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?