Until you provide the evidence that you did and that you interviewed anyone, your claim is a bunch of hot air that is totally meaningless.
Double Tree Video Released?
- Thread starter JAStewart
- Start date
Until you provide the evidence that you did and that you interviewed anyone, your claim is a bunch of hot air that is totally meaningless.
I realize, but I pasted it because I think the points he makes about perjury are valid.
Which side is the grassy knoll on and was it a lone plane or was there a second...go crawl under a rock
I think you may have misinterpreted Gravy's remark because of what his name represents in the CT world. The name "Gravy" I'm sure is synonymous with something unpleasant there. But rest assured, he is a true and honest debater. He only asked you to finish your thoughts.
I think your thoughts have merit, you shouldn't feel antagonised here. You only have to understand that when you make a claim here, you have to be able to support it.
Hierosis, are you saying that you believe it was more than incompetence and that you believe the skeptics who post here simply see 9/11 as being the result of incompetence by the US govt and military and as such we should be asking for someone to be held accountable?
If that is the case then I would simply point out that:
1. Airline security in the US (for domestic flights) was a joke prior to 9/11 and this, coupled with an expectation of what a hijack would actually mean on a domestic flight, lead to an opportunity for the type of attack we eventually witnessed. This situation existed for years prior to 9/11. If we are to apportion blame for this it will have to include not only previous governments, civil servants and airline bosses, but also the travelling public who, up until the 9/11 attacks, wanted flying within the US to be as simple as getting on a bus. Now that the full potential of suicidal attacks is known and appreciated the government (of not just the US) is in danger of swinging to the opposite end of the spectrum and could be accused of being too prescriptive and intrusive with ragards to the movement of it's own citizens. So really any govt is caught between a rock and a hard place: Not enough action and a terrorist attack can be carried out. Too much action and they get accused of being a police state.
2. Hindsight. We have the wonderful benefit of being able to work backwards from the 9/11 attack and join up all those dots which pointed to it happening. Unfortunately this fails to take into account all the other dots which point to other terrorist attacks happening but which ultimately come to nothing. So things are never as clear as they might appear with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.
3. Foreign govt involvement? Possibly. But then you have to take into account real politik. The world is not black and white. Yes, there is always the possibility that powerful people in saudi or pakistan had connections with the hijackers. But the balancing question is can these people be dealt with by diplomatic means rather than a military response which ultimately leads to an even more unfriendly regime being given power in those countries? I suspect that the US govt chose the diplomatic route.
If that is the case then I would simply point out that:
1. Airline security in the US (for domestic flights) was a joke prior to 9/11 and this, coupled with an expectation of what a hijack would actually mean on a domestic flight, lead to an opportunity for the type of attack we eventually witnessed. This situation existed for years prior to 9/11. If we are to apportion blame for this it will have to include not only previous governments, civil servants and airline bosses, but also the travelling public who, up until the 9/11 attacks, wanted flying within the US to be as simple as getting on a bus. Now that the full potential of suicidal attacks is known and appreciated the government (of not just the US) is in danger of swinging to the opposite end of the spectrum and could be accused of being too prescriptive and intrusive with ragards to the movement of it's own citizens. So really any govt is caught between a rock and a hard place: Not enough action and a terrorist attack can be carried out. Too much action and they get accused of being a police state.
2. Hindsight. We have the wonderful benefit of being able to work backwards from the 9/11 attack and join up all those dots which pointed to it happening. Unfortunately this fails to take into account all the other dots which point to other terrorist attacks happening but which ultimately come to nothing. So things are never as clear as they might appear with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight.
3. Foreign govt involvement? Possibly. But then you have to take into account real politik. The world is not black and white. Yes, there is always the possibility that powerful people in saudi or pakistan had connections with the hijackers. But the balancing question is can these people be dealt with by diplomatic means rather than a military response which ultimately leads to an even more unfriendly regime being given power in those countries? I suspect that the US govt chose the diplomatic route.
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
Woah...
Thinks have fired up here! Let's try keep it civil.
My take...
Whenever I see 9/11 claims that no one was hel accountable for the government's incompetence, I recall my analysis of 9/11 that led to the conclusion that 9/11 occured because of three things.
In particular, it makes me think of thing number three - American arrogance.
To most Americans, I think, it goes without saying that their government *could* have stopped 9/11 and *should* have stopped 9/11. Therefore, the fact that they didn't is evidence of one of two things:
1) Government incompetence
2) Intentional Government inaction (a LIHOP scenario, if you will)
I personally don't agree, and I attribute this view to American arrogance.
It must be a grossly unpleasant thing to entertain that "19 ragheads with boxcutters" thwarted the multi-billion dollar defences of such a great and powerful nation.
I think they did, though. I think the Terrorist beat the US, plain and simple. They were smarter, they were more ruthless, more dedicated, and they were bolder. They did not succeed because of US incompetence, they succeeded because they were superior. Plain and simple.
Rather than look for government officials to lynch and blame, the US would do far better actively seeking to address the real issue - a potentially superior enemy.
Norman Mineta, in his testimony to the 9/11 Commission, identified US ports as the weakest link in national security. What has been done since 9/11 to address this weakness?
Prior to 9/11, FAA assessment teams managed to smuggle everything from firearms to explosive to chemical weapons onto US domestic flights. What has been done to improve security at airports in the US?
Prior to 9/11 law enforcement and intelligence agencies did not communicate well (indeed, that's an understatement), and resources for counter-terrorism operations were insufficient for the task.
Prior to 9/11 politics on the world stage was considered more important than protecting the US, and terrorists often were left alone out of fear of offending this country or that diplomat.
What has been done post-9/11 to enable US intelligence and law enforcement, and to bring a more realistic attitude re: terrorism into the global political sphere?
THESE are the sort of questions an American citizen should be asking of their government. Americans have pretty few individuals in their nation who are selfless enough to dedicate their life efforts to keeping the nation safe. Instead of demanding to know why they do not have a perfect track record in their difficult task, why don't Americans turn their efforts to making sure the government provides them sufficient resources to do their job properly?
Perhaps some Americans need to let go of their superior arrogance and simply acknowledge that Osama and his bunch of misfits simply out-played them. It is a bitter lesson to learn, but in learning it, the USA will benefit more than it would from a thousand more navel-gazing "investigations".
-Gumboot
Thinks have fired up here! Let's try keep it civil.
My take...
Whenever I see 9/11 claims that no one was hel accountable for the government's incompetence, I recall my analysis of 9/11 that led to the conclusion that 9/11 occured because of three things.
In particular, it makes me think of thing number three - American arrogance.
To most Americans, I think, it goes without saying that their government *could* have stopped 9/11 and *should* have stopped 9/11. Therefore, the fact that they didn't is evidence of one of two things:
1) Government incompetence
2) Intentional Government inaction (a LIHOP scenario, if you will)
I personally don't agree, and I attribute this view to American arrogance.
It must be a grossly unpleasant thing to entertain that "19 ragheads with boxcutters" thwarted the multi-billion dollar defences of such a great and powerful nation.
I think they did, though. I think the Terrorist beat the US, plain and simple. They were smarter, they were more ruthless, more dedicated, and they were bolder. They did not succeed because of US incompetence, they succeeded because they were superior. Plain and simple.
Rather than look for government officials to lynch and blame, the US would do far better actively seeking to address the real issue - a potentially superior enemy.
Norman Mineta, in his testimony to the 9/11 Commission, identified US ports as the weakest link in national security. What has been done since 9/11 to address this weakness?
Prior to 9/11, FAA assessment teams managed to smuggle everything from firearms to explosive to chemical weapons onto US domestic flights. What has been done to improve security at airports in the US?
Prior to 9/11 law enforcement and intelligence agencies did not communicate well (indeed, that's an understatement), and resources for counter-terrorism operations were insufficient for the task.
Prior to 9/11 politics on the world stage was considered more important than protecting the US, and terrorists often were left alone out of fear of offending this country or that diplomat.
What has been done post-9/11 to enable US intelligence and law enforcement, and to bring a more realistic attitude re: terrorism into the global political sphere?
THESE are the sort of questions an American citizen should be asking of their government. Americans have pretty few individuals in their nation who are selfless enough to dedicate their life efforts to keeping the nation safe. Instead of demanding to know why they do not have a perfect track record in their difficult task, why don't Americans turn their efforts to making sure the government provides them sufficient resources to do their job properly?
Perhaps some Americans need to let go of their superior arrogance and simply acknowledge that Osama and his bunch of misfits simply out-played them. It is a bitter lesson to learn, but in learning it, the USA will benefit more than it would from a thousand more navel-gazing "investigations".
-Gumboot
Gumboot:
I agree. I have often said I am LIHOI (Let It Happen Out of Ignorance/Incompetence) or LIHOA (Let It Happen Out of Arrogance).
Is it unique to the USA...no. If this happened on Canadian soil, it would likely have been similar. I think it is a modern world thing.
Hierosis:
Welcome. Shame to see you go before I was able to enter in on the conversation.
Gravy's Question was legitimate, so why do you dodge the question. To shout out that the government is incompetent, but then not name names is pretty weak.
S4S:
The Double Tree shows some low grade images, one of which could be the plane coming into and hitting the Pentagon.
What the Double Tree Video DOES NOT show, but should if it occured, is a FLYOVER plane. There is no evidence of a plane passing through the airspace above the pentagon either before, during, or after the explosion...so where is your flyover jet?
TAM
I agree. I have often said I am LIHOI (Let It Happen Out of Ignorance/Incompetence) or LIHOA (Let It Happen Out of Arrogance).
Is it unique to the USA...no. If this happened on Canadian soil, it would likely have been similar. I think it is a modern world thing.
Hierosis:
Welcome. Shame to see you go before I was able to enter in on the conversation.
Gravy's Question was legitimate, so why do you dodge the question. To shout out that the government is incompetent, but then not name names is pretty weak.
S4S:
The Double Tree shows some low grade images, one of which could be the plane coming into and hitting the Pentagon.
What the Double Tree Video DOES NOT show, but should if it occured, is a FLYOVER plane. There is no evidence of a plane passing through the airspace above the pentagon either before, during, or after the explosion...so where is your flyover jet?
TAM
Crungy:
Sorry man, so many posts, I over looked yours. That is a great article on the psychology behind memory and recollection. It is studies like that one, that result in witness testimony being more scrutinized, as it should be.
TAM
Sorry man, so many posts, I over looked yours. That is a great article on the psychology behind memory and recollection. It is studies like that one, that result in witness testimony being more scrutinized, as it should be.
TAM
gumboot
lorcutus.tolere
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2006
- Messages
- 25,327
Interestingly...
The Pentagon gatehouse camera footage may not have shown a flyover, even had it occured. As I calculated, the aircraft would have crossed the entire expanse of the frame in one second, and the camera was only taking one frame a second. It was lucky that the camera caught the aircraft at all.
In contrast, the Doubleday footage appears to be operating at a much higher frame rate. As such, this camera would CERTAINLY catch anything flying low above The Pentagon.
-Gumboot
stateofgrace
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 3,843
Hi Hierosis and welcome.
I would like to comment on this. I have read many of the transcripts from the Moussauii trail and although by no means an expert on it I am familiar with the in and outs of it.
From my understanding, and I sure I will be corrected if wrong. Moussaouii was not charged with being connected with the attacks of 911. He had nothing whatsoever to do with this attack. Despite popular belief he was not the 20th hijacker. He was charged with and pleaded guilty to being a member of a terrorist organization and conspiracy to commits acts of terrorism. It was never alleged at his trial that he was part of the 911 attacks.
From what I have read when the attack was planned by KSM (also in custody) and authorized by UBL, it was called the ´plane operation´. It was originally mean to be in two waves. Wave one the 911 attacks and then a second attack sometime later. Moussaouii was to be part of the second wave of the attacks, not the first wave. As such it does seem likely that when he was captured the 911 attack was not compromised as he knew nothing or very little about them.
This seems to be confirmed by UBL himself who issued a statement when Moussaouii got sentenced.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/011541.php
Last edited:
It wouldn't surprise me in the least if the LyteWeightSeptic posse was aware of that study and copied the methods used to elict the responses they were after.
Don't give them too much credit! Even if they were aware of this study, their reaction would not be "we can use this to influence our witnesses" but "holy crap, a Jew plane crashed, it was captured on film, and suddenly the film does not excist anymore!"
Gravy
Downsitting Citizen
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2006
- Messages
- 17,078
You got it exactly, Bell!Don't give them too much credit! Even if they were aware of this study, their reaction would not be "we can use this to influence our witnesses" but "holy crap, a Jew plane crashed, it was captured on film, and suddenly the film does not excist anymore!"
chipmunk stew
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 6, 2005
- Messages
- 7,448
Quoting an anti semitic conspiracy nut. Priceless!
boloboffin
Unregistered
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2006
- Messages
- 4,986
Dogtown's got it.
In the upcoming Loose Change: Final Cut, the assertions will be made that:
a) Flight 77 flew to the north of the Citgo,
b) Flight 77 flew over the Pentagon
c) another plane hit the light posts (or they were rigged to blow)
d) another plane crashed into the Pentagon (or a missile or something, all we're doing is asking questions)
However, this video does show that b) is false. Flight 77 did not do a flyover. It hit the Pentagon.
That means that d) is false. It is Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon.
This makes c) absurd. Why would the planners go ahead and fly 77 into the Pentagon and then fake a different approach?
All of this, then, contradicts a). Whatever witnesses they have managed to cherrypick or manipulate into statements are contradicted by the evidence.
The Doubletree video shows that LC:FC's "clincher" evidence is false.
In the upcoming Loose Change: Final Cut, the assertions will be made that:
a) Flight 77 flew to the north of the Citgo,
b) Flight 77 flew over the Pentagon
c) another plane hit the light posts (or they were rigged to blow)
d) another plane crashed into the Pentagon (or a missile or something, all we're doing is asking questions)
However, this video does show that b) is false. Flight 77 did not do a flyover. It hit the Pentagon.
That means that d) is false. It is Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon.
This makes c) absurd. Why would the planners go ahead and fly 77 into the Pentagon and then fake a different approach?
All of this, then, contradicts a). Whatever witnesses they have managed to cherrypick or manipulate into statements are contradicted by the evidence.
The Doubletree video shows that LC:FC's "clincher" evidence is false.
Hi. I think we are on the same page here in what I'm trying to get accross. People keep saying that Moussaouii was convicted for 9/11, which he was not. He probably was in place for a seperate operation, but his verdict did not conclude that. I will disagree with you on one point, which is that while is was NOT alleged that he was being tried for 9/11, it was certainly implied in the same way that the administration implied (but never straight out said) that there was a Saddam/911 connection. Hence the playing of the cockpit recordings for the jury and other evidence that was not at all related to the defendent and was very specific to the events of 9/11.
Also, the link you put up has some good info, but I'd warn that in general, anything that David Horowitz does or is connected to (Frontpagemag.com, discoverthenetworks.com, campuswatch.com) is usually biased, innaccurate and/or taken out of context. The information he puts out there is so loaded it's ridiculous and would almost be right at home on some "no planers" web site.
You can see how ridiculous his own words are by going either here:
http://www.campusprogress.org/tools/155/know-your-right-wing-speakers-david-horowitz
or here:
http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/people/davidhorowitz
Finally, I'd also like to point out that Horowitz (along with other neocons like R. James Woolsey and Frank Gaffney) believes that the 93 WTC bombing and the OKC bombing were both masterminded by Saddam, so I would certainly put him in the conspiracy theorist category.