It's stretching the evidence well beyond its possibilities.

well,it's simple when you right off the top presume a Conspiracy,then arrange the Facts to fit your assumption!

Exactly! The specious methodology of coming to a conclusion, then adjusting the evidence, or anomalies to fit the conclusion.

exactly!
And getting furious when exposed!

Yes, no matter how hard one tries with the available evidence, the hypotheses posited are questionable. Griffin, Fetzer and Gage among others have duped many with their flawed theories and evidence by omission.

yet People swallow them Hook,Line and Sinker,plus the Whole Tackle-Box!

How many books has Griffin written? It is said that when he stops writing the truther movement will be finished.

that's the Reason why they constantly have to keep on finding new Conspiracies!

True! I'm amazed that Griffin kept his academic position considering some of the rubbish he's supported over the years, and I'm not just referring to his 9/11 theories. Perhaps that is why his career remained somewhat 'stable'.

There is a major flaw in the theory that the American government altered the tapes from N.O.R.A.D. and that is that the bases are Not solely manned, monitored by American military. Canadian Armed Forces personnel also staff and monitor these bases.




btw

Before saying that Cheyenne Mountain is in the States realize that the radar bases themselves, which feed data to Cheyenne Mountain are located in Canada and have separate, individual recording equipment as well. I once resided at CFB Cold Lake, Alberta which received data from N.O.R.A.D. radar installations and is one of the interceptor bases linked to the radar stations.

Yes, but isn't Cheney secretly the Canadian overlord?

Continental SNAFU?

Now you have a hint about how most of you view the subject. You presume there is no government cover up or conspiracy and give them all the benefit of the doubt and then shoot down any other possibility.

Off hand I don't know who Richard Gage is. The quote above is mine.

Yes of course I seek the truth but I am certainly not alone.
David Griffin blew Popular Mechanics, whom you have used as a credible source, completely out of the water. They are not a credible source. When I see people using them as a source its laughable.

I still say that the witnesses of the General and the Colonel and others who were omitted from the new official account are more credible than the NORAD tapes.

The reason I believe this is simply because the NORAD tapes did not go through proper evidence channels. They were acquired by a journalist who became a movie producer who produced a movie about UA flight 93 to help the 9-11 commission sell the story of what they say happened. Also there is the question of why NORAD did not hand over those tapes in the beginning. They had a couple of years to alter them. The number of copies of the tapes is meaningless.

I also do not believe that the FAA is that incompetent all of a sudden. I have also watched hours of testimony. I have read Popular Mechanics debunking 9-11 conspiracies book and I have read the debunking of that debunking book. I have done a lot more than any of you people have who think you know more than me.

You are certainly entitled to your irrational opinions, but I think you have all been duped.

It was the 9/11 Commission who "adjusted the evidence."

The Commission's tape based story is also challenged by the existence of many published reports indicating that officials knew about flight 77's hijacking some time before the Pentagon was struck.

In the FBI section of the Arlington County "After Action Report" on the Pentagon attack, for example, we read: "At about 9:20 am, the [FBI's] WFO [Washington Field Office] Command Center was notified that American Airlines Flight #77 had been hijacked shortly after takeoff from Washington Dulles International Airport." The 9/11 Commission simply treated all such reports as if they had never been written.

The new story is also challenged by evidence that the FAA had talked to the military about AA 77 even earlier than 9:24, which was the notificaqtion time given on NORAD's September 18 timeline. FAA Official Laura Brown's memo, after stating that a teleconference was established with the military "within minutes after the first aircraft hit the World Trade Center" (and hence by about 8:50) said that the FAA shared "real time information" with the military about "all flights of interest, including flight 77. "

Bringing the full implication of this assertion she added,

"NORAD logs indicate that the FAA made formal notification about American flight 77 at 9:24 am; but information about the flight was conveyed continuously during the phone bridges before the formal notification."

What she told Griffin when he interview her over the phone was that the formal notification was a primarily a formality and hence irrelevant to the question of when the military knew about flight 77.

Her main point was that the FAA and the military had been talking bout AA 77 long before 9:24. The implication of her memo, therefore, is that although, as Bronner and the 9/11 Commission say, the 9:24 notification time was false, it was false by being later than the real notification ---NOT earlier!

So the claim that they did not know and had not been notified ....not true.

The lie about UA flight 93:

Besides the fact that the 9/11 Commission's new story about UA 93 is intrinsically implausible in the extreme, it is challenged by several inconvenient facts.

One such fact is the emphatic testimony of Major General Arnold, before the 9/11 Commission in May of 2003, that NORAD knew about UA 93's troubles quite early.

Having been asked whether 9:24 was the first time NORAD had been informed about AA 77, Aronold replied: "Our focus --- you have got to remember that there's a lot of other things going on simultaneously here ---- was on United 93, which was being pointed out to us VERY AGGRESSIVELY I might say, by the FAA."

He later said, "very shortly [after the second tower was struck] we got a call... on the United 93 flight being a possible hijacking." (In saying that the FAA was talking to the military "aggressively" he made clear that the FAA was doing it job.)

Another inconvenient fact is the existence of the FAA initiated teleconference mentioned in Laura Brown's memo. The Commission claims that this teleconference did not start until 9:20 (instead of about 8:50, as her memo indicated.)

The Commissions tapes-based claim, that the military was not told about the hijacking of UA 93 until it crashed, is flatly contradicted by Laura Brown's memo, which although it was ignored in the Commissions final report, had been read into its record by Richard Ben-Veniste.

There are many other such inconvenient facts that do not support the 9/11 Commission's new account.

The presumptions are purely on your part. None of this is true, for we merely evaluate the evidence on its merit and examine the hypotheses based upon this evidence.

Really? One of the superstars of twooferdom?



That is incorrect. Some believe so, but you can see counter refutations of Griffin's flawed hypotheses at JREF.



You can say it all you like, but a lack of evidence gives it little credibility.



Bronner was not the only individual to have access to the tapes. NORAD may have been reticent about handing over the tapes owing to them exposing their own confusion, or until they were requested. Why jump to conclusions when other possibilities exist? This demonstrates the poor use of logic and causality.



It is not that the FAA was incompetent. Rather, the lack of communication between the FAA and NORAD was found to be at fault. You have no way of determining how much I've read about 9/11 and merely assume that you've done more than anyone else, yet you claim to be unaware of Richard Gage? This appeal to authority is rather patheitic.



Again, there is a lack of evidence to support this and it is just your opinion based upon your personal prejudice.

A witness, especially a military general, I believe counts as "evidence."





I don't hang out with "superstars of twooferdom" Maybe you do.



He was the "first." If there were more, then even more so were the tapes handled improperly and did not go through proper evidence channels -- and would be inadmissible in a courtroom.

Oh...Yeh!!... but the 9/11 Commission was not a court room. It was a myth making panel.

Oh, and I think you should worry about your own use of "logic and causality."



The "lack of communication" as you put it was the 9/11 Commission omitting testimony and ignoring facts and calling a General and a Colonel "liars" or as you put it ... "mistaken."

WHAT A CROCK OF B.S.