Topic: THE NORAD TAPES and the governments new story... | |
---|---|
The 9-11 Commission cannot be assumed to be above deceit. At the Commissions’ hearing on May 23, 2003, Norman Mineta testified that on the morning of 9-11, after arriving at the White House and stopping to see Richard Clarke (the national coordinator for security and counterterrorism), he went down to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) under the White House, where Vice President Cheney was in charge. Mineta then told Vice Chair Lee Hamilton of the 9-11 Commission: “During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, “The plane is 50 miles out.” “The plane is 30 miles out.” And when it got down to “the plane is 10 miles out,” the young man also said to the Vice President, “Do the order still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, “Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?” When Mineta was asked by Commissioner Timothy Roemer how long this conversation occurred after he arrived, Mineta said: “Probably about five or six minutes.” Which, as Roemer pointed out, would mean “about 9:25 or 9:26. This story was very threatening to the account that would be provided in the 9-11 Commission Report. According to that account, Cheney did not even enter the PEOC until almost 10:00, perhaps at 9:58. According to Mineta’s testimony, Cheney had arrived some time prior to 9:20. Mineta’s time is consistent with many other reports about Cheney’s descent to the PEOC. The Zelikow-led Commission even contradicted Cheney’s own account. Speaking on NBC’s Meet the Press five days after 9-11, Cheney said: “ After I talked to the president, I went down into…the Presidential Emergency Operations Center…When I arrived there within a short order, we had word the Pentagons’ been hit. In an Interview for a CNN story a year later, Cheney repeated that he was in the PEOC before word about the Pentagon strike was received,.(which reportedly occurred at about 9:38). This fact was also confirmed by Condoleezza Rice on ABC news television program one year after 9-11 based on interviews by Peter Jennings. The 9-11 Commission’s time of 9:58 is clearly false and cannot be considered anything other than an outright lie. This shows that nothing the Commission says can be accepted on faith. According to Mineta’s account, the vice President knew at least ten minutes earlier, by 9:26, that a plane was headed towards the Pentagon. The Commission’s claim is that the military did not know that an aircraft was approaching the Pentagon until 9:36, so that it had at most one or two minudtes to react to the unidentified plane approaching Washington. So the 9-11 Commission simply OMITTED Mineta’s testimony from the final report. One can understand such an omission of course because the purpose of the Zelikow-led Commission was to protect the Bush administration’s account of 9-11. This omission is not consistent with the claim that the Commission’s purpose as stated by Kean and Hamilton was “to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9-11. I want to know how Cheney knew where the plane was going? This post claims he knew 10 minutes before it hit the pentagon that it was going to hit the pentagon.. As if the pentagon is the only building of note in the DC area. Please explain how anyone knew that the pentagon was the target 10 minutes prior to it being struck.. Why would you ask me that question? Well maybe you were not asking ME. Why don't you ask Cheney? And I did not see where it stated that Cheney knew what target the plane was going for. It was just headed for DC...... I am simply relating a testimony given to the 9-11 commission by Norman Mineta that the Zelikow-led 9-11 Commission simply OMITTED from the final report. I am not personally making any claims that I "know" how anyone (like Cheney) would know anything. You figure that out and make your own decision. I am simply showing that the 9-11 Commission controlled what they would keep and what they would omit from the official rewriting of their new account of 9-11 that absolves the Military and the Bush administration of anything that could be construed as complicity in the attack. "According to Mineta’s account, the vice President knew at least ten minutes earlier, by 9:26, that a plane was headed towards the Pentagon." Again... This implies that Cheney knew the plane that was 17 minutes away from DC was headed to the pentagon.. When it would completely and totally impossible for anyone to know where this plane was going. Do you not see how illogical this timeline is? Do you think that Mineta would honestly implicate Cheney by purposely admitting that 17 minutes prior to the plane hitting the pentagon that he knew its precise destination? seriously? Oops! I just saw this post. This scenario doesn't make any sense and if correct, it makes Mineta's testimony rather questionable. |
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 09/15/12 09:07 PM
|
|
The 9-11 Commission cannot be assumed to be above deceit. At the Commissions’ hearing on May 23, 2003, Norman Mineta testified that on the morning of 9-11, after arriving at the White House and stopping to see Richard Clarke (the national coordinator for security and counterterrorism), he went down to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) under the White House, where Vice President Cheney was in charge. Mineta then told Vice Chair Lee Hamilton of the 9-11 Commission: “During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, “The plane is 50 miles out.” “The plane is 30 miles out.” And when it got down to “the plane is 10 miles out,” the young man also said to the Vice President, “Do the order still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, “Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?” When Mineta was asked by Commissioner Timothy Roemer how long this conversation occurred after he arrived, Mineta said: “Probably about five or six minutes.” Which, as Roemer pointed out, would mean “about 9:25 or 9:26. This story was very threatening to the account that would be provided in the 9-11 Commission Report. According to that account, Cheney did not even enter the PEOC until almost 10:00, perhaps at 9:58. According to Mineta’s testimony, Cheney had arrived some time prior to 9:20. Mineta’s time is consistent with many other reports about Cheney’s descent to the PEOC. The Zelikow-led Commission even contradicted Cheney’s own account. Speaking on NBC’s Meet the Press five days after 9-11, Cheney said: “ After I talked to the president, I went down into…the Presidential Emergency Operations Center…When I arrived there within a short order, we had word the Pentagons’ been hit. In an Interview for a CNN story a year later, Cheney repeated that he was in the PEOC before word about the Pentagon strike was received,.(which reportedly occurred at about 9:38). This fact was also confirmed by Condoleezza Rice on ABC news television program one year after 9-11 based on interviews by Peter Jennings. The 9-11 Commission’s time of 9:58 is clearly false and cannot be considered anything other than an outright lie. This shows that nothing the Commission says can be accepted on faith. According to Mineta’s account, the vice President knew at least ten minutes earlier, by 9:26, that a plane was headed towards the Pentagon. The Commission’s claim is that the military did not know that an aircraft was approaching the Pentagon until 9:36, so that it had at most one or two minudtes to react to the unidentified plane approaching Washington. So the 9-11 Commission simply OMITTED Mineta’s testimony from the final report. One can understand such an omission of course because the purpose of the Zelikow-led Commission was to protect the Bush administration’s account of 9-11. This omission is not consistent with the claim that the Commission’s purpose as stated by Kean and Hamilton was “to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9-11. I want to know how Cheney knew where the plane was going? This post claims he knew 10 minutes before it hit the pentagon that it was going to hit the pentagon.. As if the pentagon is the only building of note in the DC area. Please explain how anyone knew that the pentagon was the target 10 minutes prior to it being struck.. Why would you ask me that question? Well maybe you were not asking ME. Why don't you ask Cheney? And I did not see where it stated that Cheney knew what target the plane was going for. It was just headed for DC...... I am simply relating a testimony given to the 9-11 commission by Norman Mineta that the Zelikow-led 9-11 Commission simply OMITTED from the final report. I am not personally making any claims that I "know" how anyone (like Cheney) would know anything. You figure that out and make your own decision. I am simply showing that the 9-11 Commission controlled what they would keep and what they would omit from the official rewriting of their new account of 9-11 that absolves the Military and the Bush administration of anything that could be construed as complicity in the attack. "According to Mineta’s account, the vice President knew at least ten minutes earlier, by 9:26, that a plane was headed towards the Pentagon." Again... This implies that Cheney knew the plane that was 17 minutes away from DC was headed to the pentagon.. When it would completely and totally impossible for anyone to know where this plane was going. Do you not see how illogical this timeline is? Do you think that Mineta would honestly implicate Cheney by purposely admitting that 17 minutes prior to the plane hitting the pentagon that he knew its precise destination? seriously? Oops! I just saw this post. This scenario doesn't make any sense and if correct, it makes Mineta's testimony rather questionable. That quote was NOT Mineta's words. He never said that. You may want to listen to his testimony. No one ever claimed to know what the target was exactly, only that it was so many miles away... it could have been DC... or maybe Cheney did know. You can't know for sure. |
|
|
|
This timeline is whacko and contrary to the actual tapes. How many assumptions can be stuffed into one hypothesis? Have you read the transcripts? Not what someone thinks they might mean, but actually read them? Which timeline are you referring to? Mineta's timeline. I am not making this stuff up Hotrod. I am comparing the first official account as told by the Military and the second "official" account as written by the 9-11 Commission.
My comment on the assumptions are not directed toward the comparison of the reports, but the extrapolations derived from the discrepancies. I am not making this stuff up.
I never implied such. I'm not saying they're YOUR hypotheses. These are the facts of what happened.
The extrapolations aren't facts by their very nature. Are you not even reading my posts?
I am, is there some misunderstanding here? What is it that you do not understand? What are you confused about?
Nothing, it's all pretty straightforward. There are the facts as reported, then there are hypotheses developed from a few discrepancies. It is clear. |
|
|
|
Edited by
HotRodDeluxe
on
Sat 09/15/12 09:14 PM
|
|
The 9-11 Commission cannot be assumed to be above deceit. At the Commissions’ hearing on May 23, 2003, Norman Mineta testified that on the morning of 9-11, after arriving at the White House and stopping to see Richard Clarke (the national coordinator for security and counterterrorism), he went down to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) under the White House, where Vice President Cheney was in charge. Mineta then told Vice Chair Lee Hamilton of the 9-11 Commission: “During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, “The plane is 50 miles out.” “The plane is 30 miles out.” And when it got down to “the plane is 10 miles out,” the young man also said to the Vice President, “Do the order still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, “Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?” When Mineta was asked by Commissioner Timothy Roemer how long this conversation occurred after he arrived, Mineta said: “Probably about five or six minutes.” Which, as Roemer pointed out, would mean “about 9:25 or 9:26. This story was very threatening to the account that would be provided in the 9-11 Commission Report. According to that account, Cheney did not even enter the PEOC until almost 10:00, perhaps at 9:58. According to Mineta’s testimony, Cheney had arrived some time prior to 9:20. Mineta’s time is consistent with many other reports about Cheney’s descent to the PEOC. The Zelikow-led Commission even contradicted Cheney’s own account. Speaking on NBC’s Meet the Press five days after 9-11, Cheney said: “ After I talked to the president, I went down into…the Presidential Emergency Operations Center…When I arrived there within a short order, we had word the Pentagons’ been hit. In an Interview for a CNN story a year later, Cheney repeated that he was in the PEOC before word about the Pentagon strike was received,.(which reportedly occurred at about 9:38). This fact was also confirmed by Condoleezza Rice on ABC news television program one year after 9-11 based on interviews by Peter Jennings. The 9-11 Commission’s time of 9:58 is clearly false and cannot be considered anything other than an outright lie. This shows that nothing the Commission says can be accepted on faith. According to Mineta’s account, the vice President knew at least ten minutes earlier, by 9:26, that a plane was headed towards the Pentagon. The Commission’s claim is that the military did not know that an aircraft was approaching the Pentagon until 9:36, so that it had at most one or two minudtes to react to the unidentified plane approaching Washington. So the 9-11 Commission simply OMITTED Mineta’s testimony from the final report. One can understand such an omission of course because the purpose of the Zelikow-led Commission was to protect the Bush administration’s account of 9-11. This omission is not consistent with the claim that the Commission’s purpose as stated by Kean and Hamilton was “to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9-11. I want to know how Cheney knew where the plane was going? This post claims he knew 10 minutes before it hit the pentagon that it was going to hit the pentagon.. As if the pentagon is the only building of note in the DC area. Please explain how anyone knew that the pentagon was the target 10 minutes prior to it being struck.. Why would you ask me that question? Well maybe you were not asking ME. Why don't you ask Cheney? And I did not see where it stated that Cheney knew what target the plane was going for. It was just headed for DC...... I am simply relating a testimony given to the 9-11 commission by Norman Mineta that the Zelikow-led 9-11 Commission simply OMITTED from the final report. I am not personally making any claims that I "know" how anyone (like Cheney) would know anything. You figure that out and make your own decision. I am simply showing that the 9-11 Commission controlled what they would keep and what they would omit from the official rewriting of their new account of 9-11 that absolves the Military and the Bush administration of anything that could be construed as complicity in the attack. "According to Mineta’s account, the vice President knew at least ten minutes earlier, by 9:26, that a plane was headed towards the Pentagon." Again... This implies that Cheney knew the plane that was 17 minutes away from DC was headed to the pentagon.. When it would completely and totally impossible for anyone to know where this plane was going. Do you not see how illogical this timeline is? Do you think that Mineta would honestly implicate Cheney by purposely admitting that 17 minutes prior to the plane hitting the pentagon that he knew its precise destination? seriously? Oops! I just saw this post. This scenario doesn't make any sense and if correct, it makes Mineta's testimony rather questionable. That quote was NOT Mineta's words. He never said that. You may want to listen to his testimony. No one ever claimed to know what the target was exactly, only that it was so many miles away... it could have been DC... or maybe Cheney did know. You can't know for sure. So, why was the sentence in your post? "According to Mineta’s account, the vice President knew at least ten minutes earlier, by 9:26, that a plane was headed towards the Pentagon." Did you cut & paste the content and not notice this glaring error? |
|
|
|
It is my opinion that Major General Larry Arnold and Colonel Alan Scott, did not lie to the 9-11 Commission in the reporting of the first official account of the response to 9-11. It is my opinion that the NORAD TAPES were altered and fabricated to rewrite the official account and absolve the Military of being complicit and treasonous and to absolve someone of shooting down flight 93 and standing down on the Pentagon attack. The reason is, that the first official account of 9-11 was far more obviously damaging and was the fuel to the flames of numerous conspiracy theories and there were too many questions that could not be answered. So the NORAD tapes were concocted so that history of 9-11 could be rewritten whereby all the incompetence and blame was laid upon the FAA. And yet no one in the FAA was fired. I think the events that led to the shooting down of flight 93 are where the story gets really interesting. As you state, this is merely your unsubstantiated opinion. You don't really have the supporting evidence to build this hypothesis, and this is my point in the other thread. There are too many leaps of logic and extrapolations regarding these tapes for anyone to take the hypotheses seriously. I do have my opinions, but they are based on facts and on who I find more believable. A movie producer or a General and a Colonel. I believe the General and the Colonel, and I don't have a lot of respect for military officers. I have less respect for movie producers who make propaganda movies like the crash of UA 93. I mean, what you have is the word of a movie producer/journalist (producing the NORAD tapes,) which could have been altered,) against a Major General Larry Arnold and Colonel Alan Scot. Then this movie producer goes on to make the movie about UA flight 93 to try to sell this story to the sheeple. |
|
|
|
The 9-11 Commission cannot be assumed to be above deceit. At the Commissions’ hearing on May 23, 2003, Norman Mineta testified that on the morning of 9-11, after arriving at the White House and stopping to see Richard Clarke (the national coordinator for security and counterterrorism), he went down to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) under the White House, where Vice President Cheney was in charge. Mineta then told Vice Chair Lee Hamilton of the 9-11 Commission: “During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, “The plane is 50 miles out.” “The plane is 30 miles out.” And when it got down to “the plane is 10 miles out,” the young man also said to the Vice President, “Do the order still stand?” And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, “Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?” When Mineta was asked by Commissioner Timothy Roemer how long this conversation occurred after he arrived, Mineta said: “Probably about five or six minutes.” Which, as Roemer pointed out, would mean “about 9:25 or 9:26. This story was very threatening to the account that would be provided in the 9-11 Commission Report. According to that account, Cheney did not even enter the PEOC until almost 10:00, perhaps at 9:58. According to Mineta’s testimony, Cheney had arrived some time prior to 9:20. Mineta’s time is consistent with many other reports about Cheney’s descent to the PEOC. The Zelikow-led Commission even contradicted Cheney’s own account. Speaking on NBC’s Meet the Press five days after 9-11, Cheney said: “ After I talked to the president, I went down into…the Presidential Emergency Operations Center…When I arrived there within a short order, we had word the Pentagons’ been hit. In an Interview for a CNN story a year later, Cheney repeated that he was in the PEOC before word about the Pentagon strike was received,.(which reportedly occurred at about 9:38). This fact was also confirmed by Condoleezza Rice on ABC news television program one year after 9-11 based on interviews by Peter Jennings. The 9-11 Commission’s time of 9:58 is clearly false and cannot be considered anything other than an outright lie. This shows that nothing the Commission says can be accepted on faith. According to Mineta’s account, the vice President knew at least ten minutes earlier, by 9:26, that a plane was headed towards the Pentagon. The Commission’s claim is that the military did not know that an aircraft was approaching the Pentagon until 9:36, so that it had at most one or two minudtes to react to the unidentified plane approaching Washington. So the 9-11 Commission simply OMITTED Mineta’s testimony from the final report. One can understand such an omission of course because the purpose of the Zelikow-led Commission was to protect the Bush administration’s account of 9-11. This omission is not consistent with the claim that the Commission’s purpose as stated by Kean and Hamilton was “to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9-11. I want to know how Cheney knew where the plane was going? This post claims he knew 10 minutes before it hit the pentagon that it was going to hit the pentagon.. As if the pentagon is the only building of note in the DC area. Please explain how anyone knew that the pentagon was the target 10 minutes prior to it being struck.. Why would you ask me that question? Well maybe you were not asking ME. Why don't you ask Cheney? And I did not see where it stated that Cheney knew what target the plane was going for. It was just headed for DC...... I am simply relating a testimony given to the 9-11 commission by Norman Mineta that the Zelikow-led 9-11 Commission simply OMITTED from the final report. I am not personally making any claims that I "know" how anyone (like Cheney) would know anything. You figure that out and make your own decision. I am simply showing that the 9-11 Commission controlled what they would keep and what they would omit from the official rewriting of their new account of 9-11 that absolves the Military and the Bush administration of anything that could be construed as complicity in the attack. "According to Mineta’s account, the vice President knew at least ten minutes earlier, by 9:26, that a plane was headed towards the Pentagon." Again... This implies that Cheney knew the plane that was 17 minutes away from DC was headed to the pentagon.. When it would completely and totally impossible for anyone to know where this plane was going. Do you not see how illogical this timeline is? Do you think that Mineta would honestly implicate Cheney by purposely admitting that 17 minutes prior to the plane hitting the pentagon that he knew its precise destination? seriously? Oops! I just saw this post. This scenario doesn't make any sense and if correct, it makes Mineta's testimony rather questionable. That quote was NOT Mineta's words. He never said that. You may want to listen to his testimony. No one ever claimed to know what the target was exactly, only that it was so many miles away... it could have been DC... or maybe Cheney did know. You can't know for sure. So, why was the sentence in your post? "According to Mineta’s account, the vice President knew at least ten minutes earlier, by 9:26, that a plane was headed towards the Pentagon." Did you cut & paste the content and not notice this glaring error? No I did not cut and paste anything, but that is a quote from David Griffin. In any case, it is irrelevant to the point. Omitting testimony because it does not fit with the myth the 9-11 Commission wants to write is not a truth finding investigation. Philip Zelikow majored in College in creating public myths. That is his specialty. I even have a college term paper he wrote on the subject. What he did was rewrite the official account of 9-11 and placed all the blame not on the Military but on the FAA. The FAA made up of hundreds of trained people who follow a certain reporting protocol all the time every day, but on that day hundreds of them were suddenly "incompetent." That is not believable. |
|
|
|
It is my opinion that Major General Larry Arnold and Colonel Alan Scott, did not lie to the 9-11 Commission in the reporting of the first official account of the response to 9-11. It is my opinion that the NORAD TAPES were altered and fabricated to rewrite the official account and absolve the Military of being complicit and treasonous and to absolve someone of shooting down flight 93 and standing down on the Pentagon attack. The reason is, that the first official account of 9-11 was far more obviously damaging and was the fuel to the flames of numerous conspiracy theories and there were too many questions that could not be answered. So the NORAD tapes were concocted so that history of 9-11 could be rewritten whereby all the incompetence and blame was laid upon the FAA. And yet no one in the FAA was fired. I think the events that led to the shooting down of flight 93 are where the story gets really interesting. As you state, this is merely your unsubstantiated opinion. You don't really have the supporting evidence to build this hypothesis, and this is my point in the other thread. There are too many leaps of logic and extrapolations regarding these tapes for anyone to take the hypotheses seriously. I do have my opinions, but they are based on facts and on who I find more believable. A movie producer or a General and a Colonel. I believe the General and the Colonel, and I don't have a lot of respect for military officers. I have less respect for movie producers who make propaganda movies like the crash of UA 93. I mean, what you have is the word of a movie producer/journalist (producing the NORAD tapes,) which could have been altered,) against a Major General Larry Arnold and Colonel Alan Scot. Then this movie producer goes on to make the movie about UA flight 93 to try to sell this story to the sheeple. Well, I don't know about a movie, I've never seen it. I'm talking about the discrepancies between the report and the NORAD tapes not being enough evidence to build a hypothesis suggesting a conspiracy to validate the commission's report, or for that matter, that a few discrepancies or anomalies entirely discredit the report. Put it this way, if I wrote a History paper and constructed hypotheses using such flimsy evidence and submitted it for peer review, I would be discredited as extrapolating beyond the evidence. It is easy to do, and one must be careful of not going down that road. |
|
|
|
Most people have never heard of Philip D. Zelikow, but he is best known as the executive director of the 9/11 Commission. He basically wrote the 9/11 Commission Report. Immediately prior to Bush appointing him to head the 9/11 Commission, Zelikow was the executive director of the little known Aspen Strategy Group whose members include Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rica, and Paul Wolfowitz. Although most people don't know anything about Zelikow, they recognize Cheney, Rice and Wolfowitz as the Neoconservatives most responsible for stampeding America into the current unfortunate conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Zelikow's record gets really interesting when we consider that he went on to write the 9/11 Commission Report. He earned a law degree from the University of Houston Law School and a Ph. D. from Tufts University. He wrote books too. He wrote a book on The Kennedy Tapes, and another on Why People Don't Trust Government. One of his areas of expertise is PUBLIC MYTHOLOGY. While at Harvard he actually wrote about the use, and misuse, of history in policymaking. As he noted in his own words, "contemporary" history is "defined functionally by those critical people and events that go into forming the public's presumptions about its immediate past. The idea of 'public presumption'," he explained, "is akin to [the] notion of 'public myth' but without the negative implication sometimes invoked by the word 'myth.' Such presumptions are beliefs (1) thought to be true (although not necessarily known to be true with certainty), and (2) shared in common within the relevant political community." So Zelikow, the guy who wrote The 9/11 Commission Report, was an expert in how to misuse public trust and create PUBLIC MYTHS. If 9/11 was nothing but a huge HOAX, you would naturally expect that the event itself would have to be perfectly scripted. Here is his college thesis: Catastrophic Terrorism: Elements of a National Policy By Ashton B. Carter, John M. Deutch and Philip D. Zelikow http://www.hks.harvard.edu/visions/publication/terrorism.htm |
|
|
|
Edited by
HotRodDeluxe
on
Sat 09/15/12 10:19 PM
|
|
No I did not cut and paste anything, but that is a quote from David Griffin. Ah, Griffin, the philosopher. So, he stated this nonsense? That makes sense now. In any case, it is irrelevant to the point.
How so? For if Mineta did state this, one would expect it may discredit his testimony before the commission. Omitting testimony because it does not fit with the myth the 9-11 Commission wants to write is not a truth finding investigation.
It would be if the testimony was questionable. Philip Zelikow majored in College in creating public myths. That is his specialty. I even have a college term paper he wrote on the subject.
No, he majored in History and Political Science. He is known for writing on the use, and misuse of history in directing policy, but that does not mean he used this knowledge to construct some form of 9/11 'story'. What he did was rewrite the official account of 9-11 and placed all the blame not on the Military but on the FAA. The FAA made up of hundreds of trained people who follow a certain reporting protocol all the time every day, but on that day hundreds of them were suddenly "incompetent."That is not believable.
I don't believe that is an accurate appraisal of the investigation's results. The investigation led to legislation that would provide greater communication between NORAD and the FAA. The tapes support NORAD's confused and clumsy response to the information, given that the longest window was eight minutes. |
|
|
|
It is my opinion that Major General Larry Arnold and Colonel Alan Scott, did not lie to the 9-11 Commission in the reporting of the first official account of the response to 9-11. It is my opinion that the NORAD TAPES were altered and fabricated to rewrite the official account and absolve the Military of being complicit and treasonous and to absolve someone of shooting down flight 93 and standing down on the Pentagon attack. The reason is, that the first official account of 9-11 was far more obviously damaging and was the fuel to the flames of numerous conspiracy theories and there were too many questions that could not be answered. So the NORAD tapes were concocted so that history of 9-11 could be rewritten whereby all the incompetence and blame was laid upon the FAA. And yet no one in the FAA was fired. I think the events that led to the shooting down of flight 93 are where the story gets really interesting. As you state, this is merely your unsubstantiated opinion. You don't really have the supporting evidence to build this hypothesis, and this is my point in the other thread. There are too many leaps of logic and extrapolations regarding these tapes for anyone to take the hypotheses seriously. I do have my opinions, but they are based on facts and on who I find more believable. A movie producer or a General and a Colonel. I believe the General and the Colonel, and I don't have a lot of respect for military officers. I have less respect for movie producers who make propaganda movies like the crash of UA 93. I mean, what you have is the word of a movie producer/journalist (producing the NORAD tapes,) which could have been altered,) against a Major General Larry Arnold and Colonel Alan Scot. Then this movie producer goes on to make the movie about UA flight 93 to try to sell this story to the sheeple. Well, I don't know about a movie, I've never seen it. I'm talking about the discrepancies between the report and the NORAD tapes not being enough evidence to build a hypothesis suggesting a conspiracy to validate the commission's report, or for that matter, that a few discrepancies or anomalies entirely discredit the report. Put it this way, if I wrote a History paper and constructed hypotheses using such flimsy evidence and submitted it for peer review, I would be discredited as extrapolating beyond the evidence. It is easy to do, and one must be careful of not going down that road. Hotrod, I am focusing here, on only a very teeny tiny drop in the pond of a massive amount of evidence for my personal hypothesis and I certainly don't expect this tiny drop to convince or convict anyone, but I can't even get past this single tiny drop with you people because you all seem to be standing in a line of defense against anyone who seeks the truth or even seeks to discuss the reasons for my skepticism towards the 9-11 Commission's official account and the problems I personally have believing it. I just don't believe the General lied. I suspect the movie producer probably faked the NORAD tapes. I don't believe Philip D. Zelikow, who is sleeping with the entire Bush administration and has been for years and is a professional myth maker. I believe he controlled the entire 9-11 "investigation." I believe Mineta and what he witnessed when he was with Dick Cheney. He had no reason to lie. And in the middle of all of this I wonder.... Where the hell was the President? Who was really running the Country? When did they swear in Dick Cheney? |
|
|
|
No I did not cut and paste anything, but that is a quote from David Griffin. Ah, Griffin, the philosopher. So, he stated this nonsense? In any case, it is irrelevant to the point.
How so? For if Mineta did state this, one would expect it may discredit his testimony before the commission. Omitting testimony because it does not fit with the myth the 9-11 Commission wants to write is not a truth finding investigation.
It would be if the testimony was questionable. Philip Zelikow majored in College in creating public myths. That is his specialty. I even have a college term paper he wrote on the subject.
No, he majored in History and Political Science. He is known for writing on the use, and misuse of history in directing policy, but that does not mean he used this knowledge to construct some form of 9/11 'story'. What he did was rewrite the official account of 9-11 and placed all the blame not on the Military but on the FAA. The FAA made up of hundreds of trained people who follow a certain reporting protocol all the time every day, but on that day hundreds of them were suddenly "incompetent."That is not believable.
I don't believe that is an accurate appraisal of the investigation's results. The investigation led to legislation that would provide greater communication between NORAD and the FAA. The tapes support NORAD's confused and clumsy response to the information, given that the longest window was eight minutes. The "tapes" support..... .... only if they are authentic, which given that they were in the hands of a movie producer, I have a lot of doubts about that. |
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 09/15/12 09:55 PM
|
|
This is the way it looks to me.
Yes I could be wrong, but I certainly would never bet any money on it. I think I am right. What the 9/11 commission did was hire a movie producer (Michael Bronner) to fabricate a movie about UA fight 93 and sell that story as "truth" to the general public who spend their time watching movies and the boob tube. (What a bunch of suckers the public who believed that fiction!) That same Michael Bronner was the journalist who was given the NORAD TAPES that was used by the 9/11 Commission in their attempt to "debunk" the conspiracy theories about flight 93 that were hatched from real life testimony on national television about the military saying they had been ready and waiting for the order to shoot down the hijacked planes, and the "theory" about flight 93 being shot down. I'm sure Michael Bronner made millions on that movie. And the 9/11 Commission got to change the original account of 9/11 and PROTECT the Bush/Cheney administration from allegations of being complicit in the attacks. It is not such a stretch to believe that anyone who can produce a movie about UA flight 93 can surely produce fake or altered NORAD tapes for the 9/11 Commission to use in changing the official account. They were desperate to "debunk" theories about their conspiracies that, by the way, were based solely on FACTS AND INTERVIEWS done on national television and now preserved on youtube for anyone who cares and takes the time to watch. So you can include the 9/11 Commission in with your other fake "debunking" buddies because they did their debunking the Criminal Cabal old fashioned way....with Hollywood producers and bribes. |
|
|
|
Edited by
HotRodDeluxe
on
Sat 09/15/12 10:43 PM
|
|
Hotrod, I am focusing here, on only a very teeny tiny drop in the pond of a massive amount of evidence for my personal hypothesis and I certainly don't expect this tiny drop to convince or convict anyone, but I can't even get past this single tiny drop with you people because you all seem to be standing in a line of defense against anyone who seeks the truth or even seeks to discuss the reasons for my skepticism towards the 9-11 Commission's official account and the problems I personally have believing it.
Your assessment of my stance is entirely fictitious. I find the theories illogical and lacking in evidence, therefore, 'I stand in a line of defense (sic) against anyone who seeks the truth'. You really don't believe this rhetoric, do you? What am I supposed to do? Roll over to every hypothesis that is put before me without examining the evidence, despite my education? If that is the case, then I would truly deserve to be labelled as one of the sheep. I just don't believe the General lied.
Nor I. I believe he was mistaken. I suspect the movie producer probably faked the NORAD tapes.
There is no evidence to support that. I don't believe Philip D. Zelikow, who is sleeping with the entire Bush administration and has been for years and is a professional myth maker. I believe he controlled the entire 9-11 "investigation."
I think your source is misinformed. Zelikow openly opposed the Bush administration's ME policy and he was not a 'professional myth maker', but an Historian and Political Scientist. These are forms of the very leaps of logic and extrapolations I referred to earlier. I believe Mineta and what he witnessed when he was with Dick Cheney. He had no reason to lie.
But Griffin's questionable secondary interpretation regarding the timeline came from somewhere. |
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 09/15/12 10:53 PM
|
|
Nor I. I believe he was mistaken.
So basically you believe a movie producer (who probably made millions with his phony movie about UA flight 93, who handed over these NORAD tapes to Philip D. Zelikow, a long time associate with the Bush administration and Condoleezza Rice, who then placed all the blame on the FAA for the military's complicit behavior or screw ups. Rather than believing a Major General and a Colonel who as far as I can tell have no reason to lie any more than any of the other witnesses who were excluded from the 9-11 report of which I have not even scratched the surface... but forget it. Its a waste of time with you. You know nothing about this stuff and you already have your mind made up. Okee dokeee.... I can tell you haven't really given this a great deal of thought, and I don't agree with your choice, but what ever helps you sleep at night. |
|
|
|
You really don't believe this rhetoric, do you?
I don't know what "rhetoric" you are even talking about. I am extrapolating My own conclusions from tons of historical FACTS AND TAPED INTERVIEWS. And I haven't even scratched the surface of the B.S. the 9-11 Commission and that club is trying to sell. |
|
|
|
trying hard to tie Bush and Cheney into that SNAFU,huh?
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Jeanniebean
on
Sat 09/15/12 11:00 PM
|
|
trying hard to tie Bush and Cheney into that SNAFU,huh? That's the easy part. They have been trying hard to get untied to that for YEARS!! |
|
|
|
Edited by
HotRodDeluxe
on
Sun 09/16/12 03:50 AM
|
|
Nor I. I believe he was mistaken.
So basically you believe a movie producer (who probably made millions with his phony movie about UA flight 93, who handed over these NORAD tapes to Philip D. Zelikow, a long time associate with the Bush administration and Condoleezza Rice, who then placed all the blame on the FAA for the military's complicit behavior or screw ups. Rather than believing a Major General and a Colonel who as far as I can tell have no reason to lie any more than any of the other witnesses who were excluded from the 9-11 report of which I have not even scratched the surface... but forget it. Its a waste of time with you. You know nothing about this stuff and you already have your mind made up. Okee dokeee.... I can tell you haven't really given this a great deal of thought, and I don't agree with your choice, but what ever helps you sleep at night. I have given it a great deal of thought, and it is you who have extrapolated further than what you were given. That is really an annoying habit of yours and it only serves to make you look stupid. I'm comparing the testimony to the tapes and I'm not going any further than that. Do you really believe that there was only one copy of the tapes? Do you seriously believe that this small group were the only ones to have access to them? Have you actually read the transcripts? Get your head out of Griffin's book and do some real research, the man's theories have been discredited repeatedly. Allow me to state my case again: Well, I don't know about a movie, I've never seen it. I'm talking about the discrepancies between the report and the NORAD tapes not being enough evidence to build a hypothesis suggesting a conspiracy to validate the commission's report, or for that matter, that a few discrepancies or anomalies entirely discredit the report. Put it this way, if I wrote a History paper and constructed hypotheses using such flimsy evidence and submitted it for peer review, I would be discredited as extrapolating beyond the evidence. It is easy to do, and one must be careful of not going down that road. Furthermore, stop making stuff up. I'm not saying they were liars. Please revise my posts and you will see where I actually said I didn't consider their testimony as lies. As usual, you resort to insults when your hypothesis is laid bare as questionable. You have no real evidence for your theories (as I suspected in the previous thread) and you resort to ad hominem as a response to having this pointed out. How educated of you. I can see this entire discussion was a waste of time as you have no capacity to debate in a logical and erudite fashion. With you, I feel that I'm talking to a child. |
|
|
|
You really don't believe this rhetoric, do you?
I don't know what "rhetoric" you are even talking about. This rhetoric: ..."you all seem to be standing in a line of defense against anyone who seeks the truth" Courtesy of Richard Gage. |
|
|
|
Edited by
HotRodDeluxe
on
Sun 09/16/12 03:53 AM
|
|
You really don't believe this rhetoric, do you?
I don't know what "rhetoric" you are even talking about. This rhetoric: ..."you all seem to be standing in a line of defense against anyone who seeks the truth" Courtesy of Richard Gage. Id est 'It is you alone who seeks the truth and those who don't agree with you are disinfo agents' I mean, really? It's quite an inflated opinion of one's capabilities. |
|
|