What we knew the morning of 911

reply to post by Taxi-Driver

...have you looked at the flight manifests? How about the video survellance camera shots in the terminals (Mossaui Trial exhibits)

The flight manifests are useless. The surveillance camera shots only prove who was in the terminal, not who the actual terrorists were. There is no evidence that they boarded the plane. Furthermore, at least one camera shot actually captures an accused terrorist after the plane was in the air.

You don't think that the media makes mistakes?

There's a big difference between accidentally naming the wrong team, and accidentally accusing eight people of the perpetrating the largest terror attack in history. But okay, granted, the media does make mistakes. So you honestly believe anything the media tells you after theymisidentified almost half of the 9/11 terrorists? Maybe if they only got one, maybe even two wrong, I'd be less suspicious. But now I need proof beyond the worst media fumble in history.

I wouldn't be surprized at all if the BBC went with the incorrect CNN information.

Possible, but I have seen no evidence of that.

I wouldn't be surprized at all if the BBC went with the incorrect CNN information. It reminds me of the "Solomon Brothers bulding collapse" You can tell that BBC misinterpreted the information given to CNN (If you try at all) Just prior to the BBC WTC7 Blunder-- CNN was reporting "authorities ( FDNY Daniel Nigro) were reporting that 7 World Trade was either collapsing or in danger of collapse." Minutes later BBC reports "Solomon Brothers Building HAS CollapsED" Which was wrong-- obviously. because it was standing right behind her.

Don't even get me started on that. If you think that WTC 7 simply fell down after a plane didn't fly into it, then there's not much chance of you exercising critical thinking. The collapse of WTC 7, and the reporting of the collpase are a gaping whole in the official story.

I would say Boston PD. (speculation)

Fact: The identities of the 9/11 terrorist hijackers were reported to the media by the FBI. So who really got it wrong?

It is pretty clear that the CNN report and "parroted" BBC report are erronious...

You throw away evidence to tow the official line. If the BBC report was wrong, they would have retracted.

reply to post by scrapple


I believe that would be Jules and Gedeon Naudet who were doing a documentary on NYC firefighters "with the intention of making a film about the "probie"'s experience" (from Wikipedia)

But, in any case, then you would also have to call into question the 2 other videos of the first plane hitting by others - I'm not saying that to cut you down, it's just that coincidences do happen, and that other people also happened to catch the first plane hitting as well.

However, if I were the one organizing this for the government (in the worst case scenario where the US put this together) I would definitely have a documentary crew on hand conveniently close to the area being attacked. It made for a great rally point for America to stand behind, no doubt.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
Just a side note, why do we always see OBL in a U.S. issue M-65 field jacket? A nice new one.

He likes to accessorize You could also ask why he never parts with a nice AK rifle (hint: memento of a Svoiet general they killed).

The flight manifests are useless. The surveillance camera shots only prove who was in the terminal, not who the actual terrorists were. There is no evidence that they boarded the plane

That would be news to the airline gate agents who identified the terrorists from their photos as people who boarded their respective planes that day.

And since I can hear "prove it" coming.....


www.atca.org...

Originally posted by scrapple
...isnt it convienient that these "documentary filmographers" just happened to be on the street outside the fire station to flim the first tower hit.

They weren't outside the fire station. They were responding to a reported gas leak.


And, for the record, according to the Mayor's Office of Film, Theatre, and Broadcasting, there were a little over 18,000 days of filming done in New York in 2001.

Anyone who's ever lived in New York or L.A. will tell you: it's not "convenient" when someone is walking around with cameras...it's downright "common" to the point of being "annoying."

What exactly was their documentary about - up until the morning of 9/11? -World Firefighting??

Nope. New York fire fighters.

See, they were film students at Tisch. Their first movie was about boxers in New York. (Mossad boxers maybe...)

Aside from all information realted to that day, I bet if enough digging was done their would be some discrepancies regarding these camera toting cats!

Forget the digging. You're coming up with a pretty sweet story about them all on your own!!

I have always found reading the news websites (BBC,CNN etc..) the day or days before the attacks interesting. I am not sure if this site has been brought up before (am sure it has) but its a great view of what was going on during and before the attacks. Strangely the 11th 09/11/01 date on cnn shows the report from the taliban denying they had any involvement in the attacks.

web.archive.org...

here is the site

www.archive.org...

Sorry if this has been brought up before, I did not see it mentioned in this post.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


When they are correct they are usefull. When wrong are worthless. Those were dead wrong as evidenced by what was used as trial evidence in one case. The one notable name conspicuously missing on an alleged Flight 93 passenger list was Mark Bingham:

911research.wtc7.net...

911research.wtc7.net...

Then again, the list was not published until 2002. It was not even the original passenger list. But that became alleged bona fide court evidence. I guess they had to make it up as they went along, and forgot some pertinent details alleged in the "official" reports. But of all the names to leave off - Mark Bingham?

They seemed to have left a few names off this list as well. Two meals on a three hour trip? Since when? Surely they do not count those little bags peanuts or other snacks as a meal, do they?

911research.wtc7.net...

911research.wtc7.net...

911research.wtc7.net...

911research.wtc7.net...

That was some pre-planning for a flight not even scheduled to go out on 9/11/2001.

Real truth, arent you the same one that accused me of being Carl Cameron from Fox News last year?

Orion, I would like to see the other part of Flight 93's manifest. Mark Bingham was one of the passengers that was originally on a later flight that day, but he showed up early enough and there were empty seats on 93, so he was moved to that flight. Unless things have changed, they used to have two parts of the manifest (the main one and then the add on list)

reply to post by Realtruth


Okay back to realtruth....

You dont have to understand my MO. I did not realize that it was a requirement to post on other sections of ATS, which actually I have. Unfortunately, I cannot link those to you because my profile only lists the last 275 of my 600+ posts. Why do I spend so much time on the 9/11 section? Because I hate to see people continue to buy into the whackjobs like Alex Jones, Mike Ruppert, Rense.com, etc..

SO NOW that I have explained myself to you, can I go play again?

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999



That is all there is used at trial court as reported on that site You will have to see the prosecutor and ask that person why the discrepancy.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


From where do you get your information Mark Bingham was late and did not appear on any orginal manifest. What I gave for reference was dated 2002 not 9/11/2001. So where was his name in a document presented to the court?

reply to post by OrionStars


One of the documentaries from the History Channel or A&E discussed the taking an earlier flight issue, as for the other court documents, I would have to go through them all to find the answer and im pretty sure that all the documents are not online.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Realtruth

 

Why do I spend so much time on the 9/11 section? Because I hate to see people continue to buy into the whackjobs like Alex Jones, Mike Ruppert, Rense.com, etc..

Kudos to Swampfox46_1999. I wish all critics of the 9/11 truth movement' s allegations were so forthright about what motivates them. I know how he feels. I hate to see people buy into a whackjob like George W. Bush, but I have other reasons for wanting to see a real investigation of 9/11.

No matter how stupid, simple minded, mixed up and just plain wrong Ruppert, Jones and Rense might be, the fact is they didn't murder thousands of people in New York on 9/11 or hundreds of thousands in Iraq and Afganistan. I wish I could say the same thing for George W. Bush.

Most of the people that Swampfox thinks are whackjobs simply want a thorough investigation of 9/11, not a whitewash like the Keane, Hamilton commission. George Bush on the other hand was not interested in investigating 9/11 until he was forced to do so by the victims families. Why in heaven's name would that be?

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


That is not confirmation it happened. That is hearsay through other channels. The History Channel (A&E Network) has done a great deal to promote the "official" reports, and have been highly lopsided in not presenting any opposition testimony, science facts, and physical evidence. That is not exactly unbiased and balance by any media source. It is not difficult to see why it promotes the "official version:

www.caucus.org...

"A&E Networks

A&E Network 1984 80.4 (owner) Disney / NBC /6
History Channel 1995 70.0 (owner) Disney / NBC'

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

That would be news to the airline gate agents who identified the terrorists from their photos as people who boarded their respective planes that day.

Did they actually see them get on the plane? According to your evidence, the security cameras (the ones that weren't "broken") saw them after the ticket agents. Again I bring up the fact that at least one "identified" hijacker was still on the ground after the plane was in the air, according to the security camera time-stamp.

But wait, you really don't have evidence of anything anyway, despite your claim...

And since I can hear "prove it" coming.....

Are you kidding me?! Either you have no investigative skills whatsoever or you are deliberately placing misdirecting information.

Even if your evidence is taken at face value, it is entirely useless at identifying who the terrorists were who were actually on the plane that slammed into the WTC. You have shown no proof with your evidence. Your evidence only supports that these men took a plane from Portland, Maine to Boston. There is nothing about them getting on the plane in Boston, so try again.

Then again, don't bother. You have revealed yourself to be an untrustworthy source.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Maybe the US tossed in a free field jacket with the purchase of ten Stinger missiles! Of course, he must have kept it wrapped up nice just waiting to wear it for a special ocassion.

reply to post by OrionStars


When they interviewed the person who changed his flight? That is straight from the horse's mouth so to speak.

reply to post by jackinthebox


So do some research of your own for once. The gate agents are the last people to see you before you board a plane. For each of the four planes, the gate agents responsible were interviewed and did identify the hijackers as boarding the planes.