Home | Community | Message Board


Everything Mushrooms
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]
Offlineekomstop
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada Flag
Last seen: 5 years, 10 months
Why the media's conspiracy theory is better than yours
    #3157702 - 09/20/04 10:29 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)

So why, two months before Sept 11, did George Bush sign W199I-WF-213589, ordering all FBI agents and defence intelligence officers that they would be arrested under national security violations if they stopped the al qaeda terror rings in Chigaco, Florida, New York and New Jersey?

The deputy FBI director John O'neil quit his job; released these documents, and was dead on Sept 11. He was hired by the owners of the trade centers right after quitting, and died on his first day on the job.

Co-incidence?


Read on..

You may want to read the original article here as it links to various sources throughout the document.
By Wade Inganamort

"We must speak the truth about terror. Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th, malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists themselves, away from the guilty."
-- GW Bush speaking before the UN General Assembly 11/10/2001


Looking over Alternet's "Top 10 Conspiracy Theories of 2002", I started to reflect on the nature of conspiracy and the black truth we've been spoon-fed about September 11th, 2001.

While they are tons of conspiracy theories lurking around in our datasphere, there is only one such theory commonly agreed upon in the mass media. It states that at 5:53 A.M., two hijackers, presumed to be Atta and Abdulaziz Alomari board a Colgan Air flight from Portland, Maine to Boston. I could re-hash the entire 9-11 timeline here, but in the interest of space, I'll go under the assumption that most PrisonPlanet readers are familiar with the "official" story. This theory, which has numerous errors, inconsistencies, and omissions, states that 19 hijackers under the order of Osama bin Laden, hijacked four airliners, pulled a fast one on US intelligence, and fooled the world in an event that will forever change America. This theory was assembled within hours. Oliver Stone couldn't have come up with one that quickly. Every aspect of this particular conspiracy theory is considered fact and is reconditioned daily into the minds of millions.

There's obviously a need for a conspiracy theory here, as the attacks were by definition a conspiracy, but the question is; why this one, how was it hashed together so quickly and will it ever be ammended? Sure there were numerous warnings, but we have been told that US intelligence was simply incompetent, and that the idea of using airplanes as weapons was inconceivable: "I don't think anybody could have predicted that ... they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile," stated National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

Now let's step back a moment here to May 8, 2001. According to Time Magazine, Dick Cheney was charged by President Bush to lead a high-level task force identifying the US's vulnerabilities to domestic terrorist attack and figure out ways to fix them. His solution? A counter-terror wargame/exercise simulating a scenario in which aircraft are flown into buildings.

This article from AirDisaster.com is conveniently spun that it was a "simulated accident" not a "terror simulation", but if you follow the mainstream media, you might think that I was making this entire thing up and the drill never existed. Now take a guess when this training simulation was to take place. Yes, you are correct; the morning of September 11th, 2001.

Now for the strange part: According to a cached version of Aviation Week's Aviation Week & Space Technology, there was yet another drill going on that dark morning:

"Part of the exercise?" the colonel wondered. No; this is a real-world event, he was told. Several days into a semiannual exercise known as Vigilant Guardian, NEADS was fully staffed, its key officers and enlisted supervisors already manning the operations center "battle cab."

This was an annual drill that "involves all HQ NORAD levels of command and is designed to exercise most aspects of the NORAD mission". This would explain GW's lax reaction to the attacks as he continued to sit in that Florida classroom reading about goats. He thought it was a game. Unless you are willing to write off the fact that both of these drills happening on the same day as the hijackings as sheer coincidence, you must then assume that they were somewhat related. Who had foreknowledge of these 9-11 emergency drills? Would the attacks have been as successful without the foreknowledge of these drills? Should such a thing as an "independent investigation" actually arise, these are the types of questions that need to be asked when trying to uncover a conspiracy so vast and effective.

Another widely overlooked conspiracy theory about the events of September 11th is the reasoning for George W. Bush, shortly after becoming president, according to a widely available BBC News video, to issue Executive Order W199I-WF-213589, demanding that Federal investigators "back off" of the bin Ladens and the group ABL, because of it's relationship with WAMY,(World Assembly of Muslim Youth). According to a report prepared for the UN, Saudi Arabia has transferred $500 million to Al Qaeda over the past decade, yet like the bin Ladens themselves who were flown out of the US by the CIA after the attacks, they are above suspicion because of business dealings they have with the Bush Administration(s). Senator Bob Graham publicly admitted, based on information he has received, that at least one foreign country assisted the 9-11 terrorists, and we won't find out who that is for the next 20 or 30 years.

Yet another conspiracy theory that slid down the memory hole during the media blitz is Carl Cameron's four-part series on Israeli Intelligence operations in the US on and before 9-11. [video] What does the FOX News website have to say about its own report? "This story no longer exists." If much of this information were to become public, we might find out if and how the hijackers were aware of either emergency drills planned for the day. I sure hope that the officials who handled this one took their competency pills after the towers were hit and before they deported all the suspects.

There are numerous additions and inconsistencies between the official story and what actually happened. None of the resources that I have referenced above are "kooky-conspiracy" websites. They are all reasonably respected mainstream media outlets. It's interesting to look back on just a few of the many conspiracy theories that have been proven true. Were Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein "kooky conspiracy theorists" when investigating what is now known as 'Watergate'? Then why, you're probably wondering, aren't any of these conspiracy theories injected into the official conspiracy theory of what happened?

For the exact same reason that people have tried to block or hinder the investigation of 9-11 in the first place: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Those whose wallets and power trips have grown since the attacks are quite happy with the way things are turning out. Cable News ratings went through the roof immediately following the attacks as talking heads from every network seized this opportunity to be involved in history. This immediately led the media conglomerates to believe that the 'War against Terror' equals the 'War against Bad Ratings'. Can you say Iraq? In the aftermath of weeks of 24 hour news media circus extravaganzas, many journalists including Dan Rather have come clean asking whether or not truth had been the ultimate victim of 9-11, but sadly, it is the underreporting of truth that is most often underreported.

The sheeple are simply more happy thinking they have a government that is incompetent than a government that is evil, when in fact they have a government that is so incompetent that it can't recognize its own evils. Perhaps as Goddard said: "A society whose citizens refuse to see and investigate the facts, who refuse to believe that their govt. and their media will routinely lie to them and fabricate a reality contrary to verifiable facts, is a society that chooses and deserves the Police State Dictatorship it's going to get."

The media's conspiracy is better than yours. It's just easier that way.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleafoaf
CEO DBK?
 User Gallery

Registered: 11/08/02
Posts: 32,665
Loc: Ripple's Heart
Re: Why the media's conspiracy theory is better than yours [Re: ekomstop]
    #3158230 - 09/21/04 12:15 AM (12 years, 2 months ago)

someone needs to submit a FOIA on W199I-WF-213589.


--------------------
All I know is The Growery is a place where losers who get banned here go.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: Why the media's conspiracy theory is better than yours [Re: ekomstop]
    #3158447 - 09/21/04 01:18 AM (12 years, 2 months ago)


numerous errors, inconsistencies, and omissions, states that 19
hijackers under the order of Osama bin Laden, hijacked four
airliners, pulled a fast one on US intelligence, and fooled the world
in an event that will forever change America. This theory was
assembled within hours. Oliver Stone couldn't have come up with one
that quickly.


The theory was assembled in hours because they looked at the videos
in the airports showing young Arab males boarding the flights. Calls
from the passengers to relatives relayed that these Arab males had
taken over the flights. Arab males who commit mass murder tend to
be Islamic extremists. The most powerful, well-funded, and organized
Islamic extremist group in the world that was working on targeting
America was(and probably still is) Al Qaeda. Of course it didn't
take long to come up with that theory, because it is entirely
plausible.

Osama Bin Laden was/is the head of a world-wide terrorist
organization that had sponsored attacks against America before
(Embassy bombings in Africa, attack on the U.S.S. Cole, etc...).
He very bluntly says in his videos and "fatwas" that Americans need
to be killed everywhere they are.

I'm sorry, but this all sounds quite believable to me. Of course I
urge questioning and investigation into the whole event. If it
turns out something else happened, then by all means the public
should know.


Another widely overlooked conspiracy theory about the events of
September 11th is the reasoning for George W. Bush, shortly after
becoming president, according to a widely available BBC News video,
to issue Executive Order W199I-WF-213589, demanding that Federal
investigators "back off" of the bin Ladens and the group ABL, because
of it's relationship with WAMY,(World Assembly of Muslim Youth).

they (Bin Ladens) are above suspicion because of business dealings
they have with the Bush Administration(s).

The Bin Ladens are a huge, prominent, and rich family. They have
publicly denounced Osama and claim to have no contacts with him.

I wouldn't doubt it if the Bush family(a prominent and wealthy family
involved in many business dealings) and the Bin Laden family(a
prominent and wealthy family involved in many business dealings)
had a business connection somewhere.


According to a report prepared for the UN, Saudi Arabia has
transferred $500 million to Al Qaeda over the past decade,

I wouldn't doubt it. Saudi Arabia is not America's friend.


Senator Bob Graham publicly admitted, based on information he has
received, that at least one foreign country assisted the 9-11
terrorists, and we won't find out who that is for the next 20 or 30
years.

Maybe Iran? When they let known Al Qaeda fighters slip into their
borders...that might constitute aiding them. Or maybe Saudi Arabia?
I have no doubt that members of Saudi society and the Saudi royal
family have given Islamic wackos money.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineekomstop
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada Flag
Last seen: 5 years, 10 months
Re: Why the media's conspiracy theory is better than yours [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #3159572 - 09/21/04 02:01 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)

Some more red flags concerning the official report on 9/11


Leaps of Faith Required to Accept the Official Story

There are many red flags in the official story of September 11th that passed right by the vast majority of people. Not the least is that the official story was so quick to emerge. Within hours of the attack Osama bin Laden was presented as the prime suspect. His picture was repeatedly shown on TV alongside images of the devastation in Lower Manhattan, a technique known as Pavlovian conditioning. A list of most of the hijackers was presented within a day of the attack. Mohammed Atta was presented as the ringleader within hours. The curious building "collapses" in Manhattan were immediately claimed to be inevitable. The "case closed" technical paper about the building collapses was published on September 13th, two days after the attack.

Some of the other red flags include:

* The hijacked flights all flew long routes taking them far from their targets exposing them to certain interception given standard operating procedures.
* The towering infernos were said to burn with the heat of nuclear power plants, despite sooty black smoke and few flames.
* The building collapses were presented as inevitable, even though such behavior was unheard of in steel structures.
* Cellphones were said to have been used to make numerous calls from Flight 93, even though cell phones don't work from aircraft in normal flight.
* Flight 93 was confidently portrayed as a crash due to a struggle, despite the strong evidence it was shot down.
* An extensive paper trail of the hijackers was found within hours of the attack. even though the same people had supposedly eluded authorities for years.
* The same hijackers who pulled off aerobatic maneuvers with large jets were flight school flunkies who had never flown jets.
* A hijacker's passport was said to have been found at Ground Zero, even though not a single person on the doomed flights was identified.
* Several hijackers turned up alive after the attack.
* 1000 bodies vanished at Ground Zero, despite DNA identification procedures that could identify individuals from small fragments of bodies.
* Flight 77 vanished at the pentagon, the 80 tons of aluminum, steel and bodies supposedly burning up.
* The supposedly fanatically devout Muslim hijackers were fond of strip bars.

http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/background.html


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: Why the media's conspiracy theory is better than yours [Re: ekomstop]
    #3160429 - 09/21/04 04:59 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)


Within hours of the attack Osama bin Laden was presented as the prime
suspect. His picture was repeatedly shown on TV alongside images of
the devastation in Lower Manhattan, a technique known as Pavlovian
conditioning.

So? He was immediately the prime suspect...and for good reason.


A list of most of the hijackers was presented within a day of the
attack. Mohammed Atta was presented as the ringleader within hours.

The authorities knew immediately that Arab males had done it. All
they had to do was look at the passenger lists for Arab names. They
probably had the names of all of the hijackers in five minutes.

Where is the evidence that Atta was presented as the ringleader in
hours? I don't think it is possible to have determined Atta was
the head of the operation that quickly.


* The hijacked flights all flew long routes taking them far from
their targets exposing them to certain interception given standard
operating procedures.

The hijackers planned their takeovers not according to where the plane
was, but according to the altitude and the timing since takeoff.
The instant at which they took over the planes had been planned as
being the most opportune time(I am taking that from the 9/11 report).


* The towering infernos were said to burn with the heat of nuclear
power plants, despite sooty black smoke and few flames.

How is that relevant? I don't know if the towers were burning at
the heat of nuclear power plants, but having a lot of jet fuel
and fire in a building will make it hot.


* Cellphones were said to have been used to make numerous calls from
Flight 93, even though cell phones don't work from aircraft in normal
flight.

Hmm...do you have a reliable source that says for a fact that cell
phones do not operate on planes? Also...the planes were very low.

It is a simple fact that many people died on September 11.
Therefore, there were many family members out there who lost loved
ones. The 9/11 report and the news media quite clearly said that
there were cell phone calls from the planes. If that wasn't
true...why did the family members of the dead not say anything? Why
would they lie or not speak up if that wasn't true?


* An extensive paper trail of the hijackers was found within hours of
the attack. even though the same people had supposedly eluded
authorities for years.

In todays modern age, with computers and telecommunications, it is
feasible that they pulled up a bunch of information on the purported
hijackers very quickly.

I believe 1 or 2 of the hijackers was on a watch list. The rest of
the hijackers lived normal lives here, and therefore did not arouse
suspicion. They did not "elude" authorities, because authorities
were not looking for them.


* The same hijackers who pulled off aerobatic maneuvers with large
jets were flight school flunkies who had never flown jets.

Some of the hijackers were flight school "flunkies". Some of the
hijackers did quite well in flight school and got several
certifications(I saw that in the 9/11 report).


* Several hijackers turned up alive after the attack.

I wouldn't find it shocking if some of the hijackers had stolen
identities(I haven't gotten that far into the 9/11 report).


* The supposedly fanatically devout Muslim hijackers were fond of
strip bars.

Maybe they weren't so devout when it came to that. Maybe they were
trying to blend in with "normal" Americans.


Edited by RandalFlagg (09/21/04 05:04 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineekomstop
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada Flag
Last seen: 5 years, 10 months
Re: Why the media's conspiracy theory is better than yours [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #3161020 - 09/21/04 06:58 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

RandalFlagg said:Where is the evidence that Atta was presented as the ringleader in
hours? I don't think it is possible to have determined Atta was the head of the operation that quickly.




I just looked around for evidence of this, and low and behold, that was the only site making that claim, and I couldn't find anything there backing it up. Thanks for pointing this out.

Quote:

* The hijacked flights all flew long routes taking them far from
their targets exposing them to certain interception given standard
operating procedures.


The hijackers planned their takeovers not according to where the plane
was, but according to the altitude and the timing since takeoff.
The instant at which they took over the planes had been planned as
being the most opportune time(I am taking that from the 9/11 report).




When the planes were hi-jacked they were in the air, hi-jacked, for over an hour before they hit their targets. There is a no fly zone over washington which is strictly monitored 24/7. Was NORAD not doing their job? Why didn't they send out any fighter jets until after the plane had crashed into the pentagon? Andrews airforce base is only 12 miles away, and they knew full-well that an attack was taking place, as the towers had already been hit. Not to mention that plane flew right over the whitehouse before it hit the pentagon. Under normal circumstances, I don't think this would be tollerated, and would have been acted upon.

Quote:


* Cellphones were said to have been used to make numerous calls from
Flight 93, even though cell phones don't work from aircraft in normal
flight.

Hmm...do you have a reliable source that says for a fact that cell
phones do not operate on planes? Also...the planes were very low.




If flight 93 crashed, then why was it reported to have landed at an airport in cleveland because there was a bomb feared aboard?

"The calls have a peculiar distribution with thirteen calls attributed to Flight 93 passengers, but only zero to one attributed to passengers on any of the other flights. Why would the hijackers be so permissive on that flight but only selectively permissive on others, letting Flight 11 Attendant Madeline Sweeney talk for the entire hijacked portion of its route?"

"There is no public evidence of recordings of any of the conversations, despite the extended length of some of them, except for Madeline Sweeney's alleged call."

Canadian scientist A.K. Dewdney concludes in the article Ghostriders in the Sky that cellphone calls could not be made reliably if at all from Flight 93.

* He conducted experiments with cell phones to show that cell phones seldom work above 10,000 feet. Several of the alleged Flight 93 calls were made when the plane would still have been near its cruising altitude of 35,000 feet.
* Below 10,000 feet, according to Dewdney, cell phone calls made from a jet would cause problematic "cascades" in networks of cellsites on the ground. Cascading is caused by a phone at several thousand feet of elevation being unable to distinguish which of several cellsites has the strongest signal. This causes the phone to repeatedly select a new channel and try again, possibly leading to a network-wide breakdown. No such cascades were reported on September 11th.


Quote:

It is a simple fact that many people died on September 11.
Therefore, there were many family members out there who lost loved
ones.




I am in no way disagreeing with this. The tragedy is real, the lost lives are real. There is no denying that. This is all the more reason to ask legitimate questions.

Quote:

The 9/11 report and the news media quite clearly said that
there were cell phone calls from the planes. If that wasn't
true...why did the family members of the dead not say anything? Why
would they lie or not speak up if that wasn't true?




I wish I had an answer to this. Maybe the calls were real, maybe they were staged. All that is being suggested is that the material the media is pushing seems very bizzare and questionable. Add up the fact that Bush signed a document ordering FBI and intel officers to stay away from al qaeda rings in certain cities should at the very least make you wonder. Why?

Quote:


* Several hijackers turned up alive after the attack.

I wouldn't find it shocking if some of the hijackers had stolen
identities(I haven't gotten that far into the 9/11 report).




That seems plausible. Makes me wonder why the said terrorists would make the effort to do so, especially if they were just going to sacrifice themselves anyway.

Another important red flag probably worthy of consideration: THE BUSH ADMIN WAS ON CIPRO SIX WEEKS BEFORE THE ANTHRAX ATTACKS


Edited by ekomstop (09/21/04 07:32 PM)


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleretread
-=HasH=-
Registered: 07/14/04
Posts: 851
Re: Why the media's conspiracy theory is better than yours [Re: ekomstop]
    #3161081 - 09/21/04 07:11 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

ekomstop said:
When the planes were hi-jacked they were in the air, hi-jacked, for over an hour before they hit their targets. There is a no fly zone over washington which is strictly monitored 24/7. Was NORAD not doing their job?
[/quote
These planes didn't hover around the DC No-Flight Zone for an hour, they fly 600mph, thats insanity. They weren'T IN the no-flight zone, thats why. Why would a plane in Pittsburgh be shot down for violating DC's no-fly zone?
Quote:


Why didn't they send out any fighter jets until after the plane had crashed into the pentagon? Andrews airforce base is only 12 miles away, and they knew full-well that an attack was taking place, as the towers had already been hit.




Because you are operating in hindsite with the 9/11 report in front of oyu, and these people, as were everyone else, were SURPRISE BY IT.
Quote:


Not to mention that plane flew right over the whitehouse before it hit the pentagon.




Er, no. I saw the angle that it hit at, and it wasn't from the whitehouse side.
Quote:


Under normal circumstances, I don't think this would be tollerated, and would have been acted upon.




Ok, if the plane was going 600mph, thats TEN miles a minute. DC is only about 15 miles wide there, so that is ONE MINUTE and THIRTY SECONDS of violation. What the fuck should they have done?


Idiot-bait. Chopped and destroyed.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineekomstop
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada Flag
Last seen: 5 years, 10 months
Re: Why the media's conspiracy theory is better than yours [Re: retread]
    #3161145 - 09/21/04 07:23 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

retread said:Because you are operating in hindsite with the 9/11 report in front of oyu, and these people, as were everyone else, were SURPRISE BY IT.





Like I said, the planes were in the air, hi-jacked, for over an hour before they crashed. They must have been pretty fucking surprized to not be capable of acting during that time.

Quote:

Not to mention that plane flew right over the whitehouse before it hit the pentagon.

Er, no. I saw the angle that it hit at, and it wasn't from the whitehouse side.




http://dks.thing.net/911-In-A-Nutshell.html

"There was an antiaircraft battery permanently stationed on top of the White House, but inexplicably it wasn't used to shoot down Flight 77, which flew low over the White House before making a sharp turn and hitting the Pentagon."

Quote:


Under normal circumstances, I don't think this would be tollerated, and would have been acted upon.


Ok, if the plane was going 600mph, thats TEN miles a minute. DC is only about 15 miles wide there, so that is ONE MINUTE and THIRTY SECONDS of violation. What the fuck should they have done?




How long were the planes headed toward that general direction, in which during that time they probably could have made somewhat of an educated guess as to where the planes may have been headed? Oh yeah, OVER AN HOUR.

Quote:

Idiot-bait. Chopped and destroyed.




Better try again.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: Why the media's conspiracy theory is better than yours [Re: ekomstop]
    #3161226 - 09/21/04 07:50 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)


When the planes were hi-jacked they were in the air, hi-jacked, for
over an hour before they hit their targets.

According to the 9/11 report

American 11:

Hijacked at 8:14 am
Impacted into World Trade Center at 8:46 am

United 175:

Hijacked at 8:42 - 8:46 am
Impacted into World Trade Center at 9:03 am

American 77:

Hijacked at 8:51 to 8:54 am
Impacted into the Pentagon at 9:37 am

United 93:

Hijacked at 9:28 am
Impacted into field at 10:02 am


Was NORAD not doing their job? Why didn't they send out any fighter
jets until after the plane had crashed into the pentagon?

I am still reading the 9/11 report. I have yet to read about
what happened at NORAD.

Also..about the calls from Flight 93. On page 12 of the 9/11 report
it says that passengers and flight crew made calls on GTE airphones
and cell phones(airphones are phones that are built into the
plane).

Passengers from Flight 93 made their first calls at 9:32. At 9:57 the
passenger revolt began. At 10:02 the plane crashed.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineekomstop
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada Flag
Last seen: 5 years, 10 months
Re: Why the media's conspiracy theory is better than yours [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #3161462 - 09/21/04 08:35 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)

Well I must say I'm glad to see we're actually talking here and not automatically making fantastic assumptions and resorting to name calling such as has happened in past threads.

Quote:

RandalFlagg said:

When the planes were hi-jacked they were in the air, hi-jacked, for
over an hour before they hit their targets.

According to the 9/11 report

American 11:

Hijacked at 8:14 am
Impacted into World Trade Center at 8:46 am

United 175:

Hijacked at 8:42 - 8:46 am
Impacted into World Trade Center at 9:03 am

American 77:

Hijacked at 8:51 to 8:54 am
Impacted into the Pentagon at 9:37 am

United 93:

Hijacked at 9:28 am
Impacted into field at 10:02 am




So let's see. From 8:14 am to 10:02 am, almost two hours, three planes crashed into, what are considered to be, three of the most 'important' high security government oriented buildings on the planet. At 8:14am when the first plane was reported hi-jacked, I would assume, knowing all the satelite and ground security they have all over the U.S. they must have been watching the skies like hawks, would they not? After all, this is what NORAD is paid to do 24/7 whether there is any kind of terrorist threat or not. Note: NORAD also has the ability to operate boeings from the ground via remote control incase of emergency. Think about this for a minute.

http://www.wanttoknow.info/9-11cover-up10pg
"If NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) hears of any difficulties in the skies, they begin the work to scramble jet fighters [take off and intercept aircraft that are off course]. Between Sep 2000 and June 2001 fighters were scrambled 67 times. [AP, 8/12/02] When the Lear jet of golfer Payne Stewart didn?t respond in 1999, F-16 interceptors were quickly dispatched. According to an Air Force timeline, a series of military planes provided an emergency escort to Payne?s stricken Lear about 20 minutes after ground controllers lost contact with his plane. -Dallas Morning News, 10/26/99"

Quote:

Also..about the calls from Flight 93. On page 12 of the 9/11 report
it says that passengers and flight crew made calls on GTE airphones
and cell phones(airphones are phones that are built into the
plane).




Interesting how the said hi-jackers would allow people to phone home, especially on the line connected to the airplane. Just out of curiosity, is there a telephone connection by every seat?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleretread
-=HasH=-
Registered: 07/14/04
Posts: 851
Re: Why the media's conspiracy theory is better than yours [Re: ekomstop]
    #3161493 - 09/21/04 08:40 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

ekomstop said:
Like I said, the planes were in the air, hi-jacked, for over an hour before they crashed. They must have been pretty fucking surprized to not be capable of acting during that time.




So in that hour they could have gone 600 miles, right? Make a circle and see what was within reach of 600 miles of the airplane. NEW YORK CITY, right? A place that had been hit already?
Quote:


"There was an antiaircraft battery permanently stationed on top of the White House, but inexplicably it wasn't used to shoot down Flight 77, which flew low over the White House before making a sharp turn and hitting the Pentagon."




So this plane was flying at 600 mph, came in low and was to be shot down by people who, 2 minutes ago, didn't know where it was going? Also, planes travelling at full speed aren't known for their ability to make "sharp turns". I'll have to research this a little bit more to see what is really going on. I know for a FACT that a large plane like that can't turn "sharply" at full speed.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineekomstop
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada Flag
Last seen: 5 years, 10 months
Re: Why the media's conspiracy theory is better than yours [Re: retread]
    #3161574 - 09/21/04 08:58 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)

http://www.sfcall.com/issues%202002/10.7.02/paul_10_7_02.htm

Home Run and Global Hawk

If the supposed pilots are impossible or unlikely prospects for flying a Boeing 757 or 767 through sharp turns and complex maneuvers, how COULD those airliners otherwise have been flown?

In an interview with the German newspaper Tagesspeigel on January 13, 2002, Andreas von Buelow, Minister of Technology for the united Germany in the early 1990s, a person who first worked in West Germany's Secretary of Defense 30 years ago, told about a technology by which airliners can be commanded through remote control.

The former Minister of Technology said: '"The Americans had developed a method in the 1970s, whereby they could rescue hijacked planes by intervening into the computer piloting."'


Andreas von Buelow said that this technology was named Home Run.

The German went on to give his Tagesspeigel interviewer his overall perspective of the 9/11/01 attacks: '"I can state: the planning of the attacks was technically and organizationally a master achievement. To hijack four huge airplanes within a few minutes and within one hour, to drive them into their targets, with complicated flight maneuvers! This is unthinkable, without years-long support from secret apparatuses of the state and industry?. I have real difficulties, however, to imagine that all this all sprang out of the mind of an evil man in his cave"'

Another technology devised by the U.S. military for remote control of huge airplanes is named Global Hawk. On April 24, 2001, four months before "'9/11,'" Britain's International Television News reported: "A robot plane has made aviation history by becoming the first unmanned aircraft to fly across the Pacific Ocean."

Britain's ITN continued: "The Global Hawk, a jet-powered aircraft with a wingspan equivalent to a Boeing 737, flew from Edwards Air Force Base in California and landed late on Monday at the Royal Australian Air Force base at Edinburgh, in South Australia state?. It flies along a pre-programmed flight path, but a pilot monitors the aircraft during its flight via a sensor suite which provides infra-red and visual images."

According to the Australian Global Hawk manager Rod Smith: '"The aircraft essentially flies itself, right from takeoff, right through to landing, and even taxiing off the runway."'

Now, who or what would you trust for aerial missions as demanding as those of "'9/11'" (or trust to fly an airliner from one airfield in California to another in Australia): The Arab students who are described above, or the Global Hawk or Home Run technologies?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: Why the media's conspiracy theory is better than yours [Re: ekomstop]
    #3161612 - 09/21/04 09:06 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)


So let's see. From 8:14 am to 10:02 am, almost two hours, three
planes crashed,

At 8:14am when the first plane was reported hi-jacked

The plane was actually hijacked at 8:14. It wasn't reported or known
as hijacked until later. So, the window of various agencies knowing
something was going on until the last crash was much less than two
hours. Maybe you should pick up a copy of the 9/11 report if you
get a chance. It is kind of long(500 some pages). One of these
days I am going to read through the FAA and NORAD sections where
it shows what happened, and why it happened.


what are considered to be, three of the most 'important' high
security government oriented buildings on the planet.

The World Trade Center Towers were not government buildings. They
were office buildings full of businesses.


I would assume, knowing all the satelite and ground security they
have all over the U.S. they must have been watching the skies like
hawks, would they not? After all, this is what NORAD is paid to do
24/7 whether there is any kind of terrorist threat or not.

As I said, I am not terribly knowledgable of the specific details of
NORAD's behavior.


Note: NORAD also has the ability to operate boeings from the ground
via remote control incase of emergency. Think about this for a
minute.

NORAD can control passenger airplanes? This is new to me. Do you
have a source on that?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineekomstop
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada Flag
Last seen: 5 years, 10 months
Re: Why the media's conspiracy theory is better than yours [Re: RandalFlagg]
    #3161700 - 09/21/04 09:21 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)

I think I am definitely going to have to look into reading the official report, as it is (probably obvious) that I haven't dont that yet. According to Alex Jones (yes he is a very credible source) there are said to be over 600 found 'red flags' in that document, or flat out lies, and I guess it would probably be a good idea to know for sure that this may very well be the case.

I mean, look at this, this is all mainstream news!
http://www.infowars.com/resources.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/911.html

as for NORAD info, including that on remote control aircraft:
http://www.public-action.com/911/noradsend.html

"Since 1959, NORAD personnel have been installing remote control units in a variety of aircraft and remotely controlling those aircraft in sophisticated aeronautical maneuvers, including combat practice. See "Thwarting skyjackings from the ground," written by Alan Staats for Facsnet, and posted on October 2, 2001. (Facsnet is an education service provided for its reporters by Associated Press.)"


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: Why the media's conspiracy theory is better than yours [Re: ekomstop]
    #3161745 - 09/21/04 09:28 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)

ekomstop writes:

According to Alex Jones (yes he is a very credible source)

Bwahahahaha!

as for NORAD info, including that on remote control aircraft:

NORAD can remotely control specially outfitted NORAD aircraft, true. They cannot seize control remotely of commercial airliners. Not even the barking moonbat site you linked claims that.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineekomstop
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada Flag
Last seen: 5 years, 10 months
Re: Why the media's conspiracy theory is better than yours [Re: Phred]
    #3161760 - 09/21/04 09:29 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)

Quote:

pinksharkmark said:They cannot seize control remotely of commercial airliners.




Source?


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: Why the media's conspiracy theory is better than yours [Re: ekomstop]
    #3161826 - 09/21/04 09:39 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)

You don't understand how this works. It is your claim that NORAD can remotely seize control of commercial airliners. The burden of proof is on you to support that claim through citing a credible source.

One of my drinking buddies is an airline mechanic stationed here to maintain some of the German charter flights (mainly Condor) that travel the Europe-Caribbean route. He flat-out states that it is impossible for a commercial airliner to be remotely piloted unless they have been specifically outfitted with impossible to hide equipment that is in complete violation of every civilian aeronautical regulatory body in existence in the world today. He says he knows for a fact that none of the planes he has ever worked on, or any plane he has ever heard of from any of his mechanic buddies, has ever been fitted with such devices.

Seriously, guy, you'd be doing yourself an enormous favor by staying away from the sites you frequent. There are far too many important things to take up your time with. Life is too short to fritter away on endless study of crackpot theorists. They'll turn your mind to mush.

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: Why the media's conspiracy theory is better than yours [Re: ekomstop]
    #3161851 - 09/21/04 09:44 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)

Some more info:

On page 12 of the 9/11 report it says that several passengers that
called people from Flight 93 said that the hijackers didn't care
that they were making phone calls.

On page 20 it says that Boston Center contacted the military at 8:37
and reported that there was a hijacked airplane headed towards
New York. The guy advises the military to scramble fighter
aircraft. F-15 fighters were scrambled at 8:46, but NEADS(Northeast
air defense sector) did not know where to send the fighters to(the
FAA couldn't give them specific information because the hijacked
plane's transponders had been turned off). The subsequent pages show
a complete lack of coordination between agencies as to what was going
on and where planes were. The fighters that were scrambled were put
over New York City AFTER both towers had been hit. Also, once the
two planes had hit the two towers of the World Trade Center, NEADS
did not have any indication of other hijacked planes.

On page 30: Despite the discussions about military assistance, no one
from the FAA requested military assistance regarding United 93. Nor
did any managers at the FAA pass any of the info it had on United 93
to the military.

on page 31: As it turned out NEADS had nine minutes warning on
the first plane but no advance warning on any of the other planes.

So it appears as if the coordination between the airport radar
monitors, the FAA, and the military was lackluster at best.


If flight 93 crashed, then why was it reported to have landed at an
airport in cleveland because there was a bomb feared aboard?


As far as that news report goes, I can't explain that. Maybe in the
confusion of that day, someone messed up. I saw no information at
all about that news story in the 9/11 report.

Although, in the report it lists witnesses of a huge black
smoking cloud from a crash site. Also the pics I saw of the
crash site seems to indicate something crashed there.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineekomstop
Male User Gallery

Registered: 03/31/01
Posts: 1,880
Loc: Canada Flag
Last seen: 5 years, 10 months
Re: Why the media's conspiracy theory is better than yours [Re: Phred]
    #3161900 - 09/21/04 09:52 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)

Could you please remind me exactly what type of planes were hijacked..I can't seem to remember...All of this crackpot theory must really be fucking with my mind...

http://www.newsgateway.ca/9_11_aircraft_remote_control_.htm

"As well as fully autonomous flight capability, the 767 and 757 are the ONLY COMMUTER PLANES MADE BY BOEING THAT CAN BE FLOWN VIA REMOTE CONTROL. It is a feature that is standard to all of them, all 757's and 767's can do it."


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
Re: Why the media's conspiracy theory is better than yours [Re: ekomstop]
    #3162061 - 09/21/04 10:13 PM (12 years, 2 months ago)

Excuse me if I have a hard time taking as credible a statement with no linkback to Boeing tech spec sheets from a guy named "anonymous" posting to a barking moonbat conspiracy site.

Puh-LEEZE!

pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* conspiracy theories chaospilot 816 14 08/24/05 09:52 PM
by chaospilot
* poll ..9/11 conspiracy theories...
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 all )
Annapurna1
7,815 147 07/04/06 12:05 AM
by David_vs_Goliath
* The No-Conspiracy Theory ekomstop 585 5 09/14/04 01:46 PM
by Moonshoe
* Conspiracy theories
( 1 2 3 4 all )
Learyfan 3,469 60 02/17/04 04:53 PM
by TheOneYouKnow
* Conspiracy Theories: JFK vs. 9/11
( 1 2 all )
Annapurna1
2,311 30 11/25/03 05:37 PM
by luvdemshrooms
* THE BUSH CONSPIRACY THEORY GENERATOR
( 1 2 all )
Los_Pepes 2,056 22 08/09/05 08:02 AM
by SneezingPenis
* Conspiracy Theories You Believe In
( 1 2 3 4 5 all )
spud 3,872 91 08/03/05 08:16 AM
by iambobby
* Why the "tanks on the planes" 9--1 conspiracy theory is shit
( 1 2 all )
RandalFlagg
2,754 35 09/13/04 02:45 AM
by Zahid

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Prisoner#1, Enlil
2,579 topic views. 1 members, 1 guests and 7 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
Mycohaus
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.164 seconds spending 0.001 seconds on 16 queries.