Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6
redhen

911 inside job - for what?

4,447 posts in this topic

There is so much disinformation, misinformation and outright lies flowing from those 911 conspiracy websites that it is obvious they have no idea what they are talking about.

That sums it up quite nicely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That sums it up quite nicely.

I am waiting for 'Pilots for 911 Truth' to make corrections regarding false and misleading information on its website.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That sums it up quite nicely.

There is more truth and accuracy on one PAGE of most 911 websites than in the entire report issued by the Zelikow Commission.

But I do understand why many are afraid to study those pages. It's kinda like heresy, in the eyes of some. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is more truth and accuracy on one PAGE of most 911 websites than in the entire report issued by the Zelikow Commission.

"More truth and accuracy on one PAGE of most 911 websites?! How amusing!! For an example, ARINC, the ACARS experts, has trashed the claims of "Pilots for 911 Truth' regarding its comments on ACARS, and I am still waiting for 'Pilots for 911 Truth' to make corrections on other issues in regards false, misleading and inaccurate information relating to aviation matters.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The testimony from the dispatcher and his supervisor regarding the ACARS information explained it all quite nicely Sky, if you would bother to read it.

And a close examination of how the system works reveals alot, if you would bother to study that material.

93 was still flying in Illinois 30 minutes after it supposedly crashed at Shanksville. Wally Miller and his workers have told the story regarding FBI actions that corroborate that there was no Boeing at Shanksville.

But you're in denial about all that, and I understand. It's not pretty to see, but I understand why some humans deny facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The testimony from the dispatcher and his supervisor regarding the ACARS information explained it all quite nicely Sky, if you would bother to read it.

That doesn't cut it because I have already spoken with the ARINC, the ACARS experts by phone. What it is, you are not aware of how ACARS works, which is clearly evident in your message.

93 was still flying in Illinois 30 minutes after it supposedly crashed at Shanksville. Wally Miller and his workers have told the story regarding FBI actions that corroborate that there was no Boeing at Shanksville.

False!! Wally Miller confirmed the bodies were from United 93, so once again, you are caught issuing false stories. In addition, the ACARS experts from ARINC have trashed that claim as well. United 93 did not reply after it crashed. So once again, you are caught making up false stories again. :yes:

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I do understand why many are afraid to study those pages. It's kinda like heresy, in the eyes of some. :tu:

Like their claims that a turbine rotor, which was photographed at the Pentagon, came from an APU. How silly to make such a remark when the rotor of an APU is much smaller than the rotor you see in the photo. Goes to show that some 911 conspiracist have never seen a real APU rotor. Tell me, how are you going to fit this large engine rotor;

enginerotor.jpg

Into this small APU?

220_APU%20engine.png

Auxiliary-power-unit-APU-Airbus.jpg

The rotors are not even identical, which once again, shows why it is not prudent to depend upon those 911 CT websites as references..

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Babe Ruth hits yet another "foul ball" :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG, what foul ball did I hit now? :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG, what foul ball did I hit now? :w00t:

So many that I've lost count, however, when it comes to strikeouts, here's another when you swung and missed the ball of reality.

93 was still flying in Illinois 30 minutes after it supposedly crashed at Shanksville. Wally Miller and his workers have told the story regarding FBI actions that corroborate that there was no Boeing at Shanksville

Wally Miller was the person who has slammed 911 CT folks for misrepresenting his remarks.

Bodies From United 93 Recovered

http://www.liveleak....=7cb_1214953125

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, that is a fact. And it's corroborated because there was no Boeing at Shanksville and the FBI was hiding something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sky

Speaking of USAF crew chiefs, I worked with one for several years. He was full time, I was part time, at a company called Liberty Aerospace.

He had done a career on B-52. I think he did 20 years and retired, but he was a wrench turner and worked around in the commuter airline business. Vern was his name.

You won't believe what Vern saw on that Monday night Tuesday morning thing. He didn't realize it until he got home after work.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, that is a fact. And it's corroborated because there was no Boeing at Shanksville and the FBI was hiding something.

You are out of touch with reality and since it is known that you make up stories, what more is there to say?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sky

Speaking of USAF crew chiefs, I worked with one for several years. He was full time, I was part time, at a company called Liberty Aerospace. He had done a career on B-52. I think he did 20 years and retired, but he was a wrench turner and worked around in the commuter airline business. Vern was his name.

You won't believe what Vern saw on that Monday night Tuesday morning thing. He didn't realize it until he got home after work.

If Vern is knowledgeable on aviation issues, he will confirm what I have been stating as correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He didn't even mention you Sky, but on that morning sitting on his couch watching TV, he just knew that the anomaly he and his wrench-turning mates had an explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He didn't even mention you Sky, but on that morning sitting on his couch watching TV, he just knew that the anomaly he and his wrench-turning mates had an explanation.

I guess you missed this video.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=7cb_1214953125

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He didn't even mention you Sky, but on that morning sitting on his couch watching TV, he just knew that the anomaly he and his wrench-turning mates had an explanation.

It was obvious the aircraft was United 93 since 95% of the wreckage was recovered. I saw aircraft wreckage within the crater along with hi-lock fasteners in the photos and indentations on the ground from the vertical stabilizer and wings that extended from the central crater, which is consistent with eyewitness accounts that the aircraft was inverted when it struck the ground.

pacrash.jpg

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your lack of curiosity is fascinating Sky. :whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your lack of curiosity is fascinating Sky. :whistle:

Apparently, you deal in fantasy, not facts. Seems to me you failed to review that video.

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True, U.S. Immigration policy and officials are a joke. "Even to the untrained eye, it is easy to see why many of the visas should have been denied. Consider, for example, the U.S. destinations most of them listed. Only one of the 15 provided an actual address — and that was only because his first application was refused — and the rest listed only general locations — including "California," "New York," "Hotel D.C.," and "Hotel." One terrorist amazingly listed his U.S. destination as simply "No." Even more amazingly, he got a visa." http://old.nationalr...wbray100902.asp

You seem very ready, even eager, to declare the policy and officials (that’s a lot of people) a ‘joke’, which I take to mean ‘incompetent’. Where does the following background information fit into your thinking? Just something to be ignored?...

Michael Springmann, head US consular official in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, later claims that during this period he is “repeatedly ordered… to issue [more than 100] visas to unqualified applicants.” He turns them down, but is repeatedly overruled by superiors.

In one case, two Pakistanis apply for visas to attend a trade show in the US, but they are unable to name the trade show or city in which it will be held. When Springmann denies them a visa, he gets “an almost immediate call from a CIA case officer, hidden in the commercial section [of the consulate], that I should reverse myself and grant these guys a visa.” Springmann refuses, but the decision is reversed by the chief of the consular section. Springmann realizes that even the ambassador, Walter Cutler, is aware of the situation, which becomes “more brazen and blatant” as time goes on. On one occasion Springmann is even told, “If you want a job in the State Department in future, you will change your mind.”

Springmann loudly complains to numerous government offices, but no action is taken. He is fired and his files on these applicants are destroyed. He later learns that recruits from many countries fighting for bin Laden against Russia in Afghanistan were funneled through the Jeddah office to get visas to come to the US, where the recruits would travel to train for the Afghan war. According to Springmann, the Jeddah consulate was run by the CIA and staffed almost entirely by intelligence agents. This visa system may have continued at least through 9/11, and 11 of the 19 9/11 hijackers received their visas through Jeddah, possibly as part of this program.

11 of the hijackers, including the four referred to in your link, obtained their visas from this office. So as during Operation Cyclone, we have the same Jeddah office and the same ‘terrorist’ group, the same result of issuing unqualified visas, why not the same CIA responsible?

It’s a question to keep in mind as we move on, because there is a lot more that fits around it and might better support an answer, rather than drawing hasty conclusion now.

Source please.

This was in response to my statement: “Of more note is the concerted CIA effort to prevent the FBI blocking access to the country for the terrorists (future hijackers) or having them removed from their U.S. residence thereafter for a period of months up to 9/11, despite the known ‘Al Qaeda’ connection and threat posed.”

Where to begin?

I’m short on time. Would you like...

the source where the CIA tell an FBI officer that he must not report these terrorists to FBI HQ?

or the source where the CIA knew of the terrorist presence inside the U.S. and still prevented the FBI taking action?

or the source where former Bush advisor, Richard Clarke, states that the CIA shielded the hijackers?

It’s wider than that – the CIA also blocked Army intelligence who were onto a group of hijackers and there is also strong evidence of direct Saudi intelligence assistance to the hijackers – funding, accommodation and even flight training – whilst the CIA held the leash of those who would intervene.

For now, here are a couple of comments of FBI agent Steve Bongardt who had been investigating one of our 9/11 hijackers since the USS Cole bombing. These do not tell the full story by far but give a gist of the situation...

August 2001, comment to FBI HQ…

“If this guy [Almihdhar] is in the country, it’s not because he’s going to ****ing
Disneyland
!”

Upon subsequent denial of permission to pursue a criminal investigation…

“Whatever has happened to this—someday someone will die—and wall or not—the public will not understand why we were not more effective and throwing every resource we had at certain ‘problems’. Let’s hope the [Justice Department’s] National Security Law Unit will stand behind their decisions then, especially since the biggest threat to us now, UBL [Osama bin Laden], is getting the most ‘protection’.”

As you can see, the FBI were under no illusion of the threat level and were going ballistic about the situation. Yet it was not Al Qaeda that prevented the FBI taking action, it was a concerted effort of the CIA to block the FBI (directly and through the NSLU) and others, a situation which had deteriorated specifically since coming of the Bush administration, a situation without which 9/11 could not have occurred.

I’ll give you the best counter-argument I’ve heard. It’s actually mentioned by Richard Clarke who I referred above. The CIA had an operation surrounding these terrorists, to gain intelligence, and the protection provided was very real - they didn’t want any other agency to intervene. It does appear possible. The questions I have are, just how long do you house, assist and protect a known terrorist threat, connected to previous attacks, taking flying lessons, whilst the intelligence of an attack pours in, before you do something about it? Surely, with this apparently indefinite protection, there is only one eventual outcome? And let them board commercial aircraft?? Jesus, it’s putting the chance of gaining some intelligence above the risk of witnessing a 9/11. Now are the CIA really so incompetent that everyone could see it but them? Or, did someone in the system want a 9/11? Ha, we already know that they did - the motive is on record.

And as one FBI officer said, this is not a question of hindsight, but basic law enforcement procedure that was prevented.

Anyhow, I’d like to put all this and a lot more surrounding it into a complete and coherent argument, then see what you think. I’m sure it’ll be interesting.

Just a side-note...

So, it's much more believable that Rumsfeld went missing in order to carry out a heinous attack on American citizens (for some vague reason; money, power, oil) rather than posit that he temporarily lost his focus as a plane slammed into the building he was in?

Rumsfeld once wanted to terrify the U.S. public and congress to boost the U.S. military with propaganda that the Soviets were coming to get them. He sought to connect Saddam Hussein to 9/11 and lied about WMDs to start a war. He is a flat out Neocon, having his name on the PNAC statement of principles before even becoming Defense Secretary. He later commented that another attack was needed to reinvigorate failing public support for the war. I don’t find the idea that Rumsfeld made himself unavailable at the most vital time on 9/11 to further the attack and provide a pretext for war to be unbelievable at all. I don’t find your suggestion completely unbelievable either. It is a possibility to keep in mind and again, I think that perhaps the question is best answered at the end, with the full body of evidence in hand, rather than piecemeal jumping to the conclusions we would like to believe.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 of the hijackers, including the four referred to in your link, obtained their visas from this office. So as during Operation Cyclone, we have the same Jeddah office and the same ‘terrorist’ group, the same result of issuing unqualified visas, why not the same CIA responsible?

I don't think that you undestood what has been presented over time. The same terrorist had planned to attack the CIA at its headquarters, which was revealed by the Philippine government. The CIA was not buddies with al-Qaeda. What happened in Sudan in regards to Osama bin Laden?

This was in response to my statement: “Of more note is the concerted CIA effort to prevent the FBI blocking access to the country for the terrorists (future hijackers) or having them removed from their U.S. residence thereafter for a period of months up to 9/11, despite the known ‘Al Qaeda’ connection and threat posed.”

Once again, you ignored the fact that terrorist planned to attack the CIA and the fact the FBI and the CIA admitted to their intelligence failures before 911. It was also significant that warnings issued from countries around the world inidicated that Muslim terroris, not the CIA, were to blame for the 911 attacks.

The Agonizing History of the CIA's Intelligence Failures

In a lecture addressed to an audience of nearly 200 in Dodd Hall on March 2nd, Tim Weiner, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter for the New York Times and author of "Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA (Anchor Books), discussed his deeply researched book, which won the 2007 National Book Award for nonfiction. The event was organized by the Burkle Center for International Relations.

C.I.A. Lays Out Errors It Made Before Sept. 11

WASHINGTON, Aug. 21 — A report released Tuesday by the Central Intelligence Agency includes new details of the agency’s missteps before the Sept. 11 attacks, outlining what the report says were failures to grasp the role being played by the terror mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and to assess fully the threats streaming into the C.I.A. in the summer of 2001.

http://www.nytimes.c...?pagewanted=all

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m short on time. Would you like...the source where the CIA tell an FBI officer that he must not report these terrorists to FBI HQ?

or the source where the CIA knew of the terrorist presence inside the U.S. and still prevented the FBI taking action?

or the source where former Bush advisor, Richard Clarke, states that the CIA shielded the hijackers?

It’s wider than that – the CIA also blocked Army intelligence who were onto a group of hijackers and there is also strong evidence of direct Saudi intelligence assistance to the hijackers – funding, accommodation and even flight training – whilst the CIA held the leash of those who would intervene.

You create unfounded conspiracy theories because you continue to misinterpret facts and evidence. Check it out.

Pre-9/11 Missteps By FBI Detailed

The inability to detect the Sept. 11, 2001, hijacking plot amounts to a "significant failure" by the FBI and was caused in large part by "widespread and longstanding deficiencies" in the way the agency handled terrorism and intelligence cases, according to a report released yesterday.

In one particularly notable finding, the report by Justice Department Inspector General Glenn A. Fine concluded that the FBI missed at least five chances to detect the presence of two of the suicide hijackers -- Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar -- after they first entered the United States in early 2000.

"While we do not know what would have happened had the FBI learned sooner or pursued its investigation more aggressively, the FBI lost several important opportunities to find Hazmi and Mihdhar before the September 11 attacks," the report said.

Although many of the missteps surrounding Alhazmi and Almihdhar have become well known, Fine's report adds significant new details about the FBI's role in fumbling the case. Previous reports, including the best-selling tome by the independent Sept. 11 commission, focused more heavily on the CIA's failure to track the men after a pivotal terrorist summit meeting in Malaysia.

http://www.washingto...5060902000.html

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CIA boss admits intelligence failures over 9/11 attacks

THE HEAD of the CIA yesterday admitted that his agents had flatly failed to penetrate the September 11 plot and said it would be at least five years before America developed the sort of intelligence capabilities to take on terrorists such as al-Qa'ida.

George Tenet, whose agency was roundly criticised by the commission investigating the attacks, said that he and his colleagues had failed those people who died in the strikes in New York and Washington. "We all understood bin Laden's attempt to strike the homeland. We never translated this knowledge into an effective defence of the country," Mr Tenet testified before the commission. "No matter how hard we worked, or how desperately we tried, it was not enough. The victims and the families of 9/11 deserved better."

The failures, outlined in a statement issued by the commission and admitted to by Mr Tenet, were not failures of effort or of intention. Rather a picture emerged of an intelligence community still grounded in the challenges of the Cold War and ill-prepared and ill-equipped to deal with the threat presented by stateless terrorists using unconventional means of attack

http://www.independe...cks-176015.html

CIA criticises ex-chief over 9/11

A CIA inquiry has accused the agency's ex-chief George Tenet and his aides of failing to prepare for al-Qaeda threats before the 9/11 attacks on the US. "The agency and its officers did not discharge their responsibilities in a satisfactory manner," the CIA inspector general wrote in a scathing report.

The document was completed in June 2005 and kept classified until now. Its release was ordered by Congress.

http://news.bbc.co.u...cas/6957839.stm

The 911 intelligence failures of the FBI and of the CIA are clearly evident, and it is very clear that you are ineffective in understanding the significance of their intelligence failures regarding 911..

Edited by skyeagle409

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Would you like...

the source where the CIA tell an FBI officer that he must not report these terrorists to FBI HQ?

or the source where the CIA knew of the terrorist presence inside the U.S. and still prevented the FBI taking action?

or the source where former Bush advisor, Richard Clarke, states that the CIA shielded the hijackers?

There's nothing that shows a conspiracy. All it shows is the usual government incompetence. And speculation, lots of speculation.

"Clarke speculates—and readily admits he cannot prove—that the CIA withheld the information because the agency had been trying to recruit the terrorists, while they were living in Southern California under their own names, to work as CIA agents inside Al Qaeda"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's nothing that shows a conspiracy. All it shows is the usual government incompetence. And speculation, lots of speculation.

"Clarke speculates—and readily admits he cannot prove—that the CIA withheld the information because the agency had been trying to recruit the terrorists, while they were living in Southern California under their own names, to work as CIA agents inside Al Qaeda"

They are not going to write down on some government memorandum: "This is a conspiracy". No Hen, it does not work that way. :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are not going to write down on some government memorandum: "This is a conspiracy". No Hen, it does not work that way. :no:

Actually, there never was a conspiracy to begin with, which explains why after more than 11 years, not one shred of evidence has surfaced implicating the US government in the 911 attacks. :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 6

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.