Indisputable 911 coverup facts

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟70,740.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
You make a statement about the FAA memo.

I show you that your statement about the Laura Brown memo is wrong.

I seem to have missed where you have shown my statement about Laura Brown's memo as incorrect.

And you respond with LOL and shift the goalpost without admitting you were wrong about the memo.

Where was I wrong about the memo?

I posted the article to show that the FAA times were wrong.
Were the FAA times wrong ?

On what basis does the article conclude that the FAA times were wrong? I don't recall it specifying within the actual article, on what basis, or what evidence it had to conclude that the FAA times are wrong. If the evidence for the inaccuracy of the FAA times is based on the NORAD tapes, then my questions still need answering... why did the FAA and military lie the first time?

What do you base this on? What understanding of "fundamental communications " are you bringing to the table?

When I speak of fundamental communications, I mean the conversations between high levels of the military and Pentagon. As in, the conversations involving Major General Larry Arnold, as well as the communication between General Richard Myers and Donald Rumsfeld, and other high level officials. Even if these tapes were authentic, they still do not reveal to us the bigger picture- the total scope of relevant communications between the Pentagon, military and other agencies, on that day. Are we to conclude that these tapes are authentic even though they exclude some of the most important information?

Give me specific evidence that the tapes are not authentic?
Not because Griffin says so

Given the omission of very important conversations, and the mass contradiction between the military's first account, I am less than inclined to think that it told the truth the second time round. Now if the tapes are not authentic, we must tantalize the idea that they were doctored or that recordings were 'cherry picked' to tell the narrative desired. Do such means exist? Yes. Is it possible? Yes. An example of such methods includes voice morphing. In a 1999 article in the Washington Post, William Arkin provides an example, in which a certain general, Carl Steiner, makes a statement: "Gentlemen! We have called you together to inform you that we are going to overthrow the United States government." Of course, Steiner never made such a statement. It was a fabrication to illustrate the technology and capability of voice morphing. Robert Hordon, a pilot and former air traffic controller also articulates another method of fabrication, stating that: "Doctoring these tapes would pose very few difficulties whatsoever. Either one could 'write over' the time channel, adjusting it to any time on would want. Or one could transfer all the audio information on particular channels onto another tape that already has a 'chosen' time reference impregnated upon it."
It is clear that the means for doctoring such fabrications does exist, but does the motivation? If one wanted to cover-up either carelessness, negligence or even complicity, then such a motivation would indeed exist.
 
Upvote 0

Edx

Senior Veteran
Apr 3, 2005
4,626
118
✟5,474.00
Faith
Atheist
Look at all of the names and tell me that you couldn't reduce the potential suspects to eight in less than a minute.

Are all the other planes the same? And again, there were no mistakes and they knew details about them. I still think its pretty amazing intelligence to do this in 2 and half days and suck so badly with intelligence the rest of the time.
 
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟70,740.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Are all the other planes the same? And again, there were no mistakes and they knew details about them. I still think its pretty amazing intelligence to do this in 2 and half days and suck so badly with intelligence the rest of the time.
It seems that intelligence works only when intelligence wants to work... the rest of the time they say: "We have no intelligence" and think its a fitting excuse.
 
Upvote 0

BigCedar

Regular Member
Apr 9, 2005
106
4
✟258.00
Faith
Seeker
I seem to have missed where you have shown my statement about Laura Brown's memo as incorrect.



Where was I wrong about the memo?

Here is what you quoted from Griffin:

.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.'

From the NYtimes article I posted:

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.






On what basis does the article conclude that the FAA times were wrong? I don't recall it specifying within the actual article, on what basis, or what evidence it had to conclude that the FAA times are wrong. If the evidence for the inaccuracy of the FAA times is based on the NORAD tapes, then my questions still need answering... why did the FAA and military lie the first time?

You keep saying "lie". Why? Where is your proof someone lied?
People were mistaken about details and times in a confusing and unprecedented situation.





When I speak of fundamental communications, I mean the conversations between high levels of the military and Pentagon. As in, the conversations involving Major General Larry Arnold, as well as the communication between General Richard Myers and Donald Rumsfeld, and other high level officials. Even if these tapes were authentic, they still do not reveal to us the bigger picture- the total scope of relevant communications between the Pentagon, military and other agencies, on that day. Are we to conclude that these tapes are authentic even though they exclude some of the most important information?
What information about concerning Arnold, Myers and Rumsfeld should be on the NORAD tapes?
Please answer this question. What do you think the military's response should have been on 911? If you are so keen on pointing out the problems ( which you continue to be vague about because Griffin hasn't specified for you.) lay out a time line of what should have happened. What would a proper response have looked like?
 
Upvote 0

Edx

Senior Veteran
Apr 3, 2005
4,626
118
✟5,474.00
Faith
Atheist
What do you think the military's response should have been on 911?

Military responce should have been in a position to protect the capital. They should have been on an hightened altert to domestic terror involving planes and hijackings. Fighters shouldnt have been off in exercises in Alaska or sent off in the wrong direction. They had the intelligence, but they didnt do anything to protect the American people. Even the 911 Commission noted this.
 
Upvote 0

Edx

Senior Veteran
Apr 3, 2005
4,626
118
✟5,474.00
Faith
Atheist
:scratch: The whole coversation on Popular Mechanics was about their "attitude", as we were talking about what I thought about the usual debunker attitude, remember?
Personally, I dont inherently dislike debunking sites so long as they are reasonable about things. Popular Mechanics is probably one of the worst debunking "sources" Ive come accross. Not as bad as the BBCs Conspiracy files but still pretty bad.

The [SIZE=-1]Hearst Corporation really [/SIZE]isnt a credible name and yes being affiliated with Homeland Security doesnt make it any better. It doesnt give them a lot of credibility in terms of imagining they are doing some kind of unbiased investigation. But then theres the arguments they give, they argue against a lot of fringe theories and present them in a way that suggests this is what all the 911 skeptics believe, but they dont address many of the very real facts that show there certianly is a coverup. Again, they cant give up any ground.

One interesting mistake they made is them claiming that NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America in the decade before 911, yet this is not true at all. I also found a interview with the main spoksperson for Popular Mechanics on this piece, and he was saying that they were allowed access, a magazine company nothing to do the government, access to classified documents and evidence that we the peopke arent allowed to see. Personally I believe this was because the government intentionaly wanted people to think this was suspicious, for the same reason they havent shown any videos of the plane at the pentagon. But a more interesting thing is when they claim that they identified the hijackers with their DNA, and the presenter asks well how did they get the DNA to match it to, and the guy just completely dodges the question. I can find it on youtube for you if you want to know what Im talking about, but all this shows to me that Popular Mechanics' piece wasnt a proper investigation, it almost certianly wasnt unbiased, they misrepresented 911 skeptic arguments, ignored the most persuasive, and they made several pretty basic research errors.
All about attitude?

I regret saying ""at all", but aside from that I dont see what I said was wrong. He did dodge the question and it wasnt a proper investigation.


Yep, this is an area where I can entertain some "theories"

Like the idea that foreign intelligence may have been a little more watchful of the hijackers than our guys admit.

Here's some hijacker ID stuff: http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/Hijackers

They dont admit to knowing anything about any of this and we have a lot of reason to think they did know a lot more than they admit. We dont have much reason to take their word for it.
 
Upvote 0

oldbetang

Senior Veteran
Jul 21, 2005
7,361
461
✟17,487.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Are all the other planes the same?

Pretty much!


And again, there were no mistakes and they knew details about them. I still think its pretty amazing intelligence to do this in 2 and half days and suck so badly with intelligence the rest of the time.

I'm not sure what role the Intelligence community would have had in determining the identities of the hijackers. I believe that responsibility largely fell upon the FBI.
 
Upvote 0

BigCedar

Regular Member
Apr 9, 2005
106
4
✟258.00
Faith
Seeker
Military responce should have been in a position to protect the capital. They should have been on an hightened altert to domestic terror involving planes and hijackings. Fighters shouldnt have been off in exercises in Alaska or sent off in the wrong direction. They had the intelligence, but they didnt do anything to protect the American people. Even the 911 Commission noted this.

Exactly how should they have protected the capitol?
Show me which planes in exercises in Alaska would have been in a position to help otherwise.
 
Upvote 0

BigCedar

Regular Member
Apr 9, 2005
106
4
✟258.00
Faith
Seeker
I regret saying ""at all", but aside from that I dont see what I said was wrong. He did dodge the question and it wasnt a proper investigation.




They dont admit to knowing anything about any of this and we have a lot of reason to think they did know a lot more than they admit. We dont have much reason to take their word for it.

Do you think there is ever a reason to keep intelligence secret?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Edx

Senior Veteran
Apr 3, 2005
4,626
118
✟5,474.00
Faith
Atheist
Do you think there is ever a reason to keep intelligence secret?

Thats not what happened, they kept saying no one had imagined someone flying a plane into a building or using planes as weapons. Sometimes they said they had no "specific" threat, but even the 911 commission thought this was a bad excuse. If they are incompetent and they lied about it, are you saying its okay for them to lie or misrepresent the truth because "sometimes its okay to keep intelligence secret"?
 
Upvote 0

Edx

Senior Veteran
Apr 3, 2005
4,626
118
✟5,474.00
Faith
Atheist
It takes considerable intellectual dishonesty to say the answer "I don't know, I'll get back to you " is dodging the question.
Anyone can listen to the interview and hear this response.

I already replied to this accusation already, so I'll just cut and paste it for you:

I specifically mention his first answer. If he stopped at that point, there wouldnt be a problem would there?

The problem is he refuses to accept this is a logical question to want to ask, and he even says the question is not even worth answering. Why do you ignore that? It shows exactly the kind of thing Im accusing Popular Mechanics of, but you're saying this reaction is irrelevant and inadmissable.

And by the way AFAIK he never did get back to them.
 
Upvote 0

Edx

Senior Veteran
Apr 3, 2005
4,626
118
✟5,474.00
Faith
Atheist
Exactly how should they have protected the capitol?
Show me which planes in exercises in Alaska would have been in a position to help otherwise.

They claimed one of the reasons why they had such limited success that day in intercepting any of the planes was because of the downsizing and because they were looking outward to external threats. But according to the article you posted more fighters would have made little difference because they claimed they were worried they would collide with other planes. As for external threats, we know they had all these warnings about terrorists using planes as weapons, even the 911 Commission knew that. We know they had performed war games with hijacked planes being flown into buildings and was working on a war game that involved hijacked craft in the US. The August 6th PDB said that Bin Laden was determined to attack (along with a plethora of other warnings for imminent terror attacks), that he wanted to attack Washington, that he was surveling federal buildings in NYC, and that there activity consistent for prepartions for hijackings and that it was likely going to be a domestic threat. Why then were the so ill prepared? Why did they have so little fighers ready to protect the capital? Why werent they conserned about domestic threats? Why, really, would it being a domestic flight really made much difference? Why were Langley jets sent off in the wrong direction when they claimed they didnt want to have two fighter wings in the air or else they would both run out of fuel at the same time? And why did they deny all prior knowledge and warnings ?

Asking me to plan a military operation just so you can dismiss all that is a poor argument.
 
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟70,740.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Here is what you quoted from Griffin:

From the NYtimes article I posted:

I have previously asked on what basis, on what substance, does the article conclude that the FAA and military gave false information? As far as I can discern the article does not specify this. It does not provide a source of substance for its claim that the FAA made false statements. The premise of the article is, therefore, merely a claim, as to is its assumption that the 9/11 Commission was 'independent' in its 'investigation.' Quite frankly, it is too flattering to say as such.

You keep saying "lie". Why? Where is your proof someone lied?
People were mistaken about details and times in a confusing and unprecedented situation.

I have already pointed out why I consider the military to have lied on either once or both occasions. What concerns me is if they were really so 'mistaken' by such an unprecedented situation, then why did they continue to maintain their first story (which made the military appear grossly incompetent) up until the release of the NORAD tapes, which they likely had a chance to review prior to even making their testimony? If they were so 'mistaken,' why did no one point that out up until the official story was literally changed on the premise of the tapes-based account? Could so many people have been so 'mistaken' in their testimonies that the collective story they tell resembles nothing of the tapes, which lessens the degree of blame on the military, providing them with a more positive image?

What information about concerning Arnold, Myers and Rumsfeld should be on the NORAD tapes?

These are conversations from the highest level of the military-industrial complex. Do you not think that the public should be made aware of what they discussed and what orders they gave to either contribute or dismantle the situation? By virtue of omission, we do not know what these high-level individuals conversed on, what orders they gave, and what they discussed.
Please answer this question. What do you think the military's response should have been on 911? If you are so keen on pointing out the problems ( which you continue to be vague about because Griffin hasn't specified for you.) lay out a time line of what should have happened. What would a proper response have looked like?

The proper response is quite obvious, isn't it?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

BigCedar

Regular Member
Apr 9, 2005
106
4
✟258.00
Faith
Seeker
Edx,

What say we clear the air a little. I accept the possibility that the administration tried to cover up their own failings in this situation. That doesn't surprise or shock me in any way.

It is difficult to judge the level of incompetency displayed by the defense department on that day without having a similar situation to compare it to.

The NORAD situation is brought up by most 911 conspiracists to show that the government acted purposefully on that day to allow the attacks. There is no evidence of this.

If you are truly seeking a greater understanding of what took place concerning our air defense that day I would suggest this link.

Especially Andrew Burfield's contributions. You can even ask him questions directly on JREF, he goes under Gumboot.
 
Upvote 0

BigCedar

Regular Member
Apr 9, 2005
106
4
✟258.00
Faith
Seeker
I have previously asked on what basis, on what substance, does the article conclude that the FAA and military gave false information? As far as I can discern the article does not specify this. It does not provide a source of substance for its claim that the FAA made false statements. The premise of the article is, therefore, merely a claim, as to is its assumption that the 9/11 Commission was 'independent' in its 'investigation.' Quite frankly, it is too flattering to say as such.



I have already pointed out why I consider the military to have lied on either once or both occasions. What concerns me is if they were really so 'mistaken' by such an unprecedented situation, then why did they continue to maintain their first story (which made the military appear grossly incompetent) up until the release of the NORAD tapes, which they likely had a chance to review prior to even making their testimony? If they were so 'mistaken,' why did no one point that out up until the official story was literally changed on the premise of the tapes-based account? Could so many people have been so 'mistaken' in their testimonies that the collective story they tell resembles nothing of the tapes, which lessens the degree of blame on the military, providing them with a more positive image?



These are conversations from the highest level of the military-industrial complex. Do you not think that the public should be made aware of what they discussed and what orders they gave to either contribute or dismantle the situation? By virtue of omission, we do not know what these high-level individuals conversed on, what orders they gave, and what they discussed.

You claimed the absence of these highest-level people from the tapes brought the tapes into question. When should their voices be heard on the tapes?

So how many people would have to be in on these lies alone?

Did the Military lie or were the NORAD tapes the lie?
 
Upvote 0

Edx

Senior Veteran
Apr 3, 2005
4,626
118
✟5,474.00
Faith
Atheist
Edx,

What say we clear the air a little. I accept the possibility that the administration tried to cover up their own failings in this situation. That doesn't surprise or shock me in any way.

It is difficult to judge the level of incompetency displayed by the defense department on that day without having a similar situation to compare it to.

As one of the Jersey Girls, I forget her name, pointed out in Press for Truth companion film In Their Own Words, we dont have a situation directly comparable to 911. However even if it was an external threat with a normal hijacking they would still have failed. We had protocols for that kind of threat, yet they failed with that as well.

The NORAD situation is brought up by most 911 conspiracists to show that the government acted purposefully on that day to allow the attacks. There is no evidence of this.

Yes its speculation, even though I find it very strange all of the issues occuring at the same time. But an inside job is only one possibility, something I only entertain as a possibility. I think its clear there is a coverup and I think its clear people lied and screwed up and I think people need to be held accountable.

If you are truly seeking a greater understanding of what took place concerning our air defense that day I would suggest this link.

Especially Andrew Burfield's contributions. You can even ask him questions directly on JREF, he goes under Gumboot.

I'd check it out but you seem to have forgotten to link to anything?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums