In Search of Common Ground: A Conversation with Ron Wieck

[jimd3100]

Are you going to stalk me now? Are you like CIT? Answer:yes. Another weirdo stalker? Are you going to put me on a weirdo "enemies list"?

Shouldn't you be convincing us that VP is in military chain of command and terrorists are like college kids?

Sen. Graham: Bush covered up Saudi involvement in 9/11

In his book, Graham asserts that the White House blocked investigations into Saudi Arabian government support for the 9/11 plot, in part because of the Bush family’s close ties to the Saudi royal family and wealthy Saudis like the bin Ladens. Behind the White House’s insistence on classifying 27 pages detailing the Saudi links in a report issued by a joint House-Senate intelligence panel co-chaired by Graham in 2002 lay the desire to hide the administration’s deficiencies and protect its Saudi allies, according to Graham.

Graham’s allegations — supported by the Republican vice chairman of the House-Senate 9/11 investigation, Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, but not his co-chairman, Rep. Porter Goss, Bush’s nominee to become director of the CIA — are not new. But his book states them more forcefully than before, even as Graham adds new insight into Bush’s decision to invade Iraq, made apparently well before the president asserted he had exhausted all options.

http://www.salon.com/2004/09/08/graham_8/

Even if the terrorists were funded for their stay in America by Saudis, it would be the same as parents funding a kid to go to college, and then the kid go nuts and kills people at the school;

Is that your conspiracy theory?

 

[beachnut]

Are you going to stalk me now? Are you like CIT? Answer:yes. Another weirdo stalker? Are you going to put me on a weirdo "enemies list"?

Shouldn't you be convincing us that VP is in military chain of command and terrorists are like college kids?

Sen. Graham: Bush covered up Saudi involvement in 9/11

http://www.salon.com/2004/09/08/graham_8/

Is that your conspiracy theory?

... salon, a great source, for political stuff; good find.
You sure are paranoid. ... names, is that the best you got, Balsamo and CIT do too. Thank you, thank you very much.

...Maybe being a boot licker for political authority ...

Did you say you were in the military? ...

15 out of 19 were Saudis. If Sen Graham is too stupid to figure it out, it is his problem. After Dick shot his buddy, I put him in the chain of command like many others in the military. We don't want to get shot, even if the cover-up plot is to take us to the hospital. Questions?

I like your "stand down" delusion. High praise from fellow paranoid conspiracy theorist (who also use opinions as evidence to proclaim, Bush is a traitor - most people 50.001 percent, stick with dirt dumb stupid). I suspect the massive amounts junk, like a smoke screen, (what you think is evidence to support your claim in the end), all those pseudo facts and fake evidence fool them into falling for the leap across the universe to come up with the failed logic of, if VP says "shoot down", we "stand down". I can't believe you use the word waste.

UBL is a Saudi, a spoil, not first son, with too much time on his hands, dead for doing, WORLDWIDE TERRORISM, not only for his help, or inspiration for 911. Dead for terrorism around the world. Too bad UBL was not like Gandhi, or MLK. Does Graham know UBL was a Saudi?

Good for you, buy the book, buy the hype, spread the word. Great stuff, books written, hyped up with controversy based on opinion; to make, Money. Here is how it works! If Graham had facts and evidence, Graham would have a Pulitzer Prize. But Graham has opinion, and he does exactly what you do! He takes stuff, junk, and then waves his hands and proclaims opinions, then you use Graham opinions to base your conclusions. Opinions gone wild! Good job falling for nonsense, political nonsense. If you keep it up your posts will be in politics forum, or in the fiction section of the library.

In his book, Graham asserts ... yep, and no Pulitzer! Where is your Pulitzer! I think Jones made up thermite because he holds Bush as you do. Jones has the thermite delusion, you have the "stand down" delusion.

The fact is shooting down a plane is a sticky situation. Essentially the Passengers shoot down Flight 93. Flight 93 Passengers were the first people on 911 to figure out it was not a hijacking, and they were the first to be in a position to take direct action. Makes all your nonsense, exactly that.

 

[alienentity]

LOL Beachnut, sometimes you sound like an angry Yoda.

 

[jimd3100]

If Graham had facts and evidence, Graham would have a Pulitzer Prize.

No, as Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee he would have a report issued on the Investigation of the attacks on 9-11 that Bush would censor. Maybe you should read it. Bush didn't censor all of it......

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/911.html

Graham’s allegations — supported by the Republican vice chairman of the House-Senate 9/11 investigation, Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, but not his co-chairman, Rep. Porter Goss, Bush’s nominee to become director of the CIA — are not new

.

Maybe you have political bias? Is Sen Shelby "stupid" as well? Is he undercover Democrat fighting your irrelevant left/right democrat/republican liberal/conservative fight?

 

[000063]

Sure if you enjoy being lied to. What recollections were conflicting? Is it OK for them to try and re-write history? Is it better to keep Americans uninformed rather than embarrass Saudi friends with links to terrorists? Gee...I'm such a radical!

I like how you conflate "conflicting accounts" with "lying".

 

[Sabretooth]

Originally Posted by Sabretooth View Post
The fact remains that even if there was a shoot-down order relayed to the military, the terror flights would not have been intercepted in time.

You mean in hindsight? Or are you proposing that these guys knew the future?

Hindsight? Future? What the hell are you talking about?

Let's pretend we lived in a mythical world where there was a standing order to shoot down hijacked civilian aircraft within American airspace on 9/11/2001, the terror flights would not have been intercepted in time.

I don't know what kind of "researcher" you think you are, but here's another handy table for you:

Flight | NEADS Notified | Time of Impact | Time to Intercept
AA11|8:38|8:46|8 mins
UA175|9:03|9:03|0 mins
AA77|9:34|9:37|3 mins
UA93|10:07|10:03|-4 mins

AA11: The FAA notified NEADS of the hijacked aircraft at 8:38. The Otis ANG F-15's (220 miles away) went wheels-up at 8:53...a full 7 minutes after AA11 impacted WTC1. Chance of intercept = Zero
UA175: The FAA notified NEADS of the hijacked aircraft at 9:03. The exact minute that UA175 impacted WTC2. The Otis fighters were still 71 miles away from NYC at this point in time. Chance of intercept = Zero
AA77: The FAA notified NEADS of the "missing" aircraft at 9:34. The Langley fighters (~150 miles South of DC), scrambled at 9:30, headed East of the DC area upon take-off (090 for 60). At 9:36, NEADS ordered the fighters to the DC area. 1 minute later, with the fighters still ~180 miles from DC, AA77 impacts the Pentagon. Chance of intercept = Zero
UA93: The FAA notified NEADS of the hijacked aircraft at 10:07. A full 4 minutes after UA93 impacted the ground near Shanksville, PA. Chance of intercept = Zero

So, to reiterate my point: The fact remains that even if there was a shoot-down order relayed to the military, the terror flights would not have been intercepted in time.

You're bad at this. Find a new hobby.

 

[shure]

Thanks for the timeline Sabretooth.

Which one of the multiple "conflicting accounts" did you pick from?

"Former Commission analyst Miles Kara has likened NORAD's account to an attempt to solve a Sudoku puzzle"

"Commission general counsel Daniel Marcus, though, pointed to disquieting discrepancies, including the "suspicious" omission of key times from an FAA document... he raised the possibility that the FAA and Air Force accounts were "knowingly false"

At some level of the government, at some point in time... ," Commission counsel John Farmer has written, "there was a decision not to tell the truth about what happened." The troubling questions about the way the government really functioned on 9/11, Farmer made clear, also involved the White House

pages 133 - 134
The Eleventh Day: The Full Story of 9/11 and Osama bin Laden
Anthony Summers, Robbyn Swan
http://www.amazon.ca/Eleventh-Day-Story-Osama-Laden/dp/140006659X

Its a very confusing issue thanks to so many "conflicting accounts", cover-ups and unnecessary classification of information.

At least you make your assumptions based on "conflicting accounts"

Unlike Beachnut who just makes things up in the fantasy land he lives in. Where he does whatever he wants in the military, Dick Cheney shoots people to work his way up the chain of command and Saudi Arabia is his little buddy

Just like Bush covered up the air defense failure he was complicit in that day, he also covered up that Saudi involvement

"There's a curious lack of curiosity about the Saudi ties."
Bob Graham, December 10, 2011
http://www.heraldtribune.com/article/20111210/ARTICLE/111219984

 

[carlitos]

Apologies to our fine Canadian posters, but ... does it seem odd to anyone else that this forum has a preponderance of Canadian truthy people in it? (Yes, I know, where at the bottom of the barrel with regards to the "movement" so it's a really small sample size)

I realize that 24 Canadians were killed in the attacks, but even so, hearing Canadians calling for George Bush or Donald Rumsfeld to be tried for treason or whatever just seems odd. It would be the equivalent of an American posting on a message board demanding a "new investigation" of Brian Mulrooney and Airbus.

 

[Sabretooth]

Thanks for the timeline Sabretooth.

Which one of the multiple "conflicting accounts" did you pick from?

Dunno. I've brought up the timeline several times...I have no idea what post and/or "conflicting accounts" you're responding to.

Its a very confusing issue thanks to so many "conflicting accounts", cover-ups and unnecessary classification of information.

At least you make your assumptions based on "conflicting accounts", unlike Beachnut who just makes things up in the fantasy land that he lives in. Where he does whatever he wants in the military, Dick Cheney shoots people to work his way up the chain of command and Saudi Arabia is his little buddy!!!

Just like Bush covered up the air defense failure he was complicit in that day, he also covered up that Saudi involvement

I don't have the slightest idea what you're getting at. This has nothing to do with any of my posts. I asked a simple question;

Why are you so hell bend on finding details of a shoot-down order that would not have resulted in any damn shoot-downs anyway?

I've already shown you, via facts and evidence, that just intercepting any of the four planes would have been impossible, let alone shooting them out of the sky.

It's a pretty dumb campaign you got there. It doesn't matter if the shoot-down order came before the attacks, during the attacks, after the attacks, or if it was issued at all...because no matter what the answer is, it means absolutely nothing. No hypothetical scenario changes the events of the day, period.

Now, how about you discuss this without reverting to some horrible internet copy/paste post that has nothing to do with the conversation.

 

[shure]

Ok, in your opinion not issuing orders is no big deal.

What about Bush's cover-up of the Saudi involvement???

 

[DGM]

Dunno. I've brought up the timeline several times...I have no idea what post and/or "conflicting accounts" you're responding to.
.

You know, Times from clocks found crushed at the Pentagon, time stamps from data messages sent but not received. That sort of thing, anything other than factual.

 

[BasqueArch]

Ok, in your opinion not issuing orders is no big deal.

What about Bush's cover-up of the Saudi involvement???

If Bush "covered up the Saudi involvement". how do you know about it.
If Bush could not "cover up the Saudi involvement" how could he cover up "9/11 inside job."

If truthers miss these easy questions, what else are they missing.

What about Gage's cover-up of the missing Remember Building7 $78k.
What about DRG's cover-up that he doesn't know steel comes in truck sized pieces.
What about Jones and Harritts cover-up that painted paper thin thermite can't warm a witch's tit let alone melt 1/4 in steel

 

[jimd3100]

I've already shown you, via facts and evidence, that just intercepting any of the four planes would have been impossible, let alone shooting them out of the sky.

No you didn't show with "facts and evidence" that it would be impossible to intercept any of the four planes. And you certainly didn't provide any facts or evidence that Bush or Rumsfeld knew what time the impacts would be on these planes or that they knew they wouldn't be intercepted.

Neads was notified of the flight 11 hijacking at 8:38. It took them 8 minutes to get fighters scrambled after that plane.

Flight 77 was hijacked and went off course at 8:54. 44 minutes later it crashed into the Pentagon. Explain to the forum why it would be impossible to intercept that flight and explain how Bush and Rumsfeld knew it would be impossible.

Flight 93 was hijacked at 9:28 and crashed 35 minutes later. Explain to the forum why it was impossible to scramble fighters after that plane and explain how Bush and Rumsfeld knew it would be impossible.

I'll help you. Procedures called for the FAA hijack Coordinator to contact the NMCC who would would get authorization from Sec of Defense for shoot down authorization.

The FAA hijack Coordinator was Mike Canavan who was in Puerto Rico on 9-11.

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=mike_canavan#a830faahijackcoordinator

Explain to the forum how Rumsfeld leaving VP Cheney in charge who is outside the military Chain of command is perfectly reasonable.

Secretary Rumsfeld joined the Air Threat Conference Call at 10:30 and was told about the shoot down order by Vice President Cheney, he was clearly unaware of it. Whether the vice president had requested prior authorization from the president is disputed, but uncorroborated by the records of the day." page 260

http://www.amazon.com/Ground-Truth-...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260588203&sr=1-1

It's all hindsight. On 9-11 Bush and Rumsfeld left Cheney in charge. He's not in the military chain of command.

 

[000063]

No you didn't show with "facts and evidence" that it would be impossible to intercept any of the four planes. And you certainly didn't provide any facts or evidence that Bush or Rumsfeld knew what time the impacts would be on these planes or that they knew they wouldn't be intercepted.

Neads was notified of the flight 11 hijacking at 8:38. It took them 8 minutes to get fighters scrambled after that plane.

Flight 77 was hijacked and went off course at 8:54. 44 minutes later it crashed into the Pentagon. Explain to the forum why it would be impossible to intercept that flight and explain how Bush and Rumsfeld knew it would be impossible.

Flight 93 was hijacked at 9:28 and crashed 35 minutes later. Explain to the forum why it was impossible to scramble fighters after that plane and explain how Bush and Rumsfeld knew it would be impossible.

I'll help you. Procedures called for the FAA hijack Coordinator to contact the NMCC who would would get authorization from Sec of Defense for shoot down authorization.

The FAA hijack Coordinator was Mike Canavan who was in Puerto Rico on 9-11.

http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=mike_canavan#a830faahijackcoordinator

Explain to the forum how Rumsfeld leaving VP Cheney in charge who is outside the military Chain of command is perfectly reasonable.


http://www.amazon.com/Ground-Truth-...=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260588203&sr=1-1

Explain how long it would've taken to intercept the planes. Sabertooth is arguing that it would be impossible to even catch up to the planes, not just "scramble jets".

Remember, you have to include the jets' flight time from their base to the planes' locations. Keep in mind that the Pentagon is in the flight path for a national airport, and all of the planes had their transponders off.

 

[jimd3100]

If Bush "covered up the Saudi involvement". how do you know about it.

Maybe you should read the thread before you post in it, and take that question to the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence committee that investigated the attacks of 9-11?

Sen. Graham: Bush covered up Saudi involvement in 9/11
http://www.salon.com/2004/09/08/graham_8/

 

[jimd3100]

Explain how long it would've taken to intercept the planes. Sabertooth is arguing that it would be impossible to even catch up to the planes, not just "scramble jets".

Remember, you have to include the jets' flight time from their base to the planes' locations. Keep in mind that the Pentagon is in the flight path for a national airport, and all of the planes had their transponders off.

Sure, right after you explain how Bush and Rumsfeld knew all this in advance.

and all of the planes had their transponders off

So they were invisible right?

 

[DGM]

Maybe you should read the thread before you post in it, and take that question to the Chairman of the Senate Intelligence committee that investigated the attacks of 9-11?

Sen. Graham: Bush covered up Saudi involvement in 9/11
http://www.salon.com/2004/09/08/graham_8/

I think you need to contact William Veale right now. Are you ready to get these bastards?

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Ok, in your opinion not issuing orders is no big deal.

What about Bush's cover-up of the Saudi involvement???

No, no no. Don't Gish Gallop. Your argument was about shootdowns and supposedly "conflicting" timelines (none of which apply to what Sabretooth posted, given that the specific times he posted were based not on the original military narrative but on the actual, recorded radio conversations, radar data, and known positions of the military jets). Put that aside and go back to defend your charges. The timeline constructed from the NEADs recordings, the radar data, etc., show clearly that there would not have been enough time to intercept even had there been orders.


So:

1. Demonstrate that the problem was that the lack of intercepts was deliberate, and not a consequence of the utter lack of response time, given when NEADs was actually notified and when the jets struck.
2. While you're at it, elaborate on your charge of "conflicting" timelines. You've yet to show what specifically is "conflicting". Yes, we know that the initial Pentagon reports to the press were erroneous, but that was corrected. And we know that Mineta's recollections are incorrect; that also has been accounted for. The times listed in that table were not constructed from either.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

Keep in mind that the Pentagon is in the flight path for a national airport, and all of the planes had their transponders off.

I hate to say this, but in the interests of being accurate, there's an error there: Flight 175's transponder was indeed left on. The channel was changed, but it was determined that it was indeed left on.

Also, I don't recall whether Flight 93's transponder was turned off or not, but I think I recall some statements about it being tracked on primary even after the other jets impacts, which would mean that its transponder was broadcasting too. But my memory's a bit hazy, so don't take that as gospel; someone who recalls this better please correct me if I'm wrong about that.

 

[LSSBB]

It's all hindsight. On 9-11 Bush and Rumsfeld left Cheney in charge. He's not in the military chain of command.

Tell me jimd, can you explain to me the proper procedure to deputize the Vice President? Your argument hinges on that process, and I can't find a proper definition. I figured that before you made that charge, you had looked it up so I'm hoping you can help me out here.