[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Limbic wrote:
…
LOL
These “LOLS” on the end of every post are idiocy multipliers.[/quote]
Thank you for your depth of analysis and well thought-out contribution. And yes, I must … contain … myself.
LOL
You seem to be saying I’m ignoring things and leaving things out. I’m certainly not doing either intentionally.
I do not know everything. I do not know the FAA’s practices. I do not know what normal protocol is when a plane goes off route and wont respond(who knows if they didnt get the pilots to say they were okay?). I havent heard the dialogs occuring between the FAA and their attempts to contact the planes. I do recall seeing time lines of them getting jets into the air in as little as 6 minuts, however they were 100 miles away from the airliners at that time.
I do know that the circumstances that day were vastly different than any other day in history… and sometime protocols go out the window when that happens.
Also, I dont think the post I made about who would need to be in on it was cutting anyone slack (maybe I need to read it again though). It simply points out the vast number of people that would NEED to be in on the conspiracy and still have kept quiet about it.
[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
I do know that the circumstances that day were vastly different than any other day in history… and sometime protocols go out the window when that happens.
[/quote]
Let me sum this up; you admit not knowing standard NORAD interception procedures; you ask people for links then avoid studying them; you still somehow come up with an assumption out of the blue that for 911 standard interception protocols didn’t apply.
Of course, you don’t have any evidence to back this up.
Are we supposed to get to the bottom of the truth by stating opinions not based on any facts ?
Am i missing something here ?
Why waste everybody’s time and server bandwith with your uninformed opinions, tell me ?
[quote]jeffdirect wrote:
Lonnie123 wrote:
I do know that the circumstances that day were vastly different than any other day in history… and sometime protocols go out the window when that happens.
Let me sum this up; you admit not knowing standard NORAD interception procedures; you ask people for links then avoid studying them; you still somehow come up with an assumption out of the blue that for 911 standard interception protocols didn’t apply.
Of course, you don’t have any evidence to back this up.
Are we supposed to get to the bottom of the truth by stating opinions not based on any facts ?
Am i missing something here ?
Why waste everybody’s time and server bandwith with your uninformed opinions, tell me ?[/quote]
Jeffdirect, at this point I honestly believe that Lonnie is a representative of the California Republican Party tasked to janitorial cleanup for the Bush legacy mess. As in the Californians are looking forward to putting Arnold in the presidency and realize there’s work to be done to that effect. He is feigning rational consideration of the “truther/9-11” issue. Feigning. That’s why he doesn’t read the links. Delay and divert tactic.
[quote]Limbic wrote:
Jeffdirect, at this point I honestly believe that Lonnie is a representative of the California Republican Party tasked to janitorial cleanup for the Bush legacy mess. As in the Californians are looking forward to putting Arnold in the presidency and realize there’s work to be done to that effect. He is feigning rational consideration of the “truther/9-11” issue. Feigning. That’s why he doesn’t read the links. Delay and divert tactic.[/quote]
How many forums do you reckon they spam everyday ?
I would think about 40; that’s 12 minutes/ forum for an 8 hours work.
No idea how much the’re getting paid though.
Arnold should have stuck with movies. Guess that witnessing Clinton award winning playacting for 8 years somehow scrambled his mind.
Now he’s just another mass criminal like the rest.
[quote]Limbic wrote:
jeffdirect wrote:
Lonnie123 wrote:
I do know that the circumstances that day were vastly different than any other day in history… and sometime protocols go out the window when that happens.
Let me sum this up; you admit not knowing standard NORAD interception procedures; you ask people for links then avoid studying them; you still somehow come up with an assumption out of the blue that for 911 standard interception protocols didn’t apply.
Of course, you don’t have any evidence to back this up.
Are we supposed to get to the bottom of the truth by stating opinions not based on any facts ?
Am i missing something here ?
Why waste everybody’s time and server bandwith with your uninformed opinions, tell me ?
Jeffdirect, at this point I honestly believe that Lonnie is a representative of the California Republican Party tasked to janitorial cleanup for the Bush legacy mess. As in the Californians are looking forward to putting Arnold in the presidency and realize there’s work to be done to that effect. He is feigning rational consideration of the “truther/9-11” issue. Feigning. That’s why he doesn’t read the links. Delay and divert tactic.[/quote]
Actually a registered Democrat and will be voting as such in November. Good try though.
I went back to page 2 and could in fact not find the link you mentioned. Bottom line is I dont have all day to do research on this issue and am not going to go back and watch all 900 hours of video links and read hundreds of pages of web articles just to settle a little debate against 2 or 3 guys I will never meet.
In the end I dont think anyones mind will be getting changed, so I will consider this my last post in this particular thread. Call it a conceit if you want, the rest of you guys can sort out the conspiracy… Remember, any day now the NWO is going to take over.
Great effort… you’ll be doing better next time…??
Written in plain characters on pg 2:
"9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon
“We to this day don’t know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us,” said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. “It was just so far from the truth…
www.washingtonpost.com/...0101300_pf.html”
[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
Limbic wrote:
jeffdirect wrote:
Lonnie123 wrote:
I do know that the circumstances that day were vastly different than any other day in history… and sometime protocols go out the window when that happens.
Let me sum this up; you admit not knowing standard NORAD interception procedures; you ask people for links then avoid studying them; you still somehow come up with an assumption out of the blue that for 911 standard interception protocols didn’t apply.
Of course, you don’t have any evidence to back this up.
Are we supposed to get to the bottom of the truth by stating opinions not based on any facts ?
Am i missing something here ?
Why waste everybody’s time and server bandwith with your uninformed opinions, tell me ?
Jeffdirect, at this point I honestly believe that Lonnie is a representative of the California Republican Party tasked to janitorial cleanup for the Bush legacy mess. As in the Californians are looking forward to putting Arnold in the presidency and realize there’s work to be done to that effect. He is feigning rational consideration of the “truther/9-11” issue. Feigning. That’s why he doesn’t read the links. Delay and divert tactic.
Actually a registered Democrat and will be voting as such in November. Good try though.
I went back to page 2 and could in fact not find the link you mentioned. Bottom line is I dont have all day to do research on this issue and am not going to go back and watch all 900 hours of video links and read hundreds of pages of web articles just to settle a little debate against 2 or 3 guys I will never meet.
In the end I dont think anyones mind will be getting changed, so I will consider this my last post in this particular thread. Call it a conceit if you want, the rest of you guys can sort out the conspiracy… Remember, any day now the NWO is going to take over. [/quote]
Lon, Lon, don’t leave yet! You live in CA, perhaps you can tell me why Gray Davis resigned as governor. I did not keep up on it and truly seek an opinion from a CA democrat. I ask because he seems to have empowered repubs at a crucial time.
[quote]jeffdirect wrote:
Limbic wrote:
Jeffdirect, at this point I honestly believe that Lonnie is a representative of the California Republican Party tasked to janitorial cleanup for the Bush legacy mess. As in the Californians are looking forward to putting Arnold in the presidency and realize there’s work to be done to that effect. He is feigning rational consideration of the “truther/9-11” issue. Feigning. That’s why he doesn’t read the links. Delay and divert tactic.
How many forums do you reckon they spam everyday ?
I would think about 40; that’s 12 minutes/ forum for an 8 hours work.
No idea how much the’re getting paid though.
Arnold should have stuck with movies. Guess that witnessing Clinton award winning playacting for 8 years somehow scrambled his mind.
Now he’s just another mass criminal like the rest.
[/quote]
Hahaha. No idea in toto, but I am aware of one site too many! On that site they appear to post under several usernames, some are perhaps composite identities, etc. etc.
Arnold in his bodybuilding days was a rehearsal man, but nowadays I don’t know if he’s capable of spontaneous depth of thought.
The money forces that put GW in office doubtless think he’s promotable.
jeffdirect, are you aware of anyone in the FAA speaking of their experiences on 9-11? Have they all been truly that mute?
[quote]Lonnie123 wrote:
You seem to be saying I’m ignoring things and leaving things out. I’m certainly not doing either intentionally.
I do not know everything. I do not know the FAA’s practices. I do not know what normal protocol is when a plane goes off route and wont respond(who knows if they didnt get the pilots to say they were okay?). I havent heard the dialogs occuring between the FAA and their attempts to contact the planes. I do recall seeing time lines of them getting jets into the air in as little as 6 minuts, however they were 100 miles away from the airliners at that time.
I do know that the circumstances that day were vastly different than any other day in history… and sometime protocols go out the window when that happens.
Also, I dont think the post I made about who would need to be in on it was cutting anyone slack (maybe I need to read it again though). It simply points out the vast number of people that would NEED to be in on the conspiracy and still have kept quiet about it.[/quote]
FAA is usually very prompt in getting warnings out when a plane does not respond or is off course. Flight paths are highly regulated. It would not matter if they got the pilots to say everything was OK. If they were deviating from their flight plan they would get checked out, and fast. The danger was recognized back in the '70’s and response times aren’t much greater than the time you mentioned. And how fast do you think these interceptors can travel a 100 miles? Very fast. Coverage areas are assigned with travel time in mind, you might think?
The people tasked with these duties think in terms of risk assessment: it’s their job.
[quote]Limbic wrote:
jeffdirect, are you aware of anyone in the FAA speaking of their experiences on 9-11? Have they all been truly that mute?[/quote]
David Ray Griffin explained in one of his lectures how FAA gave three different contradictory stories in the space of three years for the failure to intercept.
Not only did they not provide an explanation for their backpedalling, but the responsables have actually been PROMOTED.
I can find the lecture on google if you’re interested.
-
The omission of the fact that Donald Rumsfeld, who as head of the commission on the US Space Command had recommended increased funding for it, used the attacks of 9/11 on that very evening to secure such funding (119-22).
-
The failure to mention the fact that three of the men who presided over the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks�??-Secretary Rumsfeld, General Richard Myers, and General Ralph Eberhart—were also three of the strongest advocates for the US Space Command (122).
-
The claim that Flight 77 flew almost 40 minutes through American airspace towards Washington without being detected by the military’s radar (191-92).
-
The failure to explain, if NORAD’s earlier report that it was notified about Flight 77 at 9:24 was “incorrect,” how this erroneous report could have arisen, i.e., [b]whether NORAD officials had been lying or simply confused for almost three years/b.
-
The claim that none of the teleconferences succeeded in coordinating the FAA and military responses to the hijackings because “none of [them] included the right officials from both the FAA and the Defense Department”—although Richard Clarke says that his videoconference included FAA head Jane Garvey as well as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, the acting chair of the joint chiefs of staff (211).
-
The Commission’s claim that it did not know who from the Defense Department participated in Clarke’s videoconference—although Clarke’s book said that it was Donald Rumsfeld and General Myers (211-212).
-
The endorsement of General Myers’ claim that he was on Capitol Hill during the attacks, without mentioning Richard Clarke’s contradictory account, according to which Myers was in the Pentagon participating in Clarke’s videoconference (213-17).
-
The omission of reports that there were two fighter jets in the air a few miles from NYC and three of them only 200 miles from Washington (251).
-
The omission of evidence that there were at least six bases with fighters on alert in the northeastern part of the United States (257-58).
-
The endorsement of General Myers’ claim that NORAD had not recognized the possibility that terrorists might use hijacked airliners as missiles (262-63).
-
The claim—made in explaining why the military did not get information about the hijackings in time to intercept them—that FAA personnel inexplicably failed to follow standard procedures some 16 times
The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie
[quote]jeffdirect wrote:
Why waste everybody’s time and server bandwith with your uninformed opinions, tell me ?[/quote]
Hypocrite.
By the way, there were practically no military airplanes in the air at the time of the attacks. Also each plane sends out a signal so it can be tracked, so when that is turned off, the planes are not tracked. (Not to mention flying under the radar.)
Not sure why I am even responding to this small part of the bullshit.
Dealing with this ignorance is boring. And to be told we are stoopeed because we do not believe such bad science, propagated by the foolish, is quite insulting.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
Not sure why I am even responding to this small part of the bullshit.
[/quote]
Me neither.
Dismissed.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
Not sure why I am even responding to this small part of the bullshit.
[/quote]
Me neither. You, Lonnie and a few others are trying hard to evaluate the information you get. Truthers are trying to dismiss anything they can – reading the posts it is clear that they are making professions of faith. After all, what is an ideology but a secular religion? Consider that their standard of “proof” is so high that a full confession by bin Laden plus a full accounting by his mastermind (Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, captured) is not sufficient. There is arguably nothing that will sway them. This also begs the question as to whether they actually can evaluate a rational discourse on any topic. I suspect not. You are at a complete disadvantage in such an exchange. In short, you will always lose (in their eyes) as long as you are reasonable around such people.
I wonder if they were accused of murder, pederasty or some other crime if they would like having their accuser act like them or you? I suspect their standard of proof would change substantially because it would make a difference.
So in summary to the Truthers:
-
that you have made up your mind ahead of the facts is prejudice
-
that you stubbornly will not change your mind is bigotry
-
that you will not change the subject is fanaticism
– jj
oh oh
I think i need a lawyer.
[quote]jeffdirect wrote:
oh oh
I think i need a lawyer.[/quote]
Just remember…if it doesn’t fit, then you must acquit.
[quote]The Mage wrote:
By the way, there were practically no military airplanes in the air at the time of the attacks. Also each plane sends out a signal so it can be tracked, so when that is turned off, the planes are not tracked. (Not to mention flying under the radar.)
Not sure why I am even responding to this small part of the bullshit.
Dealing with this ignorance is boring. And to be told we are stoopeed because we do not believe such bad science, propagated by the foolish, is quite insulting.
[/quote]
Through the countryside of western Massachusetts and Pennsylvania not tracked, but I seriously doubt in the DC area such lack of track is realistic.
The reason you responded is related to yourself feeling stoopeed. Your real intention is to fuck the American face. That’s not an intelligent intention unless you think you’re a super-american.
Don’t forget, at this point you don’t have to try to fuck the face. You’re surely not paid to do that?
Until your wit regenerates, you’re juggling too many “balls”.
Here’s picture of George Bush “thanking” General Myers for his services on 9-11.
George could not contain his “honesty”.