Gonzo
Well-Known Member
You think? At best people and organizations within the Gov messed up . And you are surprised there is a cover up.
United 93 - Accident Investigation
- Thread starter hambone
- Start date
You think? At best people and organizations within the Gov messed up . And you are surprised there is a cover up.
PugetSoundMan
Well-Known Member
Now there you go again. You guys are too busy firing off rebuttal posts to do research or review the previous posts written by those who have done the research. That issue has been covered repeatedly on previous posts.
9/11 INSIDE JOB: Commissioner Lee Hamilton Interview - YouTube At least listen to the first couple of minutes this time. 'Study reported 935 false statements by public officials intended to move us towards war.' Commission Chair Hamilton uses diplomatic language, but its clear what he is saying. The "false statements" were intended to move us towards war. Not all of the 935 false statements were accidents or unintentional. Hamilton: "They just flat out told us what was not the truth in order to move us towards war in Iraq. ----I think public opinion was manipulated."
If you read the report Commissioner Hamilton is commending here, listing the 935 false statements, I think you'll get the idea.
Even the main stream media, in what little reporting they did, interpreted the Commission reaction as lies.
"-------a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate. Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said."
9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon Washington Post
The 9/11 Commission Rejects own Report as Based on Government Lies - Salem-News.Com "Government Lies"
It's pretty clear that the witnesses did a little more than 'mess up', although I suspect that they're hoping they can keep as many of us as possible believing that for as long as possible.
There are other posts in this lengthy thread that address the subject, but I'm not going to spend all night finding them for you guys. If you want to spend the night claiming that the Commission didn't think they were being lied to, go right ahead.
pullup
Homewrecker
Build-A-Bear? Baller!
Let me see if I've caught up with you guys. I'm a skimmer, so I may have missed some things.
1. Your you-tube evidence is that the Commission was lied to.
2. The apparent reason for the deception was to promote the cause of going to war.
I can believe that those are certainly in the realm of possibility.
My question is, assuming that I go along with those points above, what additional conclusions are you guys trying to get me to believe about 9/11? Specifics, please.
1. Your you-tube evidence is that the Commission was lied to.
2. The apparent reason for the deception was to promote the cause of going to war.
I can believe that those are certainly in the realm of possibility.
My question is, assuming that I go along with those points above, what additional conclusions are you guys trying to get me to believe about 9/11? Specifics, please.
Jet
Well-Known Member
Just that our country deserves a new independant and thorough investigation with no evidence left out. I'd also like people to believe that starting the 911 investigation a year late and with only a 15 million dollar budget is disrespectful to everybody effected by 911.
Qutch
Question everything
"What 99% of people already know" Gonzo? How much research have you done? I have read the NIST Report. . I can tell by your post that you have not actually read the entire Report. .
First of all, the NIST Report doesn't have too much to do with Flight 93. . It doesn't have too much to do with aviation. . And its only a small part of the 911 picture - the collapse of the WTC buildings. . So now that you realize that the validity of the 911 Commission Report you previously hung your hat on is dissolving with the erosion of Commissioner support, I can understand why you're trying to scrape up a new authoritative source for your position. . But the NIST Report? You guys want to hang your hats, everything, on NIST?
I wouldn't do that if I were you. . You'll just paint yourself, ATN_Pilot, and your entire group into another corner I think. . You should listen to MikeD.
We'll O.K. Gonzo. . If you insist. . You've taken another firm stance and bet the farm (without doing any actual research). . We can politely discuss NIST if you want to (briefly, so as not to take the thread too far off aviation). . Then after we're done, I was hoping that you'd permit those posters who do dig through the available data to discuss (without constant interruptions) present day Northwoods type operations being run against civilian aviation. . I receive constant requests to start posting the information, but I'd like to see the JC researchers encouraged to rejoin the conversation. . But first, let's get NIST out of the way . . I don't think 99% of the people know the information that I'm about to post. . It's the type of material you have to "dig" for to find. .
Qutch
Question everything
I occassionally write for engineering and legal sites explaining the engineering/legal aspects of the investigation, but I've been hoping that pilots on an aviation web site would not want to waste too much time on this subject, taking the conversation far away from aviation. . Although there a number of pilots like inigo88 who have formal engineering training as well, ordinarily an engineering debate among pilots is about as productive as engineers posting answers to aviation questions. . Not very. . I'm not going to enter a debate on the specific engineering issues. . inigo88 can explain the issues to JC Members if they want to debate the causes of the WTC collapse. . However, now that the integrity of the 911 Commission Report has collapsed, and its JC defenders are seeking emergency shelter under the NIST Report, I want to clear something up about NIST that isn't known by 99% of the people. .
Breaking News:
NIST Officials are also beginning to distance themselves from the "Official Story," and the story contained in the NIST Report. . Fearful of the hysterical reaction displayed by many whenever the "Official Story" is challenged, many engineers still protecting their career paths are hesitant to speak out.. However, a growing number are beginning to speak, including former NIST Officials. . In fact, the grumbling among disgruntled NIST employees who were blocked from conducting a complete investigation of the WTC collapse does factor into the withdrawal of support from the 911 Commission Members. . 911 Commissioners Hamilton and Kean can see the handwriting on the wall and they are looking ahead. . Eventually these NIST guys are going to retire, overcome their fear of ridicule, and start talking, exposing once again that "things aren't always as they seem".
The NIST investigators are of course joined by the growing number of signers to Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth, who along with inigo88, can explain this is more detail. . However, I would hope that our serial posters will not try to divert the thread further away from aviation by pretending to be engineering experts as well. . I'll present here one example of the many NIST officials now beginning to grumble about the pressure NIST was under to go along with the "Official Story" and cook the report. . The "Story" that was quickly declared by the White House before the rubble had a chance to cool, before the NIST investigators could head for the crime scene. .
Quote: Former Chief of the NIST Fire Science and Engineering Division - James Quintiere, Ph.D.
"I hope to convince you to perhaps become a 'Conspiracy Theorist', but in a proper way."
Summary: James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of NIST's Fire Science and Engineering Division, called for an independent review of the World Trade Center Twin Tower collapse investigation. "I wish that there would be a peer review of this," he said, referring to the NIST investigation. "I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived ... I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable……..I hope to convince you to perhaps become 'Conspiracy Theorists', but in a proper way," he said………….instead of lawyers as if they were acting on a civil case trying to get depositions and information subpoenaed, those (government) lawyers did the opposite and blocked everything……...In my opinion, the WTC investigation by NIST falls short of expectations ……...by not fully invoking all of their authority to seek facts in the investigation, and by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding…….Spoliation of a fire scene is a basis for destroying a legal case in an investigation. Most of the steel was discarded, although the key elements of the core steel were demographically labeled. A careful reading of the NIST report shows that they have no evidence that the temperatures they predict as necessary for failure are corroborated by findings of the little steel debris they have. Why hasn't NIST declared that this spoliation of the steel was a gross error?"
Repeat: "…..by the guidance of government lawyers to deter rather than develop fact finding…"
http://patriotsquestion911.com/Article%20Quintiere%20Calls%20for%20Independent%20Review%20of%20911.pdf (pdf version)
http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_alan_mil_070820_former_chief_of_nist.htm
http://www.enfp.umd.edu/documents/QuintiereNATOFinal.pdf A White Paper Report by James Quintiere, University of Maryland - Questions on the WTC Investigation
Note: For the many JC posters who do conduct research prior to posting, you will find a lot of information on James Quintiere and the growing number of public officials, and former public officials backing away from supporting the NIST WTC Fire and Engineering Report that a few JC posters may "hang their hats on". . The NIST Report on the collapse of the World Trade Center appears to be collapsing itself. . I don't know what happened on 911. . But as Jet says, we need a new Commission, and new study, and a new report on 911. .
*********************************************************
Legal Extra -
Spoliation of Evidence (a legal term used by NIST Chief, James Quintiere)
When JFK was killed, the Federal authorities illegally removed the body from Texas, preventing the legally mandated forensic medical examination and murder investigation by local officials. . When documents were declassified, it was discovered that the federally conducted autopsy was manipulated, and that the photos and x-rays of JFK's skull had been altered and removed. . Crimes were committed but no one was ever prosecuted. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/jfk/jfk1110.htm In the case of the WTC, the scene was not investigated as a crime scene in accordance with New York law. . Officials were in a big hurry to begin transporting the steel away from the crime scene, with NIST, ATF, and other investigators being denied their usual unfettered access to the debris and crime scene. . This resulted is "spoliation:" of the evidence, which was a crime. . It also prevented NIST from doing an adequate and legally defensible investigation. .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoliation_of_evidence In law, spoliation of evidence is the intentional or negligent withholding, hiding, altering, or destroying of evidence relevant to a legal proceeding or criminal investigation. . Spoliation consequences: in jurisdictions where the (intentional) act is criminal by statute, it may result in fines and incarceration for the parties who engaged in the spoliation. .
staledog
Well-Known Member
Gonzo,
A few posts prior to this one you stated that no one was going to die in Operation Northwoods. It seems your point is that since nobody was to be killed in Operation Northwoods, it's a totally different situation and doesn't apply as a precedent to anything that could happen (or possibly has happened) in today's world.
I just want to point out that killing people was in fact an option with Operation Northwoods. Not with all parts of it, it's true that the proposed airplane full of people to be shot down was going to be staged with a drone.
But on page 8 of the document, it lists "lob mortar shells from outside of base (Guantanamo) into base. Some damage to installations."
further down the same page, 3.(a) "We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo bay and blame Cuba." -after that, 3.(b) talks about the other possibility of using a drone ship.
With either of the above examples, people could certainly die.
But lastly, at the top of page 9 of the Northwoods document, it lists "The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real or simulated)."
So the possibility was certainly there to kill real people. Not American citizens in the last example, but civilians nonetheless.
A few posts prior to this one you stated that no one was going to die in Operation Northwoods. It seems your point is that since nobody was to be killed in Operation Northwoods, it's a totally different situation and doesn't apply as a precedent to anything that could happen (or possibly has happened) in today's world.
I just want to point out that killing people was in fact an option with Operation Northwoods. Not with all parts of it, it's true that the proposed airplane full of people to be shot down was going to be staged with a drone.
But on page 8 of the document, it lists "lob mortar shells from outside of base (Guantanamo) into base. Some damage to installations."
further down the same page, 3.(a) "We could blow up a US ship in Guantanamo bay and blame Cuba." -after that, 3.(b) talks about the other possibility of using a drone ship.
With either of the above examples, people could certainly die.
But lastly, at the top of page 9 of the Northwoods document, it lists "The terror campaign could be pointed at Cuban refugees seeking haven in the United States. We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real or simulated)."
So the possibility was certainly there to kill real people. Not American citizens in the last example, but civilians nonetheless.
At the end of the day, here are my own conclusions in lieu of spending millions on a new investigation
- We got caught with our pants down. Not totally because there were a lot of clues that people in-the-know failed to put together AND those that did twiddled their thumbs.
- The "safety" of being oceans and thousands of miles away from our foreign policy decisions is as protective as the fabled "magical winds" that protected Japan. Every time we shrug and scream "glass parking lot for those dogs!!" -- well, that dog can just as easily come maul your Pekingese in your fenced back yard and poop on your front lawn in broad daylight.
- No one is going to talk. Those that screwed up don't want the scrutiny and there are too many fables and urban legends revolving around the event that, well, when the legend is more sellable than the actual event, we choose to go with the legend. It's just the way American history works.
Ehh, I digress.
- We got caught with our pants down. Not totally because there were a lot of clues that people in-the-know failed to put together AND those that did twiddled their thumbs.
- The "safety" of being oceans and thousands of miles away from our foreign policy decisions is as protective as the fabled "magical winds" that protected Japan. Every time we shrug and scream "glass parking lot for those dogs!!" -- well, that dog can just as easily come maul your Pekingese in your fenced back yard and poop on your front lawn in broad daylight.
- No one is going to talk. Those that screwed up don't want the scrutiny and there are too many fables and urban legends revolving around the event that, well, when the legend is more sellable than the actual event, we choose to go with the legend. It's just the way American history works.
Ehh, I digress.
Qutch
Question everything
Correct. . Northwoods also proposed detonating bombs in US cities as part of a military run terror campaign designed as a "pretext" for war against the communists. . Northwoods called for using live ammo and bombs against U.S. civilians, with simulated attacks being an "option" in a few cases. . "Simulated attacks" is not the default position, nor does anything limit these attacks to simulations. . To the contrary. .
I'll give these posters the benefit of the doubt, in that they are not intentionally posting misleading information. . Its unfortunate that some posters don't do their research before they post, since some thread readers may assume these statements have been researched. .
Below I've re-posted some Northwoods documents for those who would like to check the accuracy of the statements being made about Northwoods.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/doc1.pdf
U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba - ABC News
Gonzo
Well-Known Member
Qutch i am glad you mention Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth. Two things about Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth
1) They could let an independent lab test their ground-zero dust. If it turns out to be what they claim then I think most people would get behind a new investigation.
2) Do you know how many of the Architects and Engineers for 911 have ever worked on tall buildings?
It looks like yourself, Jet and a few others think it was a controlled demolition.
I think you should watch both: "Blueprint for Truth" by Richard Gage it is 2 hours and "Blueprint for Truth Rebuttal (Not Debunked)" about 4 hours by Chris Mohr both are on you tube.
Get back to me after you have watched both.
1) They could let an independent lab test their ground-zero dust. If it turns out to be what they claim then I think most people would get behind a new investigation.
2) Do you know how many of the Architects and Engineers for 911 have ever worked on tall buildings?
It looks like yourself, Jet and a few others think it was a controlled demolition.
I think you should watch both: "Blueprint for Truth" by Richard Gage it is 2 hours and "Blueprint for Truth Rebuttal (Not Debunked)" about 4 hours by Chris Mohr both are on you tube.
Get back to me after you have watched both.
Qutch
Question everything
No Gonzo. . I made it clear above that I wasn't going to get dragged into an engineering discussion. . This is an aviation forum. . I answered your last post to demonstrate a larger point. . The private emails I receive indicate that readers are interested in the aviation aspects, as well as how the Official Story is being manipulated. .Many want to know if documentation exists as evidence of current Northwoods type operations against civil aviation aircraft. .
You said above that you wanted to "hang your hat" on the NIST report. . In fact, you bet the ranch on it. . I humored your request and addressed it in order to demonstrate the need for more complete and wiser research. . Now that the NIST report has fallen apart as your support, you want me to follow you to the new place that you are hanging your hat? I don't think so.
Dr. Quintiere has a reputation for checking his facts before he speaks, supporting his positions, and sticking to them. . I have limited time in my day to perform research. . I pick my guidance councilors wisely. . If I have to choose between staying with Dr. Quintiere, and following you to your next hat tree, regretfully, I'm going to have to stay with former NIST Chief Dr. Quintiere. .
Gonzo
Well-Known Member
What aviation aspects?
You say this is what you what to talk about but yet you haven't posted anything about it yet.
No, I still hang my hat on the NIST. The two videos I ask people to watch are easy to watch video of why the NIST report is right and wrong.
That was not part of the NIST report team. So he might be very wise but he doesn't have all the facts.
inigo88
Composite-lover
I'm honored Qutch thought I made some eloquent posts previously in this thread, but I don't deserve any recognition as any kind of authority on engineering (my formal education is accumulating... Painstakingly slowly... But there are qualified professional engineering types posting in this thread who know far more than myself). I joined JC to BS about airplanes and make friends (and for the record I'd be down for a man-date with Chasen if he offered lol). It's becoming painfully obvious that arguing with potential friends/networking contacts over controversial issues is not the most productive thing to do 
(although I stand by the questions I asked because certain facts don't sit well with me, especially with regard to WTC 7). I would be happy to see Doug's hard earned taxpayer money put towards a new investigation (sorry, just giving you a hard time man :beer.
Gonzo, I honestly haven't read the NIST report. I've heard it characterized as spending thousands of pages describing conditions leading up to the collapse of the buildings, and then falling short of describing the mechanisms behind how the collapse actually initiated. That sounded like kind of a let down, especially since most of us don't have the time to read a document of that magnitude in its entirety (if I'm thinking of the right report). If you've read it, would you say that is an accurate description? If not, could you point me in the right direction to finding the relevant sections?
(although I stand by the questions I asked because certain facts don't sit well with me, especially with regard to WTC 7). I would be happy to see Doug's hard earned taxpayer money put towards a new investigation (sorry, just giving you a hard time man :beer.Gonzo, I honestly haven't read the NIST report. I've heard it characterized as spending thousands of pages describing conditions leading up to the collapse of the buildings, and then falling short of describing the mechanisms behind how the collapse actually initiated. That sounded like kind of a let down, especially since most of us don't have the time to read a document of that magnitude in its entirety (if I'm thinking of the right report). If you've read it, would you say that is an accurate description? If not, could you point me in the right direction to finding the relevant sections?
SeanD
Well-Known Member
Wiki - Thermite is commonly used by welders for heavy beams.
Its probably residue from the repairs of the first Trade Center bombing.
