Indisputable 911 coverup facts

[BigCedar]

Edx,

The information you provided about NORAD flight interception deals only with planes that came on radar entering American airspace form other countries, not flights of internal origin.

Is the statement that NORAD only intercepted one plane over North America in the decade previous to 9/11 wrong because it leaves out the phrase of internal origin? Sure, technically.

The argument being made about the difficulty NORAD had in dealing with a flight that took off in the U.S. still stands.

Excerpts of General Eberhart's 17 JUNE 2004 statement (PDF) to the 9-11 Commission Hearings:

Prior to the attacks on our Nation two and one half years ago, our air defense posture was aligned to "look outward" to counter external threats to North America. We considered flights taking off within the U.S. and Canada as "friendly by origin." Our aerospace warning and control missions were oriented and resourced to detect and identify all air traffic entering North American airspace. We were prepared to intercept potentially threatening inbound aircraft as necessary.

During the height of the Cold War, NORAD had over 50 fighters on alert ready to fly air defense missions. As the perceived external threat diminished after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the number of aircraft to support this mission was reduced. On 9/11, NORAD had 14 fighters on alert at seven sites in the continental United States.

Six minutes prior to the first attack on the World Trade Center, the FAA informed NORAD of the potential hijack of American Airlines Flight 11. As events unfolded throughout the morning, NORAD responded immediately with fighters and appropriate airspace control measures. Unfortunately, due to the constraints of time and distance, we were unable to influence the tragic circumstances.

from:http://flackrum.blogspot.com/​

 

[oldbetang]

No its not speculative, many people have come out saying they hyped it

Then, those people were just speculating as well.

even the US Senate report says the intelligence of the NIE was both overstated and unsupported.

Yes, the Intelligence Community screwed up. However, the intelligence was what it was, and the Administration can’t be faulted for the failures of the Intelligence community.

Even George Tenet and Hans Blix both people you used to suport your contention that the US was justified going to war and that the intelligence was valid both turned out to say the opposite to what you presented them as.

What was it that Tenet said again? I don’t seem to recall him saying anything that specifically countered the justification to go to war. He claims now that the “Slam Dunk” remark was taken out of context, but what exactly does he mean by that? How was it taken out of context? What did he mean by “Slam Dunk”? Did he not believe that Iraq had WMDs?

Blix Believed Pre-War WMD Assessment "Understated" Threat
​

The Scotsman reports today that UN weapons inspector Hans Blix told British officials that the dossier compiled by Anglo-American intelligence services actually understated Saddam's capacity to produce chemical and biological weapons (hat tip: Secure Liberty):​

Former UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix believed the Government?s controversial Iraq weapons dossier actually understated the case against Saddam Hussein, according to documents released today by the Foreign Office. ​

The papers released by the FO show that British officials at the United Nations in New York showed a draft of the dossier to Dr Blix in September 2002, two weeks before the final version was published.​

A note from one official, Adam Bye, said that Dr Blix had liked the section on chemical, biological and nuclear weapons as he believed that it did not exaggerate the facts.​

According to the note, Dr Blix said that the dossier even risked understating Iraq?s ability to produce weapons of mass destruction ? particularly the lethal anthrax virus.​

He also described the claim that even if Iraq was able to acquire fissile material from abroad, it would still take at least two years to build a working nuclear bomb as ?modest?.​

As The Scotsman notes, this puts quite a different light on post-war assumptions about intelligence and American efforts to determine the extent of the threat Saddam posed. Blix has not hesitated since the war to proclaim that the invasion was precipitous and unnecessary, blaming the Anglo-American alliance for rushing the inspectors out of Iraq before they could discover this. However, if Blix told the British that the dossier was accurate, then the only question in 2002 was whether Saddam would cooperate with inspectors to find and destroy the remaining his remaining WMD and production capabilities.​

Blix himself reported back to the UNSC that Saddam was not cooperating -- which made the inspections pointless. Inspections can only confirm compliance; they cannot reliably determine locations and stocks of weaponry, at least not on the scale used by the UN in a country the size of Iraq. Besides, the 17 UNSC resolutions placed the burden of proof on Iraq as a consequence of their rape of Kuwait and their continued intransigence. Saddam had to prove he'd completely disarmed. Failing that, he abrogated the terms of the Safwan cease-fire and technically initiated hostilities with the UN once again.​

It doesnt matter if HE believed it, it doesnt give him the right to use his position to go on National TV and tell people his "beliefs" as if they were had more solid evidence that it actually did. He abused his position.

He didn’t have the right to tell people his beliefs? Surely you jest?

Just copy and paste them into google, its not that difficult. In fact it supports my argument even more in context. The bolded the parts are the quotes I used in my previous post.

"Both of them need to be dealt with. The war on terror, you can't distinguish between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror. And so it's a comparison that is -- I can't make because I can't distinguish between the two, because they're both equally as bad, and equally as evil, and equally as destructive."
G.W. Bush

" We know that Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network share a common enemy -- the United States of America. We know that Iraq and al Qaeda have had high-level contacts that go back a decade. Some al Qaeda leaders who fled Afghanistan went to Iraq. These include one very senior al Qaeda leader who received medical treatment in Baghdad this year, and who has been associated with planning for chemical and biological attacks. We have learned that Iraq has trained al Qaeda members in bomb-making and poisons and deadly gases. And we know that after September the 11th, Saddam Hussein's regime gleefully celebrated the terrorist attacks on America. "
G.W. Bush

Sorry, but I’m not doing your work for you. You obviously got them from somewhere, so why not just provide the links? I will, however, comment on the first one. It is ,at worst, an exaggeration on Bush’s part. He wasn’t saying that Al Qaeda and Saddam were one and the same. He was saying that they, as terrorists and terrorist supporters, were both to be confronted in the War on Terror. Post 9/11, Saddam was viewed as a very serious threat, in light of the fact that he was believed to have WMDs , together with the fact that he was a known supporter of terrorists.(Palestinian suicide bombers)

Point is you dont know, neither does anyone else. My issue is that no one has been held accountable for any incompetence and deception that has gone on since 911.

How do you know that no one has been held accountable?

Thats not what falsified means. The word confirmed or validated is the opposite to falsified. Was the intelligence confirmed or validated? No. I can find all these sources that say it was wrong, false, unreasonable and unsupported and even your own favourite source the US senate report says the NIE was unsupported and overstated. You yourself have said over and over that the intelligence was wrong. Intelligence cant be wrong, false, unreasonable and unsupported and still be unfalsified.

You’re wrong Ed! To say that the intelligence has been falsified is to imply that people within the Intelligence Community knowingly and willfully altered intelligence data or published information that they knew to be false. Please show me where in the Senate Report that that allegation was made or conclusion was drawn.

Intent doesnt have anything to do with something being falsified.

fal·si·fyplay_w("F0025400") (fôls-f)
v. fal·si·fied, fal·si·fy·ing, fal·si·fies
v.tr.
1. To state untruthfully; misrepresent.
2. a. To make false by altering or adding to: falsify testimony.
b. To counterfeit; forge: falsify a visa.
3. To declare or prove to be false.
v.intr.
To make untrue statements; lie.

It seems that you misunderstood what I meant when I said that the intelligence on WMDs hadn’t been falsified. I trust that you see it now.

 

[oldbetang]

Edx,

Already given you some that said the intelligence was wrong and unspported, but I'll go through several more here. I'll also give some relevant people that have come out and said the intelligence was not valid.

First, you have George Tenet and Hans Blix. Ive already recently discussed them so I wont cover old ground except to give more new quotes from Blix:

"I think it's clear that in March when the invasion took place the evidence that had been brought forward was rapidly falling apart. And we had called attention to a number of the points. One was that there was a tendency on the U.S. administration to say that anything that was unaccounted for existed, whether it was sarin, or mustard gas or anthrax. Another one related to the case that Colin Powell presented to the Security Council about a site in which they held that there had been chemical weapons and that they had seen decontamination trucks. Our inspectors had been there and they had taken a lot of samples, and there was no trace of any chemicals or biological things. And the trucks that we had seen were water trucks. ... I called attention to the fact that the evidence was shaky. We had - I told that to Condoleezza Rice, as well, so I think they were aware of it, but I think they chose to ignore us. ... It meant they could either exist or not exist. So we could not affirm that they weren't there, but we - at least we didn't fall into the trap that the U.S. and the U.K. did in asserting that they existed."
-Hans Blix - U.N.'s former Chief Weapons Inspector in an Interview with CNN

"I was thinking that he was not really seeing what I see on the ground. I haven't seen anything on the ground at that time that support Mr. Cheney's conclusion or statement" - [commenting on Cheneys statement that the Bush administration believed Saddam had reconstituted Nucular weapons and that Elbaradei was wrong]. With regard to the nuclear file, we were pretty convinced that we haven't seen really any evidence that Iraq resumed its nuclear weapon program, because we knew we dismantled that program in 1997, and our focus was to see whether anything has been resuscitated between '98 and 2002. We didn't see that.
- Mohamed Elbaradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency which monitors the world's nuclear weapons, in an Interview with CNN.

"It was an agonised experience because I knew that the evidence they were presenting for WMD was totally implausible. I'd read the intelligence on WMD for four and a half years, and there's no way that it could sustain the case that the government was presenting. All of my colleagues knew that, too. We all believed the Iraqis had something, but that is very different from saying they had that much. The intelligence indicated that they'd failed to account for what they had in the past. They hadn't given us a complete account of the disposal of their past stocks, so we thought there was something, but there was no way that the claim of an imminent threat was sustainable. The 45-minute stuff was ridiculous"
Carne Ross - Foreign Office diplomat responsible for liaising with UN inspectors - (in an interview with The Guardian)

" Today we know these assessments were wrong. And, as our inquiry will show, they were also unreasonable and largely unsupported by the available evidence."
- The Republican chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kansas) commenting on the 511-page report.

" ...These issues, in my opinion, warrant further inquiry, before we use the information as the backbone of one of our major findings of the existence of a continuing Iraqi BW program!"
- Part of an unnamed CIA "detailee" in an email to the Deputy Chief of the CIA's Iraqi Task Force on February 4, 2003, one day before Secretary Powell delivered his speech, to express his concerns about the use of the four HUMINT sources cited in the speech after reading a draft copy. It was ignored and even said they were already were aware of his concerns that the source for the intelligence was a "fabricator". Powell allegedly was not made aware of this, but someone decided to ignore it. - U.S Intelligence Communitys PreWar Intelligence Assessments.

"Most of the major key judgments in the Oct. 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), Iraq's Continuing Programs for WMD, either overstated, or were not supported by, the underlying intelligence reporting"
- Senate Intelligence Comittee Report

“ Tony was far too clever to allege that there was a real link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda. But he deliberately crafted a suggestive phrasing which in the minds of many viewers must have created an impression, and was designed to create the impression, that British troops were going to Iraq to fight a threat from Al-Qaeda.”
- Robin Cook former British Foreign Secretary 1997 - 2003 - Within diaries published in The Sunday Times.

" The absolute cynical manipulation, deliberately cynical manipulation, to shape American public opinion and 69 percent of the people, at that time, it worked, they said 'we want to go to war" "Including me. The difference is after I began to learn about some of that intelligence I went down to the Senate floor and I said 'my vote was wrong.'"
Sen. John Rockefeller of West Virginia, The lead Democrat on the Intelligence Commitee, who voted for the Iraq War talking to CBS News correspondent Sharyl Attikisson.

" Completely unrealistic assumptions about a post-Saddam Iraq permeate these war plans. First, they assumed that a provisional government would be in place by 'D-Day', then that the Iraqis would stay in their garrisons and be reliable partners, and finally that the post-hostilities phase would be a matter of mere 'months'. All of these were delusions"
- Thomas Blanton, National Security Archive Executive Director commenting on U.S. Central Command's war plan for invading Iraq.

"There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.. ... It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."
- Downing Street Memo

I’m sorry. I hate to be a stickler here, but you stated that many whistleblowers have come forward. Of all those people listed above, only one could be considered a whistleblower, Carne Ross, and even his statement isn’t particularly incriminating. Oops…Robin Cook would be one as well, except his statement isn’t incriminating either.

 

[oldbetang]

Then watch the interview before you try and tell me Im wrong.

I watched the video. I surely did. I heard him say that the “Slam Dunk” remark was taken out of context, but he didn’t explain how. He didn’t explain what he meant by the remark. If there is something else in the video of value that I missed then please post it, because I really have no idea of what it could be.

Blix said they didnt find any and it wasnt confirmed. But my point is Bush didnt ask them to make sure it was confirmed, he just went on TV and said it. They either have the WMDs and the mobiles laboratories, or they dont. It shoudnt take too long to confirm, but as usual Bush didnt hesitate to rush to state this uncomfirmed intelligence as if were.

Again, you are referring to the find in May 2003 that was mistakenly believed to be Mobile biological laboratories. What’s the big deal about him passing along non-classified information that he had just received from the CIA ? What was the harm in it?

You suggested maybe they had been fired or reprimanded, presumably without anyone being made aware about it, so I asked you what makes you think that. Is it just pure speculation? What dont you understand about the question?

I thought that it was obvious that I was speculating.

[emphasis above, mine] Wow. Just look at what you just wrote. I thought they had a duty to make sure they were truthfull and accurate as far as they can be, but according to you they can say whatever they believe to be true, no matter how unconfirmed the intelligence is, and present it to the public as if it was a confirmed certianity for the purpose of selling them on an invasion of Iraq?

They were being truthful and accurate as far as they could be, using what they had at their disposal; the 2002 NIE. Knowing what the Intelligence community had told them , they then had to sell it to the public. They had to explain why it was necessary to take the Saddam regime out. There was nothing nefarious in that.

The public assume, or expect their governmen who has access to classified intelligence, to be honest.

Right, and there’s no proof that they weren’t being honest. The intelligence said that Iraq had WMDs and WMD programs. George tenet signed off on that intelligence. In fact he said it was a “slam dunk”.

No, the fact is if they didnt claim they didnt say what we have them on record as saying, they would have to defend the reasons why they said it at the time, thats just a fact.

As I said, you’re just speculating.

First of all this is about her claiming that no one could have imagined using airplanes as a weapons.

"If Condi Rice had been doing her job and holding those daily meetings the way Sandy Berger did, if she had a hands-on attitude to being national security adviser when she had information that there was a threat against the United States ... [the information] would have been shaken out in the summer of 2001,"
- Richard Clarke, President Bush's former counterterrorism chief on Larry King

If Richard Clarke had been doing his job, Al Qaeda’s founder and leader would have been dead three years before Sept 11, 2001. So says the former head of the CIA’s Bin Laden Unit anyway.

Secondly, you fail to quote from the relevant part of her testimony. this is backpedelling:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N62ZRjhIGX8
(and before someone discards the entire clip above because of the Ashcroft warning, yes I am aware that apparently that warning was about something else. )

The video doesn’t back up your assertion, so what was the purpose in posting it? It was a slick piece of video hucksterism. “A particular urgent warning may have been received causing some top pentagon brass to cancel their scheduled flights the morning of 9/11. Why that same information was not available to the 266 people who died aboard the four hijacked aircraft may become a hot topic on the Hill - Newsweek.” Wouldn’t it have been appropriate for Newsweek to have included “if true” in their question? We’re not told by the video if that allegation was ever substantiated or not. Was it? If not, why was it included in the video?

I already told you they had lots of intelligence from many different sources about planes being used as weapons.

There was no specific threat referred to by intelligence. Just a vague “unrealistic” possibility.

They had the August 6th PDB who not only said Bin Laden was gunning for Washington and in New York

That’s a falsehood. The August 6 PDB doesn’t say that Bin Laden was gunning for Washington or New York. Are you intentionally trying to mislead here? Bin Laden had been determined to strike in the US long before 2001. So ,in that regard, the August 6 PDB was nothing new.

and that there had been suspicious activity consistent with preperations for hijackings,

We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reporting, such as that from a xxxxxxxxxx service in 1998 saying that Bin Ladin wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain the release of "Blind Shaykh" 'Umar 'Abd al-Rahman and other US-held extremists.​

Nevertheless, FBI information since that time indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.​

Since 1998?? This is supposed to represent an imminent threat? With preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks? So, which was it , hijackings or other types of attacks? Sounds rather vague, don’t you think?

but two years before 911 NORAD conducted exercises simulating hijacked airliners used as weapons.

As per NORAD’s responsibility, the planes in the simulation had originated from outside the country. Also, the White House was not aware of those NORAD exercises.

They even had a third scenario where one of the targets was the Pentagon, but was not run due to it being deemed "unrealistic".

Unrealistic?? Unimaginable?? Hmmmm!

It also appears Norad was running drills on 911 involving hijacked airliners. But according to you the Bush administrations statements are still true, no one not even in the prior government even imagined flying airplanes into buildings.

Were flying airplanes into buildings a part of the 9/11 drill? No. So, why bring it up?

They knew Bin Laden was determined to attack the US,

Since 1998.

they knew a specific place he wanted to attack,

There was nothing specific. Nothing more than that some federal buildings in New York may have been under surveillance.

they knew what forms the attack might take and they knew the attack was imminent.

Since 1998?

So the intelligence that the Bush administration jumped upon without questioning it or confirming it before they gushed it all over the international media regarding WMDs as if it were a sure certianty, the intelligence you're still defending even after its been shown to be unsupported and unreasonable,

I’m not defending the Intelligence. I’ve made that clear to you already. The Intelligence Community got it wrong. However, that wasn’t known by the Administration or the Intelligence community itself at the time of the 2002 NIE.

you're saying they were justified in ignoreing all these reports about Bin Laden launching an imminent massive attack

There was no report about an imminent massive attack.

that Bin Laden wanted to attack in Washington

Where do you get that from?

and that they have evidence of plans to use hijackings

There was no evidence of plans to use hijackings. There was an uncorroborated threat report from 1998. That’s all.

and were presently surveilling federal buildings in New York.

That’s false as well.

And why was the NORAD responce such a failure?

Because NORAD was not set up to respond to internal attacks. Its responsibility is to guard against outside air attacks.

No, all you did was palm me off to some website copy and pasting a link for me and ignore my responce to it. If you dont understand the Downing Street Memo enough for yourself then you should read it and research it a little better so you can talk about it in in your own words.

Your response to the well written ,and very cogent article, was to simply brush it off. I understand the memo very well, thank you very much. Unlike you, apparently . You guys are reading into it what you want to be there, Unfortunately for you, what you want isn't really there.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Once again and unsupportable assertion.

Yes it does

Case in point, Phillip Zelikow, executive director of the Commission who was in charge of the lines of inquiry that would be explored. One only needs to briefly look at Zelikow's history to conclude that this man does not qualify to be even a candidate for an independent investigation, yet alone leading its lines of inquiry!
As Professor Griffin highlights

"That this description is no exaggeration can be seen by reviewing some of Zelikow's history. He had worked with Condoleezza Rice on the National Security Council (NSC) in the administration of the first President Bush. When the Republicans were out of office during the Clinton administration, Zelikow and Rice wrote a book together. Then when Rice was named national security advisor for the second President Bush, she had Zelikow help make the transition to the new NSC." Zelikow was also one of the primary authors of NSS 2002- a document which articulated the doctrine of preemptive warfare. He was handed this task by none-other than Rice who ordered the entire document to be rewritten- a task that she then gave to her buddy Zelikow.

How does that prove he was not independent? How can you prove he was involved in a conspiracy? You have no evidence of that. Next question


The 09/11 Commission concluded that the government was indirectly responsible for the attacks by being asleep at the wheel for decade


Prove how his actions differed from anyone else's. You can prove bias by identity. Need to prove that his actions differed from those of an otherwise "independent" investigation.

Who was this commissioner and need a citation.

Once again, no evidence of an unbiased investigation. He was calling the shots because THAT WAS HIS JOB AS EXCUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COMMISSION. If he was not calling the shots, he wouldn't have been doing his job.

This has been disproven as a canard a long time ago. By the time the commission was formed and it's report issued, the FBI, CIA, and Justice. determined it was an Al Qaeda attack. It would have been POINTLESS to look at other theories. LOL The Bush Administration were suspects? Maybe in the eyes of the kooks. Who else should the commission looked at? Buddhist monks? Mexicans? The Pope? Maybe it was those suicidal French Canadians. You would have the commission investigate people/persons who didnt need investigated?


Once again Griffin has no idea what he is talking about. It was not the Bush administration's version. The Bush administration relied on CIA, FBI, Justice, Unless you can prove cover-ups at those agencies your assertions have no merit whatsoever.


It is unquestionable to anyone that is reasonable. Do you know of any suicidal CIA agents? Are you saying CIA agents hijacked the planes and killed themselves?


ZZZZ


This was already explained and refuted.

There were no distortions in the report. They were using illustrative language that is comprehendable to the layment and not experts.

This was also refuted as well earlier in the thread

James, under examination, in that entire long and utterly pointless statement, you have neither explained nor refuted ANYTHING. Your only inkling of an explanation is that they were "using illustrative language," and that Zelikow was probably not biased despite his idealogical and personal connections to the Bush administration. And once again, you would have me trust your untrustworthy CIA and FBI for intelligence disinformation that proved bin Laden responsible. Sorry James, you have posed no convincing argument here, nor any substantial explanation and certainly no refutation.

 

[jamesrwright3]

Yes it does

Um no, no it doesn't

James, under examination, in that entire long and utterly pointless statement,

LOL pointless? It destoyed your assertions. You can't prove bias or anything of that sort. You didn't address anything in my post. All you can do is copy and paste stuff from David Griffith. Are you his parrot?

probably not biased despite his idealogical and personal connections to the Bush administration

Once again showing your lack of logic and facts. It is up to you to show he was biased, connections don't count.You can't show any..

You also didn't ask what other suspects they should have considered considering the fact the CIA, FBI, Justice concluded it was Al Qaeda before the commission was even brought into being. Shoudl they have been chasing Buddhist Monks from Tibet? Maybe the plumber down the street?

And once again, you would have me trust your untrustworthy CIA and FBI for intelligence disinformation that proved bin Laden responsible.

LOL And you would trust some lame ass conspiracy kook? Sorry, you would need to prove they skewed the investigation or some bias. Once again, no evidence.

Sorry James, you have posed no convincing argument here, nor any substantial explanation and certainly no refutation.

Seriously stop posting. You are making us dumber by reading your garbage. You can't answer questions. Can't prove your unwarranted assertions. You can't prove anything. You have been owned and totally refuted.

 

[jamesrwright3]

Purple,

Address these points that you dodged again..

This has been disproven as a canard a long time ago. By the time the commission was formed and it's report issued, the FBI, CIA, and Justice. determined it was an Al Qaeda attack. It would have been POINTLESS to look at other theories. LOL The Bush Administration were suspects? Maybe in the eyes of the kooks. Who else should the commission looked at? Buddhist monks? Mexicans? The Pope? Maybe it was those suicidal French Canadians. You would have the commission investigate people/persons who didnt need investigated?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Bjs,
Please bring one fact you believe the Commission Report misrepresented.
Not some broad net about "they didn't look into the things we speculate about."
Should they really have looked for evidence of Judy Woods space beam? ( by the way you don't know what real peer review entails.)

"The interior core of the buildings was a hollow shaft ..." - The 9/11 Commission Report

When you refer to "they didn't look into the things we speculate about," well... they quite simply didn't 'investigate' in the full scope of the term. If they were to do a true investigation, the Bush administration's actions would come under that scrutiny, and as in a criminal case, the Bush administration would be considered a suspect. A truly investigative Commission would not rely on third-hand evidence provided to it by the government and its agencies which may have been somehow implicated in the crime, through either negligence or complicity.

David Ray Griffin has had the chance to put forth his "evidence" of what happened to the general public. He has a Hovindesque way of continuing to repeat falsehoods after he has been shown his errors.
(Christians may be interested in his "evidence" for Jesus visiting the Americas)

David Ray Griffin has put forth the evidence that he has researched through multiple books and lectures. As for repeating falsehoods, he is not alone in such a thing, if it can indeed be proven, since defenders of the OCF are quite good at that also. It is by no means, one-sided.
http://911guide.googlepages.com/ryanmackey

You have obviously steeped yourself in "Truth Movement" disinformation. You will prove that you are indeed looking for the truth by showing the ability to adjust your viewpoint in light of new information. Otherwise you are just acting on faith, not facts.

And yes, I hold myself to the same measures. Show me some facts and I will not simply dismiss them ( note: debunking does not equal dismissing). In the case of things that we can yet only speculate on, I choose Occam's Razor.

I am searching for truth, but in all honesty, I doubt that you or myself or anyone for that matter in the general public will ever know the full truth of what happened on 9/11. The Truth Movement has almost become fully polarized and from this two main branches of beliefs have formed. I think it is ever hard for communication between these branches to occur, but for the sake of truth, they must.

About Mineta.
FAA reports, military radar and witnesses from the pentagon all give a different timeline than Mineta's. He himself admitted his times, and understanding of what order and aircraft involved , were assumptions.
A thorough explanation can be found here:
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=Norman_Mineta

Mineta's testimony is by no means the only omission from the Report. Furthermore, the source you provided above gains its times and information the 9/11 Commission Report which articulated its 'official' times of the events from the tapes-based account which itself contradicts the military's first account- the testimony of the Generals and Laura Brown's memo. In light of this, I am less than inclined to consider such information credible.
http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/index.php?title=Norman_Mineta

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Um no, no it doesn't



LOL pointless? It destoyed your assertions. You can't prove bias or anything of that sort. You didn't address anything in my post. All you can do is copy and paste stuff from David Griffith. Are you his parrot?



Once again showing your lack of logic and facts. It is up to you to show he was biased, connections don't count.You can't show any..

You also didn't ask what other suspects they should have considered considering the fact the CIA, FBI, Justice concluded it was Al Qaeda before the commission was even brought into being. Shoudl they have been chasing Buddhist Monks from Tibet? Maybe the plumber down the street?



LOL And you would trust some lame ass conspiracy kook? Sorry, you would need to prove they skewed the investigation or some bias. Once again, no evidence.



Seriously stop posting. You are making us dumber by reading your garbage. You can't answer questions. Can't prove your unwarranted assertions. You can't prove anything. You have been owned and totally refuted.

Another pointless post eh, James? Once again, you have not refuted anything, to any degree. The aim of my post was to demonstratively prove that the 9/11 Commission was fundamentally flawed in its 'investigation.' This I have demonstrated by appealing to the relevant evidence. This you have not refuted, and certainly not by appealing to ad homiens and weak arguments. You are focusing on what you think I haven't proved. How about focusing on what I have proved? That the 9/11 Commission was not an independent fact-finding body as you suppose it to be (without any evidence to prove that it was.) Given that it can be concluded that the 9/11 Commission was not an independent fact-finding body, that means that its conclusions are drawn in dubious questioning, into doubt. Therefore, the very fabric of the official conspiracy theory is drawn into doubt and the Commission Report can not be considered a fully truthful account of the events of that day. This is clear. I'm sorry if you can't see it, but I advise you to look at the relevant facts rather than the misty fog of your presuppositions.

 

[jamesrwright3]

Purple,

Address these points that you dodged again..three times now .

Quote:
This has been disproven as a canard a long time ago. By the time the commission was formed and it's report issued, the FBI, CIA, and Justice. determined it was an Al Qaeda attack. It would have been POINTLESS to look at other theories. LOL The Bush Administration were suspects? Maybe in the eyes of the kooks. Who else should the commission looked at? Buddhist monks? Mexicans? The Pope? Maybe it was those suicidal French Canadians. You would have the commission investigate people/persons who didnt need investigated?

 

[jamesrwright3]

Another pointless post eh, James

LOL everything you have posted has been pointless. Go into rehab and get off the drugs dude. Snap back to reality.

Once again, you have not refuted anything, to any degree

.

Yes I have.

The aim of my post was to demonstratively prove that the 9/11 Commission was fundamentally flawed in its 'investigation.

'

You have not done so.

This I have demonstrated by appealing to the relevant evidence.

There is nothing relevant posted.

This you have not refuted, and certainly not by appealing to ad homiens and weak arguments.

Yep, you have been refuted. You cannot cite any reliable news sources or journals. Only wack job conspiracy theorists. You cannot find any reputable newspaper/magazine/academic journal to support your loony ass assertions..you have lost.

You are focusing on what you think I haven't proved. How about focusing on what I have proved

?

You have proved diddly squat

That the 9/11 Commission was not an independent fact-finding body as you suppose it to be (without any evidence to prove that it was.)

PROVE THAT! YOU HAVE NOT DONE SO

Given that it can be concluded that the 9/11 Commission was not an independent fact-finding body, that means that its conclusions are drawn in dubious questioning, into doubt

.

Show me how it was not an indepdent body.
Just show me. You cannot prove anything.

Therefore, the very fabric of the official conspiracy theory is drawn into doubt and the Commission Report can not be considered a fully truthful account of the events of that day.

ZZZZ so your crackpot loony bin theorists are more correct? lol

rather than the misty fog of your presuppositions.[

The only thing that is in a misty fog is your brain.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

LOL everything you have posted has been pointless. Go into rehab and get off the drugs dude. Snap back to reality.


.

Yes I have.

'

You have not done so.




There is nothing relevant posted.




Yep, you have been refuted. You cannot cite any reliable news sources or journals. Only wack job conspiracy theorists. You cannot find any reputable newspaper/magazine/academic journal to support your loony ass assertions..you have lost.


?

You have proved diddly squat



PROVE THAT! YOU HAVE NOT DONE SO
.

Show me how it was not an indepdent body.
Just show me. You cannot prove anything.



ZZZZ so your crackpot loony bin theorists are more correct? lol



The only thing that is in a misty fog is your brain.

I would advise that you go back to re-read my posts for the evidence that the 9/11 Commission was indeed not an independent fact-finding body that you presuppose. By the way, you have NO evidence that the 9/11 Commission was an independent fact-finding body other than your blind assertion that it was.
As for the rest of your post, as RealDeal has said, avoiding stuff like that is tantamount to avoiding unnecessary... junk.

 

[jamesrwright3]

I would advise that you go back to re-read my posts for the evidence that the 9/11 Commission was indeed not an independent fact-finding body that you presuppose. By the way, you have NO evidence that the 9/11 Commission was an independent fact-finding body other than your blind assertion that it was.
As for the rest of your post, as RealDeal has said, avoiding stuff like that is tantamount to avoiding unnecessary... junk.

Dude, I read them and there is no evidence other than something about someone being the executive director of the commission. However, that doesn't prove bias. It's like saying the moon is a piece of cheese because it has craters. There is more evidence that the commission was unbiased in its final opinion and findings. Even if an executive director indicated which areas should be explored, the members of the commission were free to come up with findings/conclusions as they deemed fit

What areas would you have liked for them to cover? Maybe the Flintstones having a role? Maybe it was the Jews..or maybe it was Buddhist Monks. What areas of inquiry were there?

You have ignored the questions I have posited because you can't answer them without looking like a loony

 

[BigCedar]

"The interior core of the buildings was a hollow shaft ..." - The 9/11 Commission Report

When you refer to "they didn't look into the things we speculate about," well... they quite simply didn't 'investigate' in the full scope of the term. If they were to do a true investigation, the Bush administration's actions would come under that scrutiny, and as in a criminal case, the Bush administration would be considered a suspect. A truly investigative Commission would not rely on third-hand evidence provided to it by the government and its agencies which may have been somehow implicated in the crime, through either negligence or complicity.



David Ray Griffin has put forth the evidence that he has researched through multiple books and lectures. As for repeating falsehoods, he is not alone in such a thing, if it can indeed be proven, since defenders of the OCF are quite good at that also. It is by no means, one-sided.



I am searching for truth, but in all honesty, I doubt that you or myself or anyone for that matter in the general public will ever know the full truth of what happened on 9/11. The Truth Movement has almost become fully polarized and from this two main branches of beliefs have formed. I think it is ever hard for communication between these branches to occur, but for the sake of truth, they must.



Mineta's testimony is by no means the only omission from the Report. Furthermore, the source you provided above gains its times and information the 9/11 Commission Report which articulated its 'official' times of the events from the tapes-based account which itself contradicts the military's first account- the testimony of the Generals and Laura Brown's memo. In light of this, I am less than inclined to consider such information credible.

BJS,

I see how you would find the statement about the core columns wrong.
Wrong by omission of the fact that columns formed the core structure. What did the columns form in the center of the building?
Do you mean the elevators made it not hollow?

I don't think you are reading any of the links I provide.

Please read this concerning the "column lie" brought up by Griffin.

http://911guide.googlepages.com/griffin210

Your response about Griffin's falsehoods is a Tu Quoque fallacy.

How do the NORAD tapes contradict the military's first account and Laura Brown's memo ?

Does this mean you still think that Mineta's testimony is relevant?
Are you saying you have evidence his time line was accurate?

Saying " Mineta's testimony is by no means the only omission from the Report." is goalpost shifting.

 

[Edx]

Edx,

The information you provided about NORAD flight interception deals only with planes that came on radar entering American airspace form other countries, not flights of internal origin.

Is the statement that NORAD only intercepted one plane over North America in the decade previous to 9/11 wrong because it leaves out the phrase of internal origin? Sure, technically.

Oh good then I dont need to argue that point.

The argument being made about the difficulty NORAD had in dealing with a flight that took off in the U.S. still stands.

Excerpts of General Eberhart's 17 JUNE 2004 statement (PDF) to the 9-11 Commission Hearings:

<snipped quote>

I think this would be too much of a simplification of the situation, as is Popular Mechanics' "debunking" generally. Simplify everything in order to give a misleading impression that all 911 skeptic arguments are ridiculous and unsupported by everything.

You must understand that NORADS failure also ties in the governments. You cant just talk about this one issue, it spans many in order for this to make sence.

They were wrong when they said that NORAD intecepted only one civilian plane in the last 10 years. Ok, so NORAD claims it was because they were only referencing external threats. I have been unable to find any stats of even roughly how many intercepts before 911, apart from the 1 comment from Maj. Douglas Martin and according to a telephone conversation herethey probably dont have an archive of data due to poor archive keeping pre-911 despite such well kept stats they keep today. I am well aware it is not the best source, but the phone conversation itself seems entirely genuine so seems relevant. It was interesting that one of the people he spoke to, NORADs Dr Thomas Fullar made comments like "if we were alerted we would be able to intecept" regardless of it being a continental threat or not seems to suggest the reaction time would not have differed overly in a domestic or an international incident which seems to imply something rather different to what Popular Mechanics put accross. There also appears to be Norad employee of unknown rank at the beginning of the conversation which says there had been 43,000 intercepts after 911. Now Im not sure if this is inclusive of both domestic and international incidents and Im not sure what date it was that phone conversation happened but it is hard to believe that they only scrambled once in the previous 10 years, domestically, for a golfers learjet that had gone off course. But it seems like we'll never know for sure now due to those poor records, so I guess we'll just have to take Maj. Martins word for it.

So lets move onto only the reference we know about, Payne Stewart's Learjet. They say it took them around an 1 hour 20 minutes to intercept it. It had gone off course and was not responding, however its transponder was still on. Remember that, while we go onto 911. There is some discrepancy when Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, either 9:43 or 9:38. But Ill assuming its the earlier and be kind to NORAD, so thats still 35 minutes between the second tower being hit and the Pentagon crash. They were apparently notified at 9:25 (though again there may be differing reports on that, so we'll just assume 9.25) they then only launched fighters at 9.27 to arrive in DC at 9.49 to perform CAP (although they originally said they were launched after it hit, but we'll assume that was said in error). Its worth noting that the transponder was still on and they still had Flight 77 on radar until 9.37.

When I read reports on Norad commenting on their responce they will usually always refer to 2 things; One, that they were looking to external threats so werent prepared for domestic issues, and two; that they had far fewer fighters by which to use, due to a downsizing several years earlier. Now if it is true, and it likely is at least in part, we had only had two F-15s from Otis ANG Base apparently flying around NYC desperatly trying to find the first two planes. Why did they only scramble the three F-16s from Virginia at a minimum 35 minutes later, to intercept at the Pentagon? And werent there any other fighters anywhere else they could have scrambled? But Langley had them sitting there fueled up and ready to launch but didnt for over half and hour. But thats being kind, if they had already scrambled fighters at one base to intercept these planes before the second plane hit, why did they not also scramble planes from one of the closest bases to NYC? How is it planes can be flying around off course for it seems nearly 2 hours without the military even getting close to shooting them down let alone intercepting them.

Obviously its true that Norad had big problem that day and a lot of it came down to being given the reports too late, so they arent entirely to blame. The FAA are to take responsibility as well. However there were several NORAD war games going on that day that seemed to aid in the confusion with such comments on the transcripts like "is this real world or exercise?". Nothern Vigilance and Vigilent Guardian and a few others are examples. Because of Northern Vigilance there were far less fighters protecting the south coast and one part of Vigilent Guardian apparently involved a hijacking of a commerical airliner.

However, the war games were claimed to have actually helped in the responce with a NORAD chief claiming it took only 30 seconds to switch to real word. But this means NORAD is claiming they would have been even less ready to respond to a notificaion of a hijacking than they were were before! AFAIK the war games were not even mentioned in Popular Mechanics, in fact I dont think any of the relevant parts of this was!
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
To really understand how much of a failure it was you really need to also take into consideration the prior intelligence and warnings the government already had regarding planes being used as weapons and Bin Ladens threat. Ignoring Bush and co's distortions and lies regarding complete ignorece of any of this, the 911 Commission surpringly brought some of this to light. And because its put so well Im simply going to quote it here (emphasis is mine):

[/FONT]

GEN. MCKINLEY: I'd like the intelligence community to address that. I would find it hard to believe that they hadn't speculated against that. But it was unavailable to us at the time.

MR. BEN-VENISTE: Well, let's start, for example, with September 12th, 1994, a Cessna 150L crashed into the South Lawn of the White House, barely missing the building, and killing the pilot. Similarly, in December of 1994, an Algerian armed Islamic group of terrorists hijacked an Air France flight in Algiers and threatened to crash it into the Eiffel Tower. In October of 1996, the intelligence community obtained information regarding an Iranian plot to hijack a Japanese plane over Israel and crash it into Tel Aviv. In August of 1988, the intelligence community obtained information that a group of unidentified Arabs planned to fly an explosive-laden plane from a foreign country into the World Trade Center. The information was passed on to the FBI and the FAA.

In September of 1998, the intelligence community obtained information that Osama bin Laden's next operation could possibly involve flying an aircraft loaded with explosives into a U.S. airport and detonating it. In August 2001, the intelligence community obtained information regarding a plot to either bomb the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi from an airplane, or crash an airplane into it. In addition, in the Atlanta Olympics, the United States government and the Department of Justice and my colleague Jamie Gorelick were involved in planning against possible terrorist attacks at the Olympics, which included the potential of an aircraft flying into the stadium. In July 2001, the G-8 summit in Genoa, attended by our president, among the measures that were taken were positioning surface-to-air missile ringing Genoa, closing the Genoa airport and restricting all airspace over Genoa.

Was not this information, sir, available to NORAD as of September 11th, 2001?

- 9-11 Commission Hearing 2003/05/23
​

This summary is relevant to to only show the government was already aware of Bin Ladens threat involving planes but how Norad was already aware of the terrorist threat of using planes as weapons, including the Commissioner himself personally! According to the August 6th PD which wasnt declassified until later and not availble to the 911 Commission Bin Laden was "determined" to strike the US, and had his eyes set on Washington, that there was evidence for preperations for hijackings and there had been surveilance of federal buildings in New York. It specifcally warns it will likely be a domestic threat. There were also many reports that warns of a massive imminent terror attack.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The General then gives an excuse, the same excuse that a lot of "debunkers" use and was even used on this very thread about how there was no "specific" warning or a way to "specifically" predict the events of 911. The Commissioner responds

[/FONT]

MR. BEN-VENISTE: Well, obviously it would be hard to imagine posturing for the exact scenario. But isn't it a fact, sir, that prior to September 11th, 2001, NORAD had already in the works plans to simulate in an exercise a simultaneous hijacking of two planes in the United States?
​

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]
[/FONT]He then brings up a war game called Operation Amalgam Virgo 02 which was in the plannng stages pre-911. Once again becuause the Commissioner puts it so well I wont summerise.

GEN. MCKINLEY: Sir, I do have some information on 02, if you would allow me to read it for the record.

MR. BEN-VENISTE: Please.

GEN. MCKINLEY: Amalgam Virgo in general, 02, was an exercise created to focus on peacetime and contingency NORAD missions. One of the peacetime scenarios that is and has been a NORAD mission for years is support to other government departments. Within this mission falls hijackings. Creativity of the designer aside, prior to 9/11, hijack motivations were based on political objectives -- i.e., asylum or release of captured prisoners or political figures. Threats of killing hostages or crashing were left to the script writers to invoke creativity and broaden the required response for players.

MR. BEN-VENISTE: Well, isn't that a bit fatuous given the specific information that I've given you? It wasn't in the minds of script writers when the Algerians had actually hijacked the plane, which they were attempting to fly into the Eiffel Tower. And all of the other scenarios which I mentioned to you. I don't mean to argue with you. But my question is, sir, given the awareness of the terrorists use of planes as weapons, how is it that NORAD was still focusing outward protecting the United States against attacks from the Soviet Union or elsewhere, and was not better prepared to defend against the hijacking scenarios of a commercial jet laden with fuel used as a weapon to target citizens of the United States? When you say our training was vestigial, I think you said it in capsulated form. But would you agree that on the basis of the information available that there could be, could have been better preparedness by NORAD to meet this threat?

GEN. MCKINLEY: In retrospect, sir, I think I would agree with your comment.​

 

[Edx]

Its taken a long time but lets try and put this all in perspective in regards to the claim by yourself and how Popular Mechanics presents the idea that Norad wasnt prepared for a domestic threat. Well, why not? They even clearly did foresee a domestic situation, which even involved two domestic hijacks because they planned it. Ive said it before but remember the intelligence regarding planes being used to crash into buildings as weapons the Bush administration claimed no one had even imagined. Are we to assume that NORAD had no idea about any of the intelligence Bush was receiving regarding Bin Laden and the imminant domestic threat? Are we to believe the government when they say they were not aware of the details of NORADs drills regarding hijacked planes as weapons? Are we really to believe that the government is so inept and incompetent that the right hand didnt know what the left had was doing? Surely thre is a case, at the very least, for an investigation in incompetence, surely? Popular mechanics however, just makes out theres no reason to think theres any problem.

So back to the point. Despite all these warnings, despite the intelligence of an imminent massive terror attack coming at them from so many directions, despite having all these warnings about how Bin laden was determind to attack, where he wanted to attack and by what probable methods of attack; on 911 we have war games that sent fighters off to Alaska to fight in a mock battle and only launched 5 fighters in total to intercept all 3 planes and protect the capital! (according to CNNs timeline) But even if it was 7, this still wouldnt be a whole lot better especially when you remember that 3 werent even scrambled until a little over 30 minuites after the second tower was hit! And I havent even talked about how United 93 managed to slip by without detection for so long.

Popular Mechanics simplifies everything in order to make the idea of a cover up seem unreasonable and probably crazy like the no plane/pod plane myths. Truth is it isnt that simple.

And I havent even talked about how when they debunked the pod plane claim, they appear to have used a graphic first used on a 911 Truth website to debunk the same nonsence! Now really thats just taking the p**s!

Ed

 

[Edx]

Did you know the answer to the question when you first referenced the interview?

To be honest I still dont know the answer, Im just sure there is a good explanation. Im not sure what it is, though. But then I do wonder how they got the DNA to match it to, yes.

What Im saying is if there is an answer its irrelevant to what Ive been trying to say about this, I was making a point regarding the attitude of Davin and Popular Mechanics.

I agree with you about what looks like misinformation on public air safety.

Why put it so nicely?

Does an issue to the public about air safety apply to workers in hazardous conditions?

As a tie in to a greater conspiracy wouldn't keeping people away from the scene be of greater benefit?

You're looking at this backwards. You cant look at stuff like this and think, well how can I connect this to an inside job conspiracy theory. Its not going to work, and it may not be an inside job but if theres a coverup or another kind of conspiracy then approaching all this from the position Popular Mechanics and many others take, where you shouldnt even really question anything nor should you need to, is I think a way of thinking thats not only false but dangerous. If you keep looking from the stand point of investigation with your mind open maybe you may see a reason to suspect something more than just a coverup. You've just done more than Popular Mechanics did which cant admit there was a coverup in any way at all, not even about air safety, they couldnt, becuase that would throw a wrench in their whole article.

Ed

 

[Archaeopteryx]

BJS,

I see how you would find the statement about the core columns wrong.
Wrong by omission of the fact that columns formed the core structure. What did the columns form in the center of the building?
Do you mean the elevators made it not hollow?

I don't think you are reading any of the links I provide.

Please read this concerning the "column lie" brought up by Griffin.

http://911guide.googlepages.com/griffin210

The source that you have provided uses the term "conspiracy theory" in a one-sided sense. It also seems to tend to rely on the 9/11 Commission Report - which is itself not reliable as a truthful account on 9/11, since it can be demonstrated that it was not an independent, fact-finding investigative body as it purports.
Ultimately, I do not see how that particular page debunks the ridiculous Commission statement that the interior core of the buildings were completely hollow.

How do the NORAD tapes contradict the military's first account and Laura Brown's memo ?

The military's initial testimony and Laura Brown's memo was contradicted by the tapes-based account. For example:
"(1) The military's earlier claim: When fighter jets at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia were scrambled at 9:24 that morning, they were scrambled in response to word from the FAA that possibly either AA 77 (as implied by Colonel Scott) or UA 93 (as stated by General Arnold) had been hijacked and was headed toward Washington.
What the tapes indicate: NEADS did not learn that AA 77 and UA 93 had been hijacked until after they had crashed. The Langley fighters were instead scrambled in response to 'phantom AA 11' - that is, in response to a false report that AA 11 had not struck the World Trade Center and was instead headed toward Washington.
(2) The military's earlier claim: Having learned from the FAA about the hijacking of UA 93 at 9:16, NEADS was tracking it and was in position to shoot it down if necessary. (Although the claim about the 9:16 notification is not reflected in NORAD's timeline-which instead has 'N/A'- both Arnold and Scott made this claim in their May 2003 testimony.)
What the tapes indicate: NEADS, far from learning of the possible hijacking of UA 93 at 9:16 (at which time it had not even been hijacked), did not receive this information until 10:07, four minutes after UA 93 had crashed. So NEADS could not have had fighter jets tracking it.
(3) The military's earlier claim: NEADS was prepared to act on a command, issued by the Vice President Cheney, to shoot down UA 93.
What the tapes indicate: There was no command to shoot down UA 93 before it crashed. Cheney was not even aware of the possible hijacking of this flight until 10:02, only one minute before it crashed, and the shootdown authorization was not given by him until many minutes after UA 93 had crashed.
The 9/11 Commission, assuming that the newly released tapes provide the definitive account of NEADS' conservations on 9/11, concluded that General Scott and General Arnold made false statements. Also, pointing out that these military leaders had reviewed the tapes before giving their testimony, some Commission members, dismissing the idea that they could have simply been confused, concluded that they had lied.
The implications of the tapes, assuming their authenticity, are even more sweeping, because the statements by Scott and Arnold reflected the timeline issued by NORAD on September 18, 2001. This document gave the times at which, NORAD then claims, the FAA had notified it about the four flights and then the times at which NEADS had scrambled fighters in response. Scott, in fact, had prepared this timeline, Bronner reports, in conjunction with Colonel Robert Marr, then the battle commander at NEADS. The implication of the NORAD tapes, therefore, is that virtually the entire account given by NORAD on September 18, 2001- which served as the official story from that date until the issuance of The 9/11 Commission Report in July 2004- was false.
The crucial difference between the two accounts is that, according to the earlier one, the FAA, while being unaccountably slow in notifying the military about the possible hijacking of [four planes], did notify it about all four flights before they crashed. Not only that, they notified the military, at least with regard to the last three flights, early enough that fighter jets could have intercepted them. According to the tapes-based account provided by the 9/11 Commission, by contrast, the military was not notified about the last three flights until after they had crashed. The military, therefore, could not be blamed for failing to stop them. . . . If this new story is true, the fact that it puts the military in a much better light has a staggering implication: Everyone in the military- from those in the Pentagon's National Military Command Center (NMCC), under which NORAD operates, to both high-level officers and lower-level employees at NEADS and in NORAD more generally, to pilots and other subordinates- who knew the true course of events, whether from direct experience or from listening to the tapes, kept quiet about the inaccuracies in NORAD's timeline, even though they knew that the true story would put the military in a better light, virtually removing the possibility that it had stood down its defenses. Why would they do this?" - Debunking 9/11 Debunking

"The Commission's new story [based on the NORAD tapes] is challenged, finally, by evidence that the FAA had talked to the military about AA 77 even earlier than 9:24, which was the notification time given on NORAD's September 18 timeline. FAA official Laura Brown's aforementioned memo, after stating that a teleconference was established with the military 'within minutes after the first aircraft hit the World Trade Center' (and hence by about 8:50), said that the FAA shared 'real-time information' with the military about 'all the flights of interest, including Flight 77.' Bringing out the full implication of this assertion, she added:
'NORAD logs indicate that the FAA made formal notification about American Flight 77 at 9:24AM, but information about the flight was conveyed continously during the phone bridges before the formal notification.'
In a telephone conversation I had with Laura Brown in 2004, she emphasized this distinction, saying that the formal notification was primarily a formality and hence irrelevant to the question of whether the military knew about Flight 77.
. . .
Brown's account is supported, moreover, by other reports. A New York Times story appearing four days after 9/11 began:
'During the house or so that American Airlines Flight 77 was under the control of hijackers, up to the moment it struck the west side of the Pentagon, military officials in a command center on the east side of the building were urgently talking to law enforcement and air traffic control officials about what to do.'
Laura Brown's 2003 memo, therefore, reflects information that was available immediately after 9/11.
. . .
The Commission knew, therefore, that this was the FAA's position, and it offered no rebuttal. When The 9/11 Commission Report appeared, however, it contained no mention of this memo or its information. The Commission implicitly even claimed in effect that the memo's account could not be true by claiming that the FAA-initiated conference did not begin until 9:20- even though Laura Brown's memo, which was read into the Commission's records, said that it had begun about 8:50. (Her view, incidentally, was independently supported by another high FAA official.) As usual, inconvenient facts were simply eliminated." - Debunking 9/11 Debunking

Does this mean you still think that Mineta's testimony is relevant?
Are you saying you have evidence his time line was accurate?

Why wouldn't Mineta's testimony be relevant? Have you heard anything to contrary?

 

[Edx]

No its not speculative, many people have come out saying they hyped it

Then, those people were just speculating as well.

This would be people like Hans Blix or Robin Cook, people I have already cited which you hand waved without a second thought.

Yes, the Intelligence Community screwed up. However, the intelligence was what it was, and the Administration can’t be faulted for the failures of the Intelligence community.

How? They can see the intelligence for themselves, unless you're suggesting the administration is completely clueless. Did the intelligence say evidence was confirmed or not? If they did and they really convinced Bush the intelligence was confirmed and more solid than it was (which isnt too believable given documents like the Dowing Street Memo and what George Tenet has said since) , someone high up needs to be up on incompetence charges and we need an investigation into why they said so much intelligence was confirmed when it evidently wasnt.

What was it that Tenet said again? I don’t seem to recall him saying anything that specifically countered the justification to go to war. He claims now that the “Slam Dunk” remark was taken out of context, but what exactly does he mean by that? How was it taken out of context? What did he mean by “Slam Dunk”? Did he not believe that Iraq had WMDs?

Doesnt matter if he did or not, many "believed" as Ive already shown you. But the phrase slam dunk was used as one of the main reasons to imply to the worlds media that the intelligence was a confirmed certianty. You cant still keep using it if the head of the CIA the guy who said it now says that was taken completely out of conext, and that he says he was ignored when he tried to tell them that Iraq could collapse into chaos if invaded and that they repeatedly exaggerated the threat. The slam dunk comment he says was taken out of context is just one of a long line of exaggerations so its hardly unbelievable to suggest. We know they didnt listen to their weapons inspectors.



The idea that the intelligence was exaggerated is same thing he, Blix and many others were saying as well. You may well quote Blix' personal belief that he believed Iraq had something, but so did many others Ive quoted but that doesnt mean they thought the intelligence was correct or valid or that it justified invasion which are all things youve claimed and used all these people to try and show that it was, even though they dont agree with you. Tenets opinion that he believed they had WMDs is irrelevant if he believed the intelligence was overstated and exaggerated, which he did, as did the US Senete report who also found the conclusions unsupported by the evidence. You cant justify a war because the Bush government "believed" they had WMDs, either they had the solid evidence for it or not. Beliefs mean nothing.

Blix himself reported back to the UNSC that Saddam was not cooperating -- which made the inspections pointless.

As far as I can see this article doesnt mention that Blix still couldnt find any evidence for WMDs, that he had been to the place Powell and the President said they found the WMDs and said they ony found water trucks and that he still believed they could carry out the inspections and that they were ignored. They are distorting Blix' comments.

He didn’t have the right to tell people his beliefs? Surely you jest?

Now you are twisting my words. I dont say he cant tell people his beliefs, its that he doesnt say they are just his beleifs. He makes out they are based on around solid evidence. Beliefs mean nothing unless they are supported, and he never once seperated his personal opinion from any confirmed intelligence. So no, he cant just go out there and present his opinion as if it was solid confirmed intelligence which is what he did.

Sorry, but I’m not doing your work for you. You obviously got them from somewhere, so why not just provide the links?

So Im expected do do all this research for you but you cant copy and paste a quote into google? You didnt even bother to watch the George Tenet videos when I posted them then still claim you dont know what he said! Why do you get to be so lazy?

I will, however, comment on the first one. It is ,at worst, an exaggeration on Bush’s part.

So when he said later that 911 and Iraq have "nothing" to do with each other, what did that mean?

And I note that you have now also said it was an "exaggeration".

He wasn’t saying that Al Qaeda and Saddam were one and the same.

Thats rather disingenuous.

He wasnt saying they were the same... its just that he couldnt see any difference between them, that he even says he cant even make a comparison between Al Qaeda and Saddam because they are equally as bad, just as equally evil and destructive. Yea, sure.

Point is you dont know, neither does anyone else. My issue is that no one has been held accountable for any incompetence and deception that has gone on since 911.

How do you know that no one has been held accountable?

You want me to prove a negative?

You’re wrong Ed! To say that the intelligence has been falsified is to imply that people within the Intelligence Community knowingly and willfully altered intelligence data or published information that they knew to be false. Please show me where in the Senate Report that that allegation was made or conclusion was drawn.

fal·si·fyplay_w("F0025400") (fôls-f)
v. fal·si·fied, fal·si·fy·ing, fal·si·fies
v.tr.
1. To state untruthfully; misrepresent.
2. a. To make false by altering or adding to: falsify testimony.
b. To counterfeit; forge: falsify a visa.
3. To declare or prove to be false.
v.intr.
To make untrue statements; lie.

It seems that you misunderstood what I meant when I said that the intelligence on WMDs hadn’t been falsified. I trust that you see it now.

Wow, your disingenuity just keeps getting worse.

First of all I never said the intelligence was made up, I said it was not confirmed, I said it was unsupported and unreasonable, I said it was overstated and that the bias was so great that they fixed the intelligence around policy. I hadent said anything about the intelligence that hadnt already been said by Intelligence experts, by the Downing Street Memo, by people working in weapons inspection like Blix, Elbaradei and Carne Ross and even the Senate Intelligence report.

Secondly, you said the word falsify first I didnt, to falsify can mean to deliberately misstate data. But the way I was using it and assumed, since I hadent said anything that all the people above hadent, you meant the other usage of the word. In science if someone says a theory has been falsified, you dont automatically assume it was a fraud. In fact if you say a theory or intelligence has been falsified you usually assume they simply mean it was shown to be wrong or inherently flawed. A significant part of Newtons theory of Gravity was falsified, which is the reason why we have the theory of General Relativity but Newton didnt deceieve anyone, he was just wrong. In science a theory must be potentially falsifiable, again how is this related to your presentation of the word? The word falsified in context is more often used within the definition you didnt bold. Falsify: "To declare or prove to be false."

If you want to dictionary mine, how about I do the same. Here we can see that to lie simply means to present "an inaccurate or false statement". I guess we can all go home now.

LIE - /la&#618;/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lahy] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.

3. –noun an inaccurate or false statement.

Will continue part 2 later...

 

[BigCedar]

"The Commission's new story [based on the NORAD tapes] is challenged, finally, by evidence that the FAA had talked to the military about AA 77 even earlier than 9:24, which was the notification time given on NORAD's September 18 timeline. FAA official Laura Brown's aforementioned memo, after stating that a teleconference was established with the military 'within minutes after the first aircraft hit the World Trade Center' (and hence by about 8:50), said that the FAA shared 'real-time information' with the military about 'all the flights of interest, including Flight 77.' Bringing out the full implication of this assertion, she added:
'NORAD logs indicate that the FAA made formal notification about American Flight 77 at 9:24AM, but information about the flight was conveyed continously during the phone bridges before the formal notification.'
In a telephone conversation I had with Laura Brown in 2004, she emphasized this distinction, saying that the formal notification was primarily a formality and hence irrelevant to the question of whether the military knew about Flight 77.
. . .
Brown's account is supported, moreover, by other reports. A New York Times story appearing four days after 9/11 began:
'During the house or so that American Airlines Flight 77 was under the control of hijackers, up to the moment it struck the west side of the Pentagon, military officials in a command center on the east side of the building were urgently talking to law enforcement and air traffic control officials about what to do.'
Laura Brown's 2003 memo, therefore, reflects information that was available immediately after 9/11.
. . .
The Commission knew, therefore, that this was the FAA's position, and it offered no rebuttal. When The 9/11 Commission Report appeared, however, it contained no mention of this memo or its information. The Commission implicitly even claimed in effect that the memo's account could not be true by claiming that the FAA-initiated conference did not begin until 9:20- even though Laura Brown's memo, which was read into the Commission's records, said that it had begun about 8:50. (Her view, incidentally, was independently supported by another high FAA official.) As usual, inconvenient facts were simply eliminated." - Debunking 9/11 Debunking



The FAA times are wrong.

Excerpt: The Transportation Department's inspector general urged the Federal Aviation Administration on Friday to consider disciplinary action against two executives who failed to correct false information provided to the independent commission that investigated the Sept. 11 terror attacks.

The acting inspector general, Todd J. Zinser, whose office acts as the department's internal watchdog, found in a new report that the F.A.A. executives, as well as a third official who is now retired, learned after the fact that false information was given to the commission in May 2003 about the F.A.A.'s contacts with the Air Force on the morning of Sept. 11.

The false information suggested that the aviation agency had established contact with its Air Force liaison immediately after the first of the four hijacked planes struck the World Trade Center at 8:46 a.m.

In fact, the commission's investigators found, the Air Force's liaison did not join a conference call with the F.A.A. until after the third plane crashed, at 9:37 a.m. The 51-minute gap is significant because it helps undermine an initial claim by the North American Aerospace Defense Command, which is responsible for domestic air defense, that it scrambled quickly on Sept. 11 and had a chance to shoot down the last of the hijacked planes still in the air, United Airlines Flight 93.

The inspector general's report, prepared in response to complaints from the independent Sept. 11 commission, found that the three F.A.A. executives failed to act on an ''obligation'' to correct the false information provided to the commission, which found widespread confusion within the aviation agency and the military on the morning of the attacks.

The F.A.A., part of the Transportation Department, declined to identify the three executives, whose names and titles were not revealed in the inspector general's report. Nor did the agency say whether it would consider disciplinary action.

The inspector general's office found that while false information was given to the Sept. 11 commission, there was no evidence that F.A.A. executives had done it knowingly or had intentionally withheld accurate information about the agency's actions on the morning of the attacks.

That finding was welcomed by the F.A.A., which said in a statement that the ''inspector general's investigation has clarified the record and found no evidence that F.A.A. officials knowingly made false statements.'' The Pentagon's inspector general issued a similar finding last month about military officers who provided inaccurate testimony to the commission, saying their inaccurate statements could be attributed largely to poor record-keeping.

Richard Ben Veniste, a commission member, said in an interview on Friday that he was troubled that it had taken the inspector general two years to complete his investigation -- ''more time than it took the 9/11 commission to complete all of its work'' -- and that he released the report ''on the Friday afternoon before the Labor Day weekend.''

Mr. Ben Veniste said he was convinced that the failure of the aviation agency and the North American Aerospace Defense Command to provide early, accurate information about their performance had ''contributed to a growing industry of conspiratorialists who question the fundamental facts relating to 9/11.''

Mr. Zinser, the acting inspector general, said in an interview that the investigation had taken so long because of ''the very complicated issues'' his office reviewed. (NYT, Sept.2nd, 2006)

Do you agree with Griffin that the NORAD tapes, all 120 minutes, were fabricated?