911 Truth - Somebody Please Give It To Me!

truth is it was blind faith in leaders and in their way of doing their jobs.

i remember a sertain quote , "do the orders still stand"

i remember a sertain building , wtc7

and i still stick to the fact that a cab driver from NY 6months before the SHTF told us when we where on holiday there that it was the last time we would see them , be hin the tinfoil hat king of collective conciousness ,
heck if a cab driver from NY can forsee things then the goverment should ,
somethings aloft but in this game its cabbie 1 - goverment 0

truth is that the evidence towards an internal corruption in the goverment and a conspiracy against its nations people is out there ,

question is will it be dealt with or will it just be forgotten by its nation who´s been taugth to turn the cheek the otherway.

Here's something I looked up by typing into Google "torture 9-11 commision report"... At first the page didn't even pop up and it was MSNBC... Not known for conspiratorial views but a bit left wing news source... Ok so I click on it... deepbackground.msnbc.msn.com...

If that doesn't pop up for you then here's the important part...

"The NBC News analysis shows that more than one quarter of all footnotes in the 9/11 Report refer to CIA interrogations of al-Qaida operatives who were subjected to the now-controversial interrogation techniques. In fact, information derived from the interrogations is central to the Report’s most critical chapters, those on the planning and execution of the attacks. The analysis also shows - and agency and commission staffers concur - there was a separate, second round of interrogations in early 2004, done specifically to answer new questions from the Commission."

The point of the story is how can we trust the 9-11 Commission Report if people were tortured to gain information on it?

So Kieth Olberman interviews ManCow, the guy who let himself be waterboarded live on his own radio show... There's a YouTube video of the interview find it youself...

So ManCow admits if he was being interrogated he would have confessed to anything... That's the general consensus anyway and more than a few CIA agents have come out to oppose torture because they say it doesn't give them reliable intel... Soooo cum hoc ergo propter hoc... That could mean the official story is total bull# and the 9-11 Commision Report is based on a pack of lies...

[edit on 13-6-2009 by jzenman]

[edit on 13-6-2009 by jzenman]

[edit on 13-6-2009 by jzenman]

In case it isn't clear about the hole in the farmer's field - many people speculate the planes full of people never got hi-jacked.

Someone who knows more can correct me or help me along but here's some that I've heard:

The FAA has airport on-ground video 24/7 and keeps track of every airplane. Yet, on 9/11/2001 none of the 4 planes were seen taking off AND the FAA won't release the video tapes they have of the airports in question.

The videos of the pentagon air-craft collision are (nearly) all being withheld and no evidence of airplane wings or wreckage have been recovered from any of the sites in question.

There's, in my opinion, marginal evidence that the planes hitting the twin towers didn't have the correct airline paint job/colors. I haven't seen this in any convincing video but I wouldn't be surprised.

Also, I heard that in 2001 cell phones from planes couldn't make calls to people on the ground (anyone know? heard from one person with no specific evidence). This would indicate the call by the "reporter's husband" from one of the planes is pre-meditated and fake.

A lot of what I said above could be hear-say and I don't have what I consider proof of it. It's not normally my style to share such things but since people on this thread might help sort it out, or it might give you (Grapes) something to research, I decided to share.


[edit on 13-6-2009 by notreallyalive]

Originally posted by notreallyalive

The FAA has airport on-ground video 24/7 and keeps track of every airplane.

Untrue. Don't know where you "heard" that.

The videos of the pentagon air-craft collision are (nearly) all being withheld...

No. There just wasn't anything of any use to be seen.

...and no evidence of airplane wings or wreckage have been recovered from any of the sites in question.

Again, untrue.

There's, in my opinion, marginal evidence that the planes hitting the twin towers didn't have the correct airline paint job/colors.

Never shown by any reputable sources to be true.

I haven't seen this in any convincing video but I wouldn't be surprised.

Why not? Because your mind is made up?

Also, I heard that in 2001 cell phones from planes couldn't make calls to people on the ground (anyone know? heard from one person with no specific evidence).

Incorrect. With this proviso: From an airplane at a low enough altitude cell calls could be made. However, the rate of speed would result in several cell towers handling the calls, and they'd likely suffer in quality, depending on the area. BTW, been on an airplane lately? Just as in 2001, the cell phones work -- they allow use on the ground, now.

As in all consumer electronics that can transmit, there is always concern of interference with critical airplane systems. Hence, the prohibition of cell use in flight.


EDIT:

www.computerworld.com...

Computerworld - How many times have you heard this?


"At this time, all electronic devices, including cell phones and two-way pagers, must be turned off and put away. After takeoff, I'll let you know when you may use approved electronic portable devices."

Of course, those "approved electronic portable devices" won't include your cell phone, not until after you land.

The reason is that cell phones interfere with the airplane's electronics, right?

Well, no, actually. The risk posed by cell phones to airplane equipment is unknown, and will remain unknown for as long as possible.

Phones are banned for two official reasons:


Cell phones "might" interfere with the avionics (aviation electronics) of some airplanes.



Cell phones aloft "might" cause problems with cell tower systems on the ground.


Both of these risks are easily tested, yet somehow neither the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) nor the Federal Communications Commission has been able to get a definitive answer in the past 20 years as to whether phone calls in flight cause these suspected problems. (The FAA is responsible for the flight safety portion of all this, and the FCC is responsible for the cell tower part.)

The government's dirty little secret is that it cultivates uncertainty about the effects of phones in airplanes as a way to maintain the existing ban without having to confront the expense and inconvenience to airlines and wireless carriers of allowing them.

Why airlines want the ban

The airlines fear "crowd control" problems if cell phones are allowed in flights. They believe cell phone calls might promote rude behavior and conflict between passengers, which flight attendants would have to deal with. The airlines also benefit in general from passengers remaining ignorant about what's happening on the ground during flights, including personal problems, terrorist attacks, plane crashes and other information that might upset passengers.

One way to deal with callers bothering noncallers would be to designate sections of each flight where calling is allowed -- like a "smoking section." But the ban is easier.

Also: If real testing were done, and the nature of the problem fully understood, it would become obvious that airplanes could be designed or retrofitted with shielding and communications systems that would enable safe calling through all phases of flight. But that would cost money. The ban is cheaper.

However, the airlines know that some kind of plane-to-ground communication is coming, and they want to profit from it. Simply allowing passengers to use their own cell phones in flight would leave the airlines out of the profit-taking. Airlines would prefer that phones be banned while they come up with new ways to charge for communication, such as the coming wave of Wi-Fi access. Meanwhile, the ban is potentially more profitable.

A lot of what I said above could be hear-say...

Yes.



[edit on 6/13/0909 by weedwhacker]

The security company at the WTC up until 2001 was Securacom/Stratesec. On it's board of directors from 1993-2000 was younger brother to George W. Bush, Marvin Bush. And from 1999-2002, Wirt D. Walker III, a cousin of the Bush brothers, was the CEO. That would be "Walker" as in George Herbert-Walker Bush. The Bush-family Walker's.

Now there is a flat out lie. Wirt Walker is NO relation to the Bush family. The source for that is a writer named Maggie Burns, who has written several articles over the years about the subject. In her earliest article, she proclaimed Wirt was a cousin, in the second, she said he was a distant relation, in the third, she wrote that someone had told her that they thought Wirt was related.

Not to mention that Securacom was NEVER in charge of security at the World Trade Center. PAPD and the in house security department headed by John O'Neill took care of WTC security.

Securacom DID have a contract to perform security system related work, however, they had to be excused from the contract because they could not live up to it. In the end, Securacom ended up doing some subcontractor work for the contractor that took over the original contract.

Either way, Wirt Walker is not related to the Bush family (unless you go back to Noah and his family I guess) and Securacom never was in charge of WTC security.

[edit on 13-6-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

reply to post by nickoli

What about the prior report that called for a "Pearl Harbor type event in order to get the people behind going into the middle east

That is not what the report said. It was referring to reconfiguring the US military from a Cold War military to a lightweight, hi-tech military suited to fight small scale wars..and that the US would never pay to do that, short of a Pearl Harbor type event.

reply to post by CreeWolf


Literally thousands of FOIA requests have been submitted about 9/11. They may get around to answering the last of them in the next 30 years or so.

To the OP, select one from the many certain aspects of 9/11 and research it, in a high % of these you will find that those that have been closely scrutinized (especially if they entail videos or a witness as evidence), to be somewhat contradictory to common belief.

Here`s a good example to start with..........

www.youtube.com...

Ask yourself a really simple question, why would NIST deny that any evidence whatsoever was put forward regarding molten metal?.

Hope this helps .

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Now there is a flat out lie. Wirt Walker is NO relation to the Bush family.

You know Swampfox, we've asked you over and over and over again to provide sources for your claims and you never do. We will not take your word for anything. Your words are meaningless without sources to back your claims up. I am going to say that your claim is a flat-out lie as you have provided no sources to back it up.

And my post is not a lie. It is based on publicly available information which I have not seen any other information to counter it. Information that you say you have seen but have not yet shared.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Not to mention that Securacom was NEVER in charge of security at the World Trade Center.

I never said that Securacom/Stratesec was in charge of security. I did make clear that they had a contract to upgrade the security systems at the WTC and my post probably should've been more clear on that fact.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
they had to be excused from the contract because they could not live up to it.

Again, no sources = wasted bandwidth.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Either way, Wirt Walker is not related to the Bush family

No sources = wasted bandwidth.

[edit on 13-6-2009 by _BoneZ_]

reply to post by _BoneZ_


Source #1

Securacom got the $8.3 million World Trade Center security contract in October 1996 and received about $9.2 million from the WTC job from 1996 (a quarter of its revenues that year) to 1998. But in 1998, the company was "excused from the project" because it could not fulfill the work, according to former manager Al Weinstein, and the electronic security work at the WTC was taken over by EJ Electric, a larger contractor

www.washingtonspectator.org...

Another source...

A former colleague of the head of the company, Wirt Dexter Walker III, suggested to me that Walker is a distant relative of the Bush family. While any blood relationship to the Bush Walkers would have to be remote (the first Wirt D. Walker, two generations ago, was based in Chicago; the second in McLean, Virginia, in the DIA),

www.margieburns.com...


Will get back to the rest of it later

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


See, now that wasn't so hard was it? You'll have a little more respect and credibility if you post sources with each of your claims so we don't have to go through this.

Originally posted by grapesofraft
reply to post by ATH911

 

So are you saying thhat they did not dig most of that plane out of the ground. If that is true then I would begin to question what they have to say about it as well.

No, they said they dug 80 percent of Flight 93 out of the ground. There's just absolutely no proof they dug out anything of a plane, except for one photo of an engine part that's been shown to have been planted by the excavator seen next to it.

I do have one point to make. One thing I could easily be led to believe is that flight 93 was actually shot down, but nobody wants to admit to it. Not because of a huge conspiracy where the whole thing was executed by the government, but one where the President knows there is one more out there and he does anything he needs to do to bring it down.

The shoot down rumors are just that. No debris was found leading up to the alleged crash spot which proves no plane was shot before the field. The whole scene was faked.

[edit on 13-6-2009 by ATH911]

reply to post by weedwhacker


I personally tried it many times(calling with your cellphone on a plane), it did not work prior to 9-11-2001.

One thing is very clear to me. The planning of this attack did not
just happen overnight. If it were our government that did it (wich
I don't believe), for everyone who had to be involved it would take
much longer than the time that Bush had in office. So, if you want
to believe our government did it, you need to look at the Clinton
adm.

reply to post by jprophet420


Tried a cellphone from what altitudes?? From cruise??

Nope, won't work.

However, my cell always worked from the cockpit (while on the ground).

You won't find that they work when about about 10,000 feet, or so.

Now, we're too busy below 10,000 to make calls (and there are other regulations regarding unnecessary distractions) but I know they DID work, when a phone was left "on"....and during arrival a few hours later, at about 5000 feet, the darned voicemail chime goes off!!! Now, if the phone can get a signal to alert you of voicemail, it certainly can be used to call.

You want the truth?
Simple, it´s all here: debunk911myths.org
My 2c

reply to post by grapesofraft



This was forwarded to me recently.

Web style:
Ext Link

or Full document (DOC/PDF) on scribd

Scribd Doc or PDF

You'll need an acct on scribd to download.

It's always about the money.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999



Yes your right thats about what it said and 9-11 fit the bill didnt it.

Further, the process of transformation,
even if it brings revolutionary change, is
likely to be a long one, absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a
new Pearl Harbor.

The sentence in question can be found on page 51. www.webcitation.org...

Let us not overlook that many of the writers of the report ended up on Bushes staff,including Cheney and Rumsfield.Seems like a coincidence huh? Ohhh I forgot a rule of the cia investigative tactics that," there are no coincidences". hmmmmm.

en.wikipedia.org...-RAD2000-12

I guess you have heard this before, that the World trade centres 1 ans 2 were plagued with problems with the asbestos panelling in both towers which over the last 30 years the buildings were used had become very delapidated and were releasing fibres into the air circulation systems. This was a cost prohibitive problem for Larry silverstein as apparantly the cost to remoe and replace the asbestos was estimated to be greater than the cost of the towers. Hence a plan was hatched to destroy the buildings as a two fold bonus. 1 insurance pays out for the towers and 2 its an excuse to invade iraq.

reply to post by robsmith


Yeah, I've heard truthers claim that for many years now. Now, go read these:

Property assessment of WTC 1 (Oct 2000)
911myths.com...:MH1_Complete.pdf

Property assessment of WTC 2 (Oct 2000)
911myths.com...:MH2_Complete.pdf

Finally report on fireproofing
911myths.com...:BH_Report.pdf

Not quite the asbestos problem that you think it was.