See other All is Vanity Articles
Title: Why I Don't Have Any Use for Truthers
Source:
[None]
URL Source: [None]
Published: Jul 9, 2010
Author: Turtle
Post Date: 2010-07-09 11:35:19 by Turtle
Keywords: None
Views: 27363
Comments: 879
Poster Comment: This woman had sulfuric acid thrown in her face by guess who? Someone engaging in Typical Negro Behavior. They do this out of envy. "I can't get this woman, so nobody can have her." He got life in prison. These are the real problems, not hallucinations abour remote-controlled airplanes and bombs in towers.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 858.
#14. To: Turdle, Turtle, christine, AllTheKingsHorses, all (#0)
So Turdle, are you and Hal Turner close friends? Any handlers in common? Isn't it amazing what some people will do for money? Oh, by the way I've seen the blonde's picture before in a different context. The other readily apparent difference is that the ears are not the same. Ears are a distinctive feature on a lot of people. Despite the damage to her face they should bear at least some resemblance, but the structure is not at all the same. I notice also that you did not provide a URL source. I'm calling Bullshit unless you can provide a source Got Agitprop?
I notice also that you did not provide a URL source. I'm calling Bullshit unless you can provide a source Got Agitprop? Typical denial mode of a classic CT windbag fuckwit. Harping on minutiae, using self-proclaimed expertise to allege the evidence isn't credible, then using prefab denials citing self as authoritative expert, to dismiss the subject out of hand. And throwing in a little scatological dig ("Turdle") in the process. Here's the link, maroon. Now what do you have to say?
I can recall news reports of similar events, they are rare, where the perp was white. All this proves is that there is at least one deranged ex-boyfriend in the world. It proves absolutely nothing else. I take it you guys are trying to divert from the other thread where you had your heads handed to you on that stupid conspiracy theory about "19ArabsWhoHateUsCuzWe'reFree" being directed by a mad mullah in a cave in the remote mountains of far Afghanistan with his Magic Cellphone© that were able to hijack 4 airliners, without one of them giving a 4 digit 2 second hijack code, with box cutters and then leisurely joyride in the most controlled and monitored airspace on the planet and then with the precision of Master Pilots (which is pretty slick since they were all known incompetents as pilots and had never flown anything larger than a single engine propeller driven Cessna 172) fly them around for two hours without being intercepted, then with precision fly them into major buildings {and even more miraculously they able to take down 3 Buildings with 2 planes in new york - and presumably the "Psychic Friends Network was on the phone to both CNN and BBC as both reported the collapse of building 7 before it happened, as well despite a minimum of 13 warnings from other foreign intelligence agencies the government had no clue that such an event could be considered or possibly happen (as per White House Spokesliar Ari Fourflusher at a White House News Conference, despite having two years earlier recovered a hard drive from the Phillipines which detailed this exact scenario)}. You conspiracy kooks are just too rich.
dang it OI now you went and made the resident shill for the liar movement cry.
I had no idea he was so sensitive over the Psychic Friends Network. Honest.
Hey internet CT pushers! Did ya happen to know that over 6 times as many Americans (50%) believe that UFO aliens have abducted humans, than believe it was "very likely" that the WTC Towers were brought down by "secretly planted explosives (6%)?" Of course you didn't!!!!!!! That suuure is a select group of people you're included in. BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!!!!! Poll: U.S. Hiding Knowledge of [UFO] Aliens The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percentage points. • 77% "unlikely"
Of course you didn't!!!!!!! That suuure is a select group of people you're included in. BWAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!!!!! The masses are usually mistaken ... as demonstrated by your post. Are you being paid to report this nonsense ?
Are you being paid to report this nonsense ? As far as being paid, again. No one pays good money to send a message to losers. The only places you're important are your own minds. As I've already said, you've had (1) Almost 9 years, (2) Thousands of websites, and (3) Billions of words, to make your case. Your results: Almost zero, with 6 times more people believing in UFO abductions, or Elvis sightings, than buy into the "USG controlled demolition" theories. You haven't persuaded anybody, and only serve the role of a freak circus sideshow from the existential questions the country needs to face.
OK, you win. Now I believe in UFOs. (NOT !)
ag must have been ass raped by a group of them there extra-tetesticles. that'll teach him to fish from docks on the mississippi after dark.
No little faggot bitch, it's you Six Percenters that are gonna get ass raped when your incessant blathering makes people sick and tired of you all. Just like 72-year old astrounaut Buzz Aldrin cold cocking a 36-year old Six Percenter twit who walked up to him demanding he swear on a Bible he walked on the moon, then ignored Aldrin's telling him to get out of his face, then called Aldrin a coward, liar, and thief. Better make sure your k00kblather stays on the Internet, that's all I've got to say.
cry with your straw-man argument, it is all you will ever have.
Me cry, Six Percenter? Who are the pinheads who live in a population that has many time more believers UFO abductions and Elvis sightings than in, "USG controlled demolitions brought down the WTC Buildings," and who have failed in nearly nine years to elect a single public official stating the 911 CT's are true? Or get a single Obama BC lawsuit to proceed to discovery and interrogatories, let alone trial. Or say "They're paying aggravator to post to us six percent losers?" No pinheads. I post to you because you attack me for trying to show you the truth. And for the lot of you being a circus freakshow taking attention from serious issues. The only ***crying*** you're ever gonna see from me is laughing so hard that tears come to my eyes.
More like 33 percenter, idiot. From Third of Americans suspect 9- 11 government conspiracy...
No loser, your inflated numbers include a large percentage believing that the USG did not participate in the attacks, but also did not do enough to prevent or stop them. The core issue remains "Did the USG itself direct and control the demolition of the WTC through controlled demolitions?" and to that an overwhelming majority says "No."
Go argue with Ohio University, they're the ones that did the survey. BTW, who performed YOUR survey, yourself? Did you ask the single moms in your GED class what they thought of 9/11?
No loser, your inflated numbers include a large percentage believing that the USG did not participate in the attacks, but also did not do enough to prevent or stop them. Go argue with Ohio University, they're the ones that did the survey. BTW, who performed YOUR survey, yourself Twofferk00ks infiltrate Bill Maher TV show, he kicks them out, audience applauds. To Twofferk00k in audience: Maher: "And you are a nut case, Building 7...Of all the things I've said...the one they protest about here is the people who think the World Trade Center was a controlled explosion. You see, in that instance I'm actually defending President Bush. I don't think President Bush brought down the World Trade Center." Audience: "Booooooo" Maher: "And cows disagree with me." Audience: Laughter and thunderous applause.
Are you thinking of calling "security" to "kick our asses" (out)? It won't work, trust me. :)
Nothing of the sort. However when you emerge from your own "7th century caves" on the internet, and publicly go after the people you anonymously trash on your k00kblogs, expect an unwelcome reception by the great majority of the American population. Because you are a minority, and an irrelevant one at that.
Irrelevant? :) That bring back memories from LP. I suggest you save us both some time and call me an anti-Semite and then insist the discussion is over and stalk off all in a huffy-huff..
Because you are a minority, and an irrelevant one at that Irrelevant? :) What would you prefer to call it? Zogby America Likely Voters 8/23/07 thru 8/27/07 MOE +/- 3.1 percentage points Pages 5 - 8 The first theory is the official story, and maintains that 19 Arab fundamentalists executed a surprise attack which caught US intelligence and military forces off guard. The second theory known as Let It Happen argues that certain elements in the US government knew the attacks were coming but consciously let them proceed for various political, military and economic motives; and The third theory Made It Happen contends that certain US government elements actively planned or assisted some aspects of the attacks. Based upon your knowledge of 9/11 events and their aftermath, which theory are you more likely to agree with? Official story........................ 639..... 63.6%
That is the correct story. It unfortunately leaves a lot of us with a sense that all the tax dollars pissed away on intelligence and military and associated services were absolutlely flushed down the toilet. And when you couple the FACT that all of the 19 terrorists were here illegally, you wonder who is asleep at the wheel or is anyone really there. Of course, immediately afterwards, the US government creates the US Patriot Act permitting eavesdrops on US citizens without court orders and other domestic spying activities and called "new tools" which clearly violate our individual rights and liberties ..... and there is even more .... create two war efforts (although Iraq was illegal) that later shows even more absurd blunders by the US military /intelligence when not one WMD was discovered .... and then leads to a consolidation of the intelligence services within a new umbrella organization tucked under "Homeland security." Meanwhile, all this wasted money has done nothing with the singular exception of expanding the US government .... pissing away more dollars. The American government is a laff a minute. It is reminiscent of the old slap-stick comedy team, "the Three Stooges."
Buckeroo. Why didn't Andrews Air Force Base Respond? Oh that is right they just happened to be sent out over the atlantic ocean that day. Then sept 12 their website just happened to change their misson statement of protecting their area. I have some holy water to sell you. It costs just a thousand dollars and you are guaranteed to get to meet God. /end sarcasm
The US Air Force's primary task has always been to protect the US from foreign attack, not from hijacked domestic civil aircraft. All commercial traffic within the US is under control of the FAA, not the US military. This means that any request for the Air Force to patrol or police the internal US civilian air traffic must come from and through the FAA. At the time of the hijackings there were several thousand aircraft in the air, over US air space. Those several thousand planes had to be landed and given orderly instructions and routes, and then tracked, to get down without crashing. Air traffic control of thousands of planes simultaneously without any advance notice is not done like musical chairs where you just grab the nearest seat and damn any consequences. There has to be an ordered emergency procedure which takes a number of minutes to clear the skies. All aircraft, even hostile military aircraft, normally use transponders to show their locations to their own sides. The hostile aircraft can turn off their transponders once inside hostile territory, but then run the risk of getting shot down by any of their own support craft once they do this. So frequently it is possible to identify hostile aircraft through transponders, which is much easier than trying to track a few objects hundreds of miles away with weak radar signals, scattered among thousands of aircraft with strong transponder signals. However the transponders of all 4 hijacked aircraft were turned off immediately after they were taken over so they were much harder to track. All this "Conspiracy! The USAF didn't instantly know where all the hijacked planes with no transponder signals were!" are products of the usual suspects - internet rubes with zero knowledge of the subject matter, in this case aviation.
If you think you're fooling anyone other than buck, stone or turtle, you're mistaken. The Airforce could have and would have dealt with the "hijacked" planes if the order had been given. The order wasn't given.
You clearly know nothing about aviation procedures or the facts on the ground on that day, before, during, and after the hijackings. Tell me how many hours you have as a pilot.
deleted
As opposed to chiming in with sarcasm on occasion, why not add some facts to support your doubts and suspicions? It will make you feel like an accomplished poster!
deleted
WT-7 was falling from the concussion of the twin towers. Why do you think that was made up?
deleted
Can you counter the perspective with FACTS as opposed to emotional trauma and silly accusations pointed at me?
deleted
Sounds as if all you've done is gobbled up every bit of "official" party line bullshit was available. Look, quit wasting my time! Have your last post and let's call this thread. f I will say this, if you cannot see the connections between the state of the U.S. today and 9/11, then you aren't very bright or simply haven't done any serious independent homework, and unfortunately for you I'm responsible for neither. Point a hotlink for my viewing pleasure about your "FACTS."
deleted
No hotlink for me before your beddy-bye? Geewhiz........... maybe tomorrow or the next day or sometime in the remote future.
That boy needs to he harpooned Where's Queequeg when you need him?
LOL I presented a "Over the Rainbow" song for Eric. I wish him well. Are you going to say that the 9-11 terrorist bombing is a direct result of and about the US government?
Absolutely! 911 was clearly an inside job. I read the PNAC documents years ago. The neocons would have done ANYTHING to get us involved in a land war in the ME and they did.
Oh c'mon, not you too. I can't believe some of the brightest here on 4um could actually suggest they believe that theory. Now, I can understand sentiment about the government having indirect capability. But, that is because of ineptitude, blunders and too much political BS. But this is no reason to believe the government in any branch or level would commit an act of treason and tyranny and outright murder and destruction costing the US taxpayer trillions upon trillions of dollars. Can you realistically cite one serious qualified witness about all this tragedy that government was complicit in a planning activity for 911?
Witness or investigator? Yeah, Jesse Ventura But not now or on this thread. Gov shill boy has spammed it up and nobody is ever going to read it. Lets just say they couldn't find the "black boxes" (Ventura did) but they COULD find some patsy's passport (ink still wet no doubt). LOL, yeah, right. Some guy with only flight simulator time executes a perfect 30+ degree (aerobatic) turn after finding the building, then scores a bulls-eye?. Yeah, right, LOL There's a lot more but I hate wasting my time on this thread.
Six Percenter now saying that NORAD transcripts contradicting back of the envelope NORAD airspeed k00kulations are spam. Surprise!
Hey kOOKaNuTTer, if you travel 130 miles, and the travel time is 25 minutes, how fast are you going?
I already gave you timetable saying the max time between notification and crashes was 8 minutes, not 25, and the fighters were over the Atlantic and unable to get precise vectors to what or where they were supposed to be intercepting, due to transponders not transmitting IFF's.
And your timetable is garbage. Entity Tags: 9/11 Commission, Kevin Nasypany, Alan Scott, Larry Arnold, North American Aerospace Defense Command, Langley Air Force Base, US Department of Defense, Northeast Air Defense Sector Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline Entity Tags: Brad Derrig, Alan Scott, Craig Borgstrom, Dean Eckmann, Langley Air Force Base, Larry Arnold Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline Entity Tags: Craig McKinley, Larry Arnold, Craig Borgstrom Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline Entity Tags: Norfolk Terminal Radar Approach Control, Dean Eckmann, Michael Strother Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline Entity Tags: Ronald Vauk, Kevin Shaeffer, Nancy McKeown Timeline Tags: Complete 911 Timeline, 9/11 Timeline
The fundamental problem with YOUR post is that there is an assumption of guilt or conspiracy about the activities to scramble a few jet fighters in the face of an actual terror exposition. All you are doing is showing bumbling and ineptitude from the top down and the bottom up from an attack in America. You have not shown any indication of any planning, execution, logistics, funding and later cover-ups by the many people it would take to within the government to create this issue. Not even one INSIDER witness that should have come forward by now. You fail, dude.
I am simply showing the CLAIMED NORAD response, not even MENTIONING the case of misguided radar blips, war games were in play, and the foreknowledge that morning that jets had already impacted the WTC. Washington was ALREADY on alert, yet some half assed smoke and mirrors show was staged from Langley AFB, rather than the WASHINGTON DC AFB ie, ANDREWS, where they had TWO FUCKING SQUADRONS of alert aircraft ready for immediate launch, yet DIDN'T even though they KNEW a rogue airliner was on it's way from Ohio. And yet we were once able to knock down waves of Soviet bombers at a moments notice. Either they spent every penny in the way of tax dollars up their noses, or they are SERIOUSLY playing us as true suckers, in more ways than one.
Mere BUMBLING based upon a surprise attack from illegal aliens. IF the government (any branch of service, level of government or payment to a contractor) had some connection you would see it by now; nine years later. In fact, IF the US government had intended to create a war in the ME such as Iraq based upon 911 (which is often suggested) you would have seen MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF WMD FOUND, IDENTIFIED AND SUBMITTED PUBLICKLY to not just the US taxpayers but the whole world. Instead, the scenario in Iraq was ... America fucked upped. You see, America doesn't have the capability to plan and execute these plans. All America can do is perform knee-jerk reactions.
They weren't ilegal, they had visas and all that. In fact, it wasn't even the ones they claim, since more than a few of them are still FUCKING ALIVE.
Everyone of the 19 terrorists identified by the State Department and the FBI were in the USA based upon fraudulent documents. Not one of them were here legally. There was no research by the US government... NONE, ZERO, ZILCH, NADA.... it was all rubber stamped by sleepy US government workers not executing their responsibilities correctly according to process and procedure.
Tracking the 19 Hijackers What are they up to now? At least 9 of them survived 9/11
Hijackers in the September 11 Attacks These cases, however, turned out to be instances of mistaken identity.[30][31] Saudi Official: 15 of 19 Hijackers Were Saudi "The names that we got confirmed that," Nayef said in an interview. "Their families have been notified."
So who ARE the hijackers then, since those they claimed were the hijackers are still alive and report that their passports were lost or stolen?
Although the USG says the hijackers entered the US on legal passports, it wouldn't be surprising if some tried to cover their tracks somehow by taking the names, possibly even ID's, of people who resembled them. Though the Saudis say this didn't happen. Also there are Arabic names very common among many people, similar to "John Smith" in the US. So one "Mohammed So and So" can have another person with the same name but a be different person and from a different family. Finally aren't consistent translations of Arabic to English. Just the first name "Muhammed" can be spelled "Muhammad," "Mohammed," "Mahmud," etc and all these will show up separately in a computer which is very picky about spelling and treats each spelling of the same name as a separate person. Similar spelling variations exist for many different other first and last names. Since Arabic does not use the Latin alphabet there isn't a perfect overlap between the 2 languages and their spelling and pronunciation conventions. So there is room for different name variations especially when done by clerical level people not focusing on their job's details.
While there are many Smith or Jones in the US, not all have the same street address, occupation, and photo. The alleged hijackers share not only the same name, but street address, occupation, and photo as the people who are still alive. In other words, they are the same people.
Why did the Saudi government first deny, then later acknowlge to US media that 15 out of 19 hijackers, accused of executing suicide attacks that totally shocked most Westerners, were Saudis, if they weren't. What possible benefit could they get from saying this? Then 6 years later GW Bush himself said the same, then quickly trying to gloss it over adding you can't judge an entire country by the actions of a few people - though he did precisely that with Iraq and Afghanistan. What benefit does the USG get when its leader states the terrorist attackers are from an ally, not some madmen, and not from an invaded country?
Why did the Saudi government first deny, then later acknowlge to US media that 15 out of 19 hijackers, accused of executing suicide attacks that totally shocked most Westerners, were Saudis, if they weren't. What possible benefit could they get from saying this? You'd have to ask them, but if I were to guess, it's because they didn't fear any repercussions if they went along with the story... What it comes down to is that dead men don't walk and talk, and that's what these so-called hijackers are doing.
And of course never addressed by AGGravator is that the FBI had identified all 19 by 9-12 and yet none of those names show up on the passenger manifests, nor are there any videos of any of them boarding the flights used for the Op.
And of course not addressed by Original_Indent is the fact that 3 separate stewardesses made phone calls describing "Middle Eastern" passengers and giving their seat numbers, which were recorded. And the fact some 30 passengers made cell phone calls between takeover and crashes, including Barbara Olson, describing the attacks, the injuries and deaths caused by the attackers, and in the case of the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania, plans by some rugby and football players to rush the cockpit and go head to head with the "muscle" hijackers who were supposed to control the passengers, to overpower the hijackers and get back control.
AGGravator: And of course not addressed by Original_Indent is the fact that 3 separate stewardesses made phone calls describing "Middle Eastern" passengers and giving their seat numbers, which were recorded. And the fact some 30 passengers made cell phone calls between takeover and crashes, including Barbara Olson, describing the attacks, the injuries and deaths caused by the attackers, and in the case of the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania, plans by some rugby and football players to rush the cockpit and go head to head with the "muscle" hijackers who were supposed to control the passengers, to overpower the hijackers and get back control. Diversionary tactic. You did not address my point. It is a neat ploy - a casual glance might lead the casual observer to conclude the point was being addressed but it was not. What do so called, technically impossible at the time, "cell phone calls*" have to do with how the FBI was able to identify 19 alleged hijackers by the afternoon of 9-12 whose names did not appear on the Passenger Manifests nor were their images captured on any Airport Surveillance Videos? The answer is of course nothing. It is nothing more than rhetorical sleight of hand to avoid the point while substituting another more manageable topic. I'm not biting. As well a Stewardess call describing "Middle Eastern" passengers is again a "will o' the wisp" as when one analyzes it for actual information content it is simply a physical description with no other essential identifying information. "Middle Eastern" looking is such a large universe of individuals, well over a billion people, that it is at best nothing more than a starting point which tells us nothing as to the identity of the hijackers. That is before we even get to the technical impossibilities of the alleged calls which I am not going into as there is ream upon ream of information regarding the dubious reports of calls. There are so many contradictions that have since come out as to render them valueless as evidence of much of anything. Just as amusing was Orrin Hatch's pronouncement, on the Capitol Steps, the evening of 911 that this had to be the work of the nefarious *Ted Olson's Report of Phone Calls from Barbara Olson on 9/11: Three Official Denials
One of the events immediately after 9/11 was the 9/12 flyout of the Saudi Bin Ladin family PRIVATE JET back to Saudi Arabia. It was the only private plane to fly in the entire nation that day. The order to allow that civilian flight EXCEPTION during that historic flight restriction WHEN NO AMERICAN PRIVATE OR COMMERCIAL flights could fly came from whose authority?
It was the only private plane to fly in the entire nation that day. Snopes.Com: Urban Legends - Flights of Fancy Debunking During that two-day period of full lock-down, only the military and specially FAA-authorized flights that delivered life-saving medical necessities were in the air. The enforcement of the empty skies directive was so stringent that even after the United Network for Organ Sharing sought and gained FAA clearance to use charter aircraft on
Snopes? Due to a legal (and cowardly) threat by Snopes.com in February 2006, the original rebuttal of their appalling debunk attempt of Hunt the Boeing! had to be taken down. You can read the copy of Snopes' complaint letter here This is the "legal" version. I recommend you open up Snopes' debunking attempt in a separate window and put both windows side-by-side vertically when reading. My own comments will be in red. Of course, "false" is just their opinion. Next they seem to try to denigrate his claim by saying he doesn't offer any "real explanation" for what "did." Notice they italicized "did." Why is it so important for Meyssan to offer an explanation of what did? If there is evidence that something didn't, why would it be up to him to guess what did? Shouldn't those questions be asked to the officials who told us what crashed there? However, Meyssan does offer a theory that a missile hit the Pentagon instead. Next Snopes attempts to answer the seven questions in Meyssan's Hunt the Boeing! website: 1) Can you explain how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly Snopes answers that the Boeing 757 not only damaged the outside of the Pentagon, but caused damage to all five rings by offering this graphic drawing as their proof. Also, the graphic states that the 757 tore through five floors and all five rings. However, the official version states that the 757 tore through only the 1st and 2nd floors and only up to the 3rd ring, ring C. (Click graphic for full size.) Next they show an article from 60 Minutes II which states the section the 757 hit had recently been reinforced during a renovation project and the article states that the 757 hit at "350 mph." First, the speed of the plane hitting in that article, 350mph, is wrong. The official speed was 530mph (perhaps they just got it backwards?) "American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, traveling at approximately 530 miles per hour." - 9/11 Commission Second, Snopes' doesn't see the amazing coincidence that this errant plane hit the only section of the Pentagon that was being retrofitted to "bolster it against attack" and that is was best section for the Pentagon to have been hit and the worst section for the hijackers to have hit. "Luck — if it can be called that — had it that the terrorists aimed the Boeing 757 at the only part of the Pentagon that already had been renovated in an 11-year, $1.3 billion project meant to bolster it against attack. That significantly limited the damage and loss of life by slowing the plane as it tore through the building and reducing the explosion's reach." - USA Today (1/01/02) "Schwartz explained that renovations on the Pentagon began several years earlier and were nearing completion, particularly the section called Wedge 1, when the crash occurred. He said the plane struck the building almost in the middle of the space where the renovation had been completed. Personnel had not completely reoccupied this area of the building. "This contributed to the relatively low number of casualties," Schwartz said. "The number could have been far greater had the plane struck another portion of the building not affected by the renovation.” - Fort Meade/Army Next they say exterior photographs are misleading and because they don't reveal what happened inside the building and shows a U.S. Army press release which says an "engine" from the 757 punched a 12-foot hole through the wall of the "second ring." This is incorrect according to the Pentagon which said it was the plane’s nose that punched out a hole in the wall and did it in the wall of the 3rd ring, not the second. Next they try to compare the Pentagon crash with the WTC crashes. They state the wrong speed of the plane again and then state that the plane had some of it's energy "dissipated" after it struck the ground first. Photos clearly show that the 757 did not hit the ground at all even with it's two large engines hanging underneath it and even a witnesses to the supposed crash said nothing hit the ground: Terry Morin - "I then confirmed that the aircraft had been flown directly into the Pentagon without hitting the ground first or skipping into the building." They then say more damage was done to the building than just the "outside" by showing this photo that shows the entire of three rings being renovated: The official story does say the 757 penetrated all the way to the 3rd ring and photos do show a punch-out hole in the 3rd ring's wall. 2) Can you explain how a Boeing 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of Snopes says eyewitnesses describe and photos demonstrate that the 757 hit the ground first which dissipated much of it's energy and that's why it didn't cause more damage than it would have and say that too. They also state a New York Times article stating hit between the 1st and 2nd floors, not just the ground floor. Lastly they mention another account which says that the plane "banked sharply," clipped some light poles, and then hit the helipad that is right in front and to the left of the section hit. The account then goes on to say that the roof of the section hit collapsed 30 minutes after the crash (which officially was at 9:37 am), but rescuers were able to pull out all the injured before the collapse. The account finishes with saying that the fires in that section were so hot that the fire fighters weren't able to approach the impact point until about 1 pm. First, as already mentioned above, close-up photos of the scene clearly show nothing struck the ground for and also confirmed by a witness. Note that a big part of Snopes' debunking attempt falls on there claim that the 757 hit the ground first and that's why it didn't cause as much damage as it otherwise would. Since it is clear nothing struck the ground first, this puts a big hole in Snopes' argument. Second, the photo they link to shows the photos from the Pentagon's security camera that allegedly shows the crash. However, it is impossible to tell in those photos that anything struck the ground in those photos. Third, the account they mention says the 757 banked sharply, however there is no evidence of this that I'm aware of and it seems odd that they said the fires were so hot that the fire crews could only approach the area at about 1 pm, yet rescuers were able to approach this section to evacuate all the injured hours early and before the roof collapsed 30 minutes after the crash happened. 3) You'll remember that the aircraft only hit the ground floor of the Pentagon's first ring. Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this photograph? First, Flight 77 must have traveled at least 800 miles from when it took off near D.C. until it reached the Pentagon, so it wasn't exactly full of fuel. Second, the debris in the photo they show is interesting for a couple of reasons: Notice that it doesn't have any burn or scrape marks on it after it supposedly hit a reinforced wall at 530mph and exploded. This piece is near the front end of the plane which supposedly "disappeared" inside the building. Why didn't it going into the building along with the rest of the plane when it was located closer to the front end of the plane? How did it manage to land so far away from the impact epicenter with only one other small piece of debris scattered around it? The piece is small and light enough to be carried by hand which makes you wonder if it was planted and that's the reason it has no burn or scrape marks on it and why it's so far away from the epicenter with only one other piece beside it. Third, they seem to claim that most of the 115 ton plane was destroyed from the impacting the reinforced wall, exploding, and anything left burned up inside from the "intense fire" from all the jet fuel. I wonder how they would explain how all but one of the 64 passenger's bodies were able to be recovered inside the building as claimed? 4) Can you explain why the Defence Secretary deemed it necessary to sand over the lawn, which was otherwise undamaged after the attack? I have never been able to find who it was that ordered the lawn to be sanded. Snopes' point about the heavy equipment there is a valid one, but it is still interesting that they covered up the lawn that would be seen afterwards by everyone that is was undamaged from the crash. 5) Can you explain what happened to the wings of the aircraft and why they caused no damage? First, Snopes' explanation of what happened to the wingtips of the 757 is nothing short of hilarious! I don't know what would cause the wingtips to be "pushed inward" towards the fuselage after breaking off from hitting the wall and then what would carry them into the building? I would love to see a animated demonstration of that from them! Maybe it would look something like the graphic below! They also never mention the trajectory of how the 757 supposedly crashed which officially was Second, if the wingtips did break off from impacting the way, they should have either crumpled up and bounced off and still be visible on the ground, or be obliterated in which it would have left a visible impression in the limestone masonry wall from where that happened. Third, the photo they provide that shows damage to the building caused from the wings is hardly "plainly visible" from such a blurred photo taken far away. There are photos that show damage seemingly caused from the wings, however there no evidence of any wings left afterward. (Click for larger size.) 6) Can you explain why the County Fire Chief could not tell reporters where the aircraft was? Snopes says the fire chief wasn't asked where the 757 was, but if there was anything left of the plane in which the chief said there were no large sections left by the time he was asked the next day because the plane had smashed into small pieces and then burned up and all that remained inside were smaller pieces. Q: Is there anything left of the aircraft at all? Plaugher: First all, the question about the aircraft, there are some small pieces of aircraft visible from the interior during this fire-fighting operation I'm talking about, but not large sections. In other words, there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing. Q: Chief, there are small pieces of the plane virtually all over, out over the highway, tiny pieces. Would you say the plane exploded, virtually exploded on impact due to the fuel or -- Plaugher: You know, I'd rather not comment on that. We have a lot of eyewitnesses that can give you better information about what actually happened with the aircraft as it approached. So we don't know. I don't know. - DoD (09/12/01) Notice that the chief admits there were no large sections found, but only "some small pieces" visible inside which supports some conspiracy theorists claim that no 757 crash there, but a few "757" plane parts were planted inside the building just like Operation Northwoods mentions doing when talking about faking a plane crash: c. At precisely the same time that the aircraft was presumably shot down a submarine or small surface craft would disburse F-101 parts... 7) Can you find the aircraft's point of impact? Snopes says the impact site is obscured by water spray and smoke in the photos, but a two-story high hole does exist behind the fireman. The say it wasn't possible for photographs to capture a view of the impact point from the brief time between the crash until the roof collapsed. Actually, there are a few photos that clearly show the impact point. A couple of things are interesting to point out, it doesn’t look like the tail section did any damage to the 3rd story of the building. What happened to the tail section of this 757? Snopes finishes their debunk attempt with an update of the "Pentagon Strike" flash video released in August 2004 and lists a couple of websites were it can be found. Why didn't they include the link to the official "Pentagon Strike" website? http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/ In my opinion, Snopes' debunk attempt of Hunt the Boeing! is appalling. It is riddled with factual errors according to the official story, bad photos that don't prove much of their case, and imaginative physics. I'll I have to say about their debunking attempt is...
So much for k00ks: 136 eyewitnesses saw an effing airplane heading towards the Pentagon, with 103 of them seeing it hit. There was also DNA analysis done on the bodies and pieces of bodies returned to the family members of the people who died that morning. The perpetuation of ghoulish lies alleging these passengers were killed elsewhere by some unknown methods is quite disgusting to any sane and reasonable person.
People saw SOMETHING hit, but the reports conflict as to what path the plane took, and how many planes there were. Two Pentagon police officers stated the plane passed OVER the Pentagon THEN something else hit the Pentagon wall.
So what happened to the plane? I find it likely that the police officers, if they made this statement at all, are being quoted out of context in typical CT fashion. As I've said, the "supposed 270/330 degree precision turn" was actually an attempt by an inexperienced pilot to salvage a large plane getting too much lift to hit its original target on a power dive - the original target being the Potomac facing offices where the Pentagon's top executives and programs were. The extra lift at high speed required the plane to come in after making a sweeping turn, and hit the back of the building, which was being renovated at the time and not even fully occupied, in order to hit the building at all. If there is any truth at all to this police quote, they could be referring to the initial high speed pass which overshot the building, then be confused about the low flying aircraft which they were not in a favorable position to see. I'll go with the 103 people, including one who says the plane came in so close he had to hit the ground.
The part of the building which was hit happened to have computers and personnel involved with naval operations, and civilian accounting staff. Odd that the accounting office was hit, since just the day before Rumsfeld announced the Pentagon couldn't account for 2.3 TRILLION dollars.
More important than hitting Rumsfeld's office? Could they at least have cleared the construction material - that was hit, care to explain how it was damaged and knocked sideways if no wing clipped it - directly in front of the entry hole? And had their thingmabob hit the wall at 90 degrees straight on instead of an oblique 60-something degrees angle? Would have made a better collision. Was the oblique entry hole angle part of the preprogrammed attack too? And who scattered the aircraft parts both inside the building where they got scorched, and across the lawn? And the DNA evidence, which identified everybody listed who died except a baby, that's all faked and none of the relatives has ever found out? Beyond pathetic.
Where's all the "wreakage"?
Your photo is clearly taken after the fire was contained, and after the lawn has been scoured by the FBI and evidence collected. Not too many firemen looking busy at photo time. Where did the small pieces on the lawn originally come from? Some from pieces breaking off when wings hit 5 light poles on the way in, others from the impact with the wall which caused an explosion and fireball sending things in all directions.
Uh huh, sure it is...
Your photo is clearly taken after the fire was contained, and after the lawn has been scoured by the FBI and evidence collected. Uh huh, sure it is... You make my point. Where are the teams of firemen, and the multiple hoses pumping multiple streams of water onto the few remaining burning spots. I see what looks like one hose extending to the end of the lawn with nobody at its end. Where are the fires and firemen tending to the black scorched sections. Last but not least, when was the photo actually taken. How much time after impact, specifically.
The fire is still burning you moron. Have any pictures of the debris being collected while the fire was still raging? Oh, and where are the wings, and where is the tail?
"Smouldering" is more like it except for 1-2 hot spots. Where's the sense of urgency about putting it out, Twoffer? For the third time, what time were the photo's taken?
There are no replies to Comment # 858. End Trace Mode for Comment # 858.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#21. To: turtle, Original_Intent, buckeroo (#14)
(Edited)
The other readily apparent difference is that the ears are not the same. Ears are a distinctive feature on a lot of people. Despite the damage to her face they should bear at least some resemblance, but the structure is not at all the same.
#24. To: AGAviator, FormerLurker, X-15, wudidiz, James Deffenbach, buckeroo, turdle, christine, all (#21)
(Edited)
......
#100. To: Original_Intent (#24)
#121. To: IRTorqued (#100)
dang it OI now you went and made the resident shill for the liar movement cry.
#129. To: Original_Intent, IRTorqued, critter, buckeroo, turtle (#121)
(Edited)
so sensitive over the Psychic Friends Network. Honest.
Sixty- four percent of the respondents said that aliens have contacted humans,
Half said they've abducted humans, and
37 percent said they have contacted the U.S. government. The collapse of the twin towers in New York was aided by explosives secretly planted in the two buildings"
• 10% "somewhat likely"
• 6% "very likely"[13]
#130. To: AGAviator (#129)
Did ya happen to know that over 6 times as many Americans (50%) believe that UFO aliens have abducted humans, than believe it was "very likely" that the WTC Towers were brought down by "secretly planted explosives (6%)?"
#150. To: noone222, buckeroo, turtle, critter (#130)
The masses are usually mistaken ... as demonstrated by your post.
#164. To: AGAviator (#150)
#190. To: noone222 (#164)
#219. To: IRTorqued (#190)
ag must have been ass raped by a group of them there extra-tetesticles. that'll teach him to fish from docks on the mississippi after dark.
#236. To: AGAviator (#219)
#241. To: IRTorqued, turtle, buckeroo (#236)
cry with your straw-man argument
#263. To: AGAviator (#241)
Me cry, Six Percenter?
More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll.
#268. To: FormerLurker (#263)
From Third of Americans suspect 9- 11 government conspiracy...
#278. To: AGAviator (#268)
No loser, your inflated numbers include a large percentage believing that the USG did not participate in the attacks, but also did not do enough to prevent or stop them.
#323. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo, turtle, critter (#278)
(Edited)
#324. To: AGAviator (#323)
#328. To: Dakmar (#324)
Are you thinking of calling "security" to "kick our asses" (out)? It won't work, trust me. :)
#329. To: AGAviator (#328)
Because you are a minority, and an irrelevant one at that
#338. To: Dakmar (#329)
(Edited)
402. There are three main schools of thought regarding the 9/11 attacks.
Let it happen....................... 266...... 26.4%
Made it happen..................... 46....... 4.6%
NS....................................... 54........ 5.4%
Total..................................1006... 100.0%
#359. To: AGAviator (#338)
The first theory is the official story, and maintains that 19 Arab fundamentalists executed a surprise attack which caught US intelligence and military forces off guard.
#360. To: buckeroo (#359)
#364. To: A K A Stone, buckeroo, (#360)
(Edited)
Buckeroo. Why didn't Andrews Air Force Base Respond?
#376. To: AGAviator, *9-11* (#364)
#379. To: wudidiz (#376)
(Edited)
The Airforce could have and would have dealt with the "hijacked" planes if the order had been given
#384. To: AGAviator, All (#379)
#399. To: Eric Stratton, AGAviator (#384)
Otherwise, fine, have it your way, there was no coverup, no hurry to dispense with evidence, all of the firefighters and police on video were obviously delusional all day long, and our Government can be fully trusted.
#408. To: buckeroo, All (#399)
#411. To: Eric Stratton (#408)
#419. To: buckeroo (#411)
#426. To: Eric Stratton (#419)
You're a fool if you believe that, an honest to goodness fucking rube!
#430. To: buckeroo (#426)
#434. To: Eric Stratton (#430)
I've done that, can you please do some fucking independent research!
#436. To: buckeroo (#434)
#440. To: Eric Stratton (#436)
(Edited)
#456. To: buckeroo (#440)
#458. To: Flintlock (#456)
#459. To: buckeroo (#458)
Are you going to say that the 9-11 terrorist bombing is a direct result of and about the US government?
#462. To: Flintlock (#459)
911 was clearly an inside job.
#473. To: buckeroo (#462)
Can you realistically cite one serious qualified witness about all this tragedy that government was complicit in a planning activity for 911?
#478. To: buckeroo, Flintlock (#473)
Spammed it up and nobody is ever going to read it.
#483. To: AGAviator (#478)
#491. To: FormerLurker (#483)
(Edited)
Hey kOOKaNuTTer, if you travel 130 miles, and the travel time is 25 minutes, how fast are you going?
#514. To: AGAviator (#491)
I already gave you timetable saying the max time between notification and crashes was 8 minutes, not 25, and the fighters were over the Atlantic and unable to get precise vectors to what or where they were supposed to be intercepting due to transponders not transmitting IFF's.
Fighters Launched in Response to Flight 77? - In later testimony, military officials will give contradictory explanations for why the Langley F- 16s are scrambled. An early NORAD timeline will indicate the fighters are launched in response to NORAD being notified at 9:24 that Flight 77 has been hijacked (see (9:24 a.m.) September 11, 2001). [North American Aerospace Defense Command, 9/18/2001] Colonel Alan Scott, the former vice commander of the Continental US NORAD Region (CONR), will suggest the same, telling the 9/11 Commission: 60;At 9:24 the FAA reports a possible hijack of [Flight] 77.70; And at that moment as well is when the Langley F-16s were scrambled out of Langley.61; [9/11 Commission, 5/23/2003; 1st Air Force, 8/8/2006] And a timeline provided by senior Defense Department officials to CNN will state, 60;NORAD orders jets scrambled from Langley61; in order to 60;head to intercept61; Flight 77. [CNN, 9/17/2001]
In Response to Flight 93? - However, Major General Larry Arnold, the CONR commander, will give a different explanation. He will tell the 9/11 Commission, 60;we launched the aircraft out of Langley to put them over top of Washington, DC, not in response to American Airline 77, but really to put them in position in case United 93 were to head that way.61; [9/11 Commission, 5/23/2003]
In Response to Incorrect Report about Flight 11? - In 2004, the 9/11 Commission will dispute both these previous explanations, and conclude that the Langley jets are scrambled in response to an incorrect report that Flight 11 is still airborne and heading toward Washington, DC (see 9:21 a.m. September 11, 2001). [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 26-27; 9/11 Commission, 8/26/2004, pp. 15 
] Tape recordings of the NEADS operations floor will corroborate this account. [Vanity Fair, 8/1/2006] According to the 9/11 Commission, its conclusion is also confirmed by 60;taped conversations at FAA centers; contemporaneous logs compiled at NEADS, Continental Region headquarters, and NORAD; and other records.61; [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 34] Major Nasypany will tell the Commission that the reason the Langley jets are directed toward the Baltimore area is to position them between the reportedly southbound Flight 11 and Washington, as a 60;barrier cap.61; [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 27 and 461] John Farmer, senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission, will later suggest that NORAD deliberately misled Congress and the Commission by hiding the fact that the Langley scramble takes place in response to the erroneous report that Flight 11 is still airborne. He will write that the mistaken report 60;appears in more logs, and on more tapes, than any other single event that morning.70; It was the reason for the Langley scramble; it had triggered the Air Threat Conference Call. Yet it had never been disclosed; it was, instead, talked around.61; [Farmer, 2009, pp. 266-267]
Conflicting Times - Early news reports will put the time of the scramble order slightly later than the 9/11 Commission places it, between 9:25 and 60;about 9:27.61; [Washington Post, 9/12/2001; CNN, 9/17/2001; CNN, 9/19/2001] But a NORAD timeline released a week after the attacks will give the same time as the Commission does, of 9:24. [North American Aerospace Defense Command, 9/18/2001; 9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 27]
(9:25 a.m.- 9:30 a.m.) September 11, 2001: Langley Jets Take off, but Are Delayed during Launch
Captain Craig Borgstrom. [Source: US Air Force / Austin Knox]The three F-16 fighter jets ordered to scramble from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia (see 9:24 a.m. September 11, 2001) take off and, radar data will show, are airborne by 9:30 a.m. [North American Aerospace Defense Command, 9/18/2001; Christian Science Monitor, 4/16/2002; 9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 27]
Delayed during Launch - Major Dean Eckmann will recall that, after receiving the scramble order, he and the two other pilots have 60;a pretty quick response time. I believe it was four to five minutes we were airborne from that point.61; [BBC, 9/1/2002] According to the 1st Air Force57;s book about 9/11, the three fighters are 60;given highest priority over all other air traffic at Langley Air Force Base61; as they are launching. [Filson, 2003, pp. 63] But, according to author Lynn Spencer, in spite of this, the jets are delayed. As Eckmann is approaching the runway, he calls the control tower for clearance to take off, but the tower controller tells him, 60;Hold for an air traffic delay.61; Air traffic controllers at the FAA57;s Washington Center 60;have not had time to clear airliners out of the way for the northerly heading. Dozens of aircraft at various altitudes fill the jets57; route.61; After having to wait two minutes, Eckmann complains: 60;We57;re an active air scramble. We need to go now!61; Finally, the tower controller tells him, 60;Roger, Quit flight is cleared for takeoff, 090 for 60,61; meaning the fighters are to fly due east for 60 miles (see (9:30 a.m.) September 11, 2001).
Taking Off - The three jets launch 15 seconds apart, with Eckmann in front and the two other jets following. [Spencer, 2008, pp. 143-144] Pilot Craig Borgstrom will later recall, 60;[W]e took off, the three of us, and basically the formation we always brief on alert, we57;ll stay in a two- to three-mile trail from the guy in front.61; [Filson, 2003, pp. 63] According to the BBC, the pilots get a signal over their planes57; transponders, indicating an emergency wartime situation. [BBC, 9/1/2002]
Could Reach Washington before Pentagon Attack - F-16s have a maximum speed of 1,500 mph at high altitude, or 915 mph at sea level, so the three fighters could plausibly travel the 130 miles from Langley Air Force Base to Washington in just minutes. [Chant, 1987, pp. 404; Associated Press, 6/16/2000; USA Today, 9/16/2001; Washington Post, 9/16/2001 ; US Air Force, 10/2007] Major General Larry Arnold, the commanding general of NORAD57;s Continental US Region, will tell the 9/11 Commission, 60;I think if those aircraft had gotten airborne immediately, if we were operating under something other than peacetime rules, where they could have turned immediately toward Washington, DC, and gone into burner, it is physically possible that they could have gotten over Washington61; before 9:37, when the Pentagon is hit. [9/11 Commission, 5/23/2003] Yet according to the 9/11 Commission, the jets are redirected east over the Atlantic Ocean and will be 150 miles from the Pentagon when it is hit (see 9:30 a.m.-9:37 a.m. September 11, 2001). [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 27]
Conflicting Times - Some early news reports after 9/11 will say the Langley jets take off at the later time of 9:35 a.m. [Washington Post, 9/12/2001; CNN, 9/14/2001; Washington Post, 9/15/2001; CNN, 9/17/2001] But according to Colonel Alan Scott, the former vice commander of the Continental US NORAD Region, though the jets are airborne at 9:30, the report of this does not come down until 9:35, so this fact may account for the conflicting times. [9/11 Commission, 5/23/2003]9:30 a.m.-9:37 a.m. September 11, 2001: Langley Fighters Fly East over Ocean instead of North toward Washington
Route of the Langley Air Base fighters to Washington. [Source: Yvonne Vermillion/ MagicGraphix.com]The three F-16s that took off from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia (see (9:25 a.m.- 9:30 a.m.) September 11, 2001) head east, out over the Atlantic Ocean, instead of north toward the Baltimore area, as NORAD57;s Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) instructed when it issued the scramble order (see 9:24 a.m. September 11, 2001). [New York Times, 11/15/2001; 9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 27]
Three Reasons Jets Head East - The 9/11 Commission will give three reasons why the Langley jets go east instead of north: 60;First, unlike a normal scramble order, this order did not include a distance to the target or the target57;s location. Second, a 56;generic57; flight plan52;prepared to get the aircraft airborne and out of local airspace quickly52;incorrectly led the Langley fighters to believe they were ordered to fly due east (090) for 60 miles. Third, the lead pilot and local FAA controller incorrectly assumed the flight plan instruction to go 56;090 for 6057; superseded the original scramble order.61; [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 27]
NORAD Commander Blames 'Peacetime Rules' - In his testimony before the 9/11 Commission in May 2003, Larry Arnold, the commanding general of NORAD57;s Continental US Region, will address the question of why the Langley jets head out over the sea. He says, 60;When we scramble an aircraft70; the aircraft take off and they have a predetermined departure route.61; According to Arnold, NORAD is 60;looking outward,61; and so 60;our mission, unlike law enforcement57;s mission, is to protect things coming towards the United States.61; He concludes, 60;So our peacetime procedures, to de-conflict with civil aviation57;s, so as to not have endanger[ed] civil aviation in any particular way.61; Arnold will also suggest that 60;peacetime rules61; might be partly to blame for the Langley jets heading in the wrong direction. He says, 60;[I]f we were operating under something other than peacetime rules70; they could have turned immediately toward Washington, DC.61; [9/11 Commission, 5/23/2003] According to the Wall Street Journal, the 60;peacetime rules61; Arnold refers to are 60;noise restrictions requiring that [the Langley jets] fly more slowly than supersonic speed and take off over water, pointed away from Washington.61; [Wall Street Journal, 3/22/2004 ] One of the Langley pilots, Captain Craig Borgstrom, will later recall that, shortly after the jets take off, NEADS 60;gave us max- subsonic,61; which is 60;as fast as you can go without breaking the sound barrier.61; [Filson, 2003, pp. 65]
Risk of Midair Collision - NORAD official Major General Craig McKinley will tell the 9/11 Commission that 60;another reason why61; the Langley jets are 60;vectored east originally61; is that 60;the air traffic over the Northeast corridor is so complex that to just launch fighters70; into that air traffic system can cause potential damage or midair collision. So we rely on the FAA to de-conflict those corridors.61; [9/11 Commission, 5/23/2003]
Jets Far Away from Pentagon - When the Pentagon is hit at 9:37 a.m., the Langley jets have flown nearly 60 miles out over the ocean and are 150 miles from Washington (see 9:37 a.m. September 11, 2001). [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 27; Spencer, 2008, pp. 151]9:31 a.m.- 9:33 a.m. September 11, 2001: Norfolk Approach Control Handles Langley Jets, but Does Not Redirect Them to Correct Heading
The Norfolk Tower TRACON. [Source: Federal Aviation Administration]The FAA57;s Norfolk Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON) is briefly in charge of the three F- 16s launched from Langley Air Force Base (see (9:25 a.m.- 9:30 a.m.) September 11, 2001), but it does not redirect them northward in line with the military57;s orders, after the Langley air traffic control tower previously instructed them to fly east. [9/11 Commission, 8/26/2004, pp. 96 ]
Jets Sent East instead of North - When NORAD57;s Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) issued the scramble order (see 9:24 a.m. September 11, 2001), it specified that the Langley jets be directed north toward Washington, DC. But as the jets were taking off, the Langley tower instructed them to go 60;090 for 60,61; meaning they were to fly east for 60 miles (see (9:30 a.m.) September 11, 2001). [9/11 Commission, 1/9/2004; Spencer, 2008, pp. 142-143]
TRACON Does Not Redirect Jets - When aircraft take off from Langley Air Force Base, control of them is passed from the Langley tower to the Norfolk TRACON. [9/11 Commission, 10/6/2003 ] Controllers at the TRACON are permitted to change an aircraft57;s flight plan, in the case of the Langley jets the 60;090 for 6061; instruction. [9/11 Commission, 12/1/2003 ] A 9/11 Commission memorandum will state that the Langley jets are 60;not bound to the 60 mile distance and could have turned to the north at any time they were directed to or had orders to do so.61; [9/11 Commission, 10/6/2003 ] However, although the TRACON is aware that NEADS ordered the jets to head north, it does not redirect them toward this heading instead of going east. [9/11 Commission, 12/1/2003 ] According to the 9/11 Commission, the reason is that 60;both the lead Langley pilot,61; Major Dean Eckmann, 60;and the FAA57;s Norfolk TRACON facility70; assumed the flight plan instruction to go 56;090 for 6057; was newer guidance that superseded the original scramble order instructions61; issued by NEADS. [9/11 Commission, 8/26/2004, pp. 96 ]
Pilot Agrees to Follow Tower's Directions - At 9:33, Norfolk TRACON controller Michael Strother asks Eckmann what direction he wants to head in. Strother says, 60;Quit 2-5, are you going directly to the Langley 090 at 60?61; If Eckmann wanted to go somewhere other than what is specified in the flight plan, Strother has the authority to grant the request. But Eckmann replies, 60;Affirmative.61; He says, 60;That57;s our second clearance,61; and, referring to the NEADS scramble order, adds, 60;We had an earlier clearance of a vector and an altitude.61; The 9/11 Commission will summarize, 60;Put simply, the Langley pilots received flight direction guidance from both the scramble order and the Langley AFB departure flight plan, and continued on the latter heading for several minutes until a direction and geographic destination was provided.61; [9/11 Commission, 12/1/2003 ; 9/11 Commission, 1/9/2004; 9/11 Commission, 8/26/2004, pp. 96 ]
Navy Facility Takes over Control of Jets - Norfolk TRACON subsequently passes control of the three F-16s on to 60;Giant Killer,61; the Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility in Virginia Beach, Virginia. This is the Navy air traffic control agency that handles all over-water military operations. [New York Times, 2/10/1997; 9/11 Commission, 2004; 9/11 Commission, 1/9/2004; Spencer, 2008, pp. 143] It will not be until around the time the Pentagon is hit that the Langley jets are redirected to their correct heading (see 9:36 a.m. September 11, 2001), after NEADS notices they are going in the wrong direction (see 9:34 a.m. September 11, 2001). [Vanity Fair, 8/1/2006; Spencer, 2008, pp. 149-151] 9:37 a.m. September 11, 2001: Navy Command Center Employees Killed While Trying to Get More Fighters Launched
)
Diagram showing the area of impact at the Pentagon. The Navy Command Center is highlighted in red. [Source: Washington Post] (click image to enlarge)Edward Earhart, Matthew Flocco, and their supervisor Lt. Nancy McKeown are inside the Pentagon, watching the televised footage of the burning World Trade Center. They belong to a small meteorological unit based in the Navy Command Center, located on the first floor of the building57;s southwest face. McKeown asks her two young aides to bring up New York on the computer because the Command Center is going to send some fighter jets there, in case there is another attack on the city. She orders them to program weather updates for military aircraft converging on New York. However, very soon after this, the Command Center is directly impacted when the Pentagon is hit, and both Flocco and Earhart are killed. [Washington Post, 9/16/2001; Reader's Digest, 9/2002; CNN, 9/8/2002; Newsday, 4/12/2006] Ronald Vauk, the watch commander in the Navy Command Center, is on the phone trying to get more fighters scrambled at the time the Pentagon is hit, though news reports say he wants them to protect Washington, not New York. [John Hopkins Magazine, 11/2001; New York Times, 11/17/2001; Baltimore Sun, 9/11/2002] At 9:24 a.m., NORAD had ordered fighters at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia to scramble (see 9:24 a.m. September 11, 2001), though these will not arrive over the Pentagon until after it is hit (see (Between 9:49 a.m. and 11:00 a.m.) September 11, 2001). [9/11 Commission, 6/17/2004] According to Lt. Kevin Shaeffer, who works in the Command Center, just prior to the attack on the Pentagon, the watch section and watch leaders in the center are actively engaged in logging and recording the events going on in New York. He later says, 60;they all responded in exactly the way they were trained,61; and, 60;Had the Command Center not been destroyed it surely would have been able to provide the highest levels of our Navy leadership with updates as to exactly what was occurring.61; [Chips, 3/2003]
#525. To: FormerLurker (#514)
#536. To: buckeroo (#525)
All you are doing is showing bumbling and ineptitude from the top down and the bottom up from an attack in America. You have not shown any indication of any planning, execution, logistics, funding and later cover-ups by the many people it would take to within the government to create this issue. Not even one INSIDER witness that should have come forward by now.
#543. To: FormerLurker (#536)
I am simply showing the CLAIMED NORAD response,
#544. To: buckeroo (#543)
Mere BUMBLING based upon a surprise attack from illegal aliens.
#547. To: FormerLurker (#544)
They weren't ilegal, they had visas and all that.
#556. To: buckeroo (#547)
#628. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo (#556)
Tracking the 19 Hijackers What are they up to now? At least 9 of them survived 9/11
Shortly after the attacks and before the FBI had released the pictures of all the hijackers, several reports appeared claiming that some of the men named as hijackers on 9/11 were alive, and were feared to have been victims of identity theft.[27][28][29]
Previously, Saudi Arabia had said the citizenship of 15 of the 19 hijackers was in doubt despite U.S. insistence they were Saudis. But Interior Minister Prince Nayef told The Associated Press that Saudi leaders were shocked to learn 15 of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.
#632. To: AGAviator (#628)
These cases, however, turned out to be instances of mistaken identity
#639. To: FormerLurker (#632)
So who ARE the hijackers then, since those they claimed were the hijackers are still alive and report that their passports were lost or stolen?
#641. To: AGAviator (#639)
(Edited)
Finally aren't consistent translations of Arabic to English. Just the first name "Muhammed" can be spelled "Muhammad," "Mohammed," "Mahmud," etc and all these will show up separately in a computer which is very picky about spelling and treats each spelling of the same name as a separate person. Similar spelling variations exist for many different other first and last names.
#643. To: FormerLurker (#641)
In other words, they are the same people.
#644. To: AGAviator (#643)
(Edited)
#645. To: FormerLurker, AGAviator, all (#644)
#649. To: Original_Intent, FormerLurker, buckeroo, turtle, critter (#645)
(Edited)
And of course never addressed by AGGravator is that the FBI had identified all 19 by 9-12 and yet none of those names show up on the passenger manifests, nor are there any videos of any of them boarding the flights used for the Op.
#653. To: AGAviator, FormerLurker, wudidiz, critter, all (#649)
Me: And of course never addressed by AGGravator is that the FBI had identified all 19 by 9-12 and yet none of those names show up on the passenger manifests, nor are there any videos of any of them boarding the flights used for the Op.
Fu Manchu Osama Bin Laden. How did he know it was Osama Bin Laden the evening of 911? That is some mighty fast detective work, OR a cover legend he had already been briefed on. Excerpt: "Olson’s Self-Contradictions
Olson began this process of undermining by means of self-contradictions. He first told CNN, as we have seen, that his wife had “called him twice on a cell phone.” But he contradicted this claim on September 14, telling Hannity and Colmes that she had reached him by calling the Department of Justice collect. Therefore, she must have been using the “airplane phone,” he surmised, because “she somehow didn’t have access to her credit cards.”4 However, this version of Olson’s story, besides contradicting his first version, was even self-contradictory, because a credit card is needed to activate a passenger-seat phone.
Later that same day, moreover, Olson told Larry King Live that the second call from his wife suddenly went dead because “the signals from cell phones coming from airplanes don’t work that well.”5 After that return to his first version, he finally settled on the second version, saying that his wife had called collect and hence must have used “the phone in the passengers’ seats” because she did not have her purse.6
By finally settling on this story, Olson avoided a technological pitfall. Given the cell phone system employed in 2001, high-altitude cell phone calls from airliners were impossible, or at least virtually so (Olson’s statement that “the signals from cell phones coming from airplanes don’t work that well” was a considerable understatement). The technology to enable cell phone calls from high-altitude airline flights was not created until 2004.7
However, Olson’s second story, besides being self-contradictory, was contradicted by American Airlines. ..."
#655. To: Original_Intent, AGAviator, FormerLurker, wudidiz, critter (#653)
(Edited)
#689. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM, buckeroo, turtle, X-15, critter (#655)
One of the events immediately after 9/11 was the 9/12 flyout of the Saudi Bin Ladin family PRIVATE JET back to Saudi Arabia.
Claim: Secret flights whisked bin Laden family members and Saudi nationals out of the U.S. immediately after
Status: False.
Origins: In the wake of the
The claim that bin Laden family members (and other Saudis) were allowed to secretly fly out of the U.S. and back to Saudi Arabia while a government- imposed ban on air travel was in effect, all without any intervention by the FBI, has since been negated by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (also known as the "9/11 Commission"). In their final report, the commission noted:
First, we found no evidence that any flights of Saudi nationals, domestic or international, took place before the reopening of national airspace on the morning of September 13, 2001. To the contrary, every flight we have identified occurred after national airspace reopened.
Second, we found no evidence of political intervention. We found no evidence that anyone at the White House above the level of [National Security Council official] Richard Clarke participated in a decision on the departure of Saudi
Third, we believe that the FBI conducted a satisfactory screening of Saudi nationals who left the United State on charter flights. The Saudi government was advised of and agree to the FBI's requirements that passengers be identified and checked against various databases before the flights departed. The Federal Aviation Administration representative working in the FBI operations center made sure that the FBI was aware of the flights of Saudi nationals and was able to screen the passengers before they were allowed to depart.
The FBI interviewed all persons of interest on these flights prior to their departures. They concluded that none of the passengers was connected to the 9/11 attacks and have since found no evidence to change that conclusion. Our own independent review of the Saudi nationals involved confirms that no one with known links to terrorism departed on these flights.
#696. To: AGAviator, Original_Intent, abraxas (#689)
http://killtown.911review.org/flight77/debunking/snopes.html
Snopes.com's debunking attempt starts out by saying that Thierry Meyssan's claim that the damage to the Pentagon on September 11 was caused by something other than a hijacked Boeing 757 is "false." 
I think that it's quite humorous that they use a graphic drawing as proof, not only because it's a graphic, but the graphic is wrong! First the graphic shows a grey line (which I guess is trying to show the trajectory of the 757) going straight up through the damaged section shown in red. However, the 757 was said to have hit at a 45 deg angle.
Snopes says you can't see any plane debris because the 757 disappeared into the building and any large pieces of debris left inside burned up from in the intense fire that followed from the jet being "full of fuel." Then they mention that some small debris was visible outside, but in another photo that they demonstrate.
Snopes says the order from the Defence Secretary to sand over the lawn is false and the reason it was sanded over was so trucks and other heavy equipment used there wouldn't slip and slide in the grass.
#699. To: HAPPY2BME-4UM (#696)
(Edited)
So much for Snopes!
#700. To: AGAviator (#699)
136 eyewitnesses saw an effing airplane heading towards the Pentagon, with 103 of them seeing it hit.
#701. To: FormerLurker (#700)
(Edited)
Two Pentagon police officers stated the plane passed OVER the Pentagon THEN something else hit the Pentagon wall
#707. To: AGAviator (#701)
The extra lift at high speed required the plane to come in after making a sweeping turn, and hit the back of the building, which was being renovated at the time and not even fully occupied, in order to hit the building at all.
#711. To: FormerLurker, buckeroo, turtle, X-15, critteer (#707)
Odd that the accounting office was hit, since just the day before Rumsfeld announced the Pentagon couldn't account for 2.3 TRILLION dollars.
#725. To: AGAviator (#711)
And who scattered the aircraft parts both inside the building where they got scorched, and across the lawn?
#806. To: FormerLurker (#725)
#835. To: AGAviator (#806)
Your photo is clearly taken after the fire was contained, and after the lawn has been scoured by the FBI and evidence collected.
#839. To: FormerLurker (#835)
#841. To: AGAviator (#839)
Where are the teams of firemen, and the multiple hoses pumping multiple streams of water onto the few remaining burning spots. I see what looks like one hose extending to the end of the lawn with nobody at its end.
#858. To: FormerLurker (#841)
The fire is still burning you moron
Replies to Comment # 858.