1211 replies to this topic

[quillius]

booNyzarC, on 20 April 2012 - 02:23 AM, said:

Ironically though, there is confirmation from Anthony Kuczynski that Flight 93 wasn't shot down, and that he was just about to intercept it when the plane crashed.  This doesn't disagree with Stacey Taylor's account at all.

How exactly does that trump video lady?

Hey Boon,

I must say the programme last night with the recordings indicated that the order to shoot down any aircraft came in 10minutes AFTER the crash....I suppose the wording above 'just about to intercept' doesnt conclusively confirm that the order was already received although it does sound that way, which is not accurate according to the time scales and events in the programme.

[quillius]

Q24, on 19 April 2012 - 10:15 PM, said:

I do try to get the information out (I’ve been repeating it for 5 years)…


With plenty more references interspersed between.

Hi Q, yes it seems you were all over some of these points already and the misdirection of the jets explains why they were not there on time, but as you point out the mistake certainly does add fuel to conspiracy...well at the least to the shoot down theory.

Would still recommend watching it if you havent already.

edit to add:  one other samll point, cant remember her name but one of the ladies from the base dealing with things describes how the Shankville crash is devastating..she then quickly moves to explain her comment in that its more devastating due to the fact three had already crashed...this didnt make sense and this few minutes did ring some alarm bells in me...simply put the language used couple with the facial expressions/body language didnt sit right, I mean two planes hit the WTC's and one the pentagon killing everyone on board plus the civilians at point of impact and yet she 'expressed' how devastating Shankville was??"? why?? maybe because they had to do shoot it down? this would actually sit well with how she acted and what she said...but hey best I watch it a few more times rather than specualate and fuel the conspiracy.

Edited by quillius, 20 April 2012 - 08:47 AM.

[Stundie]

Q24, on 19 April 2012 - 05:37 PM, said:

Oh I tell you, the number of times I’ve nearly lost my rag with skyeagle.  Seriously I wrote a post last night calling him all sorts before dragging myself away.  I’m really borderline whether it’s best to put him on ignore – not because he disagrees with me, but because he doesn’t make the slightest sense in doing so - or perhaps just use his nonsense to make a point.

To your question – there is no coherent discussion where skyeagle is concerned.  I really think he has dementia or another mental condition.  I don’t mean to be unkind, that’s just the impression I get.  I know general discussion forums that ban members displaying such behavior, for their own protection.

I know he can be frustrating but I always say, life is a joke to those who think and a tragedy to those who feel. So you if you leave the feelings of frustration at the door and actually think about it, you have to laugh at him cause he makes about as much sense as a slug having a salt bath.

I just wanted to make sure it wasn't me going mad on the off chance that maybe he is talking sense and actually coherent.

Cheers

Stundie

[Stundie]

skyeagle409, on 19 April 2012 - 05:07 PM, said:

The F-16s out of Andrews AFB were not armed

You said none of the f-16s were armed, you were wrong.

skyeagle409, on 19 April 2012 - 05:07 PM, said:

The F-16s from Langley AFB were ordered to fly CAP over Washington D.C., not over Shanksville. Do you understand what 'CAP' means?

Combat Air Patrol!

skyeagle409, on 19 April 2012 - 05:07 PM, said:

Read what I have said. The C-130 was the Air Force aircraft that reported a smoke plume at the crash site of United 93 and said nothing about F-16s overhead.

And again, I did I ever say or argue that this wasn't the case??  

skyeagle409, on 19 April 2012 - 05:07 PM, said:

One note; the C-130 pilot is asked to identify an aircraft, which simply means that American 77 is  being tracked on radar as unidentified despite the fact its transponder has been tampered with.

Makes you wonder why the SS who were tracking it with Dick Cheney never warned the Pentagon then doesn't it.

Could have saved the lives off those who died at the Pentagon.

skyeagle409, on 19 April 2012 - 05:07 PM, said:

Where is Shanksville in relation to Washington D.C. ?

About 120 odd miles away isn't it.

Your point being what exactly? Shankville is not next to the White House?? Thanks genius!!

I suppose you have imagined or fantasised that I thought that Shanksville was in Washington or right next to the White House.  

skyeagle409, on 19 April 2012 - 05:07 PM, said:

How about calling Langley AFB and ask them how many missiles were fired near Shanksville on 9/11/2001.

Yeah, I'm sure if they did fire one and covered it up, they would just go ahead and tell me right?? hahahahaha!!

Nice try at attempting to beat your previous urine covered post performance, but I think you failed.

Anyway keep on failing!!  

[Q24]

quillius, on 20 April 2012 - 08:42 AM, said:

edit to add:  one other samll point, cant remember her name but one of the ladies from the base dealing with things describes how the Shankville crash is devastating..she then quickly moves to explain her comment in that its more devastating due to the fact three had already crashed...this didnt make sense and this few minutes did ring some alarm bells in me...simply put the language used couple with the facial expressions/body language didnt sit right, I mean two planes hit the WTC's and one the pentagon killing everyone on board plus the civilians at point of impact and yet she 'expressed' how devastating Shankville was??"? why?? maybe because they had to do shoot it down? this would actually sit well with how she acted and what she said...but hey best I watch it a few more times rather than specualate and fuel the conspiracy.

That was one of NORAD’s ID techs, Maureen Dooley.  I think you might be reading into something that’s not there.  She actually added that the Flight 93 crash was “not” any more or less devastating than the others.  Perhaps she singled out Flight 93 as devastating initially because of all the aircraft, that’s the one NORAD felt there was a chance to stop.

Stundie, on 20 April 2012 - 11:33 AM, said:

I know he can be frustrating but I always say, life is a joke to those who think and a tragedy to those who feel. So you if you leave the feelings of frustration at the door and actually think about it, you have to laugh at him cause he makes about as much sense as a slug having a salt bath.

You are right…  

[Stundie]

quillius, on 20 April 2012 - 08:42 AM, said:

Hi Q, yes it seems you were all over some of these points already and the misdirection of the jets explains why they were not there on time, but as you point out the mistake certainly does add fuel to conspiracy...well at the least to the shoot down theory.

Would still recommend watching it if you havent already.

edit to add:  one other samll point, cant remember her name but one of the ladies from the base dealing with things describes how the Shankville crash is devastating..she then quickly moves to explain her comment in that its more devastating due to the fact three had already crashed...this didnt make sense and this few minutes did ring some alarm bells in me...simply put the language used couple with the facial expressions/body language didnt sit right, I mean two planes hit the WTC's and one the pentagon killing everyone on board plus the civilians at point of impact and yet she 'expressed' how devastating Shankville was??"? why?? maybe because they had to do shoot it down? this would actually sit well with how she acted and what she said...but hey best I watch it a few more times rather than specualate and fuel the conspiracy.

Hi Quillius,

I've not watched the program as I watched Louis Theroux instead but I think the Channel 4 program is about the NOARD tapes which were released a couple of years ago, which are also available online. I'm guessing that Q24 has listen to them.

I will watch it on 4OD when I get the chance and let you know what I think.

I'm particularly interested in AA77 and if the order to shoot down was not given until 10 minutes after UA93 crashed, then it begs a couple of questions.

What was the order that Mineta overhears Dick Cheney telling his aid in the PEOC under the White House? (Which couldn't have been a shoot down order anyway because there was no plane was within range to shoot down AA77)

And if I remember correctly, in his book Against All Enemies, Richard Clarke the counter terrorism chief says that he suggested to the Cheney and others in the PEOC that they get authorisation to shoot down the planes from the President just after AA77 had crashed and that he was surprised how quick the authorisation was given.

I will have more to say on when I watch it.

Cheers

Stundie

[Flibbertigibbet]

I was under 15 on 9/11 but can't play the video. What does it say and why is it directed at people who were under 15?

[Q24]

Flibbertigibbet, on 20 April 2012 - 12:15 PM, said:

I was under 15 on 9/11 but can't play the video. What does it say and why is it directed at people who were under 15?

MysteryX who posted the video explained further into the thread: -

MysteryX, on 14 April 2012 - 02:46 AM, said:

My purpose regarding 9/11 is to teach the youth, I don't try to spend too much time convincing the skeptics that have been active skeptics for 10 years.

The youth will rise up if they are taught correctly about critical thinking and if America is to ever have another chance to be great, it will and must come from them. If I and others like me fail to teach them then America is already done and even this thread is a waste of time. However I am a logical optimist to a fault, I don't think that is still possible but I still believe in hope against all odds and logic.

The video is not itself aimed at people who were under 15 but that is the audience MysteryX believes are most important, and I agree; it is the youth who can and are making a difference in America (if Ron Paul’s voting base is anything to go by).  If younger generations are informed, the lessons will not be forgotten.

[quillius]

Q24, on 20 April 2012 - 11:46 AM, said:

That was one of NORAD’s ID techs, Maureen Dooley.  I think you might be reading into something that’s not there.  She actually added that the Flight 93 crash was “not” any more or less devastating than the others.  Perhaps she singled out Flight 93 as devastating initially because of all the aircraft, that’s the one NORAD felt there was a chance to stop.

yes thats who I was talking about! And she did indeed add that bit, after the pause (realisation that it needed justifying as it cannot possibly have a greater impact than the first three- unless they had to shoot it down)....maybe I am reading too much into it, I have only watched it once. maybe I will feel differently after watching it again...

[Flibbertigibbet]

Q24, on 20 April 2012 - 12:25 PM, said:

MysteryX who posted the video explained further into the thread: -


The video is not itself aimed at people who were under 15 but that is the audience MysteryX believes are most important, and I agree; it is the youth who can and are making a difference in America (if Ron Paul’s voting base is anything to go by).  If younger generations are informed, the lessons will not be forgotten.

Informed about what? Not that it matters I guess since I'm not in America.

[quillius]

Stundie, on 20 April 2012 - 11:57 AM, said:

Hi Quillius,

I've not watched the program as I watched Louis Theroux instead but I think the Channel 4 program is about the NOARD tapes which were released a couple of years ago, which are also available online. I'm guessing that Q24 has listen to them.

I will watch it on 4OD when I get the chance and let you know what I think.

I'm particularly interested in AA77 and if the order to shoot down was not given until 10 minutes after UA93 crashed, then it begs a couple of questions.

What was the order that Mineta overhears Dick Cheney telling his aid in the PEOC under the White House? (Which couldn't have been a shoot down order anyway because there was no plane was within range to shoot down AA77)

And if I remember correctly, in his book Against All Enemies, Richard Clarke the counter terrorism chief says that he suggested to the Cheney and others in the PEOC that they get authorisation to shoot down the planes from the President just after AA77 had crashed and that he was surprised how quick the authorisation was given.

I will have more to say on when I watch it.

Cheers

Stundie

hello Stundie, I feel you are right and Q knows most of what is contained in the programme. As far as when they were actually released, I am not sure, I havent researched 9-11 no where near enough to be able to seperate old info from new...its mostly new to me.

I will watvh it again over weekend and come back to you on the order by Dick Chenney....although you will probably already have the answer by then.

look forward to your thoughts on it.

[Q24]

Flibbertigibbet, on 20 April 2012 - 12:32 PM, said:

Informed about what? Not that it matters I guess since I'm not in America.

Informed about the true nature of 9/11…

why it happened, how it happened, where it led and why the issues are still very relevant today.

It matters if you realise the relationship between the countries - where America goes, the UK follows.

There is an awful lot surrounding 9/11 that people are unaware of…

Did you know that the Bush and bin Laden families had business dealings since the 1970s?
Did you know that Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA?
Did you know that the U.S. has planned to stage false flag attacks on themselves before?
Did you know that the Bush administration needed a new attack to drive their agenda?

It depends if you are interested in foreign affairs, geopolitics, wars (like Afghanistan and Iraq in which the UK were obviously involved) and how globe changing events are shaped.  It depends if you want to know where your taxes go and understand wider aims of the politics you support, directly or indirectly.

It depends if you want to be aware of the world we live in.

[Flibbertigibbet]

Q24, on 20 April 2012 - 12:57 PM, said:

Informed about the true nature of 9/11…

why it happened, how it happened, where it led and why the issues are still very relevant today.

It matters if you realise the relationship between the countries - where America goes, the UK follows.

There is an awful lot surrounding 9/11 that people are unaware of…

Did you know that the Bush and bin Laden families had business dealings since the 1970s?
Did you know that Al Qaeda is a creation of the CIA?
Did you know that the U.S. has planned to stage false flag attacks on themselves before?
Did you know that the Bush administration needed a new attack to drive their agenda?

It depends if you are interested in foreign affairs, geopolitics, wars (like Afghanistan and Iraq in which the UK were obviously involved) and how globe changing events are shaped.  It depends if you want to know where your taxes go and understand wider aims of the politics you support, directly or indirectly.

It depends if you want to be aware of the world we live in.

Despite all that it was definitely Muslims who carried out the attack.

[Leonardo]

MysteryX, on 11 April 2012 - 07:08 AM, said:

Well think about that for a moment for yourself. There is only one material in the entire tower that will flow with orange hue glow.

Kool-aid?

[Q24]

Flibbertigibbet, on 20 April 2012 - 01:00 PM, said:

Despite all that it was definitely Muslims who carried out the attack.

Like it was Muslims responsible for the Lavon Affair?
And Poles responsible for the Gleiwitz incident?
And Cubans responsible for planning Northwoods?

And so on.

Muslims were involved in the attack, but it was others closer to home who facilitated and had lead motive for the operation.