4um: The thread that's changed its focus from the original title. Carry on ;)

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Resistance
See other Resistance Articles
Title: The thread that's changed its focus from the original title. Carry on ;)
Source: [None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Mar 21, 2009
Author: m e
Post Date: 2009-03-21 08:19:06 by Itistoolate
Keywords: None
Views: 11494
Comments: 2261

Officer Jack McLamb's shows:
arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2009/mar09/McLamb/030209.mp3
arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2009/mar09/McLamb/030309.mp3
arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2009/mar09/McLamb/030409.mp3
arc.gcnlive.com/Archives2009/mar09/McLamb/030509.mp3
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 1557.
#4. To: Itistoolate (#0)
It could just be that Goldi has gone away for the weekend and doesn't know the site is down,or that there has been an equipment failure of some sort and they are working on getting it fixed.
Or it could just be that she got tired of putting up with all the crap,and just pulled the plug. I doubt the last one,though. I think she would post a notice if she were going to do this.

sneakypete posted on 2009-03-21 9:21:48 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#8. To: sneakypete (#4)
Or it could just be that she got tired of putting up with all the crap,and just pulled the plug.

Crap????

Like the resident Jews whining and sniveling to her all the time about the horrible anti semites?????
I dont think so. Ass kissing goys make me and this forum sick.

Cynicom posted on 2009-03-21 10:00:21 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#22. To: Cynicom (#8)
Crap????
Like the resident Jews whining and sniveling to her all the time about the horrible anti semites?????

I guess it's all in the viewpoint. I see more Jew haters calling her names than I see Jews sniveling about anti-Semites.
BTW,I was called a anti-Semite there the day before the site went down,and it wasn't the first time. I see no evidence of the Jews and Israeli-Firsters there having any more influence with her than anybody else. In fact,she even banned Margueritte a couple of years ago under another of her screen names.

sneakypete posted on 2009-03-21 11:28:30 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#25. To: sneakypete (#22)
I guess it's all in the viewpoint. I see more Jew haters calling her names than I see Jews sniveling about anti-Semites.

Perhaps there is a thought...
You also like magician, Marge and the others see nothing but Jew haters.
If you look at LP, that is nearly all you see, people that see anti semitism under their bed, in the closet and are afraid to deal with it.
No one on LP has ever raised the specter of anti goyism, have you ever wondered about that Pete????
I can go on LP and demand we nuke the Arab world, and not ONE WORD of disapproval, from anyone, not one.

Cynicom posted on 2009-03-21 11:51:06 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#28. To: Cynicom (#25)
I can go on LP and demand we nuke the Arab world, and not ONE WORD of disapproval, from anyone, not one.

Missed this one.
I can't speak for anyone else,but you would hear protest there from me.
What you seem to be missing is most of the people there (and everywhere else) that cheer the suggestion we nuke the A-Rabs aren't Jewish. Most are Christians,if in name only. They are people who bought into the whole terrorism thing at face value,and they are scared.
BTW,I think that unless the NWO does take over we will eventually end up nuking several Muslim countries. It is inevitable that sooner or later some fundie Muslim group or another is going to get their hands on a nuke or a bio weapon,and use it to attack a major US city. Once that happens,all bets are off. Even I will be cheering to see the mushroom clouds over Arabia.

sneakypete posted on 2009-03-21 12:03:12 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#33. To: sneakypete (#28)
I think that unless the NWO does take over we will eventually end up nuking several Muslim countries. It is inevitable that sooner or later some fundie Muslim group or another is going to get their hands on a nuke or a bio weapon,and use it to attack a major US city.

Maybe that's why I thought you to be the enemy. Do you still buy the lie that fundie muzzies hit us on 9/11 without Bush's help?

Critter posted on 2009-03-21 14:31:12 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#76. To: Critter (#33)
Do you still buy the lie that fundie muzzies hit us on 9/11 without Bush's help?

It pained me to believe it so without reservation, but the complicity by purposeful neglect indicts the globalist Bush Administration puppetmeisters is obvious IMO.
Oh...And, no, I don't believe Bush himself was capable of masterminding a lemonade stand.

Liberator posted on 2009-03-21 20:32:36 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#78. To: F16Fighter (#76)
complicity by purposeful neglect

Ahhhh,but purposeful neglect is NOT the same thing as "being behind it".
I don't think they made any real effort to stop any potential attack,but that's not the same thing as saying they planned or encouraged one.

sneakypete posted on 2009-03-21 20:38:48 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#85. To: sneakypete (#78)
Ahhhh,but purposeful neglect is NOT the same thing as "being behind it".
I don't think they made any real effort to stop any potential attack,but that's not the same thing as saying they planned or encouraged one.

Gray area there, Pete.
I've made the case with respect to 9/11 as analogous to leaving the store door wide open and unguarded - along with an open cash register - then claiming no responsibility for the thievery.

Liberator posted on 2009-03-21 20:47:23 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#127. To: F16Fighter, sneakypete (#85)
I don't think they made any real effort to stop any potential attack,but that's not the same thing as saying they planned or encouraged one.
I've made the case with respect to 9/11 as analogous to leaving the store door wide open and unguarded -

If you both are going to say the WTC 1, 2 and 7 came down because of fire then you're both either very ignorant or trolls. There is too much evidence to the contrary to believe otherwise.
Once you believe that the collapses were helped by explosives, then you have to believe that the Bush administration was complicit.
And even if you can't see the physical impossibility of collapse by fire, you have to be able to see that no plane is going to fly into DC air space unidentified and unintercepted, without inside top level complicity.
So which is it? Ignorance? Or shilliness?

Critter posted on 2009-03-21 23:53:09 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#137. To: Critter (#127)
And even if you can't see the physical impossibility of collapse by fire, you have to be able to see that no plane is going to fly into DC air space unidentified and unintercepted, without inside top level complicity.

wonderfully succinct

christine posted on 2009-03-22 0:06:41 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#149. To: christine (#137)
And even if you can't see the physical impossibility of collapse by fire, you have to be able to see that no plane is going to fly into DC air space unidentified and unintercepted, without inside top level complicity.

Before 911,
a Logistics employee I am good friends with, for Fed Ex told me about a system of vectored red lights that DC had in place to warn of any unauthorized aircraft from even getting near the capitol, and if the craft did not turn around, anti aircraft weapons were at the ready.
He flys a lot Alot.
I believe him.
However I have never broached the subject of the 911 attacks - for reasons of just getting along. I think he has got to go along with the ruse.

tom007 posted on 2009-03-22 0:15:44 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#163. To: tom007 (#149)
What is more likely? Our domestic air defense systems were hopelessly unprepared, or our government set it up, then perfectly executed the plan? Shit during the Clinton admin, a plane hit the white house, on accident.
Our government is incompetent, that much is clear.
It can't even torture people in Iraq in secret, do you think they can pull off a 9-11 without anyone knowing? Probably not.
Our foreign policy caused 9-11, and silly conspiracy theories take away from learning the real truth. Playing chess with other nations has fucking consequences.

Rhino369 posted on 2009-03-22 0:27:33 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#196. To: Rhino369 (#163)
silly conspiracy theories take away from learning the real truth

Not only that,but those same conspiracy theories are LOVED by the government because it allows them to dismiss any questions about their conduct as being linked to "those insane conspiracy freaks".
Instead of helping the cause of freedom,all they are doing in hurting it and helping the government.
AND....it does no good at all to argue with them because they are obsessed with every little detail,and have reams of false "Facts" to back up their arguments. What makes it so hard to argue against any conspiracy theory is that the best ones are all believable because there is a basis in fact to all of them.
For example *I* am the one that started the conspiracy theory Hillary Clinton being behind the crash of JFK Jr's airplane and his death. I started this rumor on FR and used the fact that he had been talking about running for the same Senate seat ("his" family Senate seat) that she was running for,and this is the reason she had a had the airplane rigged to crash. Within a hour this was accepted as the gospel,and I was being called a DNC shill for saying it was made up,and a liar for saying I was the one who made it up. DESPITE the fact that the proof I was the one who made it up was right there on that very thread!
Everybody jumped on the one little fact about the Senate seat,and that was all they needed or wanted to hear.

sneakypete posted on 2009-03-22 1:08:19 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#198. To: sneakypete (#196)
it allows them to dismiss any questions about their conduct

LOL
As bright as you are; I don't get it. How can you be so blind ?

Rotara posted on 2009-03-22 1:10:17 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#229. To: Rotara (#198)
As bright as you are; I don't get it. How can you be so blind ?

Sometimes the right answer is the simple one,not the one that makes you feel good or vindicated.
This whole thing was planned,executed,and financed by Saudi Arabia.

sneakypete posted on 2009-03-22 1:42:23 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#237. To: sneakypete (#229)
This whole thing was planned,executed,and financed by Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia had nothing to gain from it. Israel on the other hand, had EVERYTHING to gain from it, and are STILL reaping the rewards.

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-22 1:49:33 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#265. To: FormerLurker (#237)
Saudi Arabia had nothing to gain from it. Israel on the other hand, had EVERYTHING to gain from it, and are STILL reaping the rewards.

BullBarack! Saudi Arabia had EVERYTHING to gain from it. Saddam Hussein was never a threat to either Israel OR the US,but he was very much a threat to the House of Saud.
Just like every other tribal leader/king in Arabia,the King there dreamed of being the King of a United Arabia. Saddam Hussein had this same dream,and he had the means and the willpower to do it. We invaded Iraq to protect the House of Saud.

sneakypete posted on 2009-03-22 2:07:29 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#281. To: sneakypete (#265)
Sneak...I spent a whole 'nother thread being logical with them and it didn't work...
You're arguing with people who do not believe that a planes impact, exposion and ensuing fires caused more than even MINIMAL damage. IN some cases, some believe the planes were remote controlled. Now, they cannot tell you exactly HOW the Towers were brought down only that the catastrophy that we witnessed 9/11 wasn't enough.
You're also arguing with people who believe that a well financed international terrorist group doesn't exist.
Good luck, mon frer..

war posted on 2009-03-22 8:28:18 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#520. To: war, sneakypete (#281) (Edited)
Now, they cannot tell you exactly HOW the Towers were brought down only that the catastrophy that we witnessed 9/11 wasn't enough.

If you believe that a 110 story building (make that TWO 110 story buildings) can collapse in slightly more than free fall speed, then you must also believe that the tooth fairy is really the Easter bunny in drag.

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-22 17:44:01 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#550. To: FormerLurker (#520)
Helloo...McFly...anyone home McFly??
You were linked to a report and a graph that makes your characterization look stupid. Yet there you go again.

war posted on 2009-03-22 19:10:29 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#591. To: war (#550)
You were linked to a report and a graph that makes your characterization look stupid. Yet there you go again.

Excuse me? The idiotic report you linked gave a minimum collapse speed LESS than the time it would take for a free fall through air, and the chart simply reflected the actual times of the collapse vs an object dropping through thin air.
Did you miss the one that I posted to YOU, indicating it should have taken about 97 seconds?
BTW. Have you ever REALLY looked at any of the collapse photos? It's obvious that MUCH of the top structure's mass disintegrated into dust and was blown out sideways. That being the case, how was there enough mass left over to cause the structure below to collapse?

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-22 21:17:54 ET (1 image) Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#836. To: FormerLurker (#591)
BTW. Have you ever REALLY looked at any of the collapse photos? It's obvious that MUCH of the top structure's mass disintegrated into dust and was blown out sideways. That being the case, how was there enough mass left over to cause the structure below to collapse?

You really are a tool...er fool...er what the hell...both...
The steel did NOT disintegrate dickweed...

war posted on 2009-03-23 8:38:28 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#992. To: war (#836)
The steel did NOT disintegrate dickweed...

You have been a nasty mouthed little troll here war, I thought higher of you back on LP. Do you always resort to that sort of tactic when you are shown to be wrong?
Anyways, the collapse photos most certainly show the majority of the upper structure being pulverized and ejected sideways.
There was a HUGE loss of mass due to that, therefore there would be SUBSTANTIALLY less load on the lower portion of the structure. In fact, there was probably less loading force due to the kinetic energy of the upper part of the tower collapsing than the usual static loading force due to the potential energy of the upper part of the structure.

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-23 16:20:10 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1136. To: FormerLurker (#992)
Anyways, the collapse photos most certainly show the majority of the upper structure being pulverized and ejected sideways.

Post an analysis of the WTC dust as I did.
Thanks...

war posted on 2009-03-24 8:22:39 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1145. To: war (#1136)
Post an analysis of the WTC dust as I did.

Here's one for you to ponder;
The North Tower's Dust Cloud
Now explain to everyone how a dust cloud can cause an intact floor to collapse, as the upper structure was pulverized into dust as it collapsed, leaving very little mass to actualy impact the lower floors.
BTW, do you have calculations as to how much energy would be required to cause an entire floor to fail instantaneously by impact? There would be VERY little energy left over after the pulverization of an upper floor as it impacts a lower floor, and the lower floor must be caused to fail by the remaining energy if the "pancake" theory can be taken seriously.
So go ahead, give us the equations and the details.

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-24 9:38:51 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1148. To: FormerLurker (#1145)
Now explain to everyone how a dust cloud can cause an intact floor to collapse, as the upper structure was pulverized into dust as it collapsed, leaving very little mass to actualy impact the lower floors.

Geezus fucking Crickets...
The "top structure" was NOT "pulverized"...what WAS pulverized was concrete, glass, people and drywall...
BTW, do you have calculations as to how much energy would be required to cause an entire floor to fail instantaneously by impact?
dude...did you even GLANCE atthat report?

war posted on 2009-03-24 9:47:39 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1150. To: war (#1148)
The "top structure" was NOT "pulverized"...what WAS pulverized was concrete, glass, people and drywall...

The "top structure" was NOT "pulverized"...what WAS pulverized was concrete, glass, people and drywall...
Are you retarded? You contradict yourself within the same sentence. That "concrete, glass, and drywall..." along with furniture and office equipment had WEIGHT, in fact, MOST of the weight of any particular floor. The steel columns are a mystery as they should have remained standing even WITH a "pancake" collapse. In fact, the core could not collapse per se, it would have needed to have been shredded and torn apart for it to totally fail.
Anyways, what kinetic energy there was due to the momentum of the upper structure was largely expended in pulverizing the upper structure to dust, where there could have been very little kinetic energy left to break all the trusses and supports of the floor below

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-24 10:12:56 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1220. To: FormerLurker (#1150)
The steel columns are a mystery as they should have remained standing

What steel columns?

war posted on 2009-03-24 15:41:30 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1222. To: war (#1220)
What steel columns?

Those which were part of the steel core.

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-24 16:15:25 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1225. To: FormerLurker (#1222)
Those which were part of the steel core.

What makes you believ that they should have been left standing? You do know that they were sectional? You do know that they were tapered?

war posted on 2009-03-24 16:19:18 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1229. To: war (#1225)
What makes you believ that they should have been left standing?

For one, it is highly unlikely the supporting bolts and rods holding the trusses onto the core would have been strong enough to rip the core apart. If the floors pancaked then the floors should have slid over the core. However, there wasn't much left to slide since the upper floors pulverized as they collapsed, so there was not enough energy to cause a collapse of the lower floors in the first place.
Thus, not only should the core have remained standing, but the 100 or so UNDAMAGED floors of both towers should have survived the collapse of the upper structure of both buildings, except for perhaps the top section of the remaining undamaged structures.
And sure, the top was tapered, BUT strong enough to hold most of the weight of the WTC structure at that level. In fact, it was highly improbable for a total collapse even at the damaged section to occur at all.

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-24 16:28:52 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1231. To: FormerLurker (#1229)
For one, it is highly unlikely the supporting bolts and rods holding the trusses onto the core would have been strong enough to rip the core apart.

You are basing this upon what? The inane belief that the only force being exerted was DOWNWARD? What was one of the functions of the outer support structure? LATERAL stability. When LATERAL support fails...what happens?

war posted on 2009-03-24 16:36:50 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1233. To: war (#1231)
LATERAL stability. When LATERAL support fails...what happens?

Nothing unless there are high winds or a hurricane taking place. The towers didn't start swaying back and forth. Is that what you trying to say, the collapse was caused by SWAYING?
Besides, only a relatively tiny part of the exterior columns were damaged.

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-24 16:38:47 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1236. To: FormerLurker (#1233)
Nothing

You're out of your mind...what happens when you try to stack too much of something on top of each other?

war posted on 2009-03-24 16:42:33 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1251. To: war (#1236) (Edited)
what happens when you try to stack too much of something on top of each other?

Oh and BTW, the WTC towers were not just a bunch of stacked cans, they were rigid structures. There would have virtually no loss of lateral strength anyways due to the minimal damage to the exterior columns, yet it wouldn't have mattered if there WAS a total loss of lateral strength (which would be impossible due to the construction of the buildings themselves).
There were no hurricane force winds that day, and even if there had been, there was no overall loss of lateral strength as the purpose of the exterior walls was to DISTRIBUTE the lateral load across the entire building, and a missing section of column would not affect that.

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-24 17:15:47 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1252. To: FormerLurker (#1251)
Oh and BTW, the WTC towers were not just a bunch of stacked cans, they were rigid structures.

Not when the links between the two support structures failed...

war posted on 2009-03-24 17:21:25 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1255. To: war (#1252) (Edited)
Not when the links between the two support structures failed...

Huh? There was a relative pinhole in the exterior wall, and the inner steel core was ALSO still there.
There are also apparently some huge inaccuracies concerning the makeup of the floors themselves, where rather than flimsy trusses it appears that there were steel girders bridging the gap between the core and the outer walls.
I need to read up on that before I post the actual article, but your post makes zero sense, there was no horizontal failure or movement, otherwise the top of the tower WOULD have toppled. As I posted on another thread, the top of one tower did in fact start to lean, but that was due to a loss of integrity in one corner of the supporting structure below it, it didn't begin to sway or lean as you are apparently trying to concoct. If it HAD begun to sway or lean due to horizontal forces, and there was a loss of horizontal integrity as you are trying to claim, it would have fallen over, not straight down.

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-24 17:39:43 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1285. To: FormerLurker (#1255)
, and there was a loss of horizontal integrity as you are trying to claim, it would have fallen over, not straight down.

You're assuming that the WHOLE structure would have to move...it wouldn't....all it would take would be continuing stress on the building to keep its center of gravity moving enough to compromise its support structure.

war posted on 2009-03-25 8:32:14 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1294. To: war (#1285)
You're assuming that the WHOLE structure would have to move...it wouldn't....all it would take would be continuing stress on the building to keep its center of gravity moving enough to compromise its support structure.

You are grasping at straws. You are trying to make it sound as if it was an inherently unstable structure and was performing a balancing act. It was not a disjointed unbalanced structure, it was a ridid structure supported by a steel core, so there was no shifting of center of gravity taking place.

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-25 11:46:23 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1298. To: FormerLurker (#1294)
You are grasping at straws.

Wha...huh?
Dude...firmly anchor a 10 foot pole in the ground 2 feet and shake the bottom and then shake the top...this is BASIC stuff you're arguing against...
A whip's TAIL breaks the sound barrier but where you are holding it, it does not...

war posted on 2009-03-25 12:20:25 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1306. To: war (#1298)
Dude...firmly anchor a 10 foot pole in the ground 2 feet and shake the bottom and then shake the top...this is BASIC stuff you're arguing against...
A whip's TAIL breaks the sound barrier but where you are holding it, it does not...

Huh? Are you trying to say that someone at the bottom of the WTC picked it up and tried snapping it like a whip? I always knew you were a whackjob, but I wasn't aware that you were a stark raving lunatic.
In reference to your analogy of a pole, are you trying to say that the towers were swaying all over the place? You are a jackass.
The towers were solidly in place and NOT experiencing ANY abnormal sway, if they swayed at all from the VERY slight wind that morning.
You are acting like a cartoon character that even little children would see as an idiot.

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-25 17:13:11 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1362. To: FormerLurker (#1306)
In reference to your analogy of a pole, are you trying to say that the towers were swaying all over the place?

Had you ever been in the towers? You could feel the sway in the upper floors. This one is the easiest of your rantings to bitch slap. The towers swayed...it 's why lateral support was so important. And, uh, the design engineers after they had tested their prototypes that determined how much sway both the building and the occupants could take, they then developed a MASSIVE system of viscoelastic dampers that mitigated the sway. Guess where they put these dampers....BETWEEN THE TRUSSES AND THE PERIMETER COLUMNS.
Your problem is that you've assumed a conclusion, i.e. "BOOOSH BRUNG DOWN THE TOWERS!!!" and are trying to construct a fairy tale based upon Moonbatism Your further problem is, there are several REALITIES that stand in the way of your paranoiac fanrasy. So to cut to the chase here and answer your question...yes, Alice IN Wonderland, the towers did sway and the lost of perimeter support exacerbated that sway.

war posted on 2009-03-26 7:44:09 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1386. To: war (#1362)
Your problem is that you've assumed a conclusion, i.e. "BOOOSH BRUNG DOWN THE TOWERS!!!" and are trying to construct a fairy tale based upon Moonbatism

You stupid assed dork, NOWHERE have I EVER said ""BOOOSH BRUNG DOWN THE TOWERS!!!", only drooling retards such as yourself have ever thought ANYONE has ever honestly said that.
What is clear is that there are MANY lies and distortions being given as the "official truth" that are simply improbable or impossible, and not only is that reason to investigate what really DID happen, but to wonder why those in the US government and the media would try to coverup what DID happen.
Might Bush have known about the plan? More than likely he was kept in the dark in terms of operational details but knew SOMETHING was going to happen, and didn't blink an eyelash when it did. More than likely Cheney was fully aware and in fact part of the operation, along with a few other high ranking members of the administration.
That is simply an observation of what they did AFTER the attacks to stifle any sort of real investigation of what happened.

FormerLurker posted on 2009-03-26 11:55:15 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1466. To: FormerLurker, war, TwentyTwelve, Wudidiz, all (#1386)
What is clear is that there are MANY lies and distortions being given as the "official truth" that are simply improbable or impossible, and not only is that reason to investigate what really DID happen, but to wonder why those in the US government and the media would try to coverup what DID happen.

Exactly. We do not have to have a complete solution to know that the Official Fairy Tale is contradicted by multiple documented datums and is thus not the correct solution. Without even getting heated about it we can point out the contradictions in the players who were trained at U.S. Fedgov installations, the known incompetence of the pilots, the stand down of NORAD and their inability to intercept (or so they say) ANY of the 4 aircraft, the failure of even one of the 4 aircraft to transmit the 4 digit hijack code (which takes about 2 to 3 seconds),the transfer of monies from the CIA connected Pakistani ISI to Mohammed Atta, the presence of Thermate residue on girders from the towers, the fact that the structural steel was protected from examination by ARMED GUARDS, and the list goes on to several hundred to several thousand anomalies all of which contradict the Official Fairy Tale.
This is even before we get to the government obstructionism and prevention of an honest review and analysis of the data:
A Fema Report which has had to be revised and re-explained because it has been shredded and is little better than a laughingstock.
NIST, which has several top experts on nano-thermates, which has refused to consider and has steadfastly avoided examining the residue. They had to invent an entirely new physics to try to explain away Building 7's collapse - which is laughed at everywhere but the controlled U.S. Media.
The firing of an environmental scientist at Underwriter Laboratories for pointing out that the structural steel in the towers had been certified for higher temperatures, by UL, than were known to have occurred in the towers.
Professor Stephen Jones' work on the physics of the collapses and chemical analysis of thermate residues. (Which resulted in massive heat on BYU, where he was a well respected Professor of Physics, and he was forced out with a Golden Handshake). His work was repudiated by Administrators but not the faculty who turned out in his support. (BYU has a lot of programs dependent on FEDGOV funding.)
The Popular Mechanics Hit Piece which has been shredded, shown to be false, and which used doctored photographs, misrepresented as Bldg. 7 but were actually of Bldg. 6 but had been reoriented, to try to push the cover legend.
I could go on for several pages on the anomalies surrounding 911. Take for example the famous Dancing Troupe from Israel - "The Dancing Israelis" who were set up and photographing the towers BEFORE their collapse. In fact the reports seem to indicate they were setting up BEFORE the first plane hit.
Then their was the e-mail warning to employees of Odigo, an Israeli owned company, warning them to stay away from the towers that morning.
The more layers of the cover story you peel back the more that onion disappears as the chimera it is.

Original_Intent posted on 2009-03-26 13:30:59 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1473. To: Original_Intent (#1466)
the stand down of NORAD and their inability to intercept (or so they say) ANY of the 4 aircraft, the failure of even one of the 4 aircraft to transmit the 4 digit hijack code (which takes about 2 to 3 seconds),

that's enough for me right there not to believe the Official Story.

christine posted on 2009-03-26 13:49:47 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1477. To: christine (#1473)
the stand down of NORAD and their inability to intercept (or so they say) ANY of the 4 aircraft, the failure of even one of the 4 aircraft to transmit the 4 digit hijack code (which takes about 2 to 3 seconds),
that's enough for me right there not to believe the Official Story.

That was what first alerted me that all was not as represented. I was in the military and I know how stuff like this operates. NORAD does not Stand Down like this during an emergency. If they were as incompetent as misrepresented the Officers in charge should have been Courts Martialed. However, they were not. That in and of itself is an interesting datum. In fact NO ONE INDIVIDUAL has ever been Courts Martialed or Fired for 911. "But Holmes the dog did not bark in the night" "Exactly Watson, and that is what is curious."
As well one could assume that the "hijackers" were able to get into the cockpit fast enough on one aircraft to prevent the transmission of the hijack code, but in all 4? Give me a break. The only way that happens is by tampering with the Avionics system which requires both skills and access the "hijackers" did not have.

Original_Intent posted on 2009-03-26 13:59:42 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1532. To: War (#1477)
the stand down of NORAD and their inability to intercept (or so they say) ANY of the 4 aircraft, the failure of even one of the 4 aircraft to transmit the 4 digit hijack code (which takes about 2 to 3 seconds),
that's enough for me right there not to believe the Official Story.
That was what first alerted me that all was not as represented. I was in the military and I know how stuff like this operates. NORAD does not Stand Down like this during an emergency. If they were as incompetent as misrepresented the Officers in charge should have been Courts Martialed. However, they were not. That in and of itself is an interesting datum. In fact NO ONE INDIVIDUAL has ever been Courts Martialed or Fired for 911. "But Holmes the dog did not bark in the night" "Exactly Watson, and that is what is curious."
As well one could assume that the "hijackers" were able to get into the cockpit fast enough on one aircraft to prevent the transmission of the hijack code, but in all 4? Give me a break. The only way that happens is by tampering with the Avionics system which requires both skills and access the "hijackers" did not have.

bttt

TwentyTwelve posted on 2009-03-27 13:23:25 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1536. To: TwentyTwelve (#1532)
American Airlines Flight 11 ? Boston enroute to Los Angeles
FAA Notification to NEADS 0840*
Fighter Scramble Order (Otis Air National Guard Base, Falmouth, Mass. Two F- 15s) 0846**
Fighters Airborne 0852
Airline Impact Time (World Trade Center 1) 0846 (estimated)***
Fighter Time/Distance from Airline Impact Location Aircraft not airborne/153 miles

United Airlines Flight 175 ? Boston enroute to Los Angeles
FAA Notification to NEADS 0843
Fighter Scramble Order (Otis ANGB, Falmouth, Mass.
Same 2 F-15s as Flight 11) 0846
Fighters Airborne 0852
Airline Impact Time (World Trade Center 2) 0902 (estimated)
Fighter Time/Distance from Airline Impact Location approx 8 min****/71 miles
American Flight 77 ?Dulles enroute to Los Angeles
FAA Notification to NEADS 0924
Fighter Scramble Order (Langley AFB, Hampton, Va.
2 F-16s) 0924
Fighters Airborne 0930
Airline Impact Time (Pentagon) 0937(estimated)
Fighter Time/Distance from Airline Impact Location approx 12 min/105 miles
United Flight 93 ? Newark to San Francisco
FAA Notification to NEADS N/A *****
Fighter Scramble Order (Langley F-16s already airborne for AA Flt 77)
Fighters Airborne (Langley F-16 CAP remains in place to protect DC)
Airline Impact Time (Pennsylvania) 1003 (estimated)
Fighter Time/Distance from Airline Impact Location approx 11 min/100 miles
(from DC F-16 CAP)

war posted on 2009-03-27 13:38:54 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1554. To: war (#1536)
Wargames Were Cover For the Operational Execution of 9/11
www.prisonplanet.com/arti...4/080904wargamescover.htm
Wargames Were Cover For the Operational Execution of 9/11
Alex Jones & Paul Joseph Watson | Updated September 20 2004
UPDATE: Alex Jones Discusses 9/11 Wargames in April 2004 Video
For almost three years since 9/11 independent researchers have stockpiled individual smoking guns which prove that the official version of events was not only a lie but operationally impossible.
However, no single smoking gun has yet been forwarded to explain why air defenses categorically reversed Standard Operating Procedure and failed to respond to hijacked jetliners.
Until now. More and more individuals are looking at the facts and highlighting exercise drills that took place on the morning of 9/11.
It is clear that at least five if not six training exercises were in operation in the days leading up to and on the morning of 9/11. This meant that NORAD radar screens showed as many as 22 hijacked airliners at the same time. NORAD had been briefed that this was part of the exercise drill and therefore normal reactive procedure was forestalled and delayed.
The large numbers of 'blips' on NORAD screens that displayed both real and 'drill' hijacked planes explain why confused press reports emerged hours after the attack stating that up to eight planes had been hijacked. Click here for that article.
The drill scenario also explains a comment made by air traffic control personnel which was featured in a July 2004 BBC television report. Click here for that video clip and article. The controller is told that a hijacked airliner is heading for New York and responds by saying, "is this real world or an exercise?"
Alex Jones was one of the first to highlight the wargames in his documentary film 'Masters of Terror', which was released in August 2002. Click here to watch a video clip. Alex explains why the Associated Press later had to admit the fact that the CIA were running drills of crashing planes into buildings on the morning of 9/11.
What were the drills called and what was their nature?
1) OPERATION NORTHERN VIGILANCE: This was planned months in advance of 9/11 and ensured that on the morning of 9/11, jet fighters were removed from patrolling the US east coast and sent to Alaska and Canada, therefore reducing the amount of fighter planes available to protect the east coast.
2) BIOWARFARE EXERCISE TRIPOD II: Alex Jones first reported on this back in May when Rudolph Giuliani let the details of it slip in his testimony to the 9/11 Commission. FEMA arrived in New York on September 10th to set up a command post located at Pier 29 under the auspices of a 'biowarfare exercise scheduled for September 12. This explains why Tom Kenney of FEMA's National Urban Search and Rescue Team, told Dan Rather of CBS News that FEMA had arrived in New York on the night of September 10th. This was originally dismissed as a slip of the tongue. Giuliani was to use this post as a command post on 9/11 after he evacuated WTC Building 7. As we reported back in January, Giuliani knew when to leave WTC 7 because he got advanced warning that the Trade Towers were about to collapse. "We were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was gonna collapse," Rudolph Giuliani told Peter Jennings of ABC News. How did Giuliani know the towers were about to collapse when no steel building in history had previously collapsed from fire damage?
3) OPERATION VIGILANT GUARDIAN: This exercise simulated hijacked planes in the north eastern sector and started to coincide with 9/11. Lt. Col. Dawne Deskins, NORAD unit's airborne control and warning officer, was overseeing the exercise. At 8:40am she took a call from Boston Center which said it had a hijacked airliner. Her first words, as quoted by Newhouse News Service were, "It must be part of the exercise." This is another example of how the numerous drills on the morning of 9/11 deliberately distracted NORAD so that the real hijacked planes couldn't be intercepted in time.
4) OPERATION NORTHERN GUARDIAN: The details of this exercise are still scant but it is considered to be part of Vigilant Guardian, relating to simulating hijacked planes in the north eastern sector.
5) OPERATION VIGILANT WARRIOR: This was referenced in Richard Clarke's book 'Against All Enemies'. It is thought to have been the 'attack' component of the Vigilant Guardian exercise.
Another example of how air defenses were purposefully kept preoccupied so they couldn't protect New York was reported by this website in December of 2003. The Air National Guard's 177th Fighter Wing, based at Atlantic City International Airport in Pomona, were just eight minutes away from New York and could have intercepted both Flight 11 and Flight 175.
Under NORAD procedures that date to the Cold War, two F-16 fighters from the 177th were parked around the clock on the Atlantic City runway. Pilots waited in a nearby building, ready to scramble.
But on the morning of 9/11, the F-16's were performing bombing runs over an empty stretch of the Pine Barrens near Atlantic City after being decommissioned from their usual role of protecting the skies of the east coast.
It was only after both trade towers were hit that the two F-16s landed and were refitted with air-to-air missiles, then sent aloft.
Now that we have established how NORAD were confused, delayed and distracted by the numerous wargames, the next question to ask is who if anyone was aware of which planes were 'real world' and which planes were 'exercise'? The answer to this question will provide us with the name of the individual who ran the operatonal execution of the 9/11 attack.

TwentyTwelve posted on 2009-03-27 13:56:28 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
#1557. To: TwentyTwelve (#1554)
However, no single smoking gun has yet been forwarded to explain why air defenses categorically reversed Standard Operating Procedure and failed to respond to hijacked jetliners.

Coincidence ! /s

Rotara posted on 2009-03-27 13:58:23 ET Reply Untrace Trace Private Reply
Replies to Comment # 1557.
There are no replies to Comment # 1557.

End Trace Mode for Comment # 1557.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

Freedom4um