Timeline on 9/11

I found this to be of interest, visual & audio compilation of that day.
Some good amateur stuff too.

timeline national 911memorial.org

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Never have I seen this before...I THANK YOU FOR SHARING! ;-)

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Thanks for that. Well produced and interesting. Wont stop some posters coming on here and hand-waving it all away saying " the jews did it ", " Bush/Cheney did it " though.

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Blue_Jay33

 

Thanks for that. Well produced and interesting. Wont stop some posters coming on here and hand-waving it all away saying " the jews did it ", " Bush/Cheney did it " though.

I think it's a given at this point that *nothing* will ever convince the conspriacy people to abandon their abject paranoia. I know this because every time I ask just what evidence would they actually accept as legitimate evidence that 9/11 was a genuine terrorist attack, the silence is always deafening.

FYI thanks, BJ.

I know this because every time I ask just what evidence would they actually accept as legitimate evidence that 9/11 was a genuine terrorist attack, the silence is always deafening.

I will answer your question point blank. Evidence enough to present in a court of law without a reasonable doubt that al qadea and al queda alone carried out the attacks. Spin it any way you want but no entity has been able to accomplish this in 10 years.

Originally posted by jprophet420

I know this because every time I ask just what evidence would they actually accept as legitimate evidence that 9/11 was a genuine terrorist attack, the silence is always deafening.

I will answer your question point blank. Evidence enough to present in a court of law without a reasonable doubt that al qadea and al queda alone carried out the attacks. Spin it any way you want but no entity has been able to accomplish this in 10 years.

...which leads to the next question- what court of law do you accept without accusing them of being puppets of the conspirators?

The reason I ask is because we gave our intelligence showing Al qaida was responsible for the attack to our NATO allies, and after comparing it to what their own intelligence services were reporting, they found it credible enough to invoke article V in the first time in history. It's the whole reason NATO troops are in Afghanistan, even Romainan and Poles, and they used to be Soviet client states.

If that isn't sufficient as a court-of-law decision, then what is?

reply to post by GoodOlDave


They invoked it the next day. Not even close to a court of law.

There was little to guide us. There had been hardly any discussion of terrorism at NATO up to that point. There was no clear policy, as far as I knew, on the use of NATO assets in response to terrorist attacks. There had been no consultation with delegations about what had gone on that day. We had not even discussed the way ahead or options with the Secretary General or his Private Office. There had been no "steer" from any capital.

Worlds apart in fact.

An hour later, we met again and went through the draft together. We inserted a conditional "if" clause to deal with the uncertainty over who had directed the attacks: "If it is determined that this attack was directed from abroad against the United States, it shall be regarded as an action covered by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty."

Originally posted by Alfie1
reply to post by Blue_Jay33

 

Thanks for that. Well produced and interesting. Wont stop some posters coming on here and hand-waving it all away saying " the jews did it ", " Bush/Cheney did it " though.

And why exactly do you ppl care????? Why do you care what a bunch of strangers think? Why do you come on here day in day out arguing with strangers? It just doesnt make sense to me you and your pal mr dammed fooled conspiracy website man are like a cracked record we dont give a dam what you think of us we wont stop searching for the truth no matter how many times you spout the words paranoid deluded nut jobs

Originally posted by jprophet420
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

They invoked it the next day. Not even close to a court of law.

...but the problem for you is, in your very next post you state:

"An hour later, we met again and went through the draft together. We inserted a conditional "if" clause to deal with the uncertainty over who had directed the attacks: "If it is determined that this attack was directed from abroad against the United States, it shall be regarded as an action covered by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty."

...and since NATO did in fact decide it was an action covered by Article 5 this by definition means they determined it genuinely was an attack directet from abroad against the United States. I daresay the multiple governments of NATO have greater intelligence gathering capabilities and access to deeper resources that you do, and I daresay they're not simply acting as pawns of the US because France and Germany agreed there was sufficient evidence to go to war in Afghanistan, but they likewise concluded there was NOT enough evidence to go to war in Iraq. This is why French and German troops are in Afghanistan but none were in Iraq.

No matter how you slice it, your objections are being shown to be petty Even you have to concede that much of the evidence against al Qaida involves sensitive intelligence that needs to be protected as it might compromise our ability to colllect intelligence in the future.

No matter how you slice it, your objections are being shown to be petty Even you have to concede that much of the evidence against al Qaida involves sensitive intelligence that needs to be protected as it might compromise our ability to colllect intelligence in the future.

It is noted that you feel due process is petty. It is also noted that in your opinion NATO Article 5 supersedes due process.

Today I went back and looked at all my old 9/11 threads and wanted to pick one to bump up, this year it is this one.

I very sad day 11 years later.