See other 9/11 Articles
Title: 9/11 UAL 175 Plane on Radar AFTER It Has 'Crashed' Into The WTC; (MSNBC)
Source:
,
URL Source: http://,
Published: Mar 16, 2009
Author: msnbc
Post Date: 2009-03-16 13:04:41 by Artisan
Ping List: *9-11* Subscribe to *9-11*
Keywords: None
Views: 11983
Comments: 607
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 515.
#3. To: Artisan (#0)
Oh, they'll be out in force. It might take them a day or two, but for every new revelation shining light on the 911 Inside Job they have a spin very quickly. Either they will attack the film as altered or they'll have some other spin such as the Radar was incompetent. They won't hold water but for the Sheeple who don't want to look at reality they will grasp at any spin straw to avoid looking. They want the "Nightly Nooze" to tell them what they think.
if the identifying radar system is in real time as he claimed then it is pretty damning evidence of remote controlled drone planes. I don't know antyhing about such systems which is why i pinged the pilots. Anyway, we all know the truth but to what end ? There is more than enough evidence but most politicians, clergy, academics and influence peddlers won't look at or acknowledge any of this. And time has gone on and it's almost 10 8 yrs past. Anyway, it's fun to expose their lies. people do know, in general, but what comes of it? we shall watch.
I'm confused, "tracked on RADAR" 1 hr after it hit the WTC?
Only if you believe this shit are you...
The shit in the video or the Gov't shit?
The government's shit is mosty likely the closest to what happened. If anything got covered up it's how little attention the Boosh's were paying when it went down...
Thank you for proving my prediction correct.
Your prediction was akin to predicting that if you pulled your pants down and tried to blow yourself in Times Square people would look. PS: Claiming that "WE BRUNG DOWN THE TOWERS!!!!" is the same thing as self- felating in Times Square.
Explain this. See how the top of the tower is tilting on an angle? Simple physics would determine that the top of the tower should have toppled over and tumbled, as there is less resistance to the air than there would be to the steel and concrete below it, thus it would have continued it's rotational movement and toppled over. Why did it all of a sudden drop like a rock straight down through the steel and concrete rather than simply topple over as it appears ready to do in the following picture?
You mean like what happens in a controlled demolition? Well, this is different....the plane hit the building (which was specifically designed to withstand the impact of a direct hit by a plane), and the plane had fuel (no matter that the fire was limited to just a couple floors, as opposed to other towers which have also had intense fire but never collapsed)....and because of the intense flames (limited to two floors?)....the structural beams just melted.......and can't you just believe these people already?! : )
Two Floors My Ass...
Yes. That's mightily impressive, a fire like that which can bring down a building onto its own feet. Have you see the photos of the other skyscrapers, literally in hell fire throughout, yet those buildings stand? I have.
A) The fire did not act alone. B) It did not fall into it's own feet. 1 fell into the DB Building* and 2 fell into the south facade of 7. I worked at 1 Liberty Plaza on 9/11 and did diasster recovery work that necessitated me going into the building a week or so later. You could clearly see that the towers fell over as well as down. Windows in about 20 floors of the western facade of 1 Liberty were gone... Piece of WTC 1 in DB building... YO can see parts of 2 on 7's footprint as well as the damage to 1 Liberty.
It fell straight down war, you can't deny that fact. So yes, it fell into it's own footprint, but sure there will be debris in the immediate area. What did you expect it to do, drill a whole for itself into the ground and fall into it?
Despite all the photo evidence that I just provided you to the contrary? Did the conspirators come in with a huge crain when noone was looking and put that piece of WTC 1 into the DB Building and take that huge assed scoop out of it as well?
You fool, do you see any buildings with the top section of the WTC impaled into them? The fact that debris was blown outwards is not the same as the tower falling over.
Wha...huh? I challenge you to post a pic of any controlled demolition wherein the debris field was as far outside of its paramerers as it was at WTC...hell...the collpase of WTC 2 demolished the atrium of the WFC across the street... When Pittsburgh had 3 Rivers Stadium brought down it stood yards from the new field which wasn't even scratched...
So what exactly are you trying to say here? Did it topple over or did it fall straight down into its own footprint?
It collapsed in the manner gravity and then momentum affected it...to all points...
So it fell because of gravity. Hmmm, well why didn't it fall as soon as they built it then? Those 100 or so of UNDAMAGED floors dissolved into thin air, where even butter would have offered more resistance. They must have been pretty weak huh. Good thing nobody ever jumped up and down or the whole thing would have gone down sooner, right?
Your questions are devolving further into stupidity. Engineering kept it standing...just as your legs do for you...take out your ligature around your knee and see if you don't topple over from being top heavy. IN the case of the WTC, floor trusses acted as ligature.
Do you see where I'm going with this? If the top of the tower tilted to its side then dropped straight down, the only explanation would be that the core was intact but bent and that the top of the tower slid down the core. So if the core was intact, where IS IT? It simply vanished, as if it wasn't even there. There are some videos which show a "spire" like core structure reaching up to mid level of the tower, then simply vaporizing 20 seconds or so afterwards. Hmmm. What do you make of that? Did you find any NIST data that speaks about that topic? And BTW, if the top of the tower slid down the core, how could it have fallen at virtual free fall speed where there would have been tremendous friction involved slowing down its descent? In addition to the time required to overcome the resistance to the steel core, what about the time required to smash the steel and concrete of each of the 100 floors below it? It did all that in about a second, subtracting the time it would have taken for it to fall through thin air. C'mon Mr. Wizard, give us some physics here.
Dude...you are so fucking babbling. top trying to ***think*** and start using REALITY.wtc floor construction This is what the floorstructure of the WTC looked like around the core: As you can seee, there were elevators within the core. Furthermore, the core was reliant on the exterior support beams to relieve it of being the lone horizontal load bearing mechanism. Once that exterior had been breached and then the internal bracing compromised, there was no other outcome available but destruction.
There was not a hurricane going on that day, so resistance to horizonal force is not a factor. It's the VERTICAL support that mattered. Regardless, the majority of the exterior support columns were intact.
Have you ever been in the Towers? If so then you know there is a natural sway to them...lateral forces were continually at work on them... Secondly, as has been pointed out to you numerous times, the external support mitigated the vertical load and since the external support was compromised the energy being put upon and expended by the core was substanially more than normal. Regardless, the majority of the exterior support columns were intact. Feel free to wax eloquently on the WTC designer's using redundant support columns on the exterior. Also, you want it both ways...you'll claim that it was controlled demolition that brought the towers down which is a process by which only some of the main supports are destroyed...but here you are claiming that because some of the support remained thatg it should not have collapsed. Can any of you Moonbats explain to me, that if the government did this, why did they allow 22K people to escape with their lives and why did they go to the trouble of haing planes flyu into the buildings? The WTC had been bombed before. Why not just bomb it again?
Yes, I have. I've also been on the Empire State Building, built in 1931. One could easily suppose without a degree in engineering, that, given the materials and abilities back in the late 1920's as compared to those of the early 1970's, were not only quite different, but there were conceivably lower standards to be met. Although the wind which blows against that tower is also quite severe and it has withstood the impact of a B-25 bomber...which also had fuel, commentary is nil regarding its current structural soundness. This tells me that it remains a safe building. It is apparent that, given the limitations of the 1920's, it was designed quite well. With a foggy day and the B-25 bomber in mind, the WTC was designed. I believe that, for a building, it is irrelevant whether fog is present or absent when it is directly hit by a plane. And it's a certainty that if a plane is in the air, it has fuel. You keep posting about the architects and designers anticipating flight impact and fog. Terrific! But do you mean to state also that, though these highly educated and intelligent architects and designers, who were anticipating and designing for the possibility of a jet aircraft collision with a tower near three of the busiest airports in the world (JFK, Newark, and La Guardia), who anticipated and designed for the possibility of the impact of SEVERAL 707's due to fog.........but were unable to conceive that the plane(s) would have fuel, possibly having just taken off from JFK, Newark, and/or La Guardia? Come on....let's give some credit to the designers instead of .gov's fairy tales!
They couldn't have accounted for the Magickal Jet Fuel™ because no one knew anything about that when they designed and built the towers. >(;^{]
LOLOL! Yeah...I keep forgetting that one. : )
Considering how many times that he's reminded you, I'd get that checked...
I think I have a better recommendation: Re-examine your blind trust in a .gov that has shown itself to be duplicitous and unconcerned about the people of this country.
This is where you lose any sense of the rational. I have taken each and every bit of your theories and conclusions and researched them. It isn't as if this is the first time I've seen this stuff. I have close to 100 bookmarks on my work computr alone and in those bookmarks are links to pages that could be bookmarked. You folks have a lot of problems, not the least of which are pathological, but even putting them aside, your conclisions are not supported by facts. All of you have posted quesitons to me which I have answered and sourced. Not one of you have responded to any of the questions that I have posed to you. How could you be so certain of your conclusions when you are so unopen to questions about them? You're as bad as the God freaks demanding that I have FAITH in that which I cannot see. But worse...I know that no man can show me God while YOU most certainly CAN show why you believe as you do. The problem is you don't which leads me to one conclusion and it's that you cannot...there is not one quesiton that you raise about that day that either cannot be answered or doesn't have a faulty premise at its root. Some of you have posted some of the most absurd claims, e.g., the plane did not explode INSIDE the WTC...the outside was relatively undamaged...no manifest with Arab names was ever published [when one was] and the coup de gras, the WTC Towers were built to withsatnd an explosion but it was an explosion that brought them down... Why not trying to answer the easiest question of all. Why use the planes? Why only kill 3K? Why use Afghanistan as a means of getting Itaq when Iraq was already a convenient target?
You are mistaken. Your are absolutely able to have as much faith in God as you do what you believe and hold on to be true about .gov having absolutely not participated or enable, either through commission or omission, in the events leading up to, occurring, and subsequent to, 9/11. For nearly each and every one of your defenses, there are things that don't add up. There are coincidences too great in number to be dismissed. To believe the government story, without question, requires the type of suspension of disbelief that is required when reading fiction. Furthermore, beyond the suspension of disbelief with which you cling, you assign a characterization to these men in office, elected or otherwise, that is akin to that which a parishoner would hold for their minister, yet these men are found, time and again, to be nothing but power hungry greedy sob's, who have evidenced a callous disregard to the people of this country and the rule of law. They are empty shirts, liars, deceivers, swindlers, and con man, who seek nothing other than enriching themselves off the taxpayers backs, though they were elected to office to serve the people. It is these kinds of people whom you trust and believe when they issue statements, have secret meetings, hold shoddy hearings, which are nothing but dog and pony shows, over and over again. That takes some faith on your part!
Yet, oddly, you have been unable to point these out and offer any kind of TANGBIBLE evidence to the contrary...in other words, you're relying on your SAY SO.
Nope; I'm relying upon those who don't have a vested interest in covering up for .gov fiction...and have come to contrary conclusions, based upon the same "evidence".......which YOU disbelieve and which YOU dismiss.
You haven't PRESENTED any evidence. You CLAIM that all was brought down by controlled demolitions. Given how the Towers collapsed, at the least YOU have to be able to show exactly WHERE those charges were set. Not to mention WHEN they were set and not to mention who, what, and from where those charges were activated. Starkly missing from this thread is EXACTLY how this "plot" was executed.
No, I have not. I have stated nothing of the kind. I go along with the real possibility that CHARGES were set, however, with the intent to bring the towers down........not that it, alone, brought it down. I believe other factors were likely present that enabled that. Given how the Towers collapsed, at the least YOU have to be able to show exactly WHERE those charges were set. Not to mention WHEN they were set and not to mention who, what, and from where those charges were activated. Prior to a prosecutor presenting evidence before a court of law, they first begin by analyzing and reviewing facts, data, and the evidence before them which leads them to certain conclusions. The types of evidence they have is either direct and/or circumstantial. Circumstantial evidence is direct evidence of a fact from which a person may reasonably infer the existence or non- existence of another fact. A person's guilt of a charged crime may be proven by circumstantial evidence, if that evidence, while not directly establishing guilt, gives rise to an inference of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The law draws no distinction between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence in terms of weight or importance. Either type of evidence may be enough to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, depending on the facts of the case as the jury finds them to be. I firmly believe in allowing others' good work and statements speak for myself, rather than reinventing the wheel. Therefore, the following, in part, adequately addresses and sums up only part of the problems with .gov's "investigations" and conclusions on this matter: 7. The FEMA investigation of the building collapses drew no meaningful conclusions. The subsequent investigation by NIST began with an open call for video and photographic evidence, because the relevant physical evidence (e.g., steel beams from the collapse zones) had already been scrapped. 8. Extensive and crucial sections of the Kean Commission's findings and consequent conclusions are based on uncorroborated interrogation reports channeled from captive government suspects. Examples include Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Ramzi Binalshibh, and Abu Zubaydah, who were never made available for questioning by the commissioners, staff, or any Kean Commission representative. a. Citizens lack subpoena enforcement power. b. The Administration generally is not honoring Freedom of Information Act requests. For example, the Justice Department chose to go to court rather than honor Sibel Edmonds' lawful, successful FOIA request. c. The Justice Department and FBI contend that key evidence sought by plaintiffs is either covered by the National Security Act and constitutes a related body of state secrets or must remain confidential due to ongoing cases and investigations.22 In the case of Sibel Edmonds, they have engaged in highly unusual after-the-fact classification of public testimony. d. Critical evidence has been destroyed.23 Recordings of Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") controllers' accounts of September 11 events taped immediately after the attacks were later meticulously cut to shreds and thrown away, despite orders to save them for investigative reference (New York Times, 5/6/04). CIA and Congressional staff complained that the National Security Agency was needlessly destroying evidence related to US companies and citizens that could "perhaps redirect" the investigation (Boston Globe, 10/27/01). The editor of the nation's oldest firefighting magazine, Bill Manning, objected to the accelerated scrapping of World Trade Center rubble before investigators could determine the actual mechanics of the building collapse (Fire Engineering, 1/02) and in an angry editorial, called the government's investigation "a half-baked farce." At the end of October, 2004, a firefighter with the New York Fire Department as well as a Ground Zero recovery worker came forward to claim that the three of the four "black boxes" from the aircraft at Ground Zero were found during the clean-up work (Philadelphia Daily News, 10/28/04), contrary to the government's longstanding assertion that no trace of these devices was ever discovered, which assertion was reiterated in The 9/11 Commission Report (Ch. 1, fn. 76, p. 468). A full investigation would pursue this claim and locate this vital evidence of the attacks, if it still exists. e. Many of the aforementioned acts, coupled with the rapid confiscation and top-secret classification of other important evidence, suggest at best a blatant contempt for the normal prerequisites to a truthful and confidence-inspiring inquiry and at worst obstruction of justice. Such behavior inevitably undermines trust in government in related matters, such as the veracity of uncorroborated "confessions" from alleged 9/11 conspirators held at undisclosed locations for well over a year in some cases without formal charges being brought against them for the 9/11 murders. [i.e., Ramzi Binalshibh, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah.] f. Whistleblowers and elected officials who have called attention to these matters have been ignored, ridiculed, fired, threatened, subjected to gag orders, and harassed.24 We draw your attention in particular to the cases of Sibel Edmonds, Behrouz Sarshar, Robert Wright, Indira Singh, US Air Force Col. Steve Butler, and Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA). Such examples coincide with legal changes under the USA PATRIOT Act and other statutes and regulations, excessive classification orders, and constant invocation of a state of threat in the homeland. These factors have a powerful silencing effect on others who would come forward. g. Officials and military officers associated with the "failures" of investigation and defense response have not been held accountable; on the contrary, several of them have been confirmed in elevated positions, given awards or promoted following September 11. We draw your attention in particular to the cases of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard Myers, Gen. Ralph Eberhart (Commander of NORAD on 9/11/01), Brig. Gen. Montague Winfield (director of the National Military Command Center), FBI officials David Frasca, Marion Bowman, Michael Maltbie and an unnamed FBI official alleged to have tolerated penetration by foreign agents at the Bureau's translations department (CBS News, 8/8/04). h. In the Swiss Re suit against Larry Silverstein, the owner of World Trade Center Building 7 and of a 99-year lease on the entire World Trade Center complex, the insurance company's motions for access to foreign conspirators' statements (obtained by the Kean Commission) were denied. i. Members of the major media clearly have been afraid and/or loath to examine the contradictions and anomalies implicit in the Administration's official 9/11 story.25 Sensational, simplistic and relentless coverage of the attacks and ensuing wars based on the official narrative also proved so profitable for media news divisions that we may never see any serious skeptical investigation into its truth or legitimacy. Members of the mainstream press, by and large, have failed to note ample evidence of cover-ups relating to September 11, question official accounts like The 9/11 Commission Report despite its obvious omissions, distortions, and inconsistencies, pursue the unanswered questions and bodies of evidence cited in Part II of this Complaint and Petition, or even report on the stunning findings of the 9/11 Zogby Poll. j. Congress also has abdicated its responsibility to provide full oversight, conduct exhaustive investigations, provide a credible accounting or even hold in-depth hearings into the most important lines of inquiry put forward by the 9/11 Family Steering Committee. Congress has failed to examine the Kean Commision's questionable "findings of fact and circumstances" on which were based some of the most far-reaching reform recommendations ever proposed in US legislation. Nor has it pursued demands made by Minnesota Senator Mark Dayton for an investigation into NORAD's representations regarding air defense issues. k. The CIA has yet to release an internal report, based upon two years of work, on the September 11 events, which apparently attributes individual accountability for particular failures. The document was withheld until after the November 2, 2004 election and is still being withheld today, amid reports that the new CIA director, Porter Goss, wishes to remove sections "drawing conclusions about whether individual CIA officers should be held accountable for any failures" before releasing the report to the public (New York Times, 11/2/04). This is further indication that possible negligence or complicity on the part of individual officials is being hidden from public and Congressional scrutiny. l. The Justice Department also continues, months after its completion, to suppress "one last chapter" of the The 9/11 Commission Report, which reportedly deals with the "broadly inaccurate accounts provided by several civil and military officials about efforts to track and chase the hijacked aircraft on Sept. 11." (New York Times, 10/30/04). This action, if it occurred, provides further documentation of the US government's overall pattern of suppressing evidence pointing to individual accountability. An independent criminal investigation or impartial grand jury is therefore the only discernible source of redress remaining to the People. source [same as cited above]
excellent post
Only if his intent was to use up bandwidth.
There are no replies to Comment # 515. End Trace Mode for Comment # 515.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latestany debunkers?
#4. To: Original_Intent (#3)
#6. To: Artisan (#4)
#7. To: Itistoolate (#6)
I'm confused
#8. To: war (#7)
Only if you believe this shit
#11. To: Itistoolate (#8)
#14. To: war (#11)
#17. To: Original_Intent (#14)
Thank you for proving my prediction correct.
#59. To: war (#17)
#68. To: FormerLurker (#59)
Why did it all of a sudden drop like a rock straight down through the steel and concrete rather than simply topple over as it appears ready to do in the following picture?
#77. To: litus (#68)
#79. To: war (#77)
#93. To: litus (#79)
Yes. That's mightily impressive, a fire like that which can bring down a building onto its own feet.
#98. To: war (#93)
YO can see parts of 2 on 7's footprint as well as the damage to 1 Liberty.
#101. To: FormerLurker (#98)
It fell straight down war,
#115. To: war (#101)
Despite all the photo evidence that I just provided you to the contrary?
#119. To: FormerLurker (#115)
The fact that debris was blown outwards is not the same as the tower falling over.
#122. To: war (#119)
(Edited)
#124. To: FormerLurker (#122)
So what exactly are you trying to say here? Did it topple over or did it fall straight down into its own footprint?
#126. To: war (#124)
(Edited)
It collapsed in the manner gravity and then momentum affected it...to all points...
#129. To: FormerLurker (#126)
Hmmm, well why didn't it fall as soon as they built it then?
#250. To: war (#129)
(Edited)
#290. To: FormerLurker (#250)
Do you see where I'm going with this? If the top of the tower tilted to its side then dropped straight down, the only explanation would be that the core was intact but bent and that the top of the tower slid down the core. So if the core was intact, where IS IT? It simply vanished, as if it wasn't even there.
#358. To: war (#290)
As you can seee, there were elevators within the core. Furthermore, the core was reliant on the exterior support beams to relieve it of being the lone horizontal load bearing mechanism.
#389. To: FormerLurker, TwentyTwelve, litus, randge, scrapper2, James Deffenbach (#358)
There was not a hurricane going on that day, so resistance to horizonal force is not a factor.
#424. To: war, FormerLurker, TwentyTwelve, randge, scrapper2, James Deffenbach (#389)
Have you ever been in the Towers? If so then you know there is a natural sway to them...lateral forces were continually at work on them...
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.
The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.
The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.
The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.
The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s,
The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.
The Boeing 707 and 767 are very similar aircraft, with the main differences
being that the 767 is slightly heavier and the 707 is faster.
Since the Boeing 707 had a higher thrust to weight ratio, it would be traveling
faster on take-off and on landing.
The thrust to weight ratio for a Boeing 707 is 4 x 18,000/336,000 = 0.214286.
The thrust to weight ratio for a Boeing 767 is 2 x 31,500/395,000 = 0.159494.
In all the likely variations of an accidental impact with the WTC, the Boeing
707 would be traveling faster. In terms of impact damage, this higher speed
would more than compensate for the slightly lower weight of the Boeing 707.
* source
#435. To: litus (#424)
(Edited)
But do you mean to state also that, though these highly educated and intelligent architects and designers, who were anticipating and designing for the possibility of a jet aircraft collision with a tower near three of the busiest airports in the world (JFK, Newark, and La Guardia), who anticipated and designed for the possibility of the impact of SEVERAL 707's due to fog.........but were unable to conceive that the plane(s) would have fuel, possibly having just taken off from JFK, Newark, and/or La Guardia? Come on....let's give some credit to the designers instead of .gov's fairy tales!
#438. To: James Deffenbach (#435)
They couldn't have accounted for the Magickal Jet Fuel™ because no one knew anything about that when they designed and built the towers. >(;^{]
#439. To: litus (#438)
Yeah...I keep forgetting that one. : )
#441. To: war (#439)
#444. To: litus, TwentyTwelve, RickyJ, Former Lurker (#441)
Re-examine your blind trust in a .gov that has shown itself to be duplicitous and unconcerned about the people of this country.
#479. To: war (#444)
I know that no man can show me God while YOU most certainly CAN show why you believe as you do. The problem is you don't which leads me to one conclusion and it's that you cannot...there is not one quesiton that you raise about that day that either cannot be answered or doesn't have a faulty premise at its root.
#488. To: litus (#479)
For nearly each and every one of your defenses, there are things that don't add up. There are coincidences too great in number to be dismissed.
#492. To: war (#488)
you're relying on your SAY SO.
#496. To: litus (#492)
#503. To: war (#496)
You CLAIM that all was brought down by controlled demolitions.
"Direct evidence is evidence of a fact based on a witness's personal knowledge or observation of that fact. A person's guilt of a charged crime may be proven by direct evidence if, standing alone, that evidence satisfies a jury beyond a reasonable doubt of the person's guilt of that crime.
In the instant case, there appears to be both direct and circumstantial evidence that can easily refute the claims put forth by .gov. Also in the instant case, it is .gov that is and has been withholding information and/or obstructing the flow of information, to those outside the government. Therefore, the scenario is akin to the fox watching the henhouse. This does not lead to believing statements and proclamations made by the fox. There has been no independent investigations. 6. All formal investigations have started with the premise that the "official story" presents an accurate, objective outline of relevant events on and preceding 9/11. This is assumed to be the case despite the rapid accumulation of evidence that the official accounts (some of which contradict each other) cannot possibly explain the events as they transpired. The effect of this unwarranted presumption has been to exclude critical lines of inquiry and bodies of evidence from the outset.
The following is a good summary of the difficulties, governmental obstruction, and/or problems which have caused citizens the inability to better investigate, and thereby, be able to hold government to account for its malfeasance, suppression of information, or answering any kind of interrogatories:Tools available to citizens have not worked or are not sufficient to the requirements of getting at key facts in this complex case:
If .gov has nothing to hide, and if their story isn't fantastical fiction, there should have been criminal investigations, people should be in jail, information more forthcoming, independent investigations should have been welcomed, and the evidence it presented in the dog and pony show 9/11 Commission, more compelling. However, it is not; .gov has failed. The result: at least 1/3 of all Americans disbelieve its conclusions and statements, despite the fact that the media has excelled at supporting the .gov propaganda.
#510. To: litus (#503)
#515. To: IndieTX (#510)
excellent post
Replies to Comment # 515.
