This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The Most Boring Superbowl Ever … Until 9/11 Truth Proponent Interrupts MVP Interview
This clip has gotten a lot of media attention … almost as much as Peyton Manning explaining why the football hit his helmet on the very first play (leading to a safety, and the fastest score in superbowl history).
Winning Seahawks coach Pete Carroll also questions 9/11. As do some old-timers, like 5-time NFL Pro Bowl center Mark Stepnoski (Dallas Cowboys and Houston Oilers) and former NFL running back Bill Enyart (Buffalo Bills and Oakland Raiders).
What do you think? How many of you think:
(1) The government couldn’t have foreseen 9/11, and did everything it could to minimize the damage (while perhaps being negligent in its foresight, coordination, communication, priorities or execution)?
(2) 9/11 was an inside job carried out by rogue elements of the U.S. government as a “false flag attack“?
(3) The government knew the attack was coming, but allowed it to succeed to justify the launching of the war for oil – er, I mean the “War on Terror” – and to consolidate power and crackdown on liberties at home?
»
- advertisements -
Kudos for knowing your history. Guess who helped author that bill back in 1995? Joe Biden.
And that gaping hole in the side of flight 007 looks an awful lot like something hit and penetrated the jet.
Mohammed Atta was on page two of the Vancouver Sun in June of 2001 as a Palestinian suicide bomber. His face is rather unmistakable.
I have no proof, make of it what you will.
We're way ahead of where we were 12 years ago.
One thing that's deterring them from pulling off another 9/11-type event is that no matter how awful or scary they make it, there will be a great cry of "bullshit" from all across the world. Because there are millions of us watching for them to try it again.
Heck, they couldn't even pull off that Marathon bombing without the whole coverup starting to come apart within dayts!
So don't ever get so cynical or jaded that you don't believe what thousands and millions of people do matters. It does.
I think about that all the time. Good to know others do too
This guy does a hell of job uncovering the current false flag attacks that are launched against us. Here's the search results for what he's written about Boston.
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/?s=boston+marathon
I believe the 9 but I question the 11.
9/11, global warming, perpetual war, the economy, big oil, etc etc etc etc...it's all gamed. None of it is happenstance. They are all tied together and they all can be explained by one phrase...
limiting resources.
http://wtfrly.com/911top50
http://wtfrly.com/911truth
i'll take door #3
A lot of non-truther comments on the Pete Carrol story. How convenient NSA.
Have you ever considered that not everyone who believes that Atta & Co did what they did, also do not accept the final .gov or Truther version of events?
And are not (by the way) in any way involved with the NSA?
Was the blind sheik, also part of a failed .gov plot on the very same target years before? Is he part of this long range plot? If you know who you're dealing with, you realize pretty quickly they fixate on one thing and assault it until success or failure.
It was .gov incompetence and some purile belief that accepting a sworn enemy into your midst has no consequence.
I look at it this way and always have.
.gov (given three years and close to a billion dollars) could not even design a simple website that works...they cannot balance their own checkbook...they cannot keep a high school grad from stealing its "secrets" and then lhim eaving with them.
...they cannot keep a high school grad from stealing its "secrets" and then lhim eaving with them.
This old trope of government being too incompetent to pull off a false flag is classical diversionary tactics. There are dozens of false flags and conspiracies that we know about. Bay of Tonkin, Iraqi WMD, Pearl Harbor to name just a few. And it's not 'government' that's doing it. It's the shadowy cabal behind the curtain - the poeple who always pull the strings.
nmewn:
After all these years, I must still admit, that you are one slick prick.
9/11: A Conspiracy Theoryhttp://www.corbettreport.com/911-a-conspiracy-theory/
But you still FAIL the...
Litmus Testhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21pPpYw_axQ
Jim Quinn would love to stroke your Idiot Gland over, over and over on his childish little blog.
Begone MORON!
I have no idea WTF any of that has to do with my opinion and the provable, known evidence, except that you want me to shutup and go away?
A few of you people are amazing, while some of you are technically insane.
Some here propose, holograms of planes, crashing into pre-wired buildings. They say (partly to cover this conspiracy "fact") that communications could not be made from the planes telling those on the ground what was really going on inside them, yet Ong and Sweeney and (purportedly) Atta himself and many others did. So another conspiracy must be invented to cover this inconvienece to that particular theory, which is, voice recognition software. But this cannot get around the fact, that some who were heard, were not supposed to be on those planes at all. A theory has to have all parameters covered in order to remain a viable theory, an unknown variable (like last minute boarding changes) destroys any software programmers "theory".
Yes DP, its much easier to adopt the climate nutters debate tool of choice when cornered and call me a "denier" than to admit that a "truther" has taken leave of their senses, if they ever had any to begin with.
But I will be gone, I have an actual day job that pays the bills...lol.
Later.
And please take the time to watch this documentary which is reviewed on Paul Craig Roberts' site and hailed as the best 9/11 documenary yet done:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1GCeuSr3Mk
Review on PCR's site:
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2013/10/16/original-pakistani-tv-bashir-...
nmewn, love reading your posts. You're obviously a very intelligent person, but in need of a history lesson. Research Operation Northwoods, then re-examine 9/11. .gov is indeed incapable of almost anything. They can't even get a website up for $500m. But don't mistake .gov for the world's largest and most powerful military. One thing the US is very efficient at is war and warlike actions. Operation Northwoods proves that our military is willing to hurt US citizens. It's a tough pill to swallow, but it's true. There is historical precedence that 9/11 could have been planned by military.
Given nwewn has gone to work and can not reply, soon, I perhaps should not say this, but I trust he'll understand the spirit in which it's said (I'll also be away again for a couple of weeks, directly, so I'll say it in this way, any way). ;-)
nwewn is well aware of operation Northwoods, and his position makes no sense to me either, though I do have plenty of respect for him otherwise. I've discussed all of this with him before and pointed out Northwoods, so he knows all about it, but he also does not comment on it, at all. I take that to mean he dares not go there, and is not prepared to explicitly acknowledge it, or the relevance it may hold. That's his business.
He also knows about the impossibility of the formal report/story, due to the ACARS data transmissions from the jets, themselves, and we went through that, as well.
So he knows about the transmissions which show that the aircraft which were alleged to be involved in hitting the WTC towers, were reported, via their ACARS transmissions, through reception nodes which reveal the jets to not even be anywhere near New York, when two jets impacted the WTC towers.
The ACARS data shows that at least one of the jets was hundreds of miles to the West as the ACARs signals are routed and relayed via the nearest reception node that it can datalink with, and those were in other cities and in other states, and their messages were time and transmission-node location 'stamped'. So we can actually track the logged continued movement of the jet westward, with certainty, even when they had supposedly already hit the tower!
So we know that the jet that took off was not the jet that the early media reports, plus the later formal final-report, claimed hit the tower.
The ACARS data provides an indisputable open-and-shut case, that the jet that hit the tower was a different aircraft from the one that took off, and continued to head west and broadcast its ACARS messages, even after it was supposedly already destroyed.
What comes from .gov to this clear contrary evidence? ... crickets only ... they won't even talk about it, they dare not even acknowledge it, if they even started to address it it would unzipper the whole charade. So they say nothing.
So mwewn knows all of this, and he did not even attempt to contradict or explain it away or deny it. Yet he seems stuck with the personal notion/position that an alternative explanation must be both offered and must 'gell' and explain all features to his level of what 'gells', before he can accept any alteration in his position.
Now that may seem a reasonable and intelligent position, superficially, when put like that, in isolation. Yes, it does seem a perfectly reasonable expectation, however, it's also a more-or-less extremely unrealistic, more-or-less naive, and not at all reasonable in reality.
Why?
Because this can not be thus treated as isolated, nor us indifferent to the circumstances of the formal reportage, and the revealed clear inadequacy and falsehood of it, with respect to the ACARS data, which we do have, and which is clear solid evidence that's entirely at odds with the formal story, and calls it into stark contradiction.
The problem is not that there's no alternate seamless explanation of all the disparate issues, that fits hand-in-glove.
NO.
The issue is he (and others) are apparently unreasonably willing to turn a blind-eye to the indisputable fact that the official story was revealed by ACARS's falsifying of it, to plainly contain major data inconsistencies and impossible location contradictions that absolutely do not 'gell' in any way, shape, or form.
Or as a scientist might put it, the formal story has been revealed via ACARS to be such obvious twaddle, that, "it's not even wrong".
So we have many first-hand anecdotal accounts, plus hard incontrovertible ACARS evidence which is also quantitative data which shows that the jets which took off were not the ones that hit the WTC towers.
Nwewn avoided facing that implication as well, on unclear grounds which seem to revolve around how virtually impossible it would be to control hundreds of people on the ground, once they've landed again. I pointed out the very obvious rational solution here is to open the venturis and allow the cabin to depressurize so that problem is rendered non-existent. In about 5 mins everyone becomes light headed, feels a bit drunk and happy then goes painlessly unconscious, then within about 20 mins everyone's dead.
So next objection was how do you secretly dispose of the bodies with almost no one knowing about it or finding them or the plane? Frankly this is not even much of a challenge, as I can think of several perfectly viable methods of doing that, if I have the resources needed for it.
But those are all completely incidental mechanical concerns/objections, effectively mere excuses to ignore that the ACARS transmissions leave no room to doubt that the flights that took off were not the ones that hit the towers. (see "Pilots of 911" for the detailed ACARS document discussions).
So the standard nonsense does not 'gell', and its been rendered irrelevant from there on.
So there's no viability in any excuse and nothing at all reasonable about someone who knows that, and still aligns behind a definitely falsified formal 'explanation', or turns a blind-eye to clear evidence that shows the formal report is a fabricated charade. And that's quite irrespective of there being no cohesive or compelling alternate systematic explanation(s) for what really took place.
That's where myself and nwewn depart company.
It is his business how he justifies suspension-of-disbelief with that non-'gelling' and clear lie.
I can not go along with such falsified nonsense merely due to excusing myself for my failure to disbelieve it, on the grounds of the lack of a cohesive satisfactory cute alternatives, as a mental fig-leaf over the nakedness.
I do not have to find or describe that alternate explanation, as that's not even my job, nor responsibility, to me, or anyone else.
It is sufficient to identify that the formal explanation was identified via ACARS as being indisputably false. I do not need nor demand a replacement thesis. It is more than sufficient to be free of the illusion, which I was primed, expected and supposed to accept. Well that clever scheme failed, it was not sufficiently thorough, and I now know it was indeed a concerted lie, one of spectacular proportions.
For mwewn, he's merely stuck on an unreasonable demand from SOMEONE ELSE to supply a formal explanation, that 'gells'. Until then, he seems more-or-less to go along with and even defend the formal explanation, as though it retains some contrived validity, or were not already falsified by the solid and undisputed ACARS transmissions.
So that's not my problem, it's not my responsibility, not my business, and I'll not try or succeed to convince anyone in that way. If people place illusory stumbling-blocks or excuses in their own mind's way that is their choice. But there will be consequences for doing that.
In science you don't go with the next story that 'gell's for you, nor, if you're honest, do you seek and demand one, for you do you will be prone to latch on to the idea you'd want to be true.
NO!
You work out what's more likely to be true, and is also testable, via first identifying and eliminating what is surely not true, (which is what ACARS has done) and then you focus on what you do know after that, and what you can then test (if you must) and verify or falsify that also, and move forwards from there.
In science, and in basic honesty also, there's always the possibility that it's not possible to find out what is actually then true, your capabilities, options, technology and budget may not extend sufficiently far to do that - ever!
But you CAN know with definitive certainty what is false, and often that's the best piece of hard information you may have, for a very, very long time.
And I do now know the formal 9-11 story is definitively not true.
I may never find out what the real story is, and I'm quite ok with that. I'm accustomed to that. I would not even dream or entertaining, defending or comparing and contrasting an idea with something which I already identified and know is surely false.
Why would you? (visions of the dog returning to its vomit here).
But that's where so many other people are currently captured, within a loop of inaction and indecision due to a completely unreasonable and unrealistic demand for an alternate story that 'gells' to immediately take the place of the one that obviously doesn't 'gell'.
But what made any of these people ever think they needed an immediate replacement?
We are not talking about a flat-tire on the highway here, which does need an immediate replacement, we're talking about a flat-lie, and it does not require an immediate replacement, nor even any replacement, if it comes to that. You will not get stranded if someone does not immediately supply you with a fully-inflated new lie.
But you will be crippled if you don't change it.
This is not satisfactory, in my view, if the requirement to reject the baggage of a falsified explanation has still not occurred, and is effectively only shirked and avoided.
That is an untenable response.
mwewn old friend, all the best to you, and yours, always and regardless. I just hope you attend to this unfinished business one day.
"So we know that the jet that took off was not the jet that the early media reports, plus the later formal final-report, claimed hit the tower."
The jets that took off from Logan, flights 11 and 175, did hit the Towers. Frasier producer David Angell and his wife were on flight 11. They died in the crash.
Ah, I missed this little bird dropping earlier.
--
Nope, they only died.
More that that, you know nothing further.
No bodies were recovered. So it's a no-show on the evidence side of the ledger.
It's a sign of your weak mind that you will immediately and without any substantiation offered (hey, why complicate stuff, right?) assert that the first part equated to the last part.
(gawd zh serves up way too many giggles lol)
I'll go slowly.
A death implies they died, and a body or two.
With no bodies this is a potential exaggeration.
But let's suppose that it's a reasonable position anyway.
The alleged death does not equate to a particular unidentified plane hitting a WTC tower.
Does it? Can you follow that?
There were no images captured that clearly showed the markings on the jets that hit the buildings.
Which incidentally, is in itself, quite a major boggle-inducer, considering the number of cameras involved in capturing that second hit.
There is no conceivable reasonable explanation for why that should just happen to turn out to be so, but there it is.
And good luck to anyone trying to find a reason for this, which makes any viable sense ... moving on ...
Given the whole issue is the question of which aircraft hit the buildings, which ACARS established was not one of the passenger jets that took-off, you maybe have a decaying blood-clot in one of your frontal lobes, to then suppose that your pitifully silly comment amounted to a surefire argument that the aircraft claimed to have hit the buildings ... actually hit the buildings.
Can you see how not one bit of any part of what you said above follows, or serves even as a valid excuse for its own utterance?
And please consider all the seaguls that were carved up by wind farms so that you could write that staggeringly ludicrous comment.
Did you not think of all those harmed budgies before you type?
You utter bastard.
I hope I've not gone too fast for you here ... and er, maybe don't give up yer day-job quite yet, there professor.
I just want to add, I detest Frasier ... I'm deeply aggrieved, torn and saddened ... ... to hear it mentioned ... with such flip and casual disdain ... on zh.
And please consider all the poor pink galahs getting zapped by solar arrays, the next time you want to type some errant diatribe of dedicated anti-think.
Did you ever think of the poor galahs? No! You didn't! See! You're a rotten utter bastard! Do smug bastards like you even know what a bloody galah is?
Very disappointed.
"Given nwewn has gone to work and can not reply, soon, I perhaps should not say this, but I trust he'll understand the spirit in which it's said..."
I do, its cool, no one ever said we have to agree on everything Element ;-)
Yes, I know about Northwoods. I also cannot find where anything ever came of it. Mine has never been a defense of CIA spooks or the DoD (though many percieve it that way) its simply that I require proof before, well, jumping. Much in the same manner as I would point out the discrepency's in a known felons case, yes, indeed, a very bad guy...but did he do what he's been charged with?...is usually my position in most situations. Some might even call it "liberal".
As far as ACARS, yes, we've been over this. Radar had them lit up the whole time, even after the hijackers changed beacons, right to the point of impact, UAL175, for example:
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/doc03.pdf
And again, a pasenger jet(s?), flying in to some non-descript airport(s?) obstensbly to unload unconscious or dead bodies, is going to be a little puzzling to people not used to seeing a 767 landing in Podunk Pennsylvania or wherever and of course, there's the guys & gals who did the actual unloading, I guess they were killed off too, to tie up the loose ends?
"mwewn old friend, all the best to you, and yours, always and regardless. I just hope you attend to this unfinished business one day."
It really does have to ALL GEL for me my friend (the friend part is meant sincerely on my part)...not disconnected pieces, like the hologram theory or the Mossad suicide pilots theory or the no communications with ground theory or the voice recognition software theory or the finding of iron & aluminum oxide dust (rust & paint) around just destroyed buildings = nanothermite theory.
Now, did .gov coverup their own ineptitude & incompetence (and who knows what else) in their final report?
You can count on that, always.
Fair enough mwewn, I guarantee you though that just like in science, within any complex series of events and observational phenomena, each point is highly arguable. It's smarter to take what may be called a 'negative' approach to this, and to identify what's definitely not true, to determine what this leaves for you to focus on, and develop tests for.
It is never entirely clear, and the consensus and pat theories rarely turns out to be adequate or 'correct'. In short, it never all 'gells', there are always loose-ends, and that's what I meant when I used the seemingly unkind words like 'unrealistic' and 'naive', in describing your positions.
And it is.
To me this is a form of cultivated avoidance that finds a continual excuse for avoiding ever 'jumping', despite the ACARS data showing that the formal story is indeed a monstrous scale of official lie.
Tell me, is it somehow more acceptable to defend the positions and also quote the documentation of the KNOWN IDENTIFIED LIE as its own intrinsic 'justification'?
Oh, surely not! ... surely not mwewn?! ... that would go well-beyond the pale.
And that's why it's an "untenable" response.
You should consider that your unwillingness to 'jump' does not mean you have not already been shown conclusively via the quite unexpected emergence of the ACARS tracking that the formal reporting was indeed falsified and the radar track-data was also faked.
No one knew about the potential ACARS tracks, until about 2010-2011, and no one in .gov probably thought a track-trail like that existed or could emerge in future to totally contradict the (secondary) 'radar' tracking plot. And if you know anything about transponder data and secondary radar tracking of commercial airliners, since approx the early 1980s, you would know that such data (both primary, and secondary) can easily be generated within a simulator, logged, and then presented later, as a real track data, at a later time.
Given markets are openly rigged by HFT machines today, but secretly prior in the recent past, and that the FED's inception was indeed a major conspiracy against the interests of the people of the United States, yet it remains tolerated and officially coddled by a series of exceptionally corrupt US national govts, is it then really inconceivable, that primary and secondary radar tracking data could be generated via simulation and the formal records replaced by the military branch of those govts, in the service of those govt's barbaric military planning and its execution?
Seriously mate, I hardly think so!
It would occur with not one ounce of bother, nor any complaints or inquiiesy from Department heads or senior officials, but instead, would occur with their full cooperation or else a blind-eye; "I saw nothin k! Nothink!! ...", etc.
However, we do agree that the vast majority of 9-11 theory-mongering is truly eye-rolling stuff and that is why I examine the facts and their implications and you will not see me trying to construct a narrative of events. But I will explore the possibilities available, to explain events and their implications, because we are never going to get to the bottom of this via theories or narrative based claims - which are absurd. So I discard that stuff, it's noise.
And btw, I did explore with you the possibility of the aircraft never having landing again at any airport and of being potentially disposed of via auto-pilots being programed (at the routine flight-planning level, within the FMS, it takes all of about 2 mins to set up such a flight plan once you plug-in manual used defined waypoints, altitudes and airspeeds) to ditch on the ocean surface in a controlled wheels-up 'landing', used small charges to hole and sink it, and then buried it by pumping marine pelagic sediment over the airframe.I also pointed out that the airspace was cleared and no one would have seen them, and that they did indeed have the fuel on board needed to fly deep into the Atlantic, Pacific or Caribbean basins.
This is not a theory, this is just exploring the possibilities, and they are feasible. And this exploration is justified and because the ACARS data shows me that the jets that hit the buildings were not these flights that took off. So it is necessary to explore these possibilities, of what was done to/with them.
I can think of a few other possibilities also, which we did not discuss.
Bottom line is; there's no reason for those aircraft to ever land again, at an airport, or to ever be seen again by almost anyone - ever. If .gov, in the form of military and state-'security', were investigating Northwoods options during the 1950s to 1960s era, do you really think they'd not thoroughly explore the possibilities, with real professionals, who's job it was to do precisely that, since then? I'm quite sure you realize the military sickurity-state would have thorough researched every conceivable option of that sort, since the 1960s, and certainly still do, in 2014.
Plus if the buildings were prepped for demolition, as demolition-experts say, and numerous professional engineers proclaim, then there were numbers of people involved in that too, and these have also not said anything either.
Given that we know of numerous past secret major military attack missions, such as the secret bombing of Laos, which is now claimed to have been bigger than the combined bombings of Cambodia and North Vietnam (which were both individually claimed to have had more tonnage of bombs dropped on each, than all the tonnage used in WWII) and that tens of thousands of people were involved in the intimate details of the military execution of the multi-decade long intense daily bombing of Laos, which killed literally millions of non-combatant civilians, and virtually no one in the civil western-world even heard about this for over three decades, then I do not find it a stretch, at all, to realistically accept that small professional militarized teams, executing their various aspects of the 9-11 attack orchestration, would remain unknown to the civil public virtually indefinitely, and certainly for as long as it remained the very closest of state military and 'security' secrets.
So we absolutely know this occurs on almost inconceivably large-scales of military and state 'security' operations, which do indeed get planned out, trained-for, financed and executed and then successfully hidden from the oblivious public, for many decades without any word at all about it getting out.
Mass-murder combined with almost zero consequences.
That is not even a theory, we know it happens. The intensive multi-decade bombing of Laos is a classic example of how something that should be quite impossible to remain secret, or expect to remain secret, does in fact remain a water-tight long-term secret, from the public.
So the enduring secrecy requirement of a 9-11 false-flag operation is not an objection that I can take seriously, and is pointless to continuing positing it as any sort of serious rationale for saying it could not have happened.
That's bunk, it's mere excuse-making that ignores the hard evidence like ACARS, and is not a valid objection thereafter ACARS transmissions were uncovered and laid-out for us to see the appalling and quite inescapable implications.
Anyway, despite your disappointing recalcitrance in the face of such stark implications, you are entitled to your time and space to attend to this very unfinished business. Have a great week. :-)
I know what they are purposefully capable "of"...its them getting away with it, its them covering all their bases in order to pull it off. I just don't think they are competent enough for anything on this scale and the scale and intricacy of this has everything to do with why I think what I do about it.
How many bad guys (in the know) would it have taken to pull this off is where I always come to full stop. There would have necessariy had to have been too many, to ever hope to keep it a secret. A secret is only as strong as the next person who knows. From high level bad guys and their plans, to mid level guys recieving orders to then instructing low level bad guys to start "planting explosives" in public buildings.
Hell Element, they couldn't even keep what they were doing in Benghazi a secret for a mere twelve hours (let alone for twelve years!) which points to the argument I've made all along, they are not this smart or competent...I'm sorry, they're just not. Allow the attacks to happen by incompetence or high level split second war gaming scenario's, sure, possibly, plan & execute the 911 attacks as truthers describe in various schemes themselves, not if your or my life depended on it...lol...there is no hope for any secrecy on this scale.
People have known about false flags and "plans for" false flags for as long as there have been kings & governments. Its nothing new and there is nothing that says this was.
"they are not this smart or competent"
hmmm. As you said, and by the definition of false flags, history is full of political, military and criminal "secrets" kept under (official) wraps for long periods of time. It's often not competence, it's brute force and intimidation. Like our current "markets." And yes, 911 was a very complicated techinical feat ..but that's a relative term too. I'm sure false flags hundreds of years ago were impressive and unheard of for their time slot. See Romans et al. Unfortunately criminals can be pretty smart and Cheney is no idiot
While you're right to a degree...actually, the secret is already out isn't it?
It all depends on how you define the words "secret" and "out"
The fact that we are having this debate and pointing to websites and experts all over the world, and forensic data, and admissions, and errors, and tons of other things means it's not exactly a "secret." Hell it wasn't a secret for very long at all as experts in aviation, plane crash, terrorism, architecture, NORAD, physics etc started coming forward immediately.
Denial, official or otherwise does not equal many things. NHTSAs report does not equal science/ Even NHTSA admits it can't explain a ton of very odd things that happened for the first time in history that day
Late reply to nmewn re this old 9-11 discussion
I came back to this thread after a couple of weeks away.
I just wanted to add that we found out ~50 years after Pearl Harbor that the Govt within Washington in ~1940-41 and the US military and Senior state diplomats knew about a pending Japanese attack on Pearl harbor (for one thing Australian code breakers had also broken all of the Japanese naval codes and were sending transcripts to Washington in the days immediately prior to Pearl Harbor which revealed a Japanese attack was immanent), and a later US govt even admitted the US had deliberately goaded Japan into fighting the US, and were fully expecting an attack on Pearl Harbor. they know it was going to occur, and we now know they decided to allow it to occur anyway, and to allow large numbers of young sailors and aircrew to be killed, and also were responsible for the incalculable numbers of deaths and casualties and intense suffering that followed for decades after this -- specifically so that WWII would kicked-off immediately, on a major scale in the Pacific.
Large numbers of people knew about all that, or as much as they needed to know to perform their piecemeal functions and the general-public remained oblivious to it for fifty years and most of them are still completely oblivious to all of it.
So suggesting to me that the US Govt and its military services could not plan, organize and execute, plus then hide 9-11's orchestration, is a fairly blatant ignoring of a vast archive of historical evidence on this and many other instances, which show that the type of large-scale secret military operations and deep secrecy do exist and it is routinely utilized and it does successfully hide far more hideous crimes than '9-11', for more than a generation, if that is necessary.
To merely claim it to be practically "impossible" is plainly false and ignores that we know in considerable detail that it is happening all of the time, it's not even unusual, and thus such banal denial can not be taken seriously - at all.
Your further objection to a potential for effective state secrecy on the grounds of 'Benghazi-gate' is nonsense. You of all people should know that. It can hardly be compared to a 9-11 false-flag attack given it was a politicized betrayal and political cover-up from the beginning. It specifically betrayed and angered military forces and diplomatic officers which were standing-by to assist in preventing the snuffing out of US staff. So that was always going to 'leak' in politically damaging ways.
Indeed the US blood-letting and persecution of Generals (former top commanders) at around that time, who may have aspired to highest political office, were having their reputation taken-down, to ensure their reputation was trashed, or at least tarnished. People like Generals usually publish a biography and their war accounts when they aspire to political ambitions. And when a complete arse, like Hillary Clinton, has the same political ambition for the same political office, this stuff becomes ideal, if not an inevitable target, for just that sort of political-directed 'leaking' of detail, as payback for the reputation-trashing and sense of betrayal of military figures.
How was this not going to 'leak', as a 'secret', in that sort of atmosphere?
The beauty of the military is they're organized, and very capable of planning and performing large-scale operations and keeping them secret as they can swear anyone involved to secrecy for life. And those involved know they can expect to be executed if they speak one word of it, ever. This is well understood.
Did you know all the details about the more than ten-years long secret, almost daily heavy-bombing of Laos? Did you even know a single thing about it? Did you even suspect it might be occurring? Did you ever hear even a rumor that such a thing has taken place?
NO! You didn't! So don;t tell me they they can;t keep major secrets. Numerous private commercial and public organizations were undoubtedly heavily-involved in that very protracted and extensive bombing operation. And you didn't know one damned thing about it, simply because it was a closely-guarded secret - for 30 years.
Did anyone still alive get hung for just allowing the Japs attack Pearl Harbor?
NO!
Has anyone shot or hung Henry Kissinger for his mass-butchery in Laos ... and in several other countries as well?
NO!
Because the US can keep the detail secret, it is a superpower, it has a special license to murder literally millions of completely innocent people. And all of those stinking fawning shit-eating European heads-of-state and the filthy useless hypocritical cunts at the UN just keep sucking the US's schlong, pretending the US is not about as evil and pernicious as any state-power can be.
No one has even imprisoned Kissinger for his outrageous crimes, which without a doubt rank with Adolf Hitler's and Stalin's.
So please don't talk complete crap to me about what can be kept a secret, when those sorts of butt-licking superheros for freedom, are handing out their Nobel peace prize to Henry Kissinger, and applauding, when they all knew he'd been mass-murdering at least six million people within South East Asia.
The US needed both an excuse, as well as global sympathy and support to take-down Tojo's Japan, and doing so would then allow the USN to strategically dominate the Pacific basin thereafter, for many many decades. And on 9-11 they again needed the same sort of excuse and sympathetic global support, that would allow the starting of multiple "Just Wars", directed by neo-cons with a properly working "moral compass".
Funny thing was though the US ever so curiously attacked countries that had zero to do with where the alleged 9-11 attackers came from! "Oh yeah, sorry 'bout that, our bad, we can't tell you stupid fucking rag-headed sand-niggers from one another, and maps are like totally sucky, dude, and our intelligence, like said you were all bad-n'-unjust and stuff ... mmkay?".
So since 2011 Washington has provided the supposed 9-11 attackers with actual weapons, training and political support, via the FSA-al-qaeda-affiliates within Syria, even after the FSA had directly, bluntly and very publicly and repeatedly stated, within the western television media, deliberately and directly threatening the west itself, that the FSA would definitely join forces with Al qaeda, if Washington and European NATO powers did not immediately begin to provide a no-fly zone over Syria, plus provide airstrikes and air support operations, over FSA forces.
So not only did Washington not attack the real 9-11 attackers,for real, it had firstly created al qaeda, in the first instance in the 1980s, trained and armed it and politically protected it, then 9-11 occurred, then Washington blamed al qaeda.
Let me remind you that almost no one in the entire western world had even heard the fucking word "al qaeda", until G W Bush started referring to them directly after 9-11 occurred ... dehydrated bogie-man is served ... just add hot water and a bucket of fresh bullshit!
And now, another 11 years on, Washington is again arming, training and providing political cover, for al-qaeda, and the FSA (who had effectively become al-qaeda-are-us, in Syria) are they are now very busy trying to pretend they want nothing to do with al-qaeda, and are really at war with them, and aren't themselves a part of the al-qaeda brigades.
Washington clearly at no point since 2001 got serious about attacking al-qaeda, where it really came from (USAF bombing CIA headquarters, Pentagon and White house was kinda off-the-table), but we're supposed to believe, and just accept, the word os known mass murderers, and serial warmongers, that the group referred to as "al-qaeda", did 9-11?
And not the neo-cons?
The whole thing is farcical - ridiculous! The US Govt is not pursuing or attacking the people which they themselves claim did 9-11, with any conviction, and are back to arming them, because the US Govt knows perfectly well al qaeda were not the ones who did 9-11.
The rancid mass-murdering scum within the US Joint Chief of Staff, the same pack of vile evil scurrilously filthy cunts, who after 60 years of doing so, are still, to this very day, pointing well over one thousand ~0.5 megaton yield thermonuclear warheads at this planet (when a 1 kiloton warhead would be more than sufficient to destroy any conceivable valid military target, anywhere!), are who setup and executed 9-11.
If you seriously think the US military can't do such things, or that it can't enforce secrecy, then you are done for.
As I said two weeks ago, you are making a choice here and there will be major repercussions for that sort of denial.
What the US military achieved, via letting Pearl Harbor occur, is exactly what they achieved with 9-11. Both were a massively evil and violent military lunges designed to do one thing, to improved US strategic grasp, this time in the 21st century, as much as allowing Pearl Harbor to happen and kick off WWII could dramatically improve the US's strategic grasp on the pacific and indian basins, in the 20th century.
And that was indeed the stated primary AIM of Washington's Neo-Cons movement (which has since been laying very low).
Don't you realize such people are brainwashed hardline ideologues? Do you think such nationalist fanatics won't both do it and also keep it completely quiet? They will kill anyone they need to who talks. ACARS shows they've killed thousands already, so everyone involved has no doub what will happen if they ever say a word about it.
And I don't let you off the hook for ignoring what ACARS makes all too clear. They did it so please snap the fuck out of it and deal with it more ingenuously. It fooled those who were open to being fooled. But even so, the deception is now in failure mode. Plus the strategic lunge grip on the world which they wanted to consolidate (via wielding the tactics of pure evil), is now also falling apart.
But worst of all, nmewn, is this has set an atrocious precedent, in that another great-power will follow that example, with its own contrived pretext for a Just war of aggression and it too will make a strategic lunge for position and control, and then we'll see a no-bullshitting global strategic war develop.
This is what the neo-con legacy of the 9-11 false-flag operation has bought us.
Wearing me out on this discussion isn't going to change my mind on it, without some cold hard evidence ;-)
You bring up Pearl Harbor as an example of the governments grand scheming & intentions yet don't mention the little gnomes within it who made it happen...like the communist, Harry Dexter White.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Harry_Dexter_White
So the question then becomes, was it really a government conspiracy or an "enemy within" who facilitated Pearl Harbor?
I've never said I'm opposed to a thorough investigation of 911 (by real experts) to find hard evidence of something other than what was put forward by it, in fact I told GW that very thing years ago. What you need to understand is I'm more helpful to whatever cause you think you have.
By me (and others) debunking some of the more ridiculous claims made by "truthers" (no air to ground communications, Mossad suicide pilots, planted nanothermite at exactly the floors hit etc.) we're actually helping you're cause. You can't do that without being called a "denier" or a CIA plant or worse...a murdering traitor to my own people.
Thats my last comment here, I'm sure we'll do it again somewhere else.
Well I'll say this final series of statements for now then and keep this discussion for later reference.
I started a discussion with you on this topic, originally, because you were mocking someone on the basis of the very notion that 9-11 was a 'plot'.
You were basically asserting that the core of the 9-11 report was satisfactory, that it "gelled", for you, that you approximately concurred with what was presented within its official account of the 'facts', and that various prescriptive theories did not gel with that account's referenced evidences. Sometimes to an extraordinary degree.
And which I certainly agree with, the conspiracy stories range from wildly speculative and sans any actual hard detail to test, to apparently entirely imaginary. The dustification-of-steel is possibly the most stark raving barking nonsense I've encountered so far and its originator, one 'Dr' Judy Wood, seems to be the utmost of fraudulent dingbats encountered so far. but I could not place my hand on my heart and say I've not seen even more fraudulent poppycock, I may have and just can't recall. In fact the fraudulent clowns like 'Dr' Wood are so blatant that it leads one to further suspect they're indeed placed in the debate to stink-up the place and discredit the process and notion and sorts of people sifting the contents of the 9-11 septic tank or conspiracies. Well, on this we agree, its not worth reading any of that sort of idiotic muck.
"Cold hard evidence" is the only kind that matters, the stuff that's independent, can be verified as non-tampered with, is original and confirmed from multiple independent sources, to be consistent in all its respects, in all details and can be logic and reality-tested, in multiple ways.
So I am actually a person who does that, I am not someone who merely says they demand hard evidence.
That is why I challenge you on this at the time we first spoke, that I took a long time to find anything that was actually solid or as you put it, "cold hard evidence" that the 9-11 story was assuredly false.
I told you at that time that you're entitled to piss on various versions of theories about it, that we agree, and that's entirely understandable. But nevertheless I said it's quite something else to deny that 9-11 was not altogether a completely different series of events from those that were presented within the official reporting. I said there was sufficient, "cold hard evidence", as you put it, to say that and to demonstrate that the official version (which you kept quoting from, as a key reference source to other of its sources, back then) was clearly, undeniably and largely entirely faked.
Yeah, yeah, any bone head can say that, right? I told you hard evidence does exist which proves the official report had been sewn together after the fact, and not from original flight data and radar tracks, but from what clearly had to be simulated radar tracking plus transponder data.
And you said that because it was me who was saying this, you would look at it.
So I gave you the ACARS links which show that the alpha-numerical transmission details prove the officially reported locations of the jet were clearly fakes.
You could not rationally deny that the ACARS transmission receipts were in fact "cold hard evidence" of the falsehood of a very large portion of the official 9-11 report.
So that's why I'm getting short with you, now, about the above, as you keep acting like this hasn't already been demonstrated to you. And that is not understandable, it is also not reasonable and it is not rational either.
You've stated no technical objections to thr ACARS data, then, or now. You apparently can't identify any and you can't dismiss it entirely, as it can't be dismissed as false, or fake, given that it comes from both official sources and has been corroborated in several locations by the message and transmission receipts being intact, as supplied.
So we know these ACARS details are in fact real, that the messages did in fact come from the very aircraft on the same morning during the same flight leg, that they were purported to have hit the buildings, as is described in the formal 9-11 report.
But by examining these real transmissions for these jets that you can plainly see the aircraft that took off kept flying west. They did not get taken over, they were still flying west and broadcasting routine messages back to the operator's base, even after two jets hit the WTC towers. So we know that these flights claimed by the official report did not hit the WTC buildings, because the ACARS transmission's receipts proved that the transmissions were being received by the nearest line of sight receivers to the jets, and these were located in other states, and nowhere near New York, and still heading west, when two stand-in jets hit the WTC towers.
So there can be no question stemming from this ACARS data that the 9-11 report is a huge lie, it shows the hostage take-overs did not occur as described and the flight data and radar tracking was clearly a mock-up from a simulation run.
So I won't pretend to know how it all comes together. I do not need to know, as that has nothing to do with it. All I want to know is what is false? And ACARS proves the official report is actually fiction. I was not quite sure that it was a fake up to that point, I though that the main plot may actually be largely true.
Well it isn't.
So you know from ACARS that the official story is irretrievable, there is nothing in it that can be regarded as an information source. It can only be regarded as a consummate source of carefully considered and constructed misrepresentation, a mental contraption that was designed to overwhelm the senses and reason of people and lead to automatic acceptance.
And frankly that seems to be exactly what you've done, and are indeed still do, even after I point it out to you! wtf?
But some unknown but large core section of its scenarios is clearly entirely fake. It's a scripted, sculpted and leading lie, which the ACARS receipts prove was in fact a US Govt lie. That the white house and congress and the military had clearly constructed a colossal lie.
Why? Because as GW Bush said that day, "Those that wear the uniform, get ready." It was a flat-out pretext for going to war. It was the rationale for, "We're all Israelis now" It was the very same false-flag attack trick Hitler used along the Polish border prior to invading Poland to defend Germans being attacked by 'poles', who were of course Germans.
ACARS shows it was a complete fabrication, and a murderous crime against the people of the Unitsed states, buy its own government agencies.
Now if you want to paint that as not providing you with some, "cold hard evidence", or that I'm "Wearing [you] out on this discussion ...", then that's devoid of any sign of a rational reply or a logical response, because a rational response to such, "cold hard evidence", actually presented to you, as it was, would ordinarily produce a completely different response, to that of someone who is pretending it hadn't been presented to you, at all!
So you're clearly acting in an odd and disingenuous manner and I can not trust someone who on one hand demands, "cold hard evidence", and it is provided, and you can not dispute it, and instead you simply seek to deny that it overturns everything that you were saying at the time that I first stuck-up this on-going discourse with you, on this topic.
So you have been given what you asked for.
But you won't have it? Is that it? It just can't possibly be true? It that what I am to make of your refusal to face this cold hard evidence? You can't, and you dare not face it, so you'll just pretend that you never got shown it, and further, you'll pretend that such "cold hard evidence", of the complete and indisputable falsehood of it still does not exist, and you've never been lead to, show, nor seen any such thing?
Is that a fair summary of your responses? Because I don't want to misunderstand you here or verbal you in any way. I want to make sure we're both clear and agreed on what your position is here, and what you intend to do about it the "cold hard evidence" of ACARS that you have been given?
Frankly, your verbal 'walking away' from this discussion, as though the "cold hard evidence" makes you feel tired and worn-out is a bit much. Can you expect me to take you seriously if that's what you are going to do? If that's your level of response to receiving actual "cold hard evidence" that the 9-11 report was entirely contrived?
How can you reconcile being so gung-ho for the official report, but so bashful and fatigued by actual "cold hard evidence", that shows quite indisputably that the once swaggering official 9-11 report is clearly a thorough fake?
You have every right to be sceptical, and may you never stop. And you have a right to piss on silly theories and cast a caustic eye over unsupported supposition - by all means! But you have no right at all to flat out deny actual "cold hard evidence". That, nmewn, is not OK, that is damaging to your core credibility as a disinterested inquiring mind and commenter on the subject.
This more or less rules you unfit to speak on the topic, it renders moot your requiring and alleged demand for, "cold hard evidence", because you don't really mean it, you apparently don't want it and won't venture to affix it's content with respect to the grand official narrative proposed by the real "pink" conspiracist in residence in this case - Uncle Sam himself.
Indeed your extraordinary reticence to embrace "cold hard evidence" brings to mind the phrase, "... like a shrinking violet".
You can see that, right?
So given your responses above as I'm describing here, you can fully understand me when I say that you are not behaving in a way that's credibly consistent with a person who genuinely wants to receive, "cold hard evidence".
Right?
I mean, I'm trying to make sure I've not misrepresented your positions here, that this is an accurate summary of them. Right?
So what remains is that you are being consistent with someone who demands "cold hard evidence", to be provided, then astonishingly, ignores it completely, plus goes on to effectively deny having ever seen any, and virtually asserting that no such thing exists, and within your resulting commentary you are effectively pretending that such still doesn't exist, and has not been provided you, when you know perfectly that it does exist, that it has been shown to you, and you can not refute it - then, or now.
So what would you characterise that as, nmewn?
Unlike you, I not only require, "cold hard evidence", I am also prepared to accept its implicit meaning(s), imparting circumstance(s) and its full spectrum of implications.
And promptly process it to all buggery.
Because, if you get given solid, "cold hard evidence", and you keep pretending without any refutation offered, that it's not "cold hard evidence", but instead incessantly proclaim your 100% dedication to "cold hard evidence", must 'gel', type mantras ... doesn't it strike you as a wee bit preposterous if you shrink like a violet away from it when it finally plops into your lap, so unexpectedly, one day?
I mean, if I did that to you, in exactly the same ways and basically shrank like a violet from and "cold hard evidence" supplied, wouldn't you think I was being pretty feckin' strange? And if I just kept on doing it, while still insisting that above all else I required "cold hard evidence", and that I was fully accepting of evidence, but now I'm suddenly moving the goal posts by including the new catch-all escape, namely: "... I've never said I'm opposed to a thorough investigation of 911 (by real experts) to find hard evidence ", wouldn't you think maybe this was just a bit much?
So now its not just the, "cold hard evidence", that you want, it also now has to be provided, "by real experts", and also must be presented within another formal report, concocted by the appointees of another massively-corrupt and implicated US-government, perchance?
Its that a reasonable, accurate characterisation of what you're saying there? I'm not distorting what you're saying am I?
Please correct me if I have as I want to make sure I properly grasp your fruitless predilection with respect to the utility of things of a cold, hard and evidence-like tendency.
Ok, that's enough piss-taking: Next time we discuss this topic I expect you to have a rational account that's fully consistent with the known facts of ACARS for why you seem to think or imply that ACARS is not such "cold hard evidence".
Because if you continue to pretend it's not and you also can not refute it, in any way, and still will not admit that it's therefore what it is, namely, real cold hard evidence, that the 9-11 report is in largely part a document that uses large amounts of entirely fake positional, flight data and ATC tracking paths, supposedly from FAA sources, but instead, you insist on continuing to say something like, "we don't have to agree on everything, Element", etc, ... sorry, that does not cut it.
Present a real argument, no excuses.
Real "cold hard evidence" tells you something innate about the occurrence of events that is independent of you or me and it does not require a personal opinion from anyone about its veracity. It either has veracity with regard to the asserted official report, namely that it is real data, and it completely refutes the official detail, as inescapable implicit fact, or it does not have any such veracity, at all.
Present a real argument, or you're chicken-shit.
This ACARS transmission data has been in several ways independently cross-checked and confirmed to be the real thing. It has been confirmed that these ACARS messages originated from the same aircraft the 9-11 report claims to have hit the buildings, but the ACARS transmissions prove they did not hit those buildings at all. ACARS proves conclusively that not only were whey geographically at great distance, of hundreds of miles west of New York, at the times of impact at the WTC, ACARS establishes that the flights that took off, which were alleged to contain the supposed hijackers, were still broadcasting ACARS messages, using the same original call-signs and flight numbers of the jets and flights the official report alleges to have already hit the WTC towers. And the flights continued to broadcast messages while continuing to fly on a high speed outbound westward track, many hundreds of miles to the west, long after they were alleged to have crashed and burned inside the building on the eastern US seaboard.
So we know this. There is no equivocation from the data itself within the ACARS transmissions, and you can offer no refutation of it, so that means that as far as you or I know, the ACARS transmissions are clearly showing us all that the jets that took off did not hit the World Trade Center's twin towers.
They were still transmitting near real-time messages, and the receipts with time-location node receipts so these came from still actively transmitting aircraft, in another state, long after the official report had said the aircraft with these same flight numbers and IDs, on the ACARS messages, were supposedly already burning ruins smashed to bits inside the WTC's cores.
Present an argument, obfuscations are shameful, please don't use them.
If you don't know, fine, I can easily accept that, as long as you also admit that what is presented to you within the ACARS data is in fact, "cold hard evidence". I don't want any more of your simply pretending that such evidence somehow doesn't exist when you can plainly see, as can everyone else now, that it does exist.
Look you're putting a lot of faith in ACARS.
If you're saying the CIA and its kamikaze pilots (or whoever/whatever) weren't aware of ACARS, then I simply don't know what to say, thats impossible. Its pretty standard stuff, controlled by ground stations and the FAA...meaning .gov.
However, 35 passengers & crew made calls from UAL93 saying exactly what was happening. They made these calls to people they knew and who knew them. Furthermore, one of the hijackers (Jarrah, UAL93) tried to impersonate the dead or dying pilot (Dahl) and was heard on the ground telling everyone to sit down...because Dahl (before being wounded and laying there dying in the background noise) switched the pilots mic broadcast to the ground, instead of the passenger cabin.
I've given you the radar contact graphs Element, which come from the very same source as ACARS (.gov) verified by the flight controllers, who were watching the planes (on radar, dammit!) until impact.
Are you saying they're lying and are a part of this vast conspiracy? And if so, why are they still alive?...loose ends and more gel? ;-)
ACARS is what .gov overlooked. ACARS may be standard fare for airline operators and pilots, but it was at that time, largely unknown outside that circle - then and even now. And it may surprise you to know that ATC controllers and in fact almost all FAA employees do not know about ACARS communications facilities, at that time, simply because it had no bearing at all on virtually any FAA ATC function.
Only in the last few years have new airspace management proposals in the Western world identified an evolved version of ACARS as a viable practical mechanism to provide formal interaction and information-sharing between ATC and pilots, for them to obtain clearances and other traffic separation information, primarily via rules-based ATC computers, instead of via ATC people. Thus heavily congested radio communication frequencies can be freed-up and sped-up for essential verbal transmissions. Thus ATC now are aware of ACARS-type datalink systems.
Most ATC controllers who are not also pilots are mostly oblivious to what occurs inside aircraft, which are following the controller's separation and en-route directions. To get around this fact, ATC uses a core reference document called MATS (Manual of Air Traffic Services) which is a series of detailed volumes that trainees and supervisors are required to learn and know, by wrote, which details what they can ask or expect pilots to do, and why pilots can not do some things, so don't even ask them to. In fact controllers often ask pilots to do things they can't so the proper response is the report "unable".
You merely assume ATC and FAA officials and overseers do understand such things, like ACARS, when often they don't. So almost the entire FAA ATC system at that time knew almost nothing of ACARS, either its operation, or that it existed independently within the cockpit, or allowed routine datalink radio comms with other entities completely outside FAA ATC communications frequencies.
So not surprisingly ACARS was overlooked by officialdom. Only in recent times have such transmissions begun to be included in accident and incident investigations. And that's why details were absent from the official 9-11 reporting, and how it was overlooked and remained preserved in unaltered form until it was finally analyzed by individual investigators from Pilots for 9-11 Truth, who realized ACARS transmissions and receipt information should have been included in the report. As it would reveal the path these aircraft took and provide many further valuable insights into what occurred. So they simply went looking for it and found it, confirmed that it was real and in unaltered form, via comparing it with the stored data transmission node receipts.
Then they simply laid out the story that it told. They did not have to force a confession out of it. All they did was lay it out and describe what it in plain-English and there was nothing further required to be said. It was clear that it showed that the formal 9-11 account's narrative was clearly a faked, it has been inserted, it was based on 'planted' evidence.
Absolutely no one expected the ACARS data to show up, and no thought it would reveal that the aircraft which took off kept going westwards, and kept on broadcasting routine ACARS messages, even after the same aircraft were supposedly destroyed. That was a complete shock.
But the ACARS data is real, verified via several independent archived sources, which also included official repositories, which showed that that even their data record was fully internally consistent, and confirmed to say the same thing, the real story of 9-11.
So it's clear the FAA investigators and authorities were not even explicitly aware that an ACARS record existed, or else they would have either simulated a record that supported the official account, and eliminated any other receipts or records, or simply deleted the ACARS messages, altogether.
Well they slipped up, they missed it, ACARS was overlooked by .gov and it remained hidden until it was too late to prevent its presentation to the public, to pilots and aircraft operators in particular. Make no mistake, pilots and the airline operators have seen it, they understand what it shows, they know it is the real deal.
You did not attempt to dispute this in any tangible way. But I do note that you're now desperately attempting to smear it using reference to sources quoted within the contradicted official account, which ACARS has already demonstrated is full of fake 'data' and 'evidence' ... which is being presented as "cold hard evidence"!
Fraudulent - everything in it is now so suspect as to be rendered impossible to trust, nor take seriously in any way.
BTW, ACARS communications between aircrew and airline operators do not necessarily go through a govt agency of any kind. It's a private communications facility mediated via commercial comms nodes which may be run by the company which set up the network, and leases commercial facilities. This is not a government network like the ATC's HF, VHF and UHF radio voice-comms bands and hardware.
What you're doing, nmewn, is called obfuscation, which is a vulgar process of attempting to introduce and disseminate confusions, in order to darken topics, to dim and blur the lines of clear distinction between things. In this case you've attempted to pretend that the ACARS is a .gov mediated and operated mechanism, when it's not.
It is a private system and .gov may license its operation and national frequency allocation but .gov clearly organizationally and on the individual levels, knew squat about its existence, scope, contents and usage. And that is why it has been largely absent from major investigations and their data gathering mechanism used, until well after 9-11 took place. The govt simply did not know these messages would be there, that they could still be retrieved 9 years after 9-11 had occurred.
But more to the point, this is in fact one of those inevitable 'leaks', which you keep saying would be impossible to prevent! Well guess what, you were right, ACARS is precisely that, it all came out, because ACARS blurted out the truth of what really occurred!
So are you going to just sit there with your thumb up your ass and continue to say that it would be impossible to keep it a secret, when it clearly has not continued to remain secret? Scchheeesh! What is it with you? Can't you see the inevitable deep-absurdity of your attempt to brush-aside and ignore "cold hard evidence", which can not be kept secret? Don't you even get what you're doing there? lol ;D
New types of evidence came into being with unforeseen consequences which no one had planned to mitigate or massage, nor simulate and edit away, or delete, because no one explicitly realized it existed. Nor realized it would be stored in decentralized locations within the transmission node sites, as well - not only within central mainframes or servers. Govt clearly did not realize ACARS existed or implied a flight path track trace, nor did they realize the aircraft had kept broadcasting after they has supposedly crashed.
oops!
Indeed the airline operator's management themselves plus the coms node operators all didn't realize that these messages were being archived and were still retrievable, at any time.
The pilots sent several messages to ground stations via ACARS datalink all along their westward flight track as they continued to fly the filed and cleared IFR flight-planned routes.
At no time did they change course and turn back to New York.
But some pilots did know ACARS messages should exist, and that they still may, whereas the FAA and .gov clearly did not know, so did not go looking for it. And it even took almost 10 years for some pilot to check to see if they were still available. So it is not surprising at all that the Govt liars failed to realize these existed.
So your attempt to smear this is irrelevant, other than it again reveals you doing all you can to sidestep "cold hard evidence".
You can see that, right?
|||||
Almost no non-pilots or non-controllers know that the primary function of Air traffic Control and the purpose it exists for, is to separate all IFR aircraft (those using IFR flight plans) from all other IFR aircraft. Their number one task is to detect all situations in which aircraft paths are converging, and to separate them.
The regs, backed by criminal law, requires that both IFR aircraft crew follow ATC clearance directives with a minimum-required level of flight path precision and fidelity. If the pilots fail to fly with the required level of IFR precision then administrative penalties may be applied, if after an initial show-cause notice they then fail to demonstrate why such penalties should not be applied to a breach.
Usually the pilot will try to explain extenuating factors that produced the breach. If this is deemed acceptable no penalty will be applied (a loss of points on license and fines is typical). Normally a first-offense will result in a stern warning and advice to seek training and undertake better flight planning and resource management plus pay more attention, so that further breaches and sloppy flying discipline does not recur.
A clearance breach, in short, can be a change in altitude of more than ~200 ft from that cleared for, or a speed excursion of ~10 kt, or any lateral path divergence from assigned tracking that exceeds ~4 nm. These can quickly result in radio calls to rectify it immediately and perhaps a phone call to ATC to "please explain", after the flight. The ATC controller may flag it as a breach for review, or else the ATC computer system detects the breach and automatically delegates it to a review process.
In other words, ATC does not piss about with non compliance or sloppy unprofessional flying.
And of a controller failed to pay attention and failed to detect converging close-proximity aircraft, it's likely they'd be immediately suspended, pending and investigation after which they may be sacked or retrained and reassigned. They can also suffer criminal prosecutions in the event of serious incidents, even short of actual accidents.
This is extremely important to understand. controllers do not accept lame excuses and anything less than strict formal interaction on radios - precision flight compliance is not optional. So ignoring them or failing to comply is such a no-no that it immediately attracts scrutiny. Often an associated background inquiry is launched to see if there's a pattern of similar incidents with a pilot. If there is it may be investigated and the pilot formally warned and required to undertake training or proficiency checks. A form of unofficial probationary monitoring and impromptu inspections can also occur hereafter, on several levels. And that ignores what the airline operator will also require of them, or else fire them.
So civil airliners and GA IFR aircraft do not just "go off-the reservation", or breach their clearance, nor depart from their flight plan, without first gaining the implicit legal permission within a new clearance, to do so.
Say for instance a delinquent single-pilot private flier has the autopilot on but leaves the cockpit to take a piss and fails to reply to an ATC call to the flight. Then a whole lot of attention and repeated radio calls are made to that flight. Which also serves to inform surrounding IFR aircraft that an aircraft in their current ATC control zone has lost the plot, or has bad radios, so may become a danger. Therefore be listening and anticipate that you may receive traffic-separation and avoidance instructions, etc.
It produces an instant reaction and higher alert level in everyone around.
I'm telling you this so that you, and others, grasp the significance and the thoroughly bizarre nature of what follows in the video link and the almost unbelievable fact that this was completely ignored by the FAA and ATC (which is why I trust nothing within the 9-11 ATC logs), but more importantly and significantly, this was also not mentioned within the official 9-11 report.
I've pointed out to you once before the "Pilots for 9-11 Truth" video that uses flight tracking data, also extracted from the logged ATC source records on 9-11, but occurred earlier within the flight. It shows that two other unidentified aircraft converged with the aircraft, supposed to have crashed into the WTC buildings - i.e. this radar track is just before they were supposed to have been "taken over" by miscreants. As any one can see within the following video, this convergence of flight paths like that would alarm any ATC controller if there was insufficient vertical separations between the aircraft. Certainly it would make any other controller or pilot observing that wonder what the hell was going on there.
In the video two unidentified aircraft were observed to have converged with then paralleled their flight tracks briefly, of both the aircraft that were claimed to have hit the WTC towers, before they break-off that parallel track and move towards New York. While the original aircraft are shown to have continued to fly westward along their planned and cleared IFR routing.
In other words, it was these unidentified converging aircraft that took the transponder code identities of the passenger aircraft that had taken off, whilst the original passenger flights that took off did not change course at all, presumably because they were never hijacked. What then happened to them we do not know, we only know they went west, not east, and eventually disappeared and the ACARS finally stopped sending further messages from the pilots. And keep in mind also that what the following video shows is consistent with what the ACARS transmission receipts recorded, regarding the real fightpath of the aircraft claimed to have hit the WTC towers.
Watch carefully:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=7iwpBEB2pLs
nmewn, you made no attempt to falsify ACARS, you've only ignored it, and you likewise pretended this video of the earlier radar tracks don't matter. You sir are a credulous chump, if you can't grasp the simple fact that the radar tracks are nothing but digital logs. No controller can remember what the hundreds of aircraft they control each day does, or where they came from, or where they go to. If the record of a flight's track was replaced with simulated data no controller would be able to substantiate any contrary assertion to what it then showed and would not even try. For one thing they would be shit-canned immediately. And at a minimum be over-ruled by the simulated 'evidence' of an alternate flight track's plotted path.
So you merely pursue and make a objections via emphasizing false premises.
It all happenstance according to you, it does not 'gel' with your particular whimsy, it does not qualify nor appeal to your special-needs suspension of disbelief in the official 9-11 mythology, so as usual you just sweep it under the carpet, pretending none of it exists or matters.
Yet you'll ludicrously maintain that the radar track bit, that you like the most, is sacrosanct, will you?
Let me tell you about the 'radar' then, and how it and ATC really work, as you're clearly completely out of your depth here, and behaving quite absurdly, merely cherry-picking a 'radar' track that suits you, while ignoring the other 'radar' tracks that you don't feel quite so ardent and ken on. FAA now uses the same Australian-developed ATC monitoring and traffic separation system and core software code. The following detailed link describes a "loss-of-separation incident", involving civil airliners which will demonstrate to you what really happens within such systems when IFR airliners flights begin converge in this way. Read or even skim it as it demonstrates that a series of escalating alarms are triggered which alert the controller to the developing unsafe separation trend within the clearances provided to aircraft, which the computer is constantly projecting forwards, predicatively, within that controllers sector of separation responsibility.
ATSB Aviation Short Investigation Bulletin Investigation - Issue 10 (see the first report within this pdf)
http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/3615388/ab2012065.pdf
Assuming you read that now, it's not just a bit unusual that this IFR traffic would converge as shown within the video link, above, it's in fact startlingly and fantastically extraordinary that such evidently deliberate flight convergence and track-mirroring occurred at all!
You would never expect to see that occurring, let alone for nothing to come of it, within any FAA Class-A airspace. What the video showed I've never heard of, unless it was a flight of fighters, or else a military intercept.
That could explain what the video shows because civil IFR airliners don't do what's shown.
And its not even just a single pair of aircraft doing it, so that means it was organized, coordinated, as there are two pairs of aircraft converging simultaneously, within a very localized geographical area.
i.e. an area under just one controller's separation responsibility.
Which would of course set off an avalanche of ATC warnings to that controller's screens, and their area supervisor's and managers would be immediately involved, thus triggering inquiry an initial brief report then an investigation would be launched into exactly what had gone so horrendously wrong? Perhaps some academics would study it and refer to it in future. Maybe the NTSB would get involved, as it's mandatory to report such incidents, so may launch its own study of the incident (the Australian ATSB sure would have, if it has occurred in Australia, it would probably have made headline news that night).
Basically the duty controller's career would have been over at that point in the video - finished!
But guess what happened on 9-11 when this really occurred, just prior to the 'hijackings'?
N O T H I N G A T A L L !!
And it just happened to involve the very two aircraft supposedly to have gone-on shortly thereafter to hit the WTC towers!
aww gee-wiz mah ... howa 'bout dat! ... is dat weird or wot? ... nah son, it all 'gels' ... nothing to see here ... move along
|||||
And given you made such a, you know, a 'thing' about the existence of radar 'observations', yet clearly have no idea at all of the many issues of radar tracks and data presentation from them, or that it's not actually what you and almost all civilians seem to think it is, I'll provide you another very insightful link to an accident report that reveals in stark relief why 'radar' data and 'radar' 'contact' tracks are not what you, nor even what some ATC controllers thought that it is.
Read pages 6 thru 9 in the link - AeroPeru 603 on 2nd October 1996:
http://www.safetyinengineering.com/FileUploads/Situation%20awareness%20a...
Having read that, do you still think you want to deposit a wad of precocious 'faith' in that radar observation tracking in the 9-11 official report?
I could go on at far greater length with many other examples on this topic, but that suffices to demonstrate the point, that despite the RADAR acronym meaning "RAdio Detection And Ranging", it no longer means that, in ATC terms. ATC does not necessarily emit an EM radio signal to 'illuminate' a physical airframe and ping a 'return' off it that is then measured and displayed. It did mean that once but due to widespread use of GPS nav-coms and ADS-B transponder systems it no longer necessarily does mean that, especially around major airports like around New York.
It's no longer actual radar, it just continues to be called 'radar', in instances where it's not a radar return, but a transponder broadcast data-stream that contains its GPS position, airspeed and standard barometric altitude (and much more). And it provides it faster and more accurately than normal real radar and conventional transponders ever have. But it is also easier to spoof.
Airliners have been using this 'secondary radar' technology for a long time so the image on an ATC screen is whatever the originating aircraft is broadcasting to ATC, and also to other aircraft's TCAS systems.
But the ATC controller has no way of independently knowing if the radar 'contact' is merely a spoof, of a fake data-streaming, or if a real aircraft 'CONTACT' is at the location that's being 'detected'. Well it isn't being detected by radar at all. The ATC computer is merely being feed a data-stream, that the controller sees plotted according to the data stream's own content.
See the tiny problem?
So nmewn you clearly don't have a clue how this really works and have been talking pure bollocks about radar contacts and their 'tracks'.
Sorry, a track can be feed into the ATC computer systems using a valid cleared transponder code and can plot a 'contact' track, even if there's no aircraft in the bloody air!
There are other details to that data exchange, but the point is, it can be spoofed, and as the above link to the AeroPeru 603 accident showed a signal (spoofed or real) can be entirely false and inaccurate and the ATC controllers have no clue that it is incorrect or inaccurate, plus have clear clue that they have no clue about what they see.
This replacement secondary 'radar' datalink system, which is what it really is, a digital datalink, the ATC radar is just the datalink antenna, was widely distributed during the 1990s and used nationally within the USA in Sept 2001.
So placing a 'contact' any place you want, on any ATC screen, is not an insoluble problem, it is an incredibly simple one. You just simulate the track you want it to depict, on the ATC monitor, and feed that into the ATC antenna via a transponder, which can be sitting in the airport's parking lot, or down town, for all the 'contact's' source location matters to what is displayed on the ATC screens.
Do I have to explain this further for you, how 'radar' data is almost irrelevant, as it can easily be anything that anyone who wants to 'spoof' it needs or wants it to be, as can be all the other data parameters..
And guess what else?
Many FAA ATC employees didn't realize this is how it worked back then, they didn't need to know that stuff to do their jobs. The general public sure didn't know about it and still doesn't (you, for instance) and probably the 9-11 report's authors also didn't know this.
So you criticise me for over-investing in the ACARS data (which I do understand), but you're happily all-in on the radar tracks (which clearly you didn't understand)?
But IFR pilots and avionics system specialists do know how it works, because it is part of their general knowledge study curriculum. And it is anything but spoof-proof. It's security level is like a lock on a door, it can only keep out the honest people, because the crook (or a govt/military in this case) can manipulate the shit out of it and its flight data records and you'll never know it, nor be able to contradict it.
Unless, well, ... unless you had ACARS and its data receipts which show the 9-11 radar data has in fact been faked.
nmewn, I know this stuff, I know what the implications are. I'm telling you that you have no clue how lost you are in a world of ignorant assumptions about what's in that official 9-11 report. I assure you I'm not the slightest bit interested in your excuses for its contents because I actually know at this point that it's a construction of considered lies. Otherwise I would not even bother with any of this crap, nor try to demonstrate this to an American, that it's all been faked.
So talking-down to me about the minor 'details' and anecdotes of poor dying persons on recordings, is entirely irrelevant, when I've already pulled the fucking wings of this 'fly' - it's not going to fly ever again. You can close your eyes, fingers in ears and la-la-la all you want, and indulge wilful ignorance as you wish, but just understand I see you've made the choice to do that, you will not be let off the hook for that, if you persist with sidling back into further apologism for the neo-con TPTB narrative of those events.
I'm not kidding here, either snap out of it, get you thinking straight about this stuff and learn something, or as far as I'm concerned you're with the people who did this to the US people, and the wider world.
Which means we not merely disagree.
|||||
Having cleared the much vaunted radar tracking shite up let's get something else clear. I don't require an appeal to 'faith' with ACARS transmissions, faith is not required, as defined thus; "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." - Heb 11:1 KJV
But we do see actual evidence, so hope for substance in not required as real substance is actually present, so faith is irrelevant. You seem to be insinuating I am somehow at 'fault' for accepting the tested solidity and consistency of what ACARS shows, which you can not even begin to refute?
That's your problem mate, not mine.
On the contrary, according to that traditional definition of 'faith', you apparently have genuine 'faith' in the official 9-11 report's 'details', contrary to confounding evidence you've been shown. So you're the faithful fundie here mate, trying to prop-up the Sacred Scriptures of 9-11. Praise dah Lordie! Makes one want to spontaneously break out in tongues and pick-up serpents 'n stuff. lol ;-D
But thanks for amply showing me that you aren't as circumspect or as ingenuous, nor even as interested in cold hard evidence as you hitherto pretend to be, regarding this topic. And for also showing that you're a champion of the official story and that you like to insinuate faults in those who have already moved beyond it's weak and fraudulent scenarios, in examination of what really may have happened and what certainly did not.
And of course I don't need to mention [ but will ;-D ] that the authors and contributors to the official 9-11 report thought it was a scandalous load of half-truth and lies that ignored large swathes of evidence that's contrary, antithetical or militates against its conclusions, narratives and themes. Many of them considered it a highly unprofessional and ramshackle affair demanding a real and unconstrained inquiry and removal of political interference, by neo-cons, was needed, so a real report could be undertaken.
So I'm pleased to find it's more or less sufficient, complete and ample to 'gel' with your faith in it regardless, despite all contrary "cold hard evidence".
I've merely been a bit too understanding of your reticence to face the facts, so far, because it took me almost ten years of occasional piecemeal looking at 9-11 conspiracy 'stuff', to realize that all was not right with the official 9-11 story.
That although it was a bit 'off', that did not clinch the case that 9-11 was an 'inside-job'. It requires a lot more than a bunch of conspiracy stories, it required real evidence of a fabrication within the official report. And that, thanks to Pilots for 9-11 truth, we now have. So I know it takes time, I do not grudge people who are late to it, or resist it and reasonably require cold hard evidence.
Recalling in paraphrase the very first time we discussed this topic, I said to you that being critical of 9-11 conspiracy theory is one thing and perfectly reasonable, but flat-out rejecting that the official 9-11 report was demonstrably false was quite another.
I see that you have not moved on this one bit, no flexibility of any kind with regard to new information. And this complete inflexibility has zero to do with any lack of "cold hard evidence", which you claim to require, but clearly want nothing to do with, when it's presented as you'll always respond to any "cold hard evidence" with a list of absurd and more-or-less disingenuous objections, which excuses seek only to avoid the application of any counterpointing evidence. So that's about you, its not about any actual "cold hard evidence" that is presented to you because you clearly aren't interested in anything that calls into question the official 9-11 mythology.
That is apparently the total extent of your interest in the subject, namely claiming to being open and reasonable, plus ever-ready to be convinced by some good 'ol "cold hard evidence", when from your consistent responses, actions and statements it's clearly completely untrue.
Obviously you're no such thing. You are only fibbing. lol ;-) And flat-out lie is an accurate descriptive word for what you've been doing. And I have zero doubt you actually believe you're not deceiving people. And it would be fruitless and pointless to point to the assemblage of evidence of it, as you're clearly not too keen on evidence, well, unless it's agreeable evidence. lol :-D
I told you that hard evidence of the flakiness of the official narrative and detail existed. I took the time to civilly show you. But since then you've ignored it all, obfuscated around it, in numerous ways, completely ignoring actual hard evidence, which we know has been verified, not tampered with, but was stored in multiple locations in unaltered original form all this time.
But more revealingly, you almost immediately tries to insinuate I was somehow at fault, intellectually, for not accepting the peripheral issues that you raised, as thin objections and excuses to continue the 'Faith', which were all subject to viable editing, alteration and summary replacements.
You were in fact immediately more or less hostile to the notion that ACARS's represented a substantive evidence of obvious worth and intrinsic veracity, that is a test and reality-check of the entire official 9-11 report.
Which is a telling reaction.
I realised you were reacting very strangely, back then, but I just let it ride, as I figured you would hang yourself in time, if you were simply obfuscating and playing games.
So I'm not going to be patient and understanding with you any more - but only because what you keep doing is NOT understandable.
It's just a person claiming to care only about "cold hard evidence", yet repeatedly demonstrates that they don't. Quite the reverse. You were prepared to credulously posit that the referenced content of the 9-11 report is the more significant discourse of relevant 'evidence', with regard to the flight path, rather than reference the actual primary first-hand transmission records, from the jets themselves, which could hardly more stridently and clearly contradict the official account of the formal 9-11 report's concoction of 'detail'.
Which 'details' are clearly contrived products of simulation runs, not from the actual jet paths through the sky, nor the real jet's flight data, and most probably, not their real verbal transmissions either.
So it's exhaustively clear to me that this is what you're doing and what you are going to continue doing - you are not flexible and open to real "cold hard evidence", you are only open to saying you are, and it's clearly not so.
So you are employing a lie there.
And that's indicative of an agenda, not consistent with any sort of honest inquiry. But as you're particularly adept at the game you play on this topic, you will come back with a tremendous indignant commitment appealing to higher values of formal process and inquiry.
That just so happens to limit, ignore and divest all responsibility to 'gel' WITH ALL OF THE EVIDENCE!
Even though that is indeed what you say you keep insisting on, which again appears to be a lie.
And you will of course pretend to ignore the fact of the failure for all of the cold hard evidence, including the ACARS information, to 'gel' with the formal 9-11 report, implies that the 9-11 report in fact does not 'gel' at all.
So you are also effectively lying when you implicitly posit that the formal report does 'gel' to your high standards with all of the "cold hard evidence" available. It doesn't.
You are playing games.
You have been playing games all along. And I won't presume a reason for why you're doing it, as I don't even require an instant reason or rationale for why you do it. So I'll make no judgement on that.
The reason may or may not become clear at some point. Probably it won't as you're clearly an adept within this roll of propping-up the conventional mainstream view, while attempting to discredit or flat out ignore any "cold hard evidence" that does exist, while claiming to actually do the very opposite.
Classic deception.
I see you my friend.
It is sufficient to have established that much.
And yes, we will discuss the topic again, and maybe we'll tease-out what if anything you stand for, other than the official 9-11 cat-in-a-hat cow-slip.
But it's on the record for others to examine, and you've been pegged-out for some added clarity.
"But that's where so many other people are currently captured, within a loop of inaction and indecision due to a completely unreasonable and unrealistic demand for an alternate story that 'gells' to immediately take the place of the one that obviously doesn't 'gell'."
Unfortunately to many are captured in a loop of acting or acting as if they want action totally convinced "any" alternate story to their own perception of reality is false whether it gells or not. There have been many occasions when I have been confronted about something I may have believed that contradicts what I currently believe. On those occasions I have to take the time to explain, that yes, you have caught me in a contradiction. However new learning (I would like to say facts but I'm not sure I can believe in them anymore) has shown me that I was wrong and needed to discard an old belief to embrace a new, for me, truth.
All that to say, nmewn and element, thank you very much for an exchange that was a breath of fresh air blowing across the pitter patter of comments on this site. It maybe the cognitive dissonance should have weighed in here as:
No I do not believe the official explanation for 9/11 and
I am conflicted as to how our government can be so inept yet still get a man on the moon (maybe Im wrong but I really believe they did that).
Which keeps me in perpetual confusion. But then again, I worry about people who do not get confused.
Two Thumbs up.
Wow - I've done a pretty fair amount of research into the idiocy of the government's conspiracy theory and had not come across this ACARS angle until now / your comment. Thank you!
Can you post a link or two that you find worthwhile that covers this subject?
This will get you started.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=21754
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/ACARS-CONFIRMED-911-AIRCRAFT-AIRBORNE-LONG-...
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/MORE-ACARS-CONFIRMATION.html
There are a few very detailed topics on the ACARS transmissions within the site.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/
It's also good place to ask for more info, if you have questions (I'll not be around).
Have you wondered why so many Zionists keep to your Atta & Co. story? No, I guess you wouldn't wonder.
The lady doth protest too much.
You sayin Atta wasn't on board that plane or has the lady lost her tongue?
Said or unsaid, no one knows who was on any of the planes because no manifests were ever released to the 9 eleven commission.
Even the lets roll guy could not be verified.
"Said or unsaid, no one knows who was on any of the planes because no manifests were ever released to the 9 eleven commission."
Frasier producer David Angell and his wife were on flight 11. It is known who was on the planes.
This is absolute bullshit ... a very good friend lost is mother on the LA flight ... this is not something that was made up. He had his mother on 9/10, talking with her and she being excited to return home ... he had no mother on 9/12.
I really hate it when idiots who know nothing about it spout off and inflict mountains of undue hurt on the families of the victims.
Sir, your flippant and ignorant attitude is a hurtful disgrace.
If you read a comment in the thread above,
there is aircraft automated radio communications records from 9-11 which indicate the hijacked jets were substituted with different Boeing jets, probably Boeing military drones, which hit the targets, not the passenger jets.
However, it seems that the passengers disappeared elsewhere.
"If you read a comment in the thread above,
there is aircraft automated radio communications records from 9-11 which indicate the hijacked jets were substituted with different Boeing jets, probably Boeing military drones, which hit the targets, not the passenger jets.
However, it seems that the passengers disappeared elsewhere."
The hijacked jets were not substituted, they were flown into the World Trade Center Towers, killing the passengers, crew and hijackers.
There were no manifests officially admitted to the 9 eleven commission. Attack me and my attitude all you want, but facts are facts.
There were "passenger lists" but no manifests offically released from the airlines.
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/passengers.html
You can say that the airlines faxed the manifests over, though you would think that they would send a representative with official hand carried and verifiable manifests for this investigation. This hap hazard methodology characterized the entire 911 commission as well as the non-investigation of the crime.
The intelligent beings on this planet know that it WAS an inside job, aka: false-flag attack! There are 2 dozen discrepancies concerning everything that happened that day, in other words, F-ups on the part of those who planned it!
I'll give you 1...what was Marvin Bush, George Bush's younger brother doing in charge of security @ the World Trade, and why did he have the bomb-sniffing dogs from the site weeks prior to 9/11?
The people who doubt, or put in their $.02 cents without having done any research are sheep...and now they can go back to sleep!
Other Examples: Flight 93 did anyone see any wreckage, wheels, paper, seats. Etc. How about the pentagon? Anyone see the tail section, wings, wheels. Thousands of camera's and only one working. The list goes on & on & on.
Oh, & I almost forgot. THE UNITED STATES, CORP most wanted Saudi Intelligence Criminal Prince Bandar funded two of the "Hijackers."
"Other Examples: Flight 93 did anyone see any wreckage, wheels, paper, seats. Etc. How about the pentagon? Anyone see the tail section, wings, wheels"
The plane was travelling practically straight down at what speed?
I flew into Newark yesterday and there wasn't even a traffic jam. People don't care about things like Superbowls when they are worried about money. Fuck the Superbowl and mainstream media.
You know we live in a fucked up world when the word "Truther" has become derogatory.
I seek the truth, therefore something is wrong with me? WTF!?!?!
"truther" didn't become derogatory by accident. As didn't "conspiracy theorist". It's a central part of the media's role in the whole scheme, and it has a deep history.
This past 12 years has been a creeping disaster for the corporate media though.
Yes WW, indeed it does. Robertson Panel & Operation Mockingbird are proof that the MSM has been trained by military & intelligence agencies for decades.
You're also right about the MSM's impending demise. Since 2001 America has grown numb to violence. The MSM pulled out all the stops to show us babies getting gassed in Syria, and we didn't even blink. Nevermind if that was real or not, but most assume so.
Control of newspapers and television channels makes the difference between a “conspiracy theorist” and a “talented writer”, or between “the next probable President” and “the crackpot leader of an obscure political party”.
When people are paid to do a job, then that's what they do. Since the MSM answers to "someone" who pays them, then they pretty much do their bidding. Think of it like working at Dairy Queen and serving ice cream, only this time, the news commentators are selling off little pieces of their souls instead.
don't worry, be happy
"Patriot" has somehow become a derogatory word, as well. As if loving America and our Constitution is a sin