Posted on 08/05/2006 7:52:57 PM PDT by GeorgiaYankee
I was browsing Youtube looking for a video on the newly released NORAD tapes from 9/11. I'm a technical kind of guy and wanted to hear what the air defense conversations on 9/11 sounded like.
But then I find out that there's a controversy about the timeline given to the 9/11 Commission, some people think that NORAD, the Pentagon etc were trying to make it look like they responded sooner. But the person who posted the video took it further. He is one of the "9/11 was an inside job" Moonbats.
Oddly enough, "journalist" Keith Olbermann intros the story by dramatically announcing "One month from tomorrow 9/11 will be five years ago."
transcript here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14184586/
Anyone who can count would know that that would be true on Aug 10, but this was Aug 3. The Great Imparter of Truth, Keith Olbermann was off by A WHOLE WEEK!
I decided to comment on the irony that a Conspiracy Theorist who can spot minute discrepancies and turn them into a sinister plot could not spot a TIMELINE ERROR OF ONE WHOLE WEEK!
read more, let the games begin!
merrykite (1 day ago)
glad this is finally getting out in the mainstream media...guess who was holding the reigns...your pal, dick.
(reply to this) mark as spam
truthcommission (1 day ago)
I agree. Check out the Mineta testimony. It is clear evidence of a cover-up (to whatever extent one will admit.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI3kJKiBXNU
(reply to this)
mark as spam
Zaphod2001 (19 hours ago)
OK, here's a possible conspiracy: Krazy Keith starts by saying "One month from tomorrow, 9/11 will be 5 years ago"
that would mean he was speaking those words on August 10, 2006. But the video was posted on August 3rd.
Was Keith
1. broadcasting from the future?
Or
2. is he an IDIOT who can't figure out the calendar?
I vote for option 2!
(reply to this)
mark as spam
truthcommission (18 hours ago)
Is this a matter of arguing over semantics? Or is it a lame attempt on your part to divert attention away from the fact that NORAD -- the agency who is charged with defending American skies -- has gives us seven different timelines about their response on that day? Either way, you are pathetic.
(reply to this) mark as spam
Zaphod2001 (10 hours ago)
It's what's commonly called a "humorous observation" or "joke", frequently recognized by normal humans equipped with what is known as a "sense of humor".
It's also tinged with a bit of irony. I made a big deal out of an accidental misstatement of a minor detail and suggested a conspiracy was behind it.
If the shoe fits...
(reply to this) mark as spam
truthcommission (4 hours ago)
Sorry. I thought you were an agent of OlbermannWatch out to discredit everythign to do with Krazy Keith. What do you think of the NORAD revelations?
(reply to this) mark as spam
Zaphod2001 (4 hours ago)
I think they (NORAD)were doing their best to deal w an attack they were unprepared for. Contrary to the 911 Deniers, there was no stand down order, just a lot of confusion. They were part of a Cold War era defense system playing catchup w an unconventional enemy that had planned this for 5 years.
I'm not sure whether the timeline discrepancies are the result of confusion or a CYA attempt. If it was a CYA attempt, how high did it go?
(reply to this) mark as spam
truthcommission (3 hours ago)
I wish we could find that out. I am very skeptical of the war games going on that day that inserted fake blips on the ATC radar screen. ATC found out about that WTC attack on TV; they couldn't even follow the planes in real-time. What about the NRO drill that evacuated the nations spy satellite agency? Too many coincidences. To be hoenst, anyone who doesn't see these anomalies and chalks them up to incompetence and confusion is missing the big picture. (reply to this) mark as spam
Zaphod2001 (3 hours ago)
How's this for "big picture" thinking?
Before 9/11 a hijacking meant a hijacker threatened the pilot and told him where to fly the plane. Pilots and crew were told to cooperate w the hijacker and land the plane as soon as possible. NORAD sent fighters to follow the hijacked plane at a distance.
There WERE NO PROCEDURES to deal with SUICIDAL HIJACKERS with PILOT TRAINING. They even knew to turn off the transponders, so NORAD would be tracking unidentified blips at best.
(reply to this) mark as spam
truthcommission (2 hours ago)
Have you seen the Mineta testimony that was conveniently omitted from the 9/11 final report?
(reply to this) mark as spam truthcommission (2 hours ago)
From the minute those transponders went off and the planes deviated from their scheduled flight path, jets should have been there within 15 minutes MAX. The fact that all four planes were not tailed at all for over an hour after it was clear the country was under attack is unexcusable. Watch Minetas testimony and learn the truth. Cheney knew of the incoming plane and didn't do squat about it. This alone shatters the official govt. lie.
(reply to this) mark as spam
Zaphod2001 (1 hour ago)
Cheney knew of which incoming plane? Flight 93? Flight 77?
(reply to this) mark as spam
Zaphod2001 (35 minutes ago)
You said: "The fact that all four planes were not tailed at all for over an hour after it was clear the country was under attack is unexcusable."
your timeline is a bit deceptive
You said the first report of a hijack was 8:20am, but according to the Vanity Fair article, the first notice NORAD had was 8:37 and the 1st plane hit WTC at 8:47,that's 10 minutes notice:no way they could get there in time.They launched fighters at 8:44 with no idea where the plane was.
(reply to this) mark as spam
truthcommission (26 minutes ago)
My point is that within 10-15 MAX of seeing a plane go off course, jets should be scrambled. NORAD successfully intercepted planes 67 times in the first 9 months of 2001. Why did they fail so miserably on 9/11? Why was noone reprimanded? Why did an ATC superior destroy audio pages made by flight controllers? If I had more time, I would pull up the sources for you. Check out that coopresearch site. It's quite extensive. (reply to this)
mark as spam Zaphod2001 (22 minutes ago)
"My point is that within 10-15 MAX of seeing a plane go off course, jets should be scrambled."
My point is that jets WERE scrambled in LESS THAN 10 MINUTES (See above) (reply to this)
mark as spam Zaphod2001 (20 minutes ago)
"NORAD successfully intercepted planes 67 times in the first 9 months of 2001. Why did they fail so miserably on 9/11?"
Those planes were NOT FLOWN BY TERRORISTS WHO TURNED OFF TRANSPONDERS! Plus they continued on their flight plan so they were EASY to find.
(reply to this) mark as spam
truthcommission (1 hour ago) Penatgon Flight 77.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI3kJKiBXNU
Give me your thoughts on his testimony. Remarkably, this was completely omitted from the final report (among hundreds of other things that I can link you to if you want.)
(reply to this) mark as spam
Zaphod2001 (45 minutes ago)
I watched it. So Cheney didn't order flight 77 to be shot down. To my knowledge no one ever claimed otherwise. After consulting w the Pres, Cheney did give the order to shoot down flight 93, but it was too late, 93 was already down.
(reply to this) mark as spam
truthcommission (20 minutes ago)
It just doesn't add up. Your thoughts.
(reply to this) mark as spam
truthcommission (25 minutes ago)
I was going off the Paul Thompson 9/11 Terror Timeline (cooperativeresearch.org) Read the final report. It completely omits that testimony. I don't know what happenned per se but when a testimony that important gets thrown away, I am skeptical. Also, when NORAD and the FAA give SEVEN different timelines about the air response, I am also highly skeptical. Read about the war games (Norther Guardian, Northern Vigilance,etc.) and drills (NRO,FEMA in NYC on 9/10,etc.)
(reply to this) mark as spam
truthcommission (2 hours ago)
No but there is a very precise standard operating procedure to deal with suspected hijackings. The FAA is suppossed to treat any suspect plane (transponder off/slight flight course deviation) as if it is a certified hijacking. There is no excuse for none of the planes being intercepted. What the hijackers did with the planes is irrelevant. The fact is that they went off course are were not treated according to the SOP for times well exceeding normal protocol.
(reply to this) mark as spam
truthcommission (20 minutes ago)
Remember Mineta is testifying that Cheney said "of course the order still stands." What was the order? Had to have been to let the plane hit. Why wasnt this "young man" supoenaed? And the pilot (Hani Hanjour) who alledgedly flew the plane was a terrible pilot. The maneuver he pulled (270 downward spiral) was very difficult. So we have an amateur pilot (at best) pulling off a military style manuever in a 757 and hitting the one part of the building that will cause the least damage. (reply to this) mark as spam
Zaphod2001 (16 minutes ago)
'Remember Mineta is testifying that Cheney said "of course the order still stands." What was the order? Had to have been to let the plane hit.'
LET THE PLANE HIT!? The order likely was "do not shoot" You have 20/20 hindsight. They didn't have ESP! All they knew was an UNIDENTIFIED plane was headed toward DC. For all they knew it could have been an F15 (by the way that DID happen later, a false alarm caused by a friendly)
there's more to come
the moonbat is sending me private messages with more "proof", still trying to win me over
truthcommission wrote:
> NORAD did not send jets til after the first building was hit. You can still track a plane with it's transponder turned off; you just can't tell the altitude. If planes were scrambled as early as you say they were, AT LEAST one of the planes should have been intercepted. How is it possible for a civilian plane to hit the Pentagon in the first place? The missile-dfense system is programmed to shoot down any plane without a military signal. Again, you have to evaluate all of this in the context of the war games. Simulated blips were confusing the shit out of ATC. Do you think it was just a coincidence that all of these official drills and games were scheduled for that day? War games that simulated hijacked jest and drills that simulated planes flying into buildings? Cmon.
my reply:
Then you must believe that 9/11 was an inside job. Out govt either carried out the attack or allowed the terrorists to attack us?
You seem to believe NORAD is part of the coverup. Those people would not keep quiet. Their job is to protect America, at least one of the DOZENS of people in that room would TALK. No normal person would let such a plot go uncovered.
I've got a link for you, friend.
http://thatsjuststupid.com/911.htm
truthcommission wrote:
> NORAD did not send jets til after the first building was hit.
my reply:
WRONG! Didn't you read the Vanity Fair piece?
http://www.vanityfair.com/features/general/060801fege01
08:44:59FOX: M.C.C. [Mission Crew Commander], I don't know where I'm scrambling these guys to. I need a direction, a destination—
NASYPANY: O.K., I'm gonna give you the Z point [coordinate]. It's just north of—New York City.
FOX: I got this lat long, 41-15, 74-36, or 73-46.
NASYPANY: Head 'em in that direction.
FOX: Copy that.
truthcommission wrote:
> You can't say that just because someone didn't talk, it's not true. What incentive does one have to talk? First of all, the military is the most disciplined organization in the world. All it would take is a handful of complicit high commanders and loyal soldiers. Plus, if someone did come out and speak, they would be signing their own death warrant. They will be tried for treason or killed before that even happens. Would you put your family in danger to expose to the world that you are a traitor? Something that will get you executed? I dont think so. I dont know to what extent it is an inside job but the offical story does not add up. To say that it does is ignorant. Address all the issues I brought up. Noone has been able to explain them.
my reply:
Conspiracies and coverups LEAK out every time. If there's more than 2 or 3 people involved, someone will talk. Watergate was a "3rd rate burglary" but someone talked. Mark Felt (#2 at FBI) then John Dean.
If someone in the govt can even come close to proving 9/11 was an inside job, they would not be the traitor, they would be a patriot and whistleblower. If someone kills them after they go public, it would PROVE the conspiracy.
BY YOUR LOGIC, since you and the other guys in the 9/11 "Truth" movement have such great "evidence", YOUR LIVES SHOULD BE IN DANGER! The govt would want to shut you up since you've uncovered their plot! Yet you are free to spin your theories, which are based not on positive evidence, but "discrepancies" that are "only explained" by the Inside Job explanation.
Time after time, I punch holes in your arguments, so what do you do-- bring up ANOTHER ONE-- "then what about this? or this"
--------
to be continued.....
By the way, watch my videos here
http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=Zaphod2001
and rate them!
thanks!
I used to argue with every nitwit around, too, until I realized how much of my valuable time I wasting on people who don't make decisions based on logic or facts.
Life's too short, and I've yet to meet a liberal who's changed his mind over facts pointed out to him on a message board.
I figure I can retire on my investment in tin foil futures....
It's a lot more fun to tell them that you don't respect them enough to listen to or debate their psychotic fantasies.
Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level and then beat you with experience.
L
I guess it's like slowing down to see a car wreck. Morbid curiosity-- a glimpse into the demented mind of a 9/11 Denier.
He started out sounding somewhat sane, but the descent into madness came quickly.
Word, man ...
Put a clean kid and a dirty kid in the same room and let them play .. does the clean rub off from the clean kid onto the dirty kid and make him clean?
Thanks,
L
Never wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty and the pig likes it.
Whenever the moonbat says:
I am also highly skeptical...
He means:
I cannot be convinced to think rationally...
Like others have said already, it's of no use to try and convince these theorists. Any verifiable proof of a non-conspiracy is proof of the conspiracy at the next higher level.
Any verifiable proof of a non-conspiracy is proof of the conspiracy at the next higher level.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Just like the old joke:
Moonbat: Did you know that elephants can hide in trees?
Human: Really? I've never seen one.
Moonbat: See how well they hide?
As a professional moonbat butt kicker, you may be interested in this Randall!
That's a pretty good illustration of so many of these 9-10 liberals--they have a solid grasp on the thinnest layer of the truth, and once you penetrate that, all they have is their FEELINGS that there was A Conspiracy.
Actually in some ways, they can't remember what things were like pre-9/11.
Airline crews were told to COOPERATE with hijackers to AVOID violence. We could meet their demands after the plane LANDS.
US Air Defense was still in a Cold War posture, expecting an attack from OUTSIDE the US.
They use 20/20 hindsight to blame the govt for not having ESP!
Good points all. The very first thing I thought about when I awoke that morning to the news was "This is what happens when you 'do what they say, and everything will be all right'." It's why I don't just dislike Michael Moore but loathe him--he tries to smear Bush by holding Bush to a standard none of those involved that day lived up to; sure, there will be plenty of us saying "Well *I* would never have cooperated," but we don't know how we would have handled the situation. That the Dems have nothing but hate and slander for Bush as he leads us through this completely new situation guarantees that I will never, ever vote for a Democrat again as long as I live (and I did vote for democrats in various local races in almost every election up to 2002).
Update:
He's still trying to convince me. I responded with this:
From your latest response I see that you apparently can't understand what I'm saying. You are grossly misinterpreting my arguments.
"Was 9/11 a "third-rate burglary"? I don't think so. Comparing a potential 9/11 conspiracy to Watergate is laughable. It's completely different."
I did not compare call 9/11 a 3rd rate burglary. In fact I used that phrase to emphasize the DIFFERENCE between 9/11 and Watergate. Hence the use of the word "but". Try reading it again:
"Watergate was a "3rd rate burglary" BUT someone talked."
You claim that 9//1 involves a govt conspiracy and coverup. Watergate involved a govt conspiracy and coverup. That is the basis for the comparison, not the body count.
In Watergate, the stakes weren't nearly as high aa 9/11. A potential whistleblower could justify ignoring it by saying "it's just political dirty tricks, no one died." Believe it or not, the higher the stakes (as in 9/11) the more likely people would be to expose any govt complicity or coverup. Yet no one with first hand knowledge in govt or military has come forward to say 9/11 was an inside job.
"To say that since no hi-level offficial has "proved" a 9/11 conspiracy (which is impossible without subpoena power) is proposterous." (actually the word is preposterous)
I did not say that. I said IF someone in govt could COME CLOSE (convince he public, not a judge) to proving it, they would be considered a patriot. I said this in response to you saying they would be branded a traitor. Certainly rhe Conspirators would try this, but the traitor label would only stick it they couldn't make a reasonable case.
I said: "BY YOUR LOGIC, since you and the other guys in the 9/11 "Truth" movement have such great "evidence", YOUR LIVES SHOULD BE IN DANGER!"
You responded: "Thats not my logic at all. By YOUR logic, anyone who questions the official story should fear for their life?! I dont think so. Take a look at the polling; 40% nationwide believe that we are being lied to about 9/11 (even higher in NYC.) Should they all be killed? C'mon. That argument is garbage."
I did not say that people should be killed for believing something. You said this:
"if someone did come out and speak, they would be signing their own death warrant. They will be tried for treason or killed before that even happens. Would you put your family in danger to expose to the world that you are a traitor? Something that will get you executed? I dont think so."
You said that anyone who uncovers the plot would be killed. Alex Jones, Dylan Avery and you believe you have convincing evidence that 9/11 was an inside job. BY YOUR LOGIC, the govt would want to kill you to keep it covered up. Or maybe you don't think your evidence is good enough to have the govt worried.
I don't have nuch hope of successfully communicating with you, since you don't seem to understand my arguments.
Like they said in Cool Hand Luke:"What we have here is a failure to communicate."
You need to read my words for what they actually say, not read stuff into them. That's how crazy conspiracy theories get started.
Peace.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.