Merged 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread
- Thread starter T.A.M.
- Start date
- Status
Dubious Dick
Muse
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2008
- Messages
- 515
Can't believe this thread is still going, despite the evidence of my eyes. Anyway Red Ibis, Whaddya mean Obama!
Barack Hussain Obama is an anagram of A Cabana Hora Bum Kiss!
Hora/Horus/Illuminati/Freemasons/New World Order.
If you take the last twelve issues of playboy and use the first word of the last para of each girls biog you will see it is all predicted and coded in. He is an alien lizard disguised to fool us that the political environment is changing. In fact he is the final sign of the End of Times.
He was predicted by Nostradamus and Jesus and Mohammed and the ancient Mayans. He is descended from Atlanteans and has webbed feet and a forked tongue (have you ever seen his tongue?)
I predict that major events of World importance will happen in the next twelve Months. Many will die and floods and tempests will beset us.
The only hope is a space craft from the outer Malarkian galaxy that will save us if we all get down on our knees, put our heads between our legs and A Cabana Hora Bum Kiss. NOW!
Barack Hussain Obama is an anagram of A Cabana Hora Bum Kiss!
Hora/Horus/Illuminati/Freemasons/New World Order.
If you take the last twelve issues of playboy and use the first word of the last para of each girls biog you will see it is all predicted and coded in. He is an alien lizard disguised to fool us that the political environment is changing. In fact he is the final sign of the End of Times.
He was predicted by Nostradamus and Jesus and Mohammed and the ancient Mayans. He is descended from Atlanteans and has webbed feet and a forked tongue (have you ever seen his tongue?)
I predict that major events of World importance will happen in the next twelve Months. Many will die and floods and tempests will beset us.
The only hope is a space craft from the outer Malarkian galaxy that will save us if we all get down on our knees, put our heads between our legs and A Cabana Hora Bum Kiss. NOW!
Ingenious Arabs?
Thanks for your answer. I don't, however, see how it supports the assertion that the hijackers plan was "ingenious".
Small, sharp, concealed objects have been used a weapons for thousands of years. More recently threatening people with bombs (real and fake) has become common. The use and possibility of using aeroplanes as weapons is also well-established.
Where's the ingenuity? The hijackers used standard and predictable methods.
Hardly ingenious either! No criminal seeks to attract unnecessary attention. The use of small cells is hardly a recent invention. Furthermore, the hijackers actually attracted a lot of attention. Some were under surveillance for at least a year before the attacks. The US received precise warnings about their presence and activities in Homeland.
The hijackers' success doesn't indicate ingenuity but, if its excuses are to be believed, illustrates the pathetic uselessness of the US, multibillion dollar, Intelligence/Military defence machine.
Thanks for your answer. I don't, however, see how it supports the assertion that the hijackers plan was "ingenious".
Small, sharp, concealed objects have been used a weapons for thousands of years. More recently threatening people with bombs (real and fake) has become common. The use and possibility of using aeroplanes as weapons is also well-established.
Where's the ingenuity? The hijackers used standard and predictable methods.
Hardly ingenious either! No criminal seeks to attract unnecessary attention. The use of small cells is hardly a recent invention. Furthermore, the hijackers actually attracted a lot of attention. Some were under surveillance for at least a year before the attacks. The US received precise warnings about their presence and activities in Homeland.
The hijackers' success doesn't indicate ingenuity but, if its excuses are to be believed, illustrates the pathetic uselessness of the US, multibillion dollar, Intelligence/Military defence machine.
Last edited:
To me, "actual research" suggests going out into the field and counting the sheep myself rather than relying on someone else's count. If this is what you mean then no, I haven't. Have you?
240-185
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 510
So, "actual research" means for you "not investigating, absolute distrusting people, because they have taken part of the "official" version, so it is an useless work"?
So, why are you bothering debunkers if you DON'T WANT to see by yourself? Why are you bothering debunkers if you DON'T WANT to have intellectual honesty?
No.
I think you must have misunderstood something I wrote. "Actual research", to me, would , for example, be analysing a dust sample as opposed to reading the resulting report. I've read plenty of reports.
chillzero
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2002
- Messages
- 15,547
You're fully qualified to do that?
The following is from a debate I am having with a truther. He is actually a somewhat level headed one so far and actually admitted defeat in our first topic of WTC7. This is our second topic...NORAD. Not my strong point. He posted a lot of stuff I have never heard of. Just curious what you guys think.
Not looking for rebuttals to steal, just thought I would share as I haven't seen some of this discussed here....
Not looking for rebuttals to steal, just thought I would share as I haven't seen some of this discussed here....
1. Can you name a single person who has been fired or punished within the US government (FBI, CIA, NORAD, FAA, NSA, or Bush Administration etc) for the September 11th attacks?
Yea man, glad to hear it, this should make everyone who's country was affected by this day very upset, especially Americans. It's also a shame that bringing this topic up can automatically associate you with the craziest of conspiracy theories
It's true, i have never heard of a single soul getting fired for the catastrophic failures of 911, in fact, even more disturbing is that some people in charge we're actually promoted.
Richard B Myers. US Air Force, Vice Chairman of Joint Chief of Staff, was accountable for all Military forces of the nation, as the chairmen Shelton was not in town.
Promoted to Chairman Oct 1st, 2001 (NY Times"]Source)
Ralph Eberhart, who was in charge of NORAD's Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center on 9/11, and was also promoted to the First commander of "Northern Command" (NorthCom) in Oct of 2002.
Army Brigadier General W. Montague Winfied Asked Capt. Leidig to take his place as "Director of the Operations" on the morning of 911. Leidig had qualified to stand in that position not even a month ago. After flight 93 was reported crashed,
General Winfield assumed control again. (Source)
Promoted to Major General shortly after 911.
Capt. Leidig took control temporarily from Winfield as "Director of Operations" at NMCC (National Military Command Center) and was director during the time that all of the planes crashed.
Promoted to "Rear Admiral" Director of the operations Sixth Fleet Naval Forces in Europe.
David F. Wherley jr. the brigadier General for the Andrews Air Force Base (nearest base to the pentagon)
Promoted to Major General after 911. Source
I'd also like to point out this about Andrews Airforce Base:
9/11 - Andrews AFB, home to DC Air National Guard and Air Force 1 & 2, had no jetfighters on alert. (Newsday, USA Today)
not only are the people responsible not being held liable for their failures / non-actions, but indeed some would appear to be actually receiving promotions shortly after 911. I did not source all of the promotions above, but some very quick research will reveal that I am not ********ting you on this topic.
*** I did not take the time to source all of the information above, but i can provide sources upon request ****
2. NORAD is responsible for the defense of all North American airspace. how many contradictory explanations did NORAD give for their failure to intercept any planes on 9/11?
Oh Boy! We are even on the same page here.
As far as I am aware, I have heard 3 versions of the official story, and each have contradictions with the other 2 "official" explanations. I will admit it's understandable that there is conflicting stories would exist in your "mass confusion" theory as well. If something was very confusing it's obviously going to be hard to explain it.
I'm not going to bother going into this since I have alot more information i'd like to present and I think we both agree that they gave multiple explanations that contradicted eachother. We can get deeper into this, but i feel there is no point as of yet.
3. It is an established fact that NORAD is responsible for air defenses and no planes on 9/11 were even intercepted despite the fact this is standard procedure. Why were none of the planes intercepted?
This is a good point, and i would agree to your point that there was alot of confusion but, what was the source of this confusion? I do not agree when you say no one knew which planes were, at least at the very beginning, Flight 11 was very clearly hijacked, and controllers were quite aware of it. I will get into this later, I want to talk about a protocol change that I think will raise some doubt on the official story, even to you, curtis.
I believe it all comes down to a very unusual FAA Protocol Change in June of 2001 Directed by Secretary of Defense: Donald Rumsfeld.
Here is the theory that seems most plausible to me, i would like to see what you think of it.
The Department of Defense protocol that defined the appropriate actions that need to be taken in the event of aerospace emergencies and hijacked aeroplanes was re-written after several years of successful application, just three months before 911, under the direction of former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
For Reference here are the protocol documents i am referring to
CJCSI 3610.1 Today's current protocol, and the protocol used prior to June 1, 2001
CJCSI 3610.10A The protocol re-written by Secretary Rumsfeld that was used from June1, 2001 to sept 10th, 2001
These protocols were reviewed heavily and were deemed to be almost identical in their function, except that the protocol was placed underneath the Joint Chiefs of Staff Flow Chart.
I want to quickly interject A couple of somewhat irrelevant facts that i want you to suck in. These are pretty undeniable, but i welcome a challenge on them. I want you to understand that NORAD doesn't **** around and never has before in the past. They were prepared and trained for situations similar in nature to 911.
1999 - NORAD starts conducting exercises in which airplanes are hijacked and crashed into targets which include the WTC and Pentagon (USA Today)
April '01 - NORAD requested a war games event of having a terrorist group hijack a commercial airline and fly it into the Pentagon. (Boston Globe)
June '01 - NORAD conducts Amalgam Virgo 01, an exercise involving a cruise missile attack scenario in which their presentation manual has a photo of Osama bin Laden on the cover and a picture of an explosion in a skyscraper inside. (Global Security)
Feb '05 - Donald Rumsfeld, Gen. Myers confirm there were at least four war games on 9/11 from Rep. McKinney questioning. (Transcript, youtube)
And now to the Kicker:
1. Between September, 2000 and June 2001 there were 67 reported NORAD airspace scramble/intercepts. (CBS Article confirms this) This averages to 6.7 intercepts per month.
2. Between June 1, 2001 and sept. 10, 2001, there wasn't one single NORAD incercept /scramble. (i don't have a source for this other than Former FAA Air Traffic Controller "Robert Hordon's" word.) I challenge you to find me a NORAD intercept that took place in this timeframe, as i've been unsuccessful.
3. After protocol CJCSI 3610.10 was put back into operation on Sept 10th, 2001, Scrambled / Intercepts became quite common again. (Im going to use the same CBS article to confirm this for now)
Now, why is this so interesting?
By these protocols there are 2 "action tracks" based on the situation
Track 1) EMERGENT - immediate action is required.
Track 2) Non Emergent - a slower process appropriate to a typical hijacking, where demands are issued and negotiations are expected to proceed
(The Above definitions are taken directly from the Protocol Documents)
The Emergent track essentially gives Air Traffic Controllers the ability to communicate directly with the military so that they don't need to take the time to acquire any further authorization that would slow them down.
The non-emergent track is the one that is used for hijackings. In these cases a chain of command is clearly defined, beginning with the FAA and then continuing across to the DOD chain of command which of course is headed by the "Secretary of Defense" who's authorization is required for any military assistance given.
Here's the flow chart
FAA: Control Tower -> Regional Operations Center -> Command Center -> Headquarters ->
DoD: National Military Control Center -> Secretary of Defense -> NEADS/NORAD
Now, Let me ask you these 2 Questions?
1. If the relocated protocols are "functionally identicle" as stated by those who approved it, why was there a need to rewrite them 3 months before 911, and discontinue them on Sept. 10? What was the purpose for this protocol change? I have a theory, but i'll wait for your response.
2. How did the number of flight Scrambles / intercepts drop to zero over those 3 months prior to 911?
Okay, I know i've probably went on way too long here, and i apologize. I want to keep going but i am going to stop here and allow you a response.
I still want to get into how these 2 protocols were effectively merged into 1, which required Mr. Rumsfelds approval, and surprisingly enough... no one could get ahold of him on 911.
In fact Rumsfeld was missing until 10:30am that day, shortly after it was all over...
And don't even get me started with motives, im sure even you Curtis will agree there were clear motives displayed by Rumsfeld and friends. if not, I've got to cover that aspect as well.
By motives i mean before and after 911.
And honestly could go on forever with this crap... I'm sorry i wrote so much here, I still feel like im only scratching the surface
i can't wait to hear your response.
are you referring to these?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,207062,00.html
I have listened to various recordings that were released. There was confusion for sure, but i still believe there was corruption, and perhaps the source of the confusion was corruption.
I would definitely like to hear these recordings you're referring to, but please don't think that I associate myself in any way with Avery. I've seen him contradict himself WAY too many times to ever trust him as a credible source of information but, I don't think the kid is intentionally dishonest or anything like that. I think he is just not the greatest at presenting real information and discarding the crap, especially when interviewed. I also am not a big fan of the movie Loose Change, but I have respect for it being the first movie to make me question the events surrounding 911.
911 Press For Truth is probably the most effective eye-opener that sticks to the facts, IMHO. Have you seen it yet?
If not, you absolutely have to. It's put together by victims family members, and they truly are just fighting for truth, and from what i remember, Controlled demolition is barely even mentioned in the film (if at all).
watch this trailer http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8666444901186351024
Analyse dust samples or read reports?
GStan
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2007
- Messages
- 1,350
Thanks for sharing. Clay Trainor has obviously never read anything EVER regarding 9/11 from a source other than another truther. BTW, if you are looking for rebuttals about NORAD etc., there is a ton of great info here:
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/norad,faa,ntsb,aircraftcapabilities,pilo
Last edited:
To pick just one...
That's a prime example of truther dishonesty. They take a report for the number of intercepts between September 2000 and June 2001, then just assume that means there were none from June to September 10.
It's an incredibly flimsy assumption based on nothing at all, yet they still feel able to state it as though it were somehow a proven fact. This is, of course, all part of their hypocritical dual standards - no evidence provided to them is ever good enough, yet laughably flimsy constructions that support their points are just fine.
And if you point this out, then that's the response you get: "I challenge you to find me a NORAD intercept that took place in this timeframe, as i've been unsuccessful." In other words, they accept no burden of proof. If we can't prove Hordon wrong then his claim stands. It's a perfect example of self-deluding trutherdom.
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
Bolded part above is a lie.
GStan
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2007
- Messages
- 1,350
So you only trust your own sheep counts, not other peoples.
You freely admit that you have counted no sheep.
Yet somehow you know that the reported volume of sheep is incorrect.
I think you might be eligible for $1,000,000Yea thanks, I was already checking it out.
I have seen most of what he posted but the whole changing of policy months before 9/11 from Cheney thing is a new one to me. I would rather get my facts strait before I attempt to reply.
The NORAD CT is never something that interested for some reason so I never really payed attention.
So you only trust your own sheep counts, not other peoples.
You freely admit that you have counted no sheep.
Yet somehow you know that the reported volume of sheep is incorrect.
I respectfully ask you to re-read what I have written. You appear to be have jumped to several premature, unfounded conclusions, apparently independent of anything I have written. You have totally misunderstood my use of sheep. I am simply trying to differentiate between "actual research" and "research" (without the "actual"), as you define it.
You asked me if I'd done any "actual research". Please define your terms. To me "actual research" is sounds different to plain, boring, "research", without bells on.
Is that clearer?
Last edited:
GStan
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2007
- Messages
- 1,350
The fact that you think there is some kind of important distinction between 'actual research' and 'research' is all the clarification I need.
I'll restate the questions that started this ridiculous tangent.
GStan said:
As far as how research is defined, I'll settle for you having read and comprehended information from non-truther sources.
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
Thats an admission then?
JJ said:
What is predictable is you moving the goalposts again JJ.
What happened on 911 as far as what the hijackers did was not standard or predictable.
I fear you probably do not want to get into this too deep or face another drubbing.
- Status