Anyone know of a solid 911 fact sheet

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
nineteen hijackers would have been able to pull off such an attack .

Read your above quote.

Ten times.

Now think of all the US defenses breached that day.

Now read your quote again.

Welcome to the truth Movement sir

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

Now think of all the US defenses breached that day.

What US defenses? Civilian airliners took off from civilian airfields with professional airline pilots at the controls. They were hijacked by terrorists as has happened hundreds of times before all around the world. The aircraft were flown into buildings at high speed.

What exactly were the "US defenses" that were breached that day?

reply to post by Tw0Sides


And why do people persist with the assumption that US defences are particularly good? If America was good at fighting it wouldn't constantly get its arse handed to it by poorly-equipped, underfunded guerilla soldiers almost every time it goes to war.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
In response to the OP, what you'll find is that there's no "solidity" at all to any of the 9/11 factoids. In almost every case they dissolve before your eyes as soon as you check the citations or dig a bit deeper. Sorry.

OR, once you read the "fact sheet" of any other conspiracy proponent. Dr. Judy Wood goes into detail on how improbabe the whole "secret controlled demolitions" claims are in her "fact sheet" on how the towers were really destroyed by lasers from outer space. Plus I dont see a single piece of evidence corroborating Thierry Meyssan's "cruise missile at the Pentagon" theory anywhere on Richard Gage's site. I forget who's pushing the "nukes in the basement" theory but I can't say their fact sheet backs up the "hologram planes" claim either.

The REAL fact sheet is that people are simply believign in whatever conspiracy theory they individually want to believe in. Heck, there's one guy here who even insists the towers were fake buildings. I have to admit I'd love to see the facts sheet on that one.

Originally posted by Tw0Sides
Read your above quote.

Ten times.

Now think of all the US defenses breached that day.

Now read your quote again.

Welcome to the truth Movement sir

I have a better idea- what say you read the 9/11 commission report like I said in the comment that started this whole bit to begin with. It documents the lousy conditions leading up to and during the attack that illustrates just how badly the systems fouled up...and that's only what they actually admitted to! The US had armies of agents sniffing out drug trafficking but only a handful of anti-terrorist agents. People in high office were crapping out in their responsibilities and neglecting to issue orders. Orders weren't being handed down properly. Oh, and some genius decided to order the planes to fly in circles over the ocean. Plus, we hear cases like Sybel Edmonds whistleblowing on her idiot boss who told her to translate documents slowly so that he could request a bigger budget. Plus, we hear how interceptors were ordered to chase phantom hijacked planes all over creation. It's blatantly obvious there is a heck of a lot more incompetence in the story than this.

It's ironic that you're telling me to "read it ten times" since I can give you as many additional examples of gross gov't incompetence as you would like. Can you give me even ONE example of anyone being able to sneak into an occupied building undetected and planting concealed controlled demolitions without anyone noticing? Just one. Any one will do.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Plus, we hear cases like Sybel Edmonds whistleblowing on her idiot boss who told her to translate documents slowly so that he could request a bigger budget.

How can you call yourself an American, then crap on all things American.
Shame on you.
Sybel tried several times to inform her superiors about being recruited by the Turks, she then went several times further up the chain of command, and was told to forget it.

Not to read slow .

Through her translations , she had to inform people what she had heard.

She was SILENCED on PURPOSE.

If you want to learn something, instaed of your same ole same ole, look into Sybel Edmonds: State Secret Privilege.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
reply to post by Tw0Sides

 

And why do people persists with the assumption that US defences are particularly good? If America was good at fighting it wouldn't constantly get its arse handed to it by poorly-equipped, underfunded guerilla soldiers almost every time it goes to war.

Because it conforms to their illusion the gov't is the essence of pure perfection that borders on the supernatural. Everything they do, mistakes and all, is part of some master plan to take over the world plotted out fifty moves in advance...which is the only way they can even suggest "secret controlled demolitions in an occupied building" without being laughed at to begin with. In the real world, before 9/11 each airport contracted out their security to the lowest bidding private security company, and none of them had access to law enforcement databases or even to each other's records. Mohammed Atta could have been on the FBI's "kill this person on sight" list and airport security at the time would never have known it.

Why is it that facts like THAT never seem to show up on these so-called "fact sheets" the truthers are putting out?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by artistpoet

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by artistpoet
reply to post by GoodOlDave

 

That report has been debunked

When you post absurd things like "Nasty men living in caves did it" you'll forgive me when I say your viewpoint should be taken with a grain of salt. You do know that Mohammed Atta had a masters degree from a university in Germany, right?

Of course - Yes it was meant to be taken with a grain of salt.
I dont believe the official story - why should I.

...and yet you DO believe the drivel those damned fool conspiracy web sites are churning out. I know this because they're the only ones dropping this "official story" slogan. Tell me, in your own words, just *what* do you consider "the official story" to be? Everything in the 9/11 commission report was based upon eyewitness testimony and didn't come from the gov't, and anything the gov't did produce like the NIST and FEMA reports were openly acknowledged as being estimates and shouldn't be considered to be canonical.

For you to be criticizing the 9/11 commission report it would necessarily mean you're not simply a BS artist and you actually read it to find out what the lies actually are for yourself...RIGHT?

The little slogan above you avatar says it all - What crap are you refering to and does this apply to all posts you disagree with - "damn fool conspiricy sites" you say - you mean like ATS?
Tell me in YOUR own words why you believe the commision report and why all else is crap to you.
A taste of your own medicine pal - Dont talk to me like I am some schoolboy who's card you are marking to see if it fits your view. I stated in a later post I am unconvinced what is wrong with that - Am I now regarded as a terrorist on some plot to overthrow the evil empire - Grow up.

Originally posted by psyop911
reply to post by GenRadek

 

lol, poor debunker. needs to hide, like a fundamental christian, behind a book.
while ignoring video evidence. oh, did we forget that WTC7 is not even in
that famous 'report'? oh, wait. radek is getting a headache. stand back!

Oh boy! Video trumps all. So I guess when I watch "Masters of Illusion" where they cut a girl clean in half, or make the Taj Mahal disappear, it is video evidence of magic and it really happened?

Boy you must believe everything you see on TV and youtube.

Do YOU know what is in the 9/11 Report, what it was tasked to do? I'm willing to bet a steak dinner, that you have no idea what the Commission Report is, what is was suppose to do, and what it states.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Oh, and some genius decided to order the planes to fly in circles over the ocean.

Don't fall for that, Dave. The alert aircraft that were launched that day did exactly what their standard operating procedures told them to do - marshall in a military operating area (MOA) off the coast of Virginia (for Langley) and Long Island (for Otis). Why? First off, those procedures were designed to make it easy to watch the *real* threat at the time, Soviet Backfires and Badgers as they flew just outside the 200 mile offshore limit to and from deployments to Cuba. True, those Soviet deployments had trickled down to a bare minimum by then and our alert posture had been downgraded to a dozen or so alert aircraft, but the flight operating procedures had not changed. The threat - if there *was* going to be a threat, was *still* offshore, a threat sector/vector to the east, not inshore. Certainly not from Canada and definitely not from Mexico.

Plus, marshalling those aircraft in an offshore MOA while that "fog of war" dissapated.kept the aircraft out of the Jet routes and Victor routes of civilian airliners and aircraft flying up and down the east coast.

Military jet engined suck down upwards of 2,000 lbs a minute of jet fuel in full afterburner, and having them rage around all morning looking for phantoms or ghost tracks or whatever while someone somewhere is trying to make sense out of something that had never happened before is not a good recipe for success.

They did exactly what they were supposed to do.

Originally posted by Tw0Sides

 

How can you call yourself an American, then crap on all things American.
Shame on you.

Sybel tried several times to inform her superiors about being recruited by the Turks, she then went several times further up the chain of command, and was told to forget it.

Congratulations. You are by far the most dedicated Kool-aid drinker here who refuses to think for himself. I just got finished posting examples of incompetence and corruption and in reply you say I "crap on all things American"...and then turn around and post examples that only corroborated everything I just said. If US intelligence agencies can be infiltrated by self serving jerks willing to betray their country for cash (the Walker family for the Soviets, Johnathan Pollard for Israel, etc) then I can definitely believe her allegation that someone might be spying for Turkey. The FBI treating her like she had herpes for reporting it tells me they either have their heads in the sand and don't want to accept the possibility they've been compromised, or someone is feeling the heat and they're covering their butts.

This is why we need a SERIOUS investigation into the events of 9/11 and we need to stop wasting our time on these ridiculous "hologram planes" and "shape shifting alien lizards" delusions you truthers are putting out, especially since 98% of it is just a stunt some con artist is pulling to make a fast buck from peddling conspiracy souveniers to you truthers. Geez, Louise, how the heck can you not understand that?

reply to post by 1825114
Quite the impressive list there, thanks for sharing it. Most of the individuals there are arguably more credible than armchair warriors.

A poll from 2006 said something like 81% of Americans thought the government was hiding something/mostly lying regarding 9/11, it was a scientific poll so the OP might find it useful, cheers.

Originally posted by artistpoet
Tell me in YOUR own words why you believe the commision report and why all else is crap to you.
A taste of your own medicine pal - Dont talk to me like I am some schoolboy who's card you are marking to see if it fits your view. I stated in a later post I am unconvinced what is wrong with that - Am I now regarded as a terrorist on some plot to overthrow the evil empire

I have never concealed my position. Although I agree there's a lot more to the story than what the govt is admitting to, I accept the general statements of the 9/11 commission report because...

a) they're based upon eyewitness accounts of people who were physically there. When NYPD helicopter pilots flying eye level to the impact area of the buildings reported seeing the columns glowing red from the fires and looked like they were about to collapse, I'm going to believe them because they were there and I wasn't. When German intelligence officials report that Mohammed Atta was in contact with Al Qaida operatives while in Hamburg, I'm going to believe them because they were there and I wasn't. I'm not going to accuse them of being "secret agents conspiring to cover up the inside job" simply because I don't want to believe what they're saying is true.

b) I strongly suspect you're relatively young and haven't been around to notice all the OTHER hijinks Muslim fanatics have pulled throughout the years. They've launched coordinated attacks against multiple airports in Italy, they murdered athletes right in the middle of the Olympic games, they've hijacked more planes than I can count (plus one famous case where they blew up three planes forced to land in the Jordanian desert) and suicide bombings are so common that it's practically synonymous with Islamic fundamentalism. PLUS they've even hijacked a cruise ship once. All the individual components are already there- terrorism, coordinated multiple attacks, aircraft hijackings, suicide attacks, and pointless murder. It was only a matter of time...almost mandatory, actually... before someone came up with the idea to put them all together.

c) As far as why I believe your conspiracy stories are hogwash? I'm quoting Noam Chomsky when I say the gov't (especially the Bush administration) was so utterly incompetent that they'd never be able to successfully pull off any such conspiracy successfully even if they did want to do it, especially the insanely intricate and unnecessarily complex conspiracies you people are dreaming up. I'm also quoting Julian Assange when I say there are enough REAL conspiracies to worry about without needing to worry about these fake conspiracies the 9/11 truthers are concocting. Plus, the track record for honesty of you conspiracy theorists is about zero and I can give you as many examples of conspiracy mongoring fakery as you'd like. Just how much time was wasted right here on ATS simply arguing over hologram planes, exactly?

Now, please stop evading the question- whatever "fact sheet" the OP receives is almost certainly going to accuse the 9/11 commission report of lying, so what exactly in the report do you believe is a lie? List the page number please so I can look up what you're referring to. It's an honest question and it deserves an honest answer.

Originally posted by GenRadek

 

Do YOU know what is in the 9/11 Report, what it was tasked to do? I'm willing to bet a steak dinner, that you have no idea what the Commission Report is, what is was suppose to do, and what it states.

I can't comment on this particular poster, but I know full well few if any others here haven't. I know that because they always seem to short circuit after posting all sorts of innuendo and third hand testimony on how Bush supposedly gave a shoot down order for flight 93...and I then tell them it was already reported in the 9/11 commission report almost ten years ago that Bush authorized a shoot down order for flight 93 . You can almost feel their "WTF?!?" reaction from across the internet.

I doubt THAT fact is ever going to find its way into any "facts sheet" either.

To be fair Dave you are better read on 9/11 than I - i am British by the way so do not want to meddle too deeply in things which are not my immediate business -
The whole thing is a great tragedy. We have our own problems regarding the London tube bombings. My point to the original poster was to dig deeper for truth ie do not just accept what both sides are saying is true
- I am probably older than you and yes I have witnessed many things and read many things regarding so called Terrorist attacks hijacks etc.
I say I remain unconvinced and by that I mean unconvinced of the conspiricy theoirists also because of my own personal long view of such events. Most are not what they appear to be on the surface.
False flag attacks do occur and also there is secret service involvement handling and setting up or infiltrating these groups - and yes there are conspiricy theorys with no firm foundation.
As regards the report - this I feel should be balanced with pertinent questions asked by so called truthers and other witnesses.
Indeed it is a quagmire. So many things remain unresolved in so many historically incidents.
I remain unconvinced and do not want to enter into a debate that has no conclusion.
You want me to point out things on the report which I disagree with and yes I am avoiding doing that for the reason that it would be a waste of both our energies. The whole affair is inconclusive and we will not make it any other way. Please do not think I am copping out and throw verbals at me or I would be forced to respond.
Can you accept that I am unconvinced and leave it at? Pleas dont say I am talking BS as you did before - Respect my view - I will respect yours and agree to disagree.

reply to post by Tw0Sides


You might want to check the dates of her employment at the FBI, before you start relying on her. Just saying....

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Dave, I just get fed up with Truthers that still insist that because WTC7 wasnt mentioned in the 9/11CR its some sort of a conspiracy and they are hiding something. Or they claim that since people question and say the report is a "whitewash" it somehow translates into cover up of controlled demolition. It just gets really aggravating to see such ignorance from "truthers", especially when they claim they are for the truth. You can tell them till you are blue in the face, and you'll get better reception from a brick wall than them.

But I guess Truthers are not interested in facts or truth.

Originally posted by trebor451

 

Don't fall for that, Dave. The alert aircraft that were launched that day did exactly what their standard operating procedures told them to do - marshall in a military operating area (MOA) off the coast of Virginia (for Langley) and Long Island (for Otis). Why? First off, those procedures were designed to make it easy to watch the *real* threat at the time, Soviet Backfires and Badgers as they flew just outside the 200 mile offshore limit to and from deployments to Cuba. True, those Soviet deployments had trickled down to a bare minimum by then and our alert posture had been downgraded to a dozen or so alert aircraft, but the flight operating procedures had not changed. The threat - if there *was* going to be a threat, was *still* offshore, a threat sector/vector to the east, not inshore. Certainly not from Canada and definitely not from Mexico.

All right, fair enough. I'm willing to concede there were established procedures they were required to do, and I'm not a truther trying to force my own abject paranoia into any nook and cranny I can find so I'll acknowledge there's a legitimate answer for this that I'm simply not aware of. Nonetheless there still are severe issues with how the gov't responded. The report revealed that orders weren't being handed down properly so that the interceptors over NYC were given "shoot to kill" instructions while the interceptors over DC were told to back off and sit on their hands. Clearly, someone in a critical position was too squeamish to hand down the "shoot to kill" order to the interceptors out of Virginia like they were with the interceptors out of Massachussets. My concern isn't so much about the failures we know about like this than it is about the failures we don't know about, becuase I guarantee there has to be more.

I think we're both in agreement, however, that it helps noone for these damned fool conspiracy web sites to be spinning these idiotic "secret controlled demolitions", "Lasers from outer space", etc stories to make a fast buck, because you see right on this forum how many gullible people there are who believe them who then in turn argue incessantly over pointless nonsense. They're obviously forcing their own abject paranoia into any nook and cranny they can find, but nonetheless they do have a legitimate point about the lack of self examination on the part of the gov't.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
Nonetheless there still are severe issues with how the gov't responded. The report revealed that orders weren't being handed down properly so that the interceptors over NYC were given "shoot to kill" instructions while the interceptors over DC were told to back off and sit on their hands. Clearly, someone in a critical position was too squeamish to hand down the "shoot to kill" order to the interceptors out of Virginia like they were with the interceptors out of Massachussets. My concern isn't so much about the failures we know about like this than it is about the failures we don't know about, becuase I guarantee there has to be more.

You seem to be very confused. There was no "shoot down authorization" from the President until after UA 93 had crashed. The fighters out of Andrews had "shoot down" authorization from VP Chaney, but there are serious questions about the legality of that. It really didn't matter as the attack was already over anyway.

Where are you getting the information that the Otis Fighters over NYC ever had "shoot down authorization"? You must be privy to some secret no one else knows about.

Trebor is exactly correct regarding the route taken by the Langley fighters. It was NOT A GOVERNMENT RESPONSE, it was merely a decision made by both Norfolk Departure and the flight leader to follow established procedure as opposed to the directions in the Scramble Instructions. It really didn't matter anyway as the Langley fighters could not have intercepted AA 77 even if they had flown direct to DC. They were launched too late for that. Audio tape analysis indicates they were launched in response to a "ghost" AA 11 that did not exist. AA 77's location was not known about in time to do anything at all from an Air Defense perspective.

I get the impression that you seem to think "shoot to kill" (your words) was or is the ultimate solution to a terrorist attack of this sort. It isn't, not even close either then or now. There is no way to predict the outcome of shooting down an Airliner full of people (both US Citizens and Foreign Nationals) out of the sky. Where will it land? What if it crashes on a large school or a large crowded shopping center? Who get's to choose who dies and who doesn't? Is that really a decision the Government should make? There are lots of questions about this issue. It is not a foregone conclusion that "shooting down" an Airliner full of people is a desirable course of action ever. The only sensible course of action is to prevent a hijack in the first place. Hopefully, in the future if there ever is another similar attack and an attempt is made to hijack an aircraft, the crew and passengers will take action to prevent it. That is the best solution, not a "shoot down" by Air Defense fighters...

Originally posted by artistpoet
To be fair Dave you are better read on 9/11 than I - i am British by the way so do not want to meddle too deeply in things which are not my immediate business -

I compliment you on your intellectual honesty...but I regret to say that ship has already sailed. Richard Gage (the leading snake oil peddler pushing these "secret controlled demolitions" conspiracies) apparently has milked the conspiracy theorists here in the states for all the money that can be had so he's been taking his travelling circus abroad lately. I know he already has travelled through England and Scotland. This time next year there will probably be people bickering over what happened to building 7 in Latvia.

The whole thing is a great tragedy. We have our own problems regarding the London tube bombings. My point to the original poster was to dig deeper for truth ie do not just accept what both sides are saying is true
- I am probably older than you and yes I have witnessed many things and read many things regarding so called Terrorist attacks hijacks etc.

Then you should be interested to know that a few years back I encountered a British fellow who insisted the London bombings were secretly staged by the Illuminati. Plus, I've seen more than a few people insisting that Princess Di was assassinated by your SAS. Conspiracy mongoring knows no geographical borders, and not wanting to accept the evidence on face value does not give anyone license to manufacture their own evidence as it suits their purpose. Surely you can agree with that.

As regards the report - this I feel should be balanced with pertinent questions asked by so called truthers and other witnesses.

I am in complete agreement with you...but the thing is, just what exactly is a "pertinent question"? To me a pertinent question is asking for more details on exactly how the US gov't responded during the 9/11 attacks. To the conspiracy theorists, a pertinent question is how cars a mile away from the WTC complex were destroyed (a favorite point among the "lasers from otuer space" crowd). The questions are clearly being steered by an agenda to advance a specific predetemined scenario rather than an honest interest in gathering information.

So, when the OP asked for a "fact sheet" we cannot be so naive as to think any such fact sheet won't simply be yet more conspiracy mongoring propaganda in disguise.,

You want me to point out things on the report which I disagree with and yes I am avoiding doing that for the reason that it would be a waste of both our energies. The whole affair is inconclusive and we will not make it any other way. Please do not think I am copping out and throw verbals at me or I would be forced to respond.
Can you accept that I am unconvinced and leave it at? Pleas dont say I am talking BS as you did before - Respect my view - I will respect yours and agree to disagree.

You misunderstand my position. We had a fellow over her during colonial times by the name of Patrick Henry who once said it's falsehood, and never the truth, that needs to fear critique. You were posting things which did not have a satisfactory basis in fact so I asked you to provide justification for it. Instead, you ignored the question and turned aroung and asked ME what MY justification was, and because I have no real need to fear critique I told you my own justification...as well as asking you again. Now, you're refusing again. It is clear who here is afraid of critical analysis and who here is not.

You are obviously free to do so, but you also need to know you're simply adding to the problem of this epidemic of bad information, rather than addressing it.