Why I Doubt the Official "Story"

reply to post by waypastvne
Stay down, don't you know when you're beaten?

Originally posted by Bilk22
And you know this how?

Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by Bilk22

 

You dare to criticize others for posting false information and you post tripe such as this. Underground defenses at the Pentagon only exist in your imagination... There are no defenses of this nature at the Pentagon and never have been, period.

It really doesn't matter how I know. You made the statement as a matter of fact. It is your claim. Apparently, you're to inexperienced or too stupid to know that reversing the burden of proof doesn't work.

Hint: If you're getting information from conspiracy sites that want to sell you DVD's or t-shirts you ought to doubt it until you confirm it from a credible source.

Not that it will do any good, but....Reagan National (Washington National) Airport is a short distance away from the Pentagon. Approaches and departures pass close to the Pentagon numerous times daily. Ground based defenses have been proposed on numerous occasions over the years, but has always been rejected due to being too risky considering the close proximity of commercial air traffic in the area.

It's a price to pay for wearing a military uniform. Braver men than you have died defending those things you enjoy as a US Citizen doing whatever it is you have done with buildings over those 27 years. No ground based defenses at the Pentagon (even tho' it would be desirable under other circumstances) is a small price to pay for the privilege of being able to work there in the service of one's Country. They will continue to serve and do their duty in spite of frequent denigration and false accusation leveled at them on both this site and other conspiracy sites around the net. You're Welcome.

Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by 911files

 

You may regret posting that information here where the level of understanding is not adequate to put this into perspective regarding 9/11.

As you know, the problem on 9/11 was not with NORAD or even specifically NEADS timely response, it was simply that they didn't have a chance due to lack of notification time.

Reheat, that statement offends even me. I agree that the crowd at JREF tends to have a more advanced technical/scientific level of understanding (tough crowd over there), but that does not mean that non-tech folks can't grasp the events of the day just as well. The issue under discussion is not NORAD/NEADS though, but awareness and preparation for the use of planes in a terrorist attack by government/military planners.

My admiration and respect for those who staffed NEADS that day is well known. They fought the good fight. Considering the limited resources they had and their limited situational awareness, they did a magnificent job.

Originally posted by dillweed
reply to post by plube

 

Thanks, Plube. And to all the posters on this thread who have called out these criminals who continue to push the 'agenda'. The gloves are off, and the mods have given them enough rope to hang themselves. Those who continue to post in favor of the OS, should be considered accessories to the crime and guilty of obstruction of justice.

Oh my. If they disagree with us, then lock them up. Did we become the United Soviet States and I just miss the memo?

Originally posted by 911files

My admiration and respect for those who staffed NEADS that day is well known.

Remarkably generous use of the term "well known" there. I mean, you're not exactly Bill Clinton, are you?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by 911files

My admiration and respect for those who staffed NEADS that day is well known.

Remarkably generous use of the term "well known" there. I mean, you're not exactly Bill Clinton, are you?

Well, just make Reheat's point for him why don't ya

Originally posted by 911files

Oh my. If they disagree with us, then lock them up. Did we become the United Soviet States and I just miss the memo?

You must understand that posters like dillweed - and there are a lot of them here, he is just the most far-gone of a certain type - come across as rather thwarted individuals. The only thing that keeps them dragging their arses to work, or to the shops, or to Taco Bell or wherever yanks currently shove their snouts, is the sure and certain knowledge that they will one day be given the power to kill people.

reply to post by 911files


You know as well as I do that information, no matter how accurate and no matter the source gets twisted into a conspiracy here, perhaps just to keep the delusion and fantasy alive. In fact, the information you posted already has been used in that manner even tho' many of those exercises had little to do with a 9/11 type scenario.

I've already addressed the things that should have been done, but weren't based on the inherent nature of a bureaucracy's resistance to change short of a catastrophic event like 9/11 , not some devious mysterious conspiracy to overthrow who knows what. What you showed should should have shifted some of the burden for change to the previous administration, but I've seen no evidence of that attitude change, yet..

It should also be noted that what NORAD was doing in no way indicates that the politicians were aware of that, In fact, most are out of touch in the first place, particularly in view of the lack of a specific threat as to time and place within the US.

Indeed, there was arrogance and overconfidence that "they wouldn't dare attack us here", but that still in the overall view does not indicate the level and magnitude of a conspiracy that most here seem to believe existed..

Anyway, that's my opinion and I've seen nothing yet to change it. If you think I don't have a very high opinion of most posters here, you're absolutely correct... Most are bent on promoting ignorance, not denying it....

reply to post by Reheat


Reheat, I don't post stuff with the "average" poster in mind. I do agree with you about politicians though. However, as a conservative republican myself, I find the remarks by Condi (National Security Advisor) and others within the administration that "they never envisioned" such an attack is either the biggest lie told in American history, or the ultimate in sheer stupidity. And the one thing I never considered Condi to be was stupid.

(And yes, I voted for Bush twice. Would do it again too).

reply to post by 911files


I can not and will not argue with you at all on that issue. That does appear to have been the case unfortunately.

reply to post by Reheat


Well, I also agree with you that the introduction of "new" information can tend to generate new wackiness. Just look what the guy did with the FCPD helicopter account. The pilot took a photograph of the flight path he flew the day he flew it from his helicopter (late 9/11 if i recall correctly) based on FAA data (FAA guys were his passengers) and eyewitness accounts. By virtue of that photograph, there can be absolutely no ambiguity as to what flight path he was describing in his verbal account. Yet suddenly, his verbal account becomes "proof" of the NoC flight path! One of the most extreme cases of confirmation bias I've witnessed in quite some time

reply to post by Reheat

John is addressing only one aspect of the 9/11 attacks.....NORAD. It was much more complicated than that aspect.

I didn't ask you what you think because I already know that you have an excuse for every aspect.

My question is for "911files " he seems informed about the subject and I agree with

That is not something that I could answer in a post on an internet forum. Also, I try to avoid giving my "opinion" any more than absolutely necessary because I don't want to bias the evidence. But, I will say this. 9/11 did not happen in a vacuum, and to focus solely on that event misses the big picture. To understand 9/11, a person has to go back to the early 1950's and the Cold War. Most people do not realize that the Muslim Brotherhood is alive today because the CIA kept it alive to suit it's own ends. There is a whole history of our intelligence operations hidden in the shadows and we may never know the full story. I get a laugh when I hear the talking heads on TV talking about the evil terrorists. Yet over the years, we have used the same tactics using our own brand of Islamic terrorist. We fight them in Afghanistan, while we use them in Libya and Syria. So none of this began on 9/11, and it did not end there. So for me, that is my interest in 9/11. It is one small part of a much larger picture. But hey, that is just my opinion.

so I would like to get an answer from him if he doesn't mind .

Do you Agree with some people here that it was government incompetence only that allowed the attack to succeed ?

reply to post by maxella1


And I've answered to the extent that I am going to in such a limited forum. Such an unconstrained belief would taint any research efforts I might wish to pursue, so I attempt to avoid them. It is hard enough to keep my own confirmation biases in check as it is.

Originally posted by 911files
reply to post by maxella1

 

And I've answered to the extent that I am going to in such a limited forum. Such an unconstrained belief would taint any research efforts I might wish to pursue, so I attempt to avoid them. It is hard enough to keep my own confirmation biases in check as it is.

Fair enough... I'm just saying your personal opinion would be appreciated (by maxella1 at least)

Originally posted by 911files
reply to post by Reheat

 

Reheat, I don't post stuff with the "average" poster in mind. I do agree with you about politicians though. However, as a conservative republican myself, I find the remarks by Condi (National Security Advisor) and others within the administration that "they never envisioned" such an attack is either the biggest lie told in American history, or the ultimate in sheer stupidity. And the one thing I never considered Condi to be was stupid.

...but as a moderate Republican (I voted for Bush the first time and supported him until the invasion of Iraq turned out to me a "whoops we goofed about that WMD being there", after which he thoroughly disgusted me) I disagree. Granted, the "using planes as suicide weapons against buildings" was a scenario on the books, but that was one of a hundred thousand OTHER scenarios, from driving an explosive laden truck into a nuclear power plant to shooting down Air Force One with an antiaircraft missile, and although there may have been hints like Atta's taking flight training, there was enough breakdown of communication between the law enforcement branches to prevent anyone from connecting the dots and figute out what they were up to. We really didn't have an inkling of what they were going to do until they actually did it. for all the powers these "sinsiter secret agents" are supposed to have, I think it's safe to say they can't read read the future from looking at tea leaves.

I ABSOLUTELY POSITIVELY guarantee to the point of putting money on it that if Atta drove an explosives laden truck into a nuclear power plant instead of crashing planes into buildings these conspiracy gadflies would be complaining the gov't was intentionally trying to get people distracted over unrealistic scenarios about crashing hijacked planes into buildings and covering up all the "blatant evidence" on how Atta was going to destroy a nuclear power plant by applying for a driver's license. Not a few of them would be insisting the truck Atta drove was really a hologram and the gov't blew up the reactor on their own, too

It seems to me you're allowing 20/20 hindsight to cloud your judgement, here.

reply to post by TrickoftheShade
To continue to back the OS, in the face of ovewhelming evidence to the contrary, is text book insanity. Because i'm not sure of your mental stability, I've given you the benefit of the doubt and concluded that you know right from wrong, but have chosen wrong. The only people talking about violence here, is you. Why is that? Are you afraid of something?

Originally posted by Reheat
reply to post by 911files

 

I can not and will not argue with you at all on that issue. That does appear to have been the case unfortunately.

but you still believe that it's not their fault, and blaming them is a witch hunt

reply to post by GoodOlDave

I disagree. Granted, the "using planes as suicide weapons against buildings" was a scenario on the books, but that was one of a hundred thousand OTHER scenarios, from driving an explosive laden truck into a nuclear power plant to shooting down Air Force One with an antiaircraft missile, and although there may have been hints like Atta's taking flight training, there was enough breakdown of communication between the law enforcement branches to prevent anyone from connecting the dots and figute out what they were up to.

They knew who the would be hijackers were. They knew about the meeting in Malaysia. They knew that the hijackers lived in America. The were monitoring Bin Ladens communications. They had multiple warnings not only from CIA ,FBI, Able danger but also many foreign intelligence agencies. They knew that this type of attacks are a very real and previously attempted tactic in many countries and in DC. They knew that terrorists were learning how to fly a plane. They knew that these flight school students scarred the shi* out of the flight school staff enough for them to report it to the FBI. They knew that most of the hijackers were Saudi but go to war with Afghanistan. They didn't want to investigate at all. They lied about prior knowledge. They destroyed classified documents and told us that nothing important were in it anyway. The Commission knew that they were lied to. They knew where in Afghanistan Bin Laden was and surrounded him on three sides and Bin laden escaped.

They told us that Iraq was going to kill everybody with WMD's unless we invade. They later found out that it was not true but continued the war anyway. They found unarmed Bin Laden in Pakistan and sent an Elite team of NAVY Seals to kill him (not capture). They killed him and pulled a Tony Soprano on him. ......

But it's not their fault.... So move on, look forward and forget the past...

Makes sense......

reply to post by UltimateSkeptic1


because this is an official story. that's it.

reply to post by UltimateSkeptic1


I don't listen to someone who doesn't post a single link to show some evidence. MAYBE if you had posted at least 1 link then I would have agreed to a point.