am not in the business of doing other research than google.com. Can you back your claims up with a link other than simply stating it as a fact. I have much more faith in a courages independent journalist than in you.

 

[Senenmut]

..."they" also failed to plant WMD evidence in Iraq....
...and failed to link a dead man -Saddam- to 911 or Al Queda...
...and the powerful and ruthless "they" cannot even silence amateur investigators from exposing "their" troof.


=S=


I forgot about the recent financial collapse....but that of course was planned, by secretly planting bad mortgages.

"they" the office of special plans tried.

from link-
thinkprogress.org/2008/08/07/american-conservative-it-was-feiths-office-not-cia-that-forged-the-habbush-letter/

Ron Suskind’s new book alleges that the White House ordered the CIA to forge a letter from the head of Iraqi intelligence to Saddam Hussein linking the dictator to the 9/11 terrorists. The American Conservative’s Philip Giraldi argues today that “an extremely reliable and well placed source in the intelligence community” told him Suskind’s overall claim “is correct,” but that it was Douglas Feith’s Office of Special Plans — not the CIA — that forged the letter:

 

[Sparky]

Define provocation? Like Iranians making legitimate use of nuclear energy?

Define legitimate.

IThey (Wolfowitz ) maintained that oil revenue would pay for the desert party. Ah the splendor of Straussian thought! Lying as an art! The lust is unaffordable NOW, not in 2003.

Source?

Regarding the label... are you a member of the US-government? In that case: carry your badge with honour.

Nope. I'm a fire protection engineer working in the construction industry. Purely private sector. Not that it has a darned thing to do with the price of tea in China (or this conversation).

Are you sure? How about financial and economic parameters? Today the Deutsche Bank rated GM's target course to 0 (zero). The GM stock plummeted 25%. It is likely all 3 American car manufacturers are going to fold soon.

Good. I don't believe in government bailouts and I also believe that a company that can't compete in a free and open market doesn't deserve to survive anyway.

The Great Depression will be Kinderspiel compared to what is now coming.

The last time I looked our Declaration of Independence only guaranteed a right to pursue happiness. Our forefathers never promised us that we would ever find it nor that it would be easy. Maybe we all need a little taste of the hard times now and then to remind us how good life is at other times. Are you afraid? I'm not. I've been broke and homeless before and I've always bounced back.