United 93 - Accident Investigation

Qutch said:
.Gee, didn't someone tell the Wright Brothers that?. I'm sure glad they didn't listen. . I really like to fly.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? The questions can't be answered because 1)There are to many unknowns from that day and the days leading up to 9/11. Answering would just be a SWAG, 2)A lot of the info is classified. (So we don't know if the questions can be answered), and 3) A lot of the "open questions" have no answers and no answer is not good enough for some people.
 
Gonzo said:
What are you talking about? The questions can't be answered because 1)There are to many unknowns from that day and the days leading up to 9/11. Answering would just be a SWAG, 2)A lot of the info is classified. (So we don't know if the questions can be answered), and 3) A lot of the "open questions" have no answers and no answer is not good enough for some people.
Click to expand...

Water-boarding...
 
MikeD said:
There's a fair amount of reasonable doubt that the second Tonkin Gulf attack which led to the Tonkin Gulf Resolution by Congress, ever even occurred.
Click to expand...

Pretty amazing stuff. I had heard that the Pentagon Papers had cast doubt on the incident way back in 1971, but didn't realize such definitive information had quietly made its way into the public domain more recently.

AFP: Report reveals Vietnam War hoaxes, faked attacks

AFP Article said:
(AFP) – Jan 7, 2008
.....

But he said that probably the "most historically significant feature" of the declassified report was the retelling of the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident.


That was a reported North Vietnamese attack on American destroyers that helped lead to president Lyndon Johnson's sharp escalation of American forces in Vietnam.


The author of the report "demonstrates that not only is it not true, as (then US) secretary of defense Robert McNamara told Congress, that the evidence of an attack was 'unimpeachable,' but that to the contrary, a review of the classified signals intelligence proves that 'no attack happened that night,'" FAS said in a statement.


"What this study demonstrated is that the available intelligence shows that there was no attack. It's a dramatic reversal of the historical record," Aftergood said.


"There were previous indications of this but this is the first time we have seen the complete study," he said.
Click to expand...
 
inigo88 said:
Pretty amazing stuff. I had heard that the Pentagon Papers had cast doubt on the incident way back in 1971, but didn't realize such definitive information had quietly made its way into the public domain more recently.
Click to expand...

Agree. As I wrote before, things aren't always as they seem. You look at things like this, and you have to dig for them, as they're not really advertised. We started a whole war based on this one false premise. It's known the first Tonkin Gulf attack occurred, but this second one which started the war ramp-up, never did.

Part of the reason I don't really trust our government further than I can throw it on a number of issues, even though I work for it. And am skeptical at anything Im told or instructed to buy at face value. Kind of like the then mandatory anthrax vaccines that were fully researched and found to be completely safe.......supposedly.
 
MikeD said:
Part of the reason I don't really trust our government further than I can throw it on a number of issues, even though I work for it. And am skeptical at anything Im told or instructed to buy at face value. Kind of like the then mandatory anthrax vaccines that were fully researched and found to be completely safe.......supposedly.
Click to expand...
Swore I wasn't going to post in this thread, but really the gub'mint is often no more than some jackass who gets to make some decision, usually to cya. Sometimes there are good folks who make the sensible decision, but usually it seems the jackasses flock there.
 
inigo88 said:
Todd, I've followed a lot of your threads over the years. You seem like a very nice guy and I respect you, so the following is not meant as a personal attack. I would however like to point out that in the above quote you're using the Ad Hominem logical fallacy
Click to expand...

Point taken.

Qutch said:
O.K. Good. Its politics. . Maybe so. . I suppose there could be a conspiracy among some persons, for political reasons, to falsely discredit the Report, if that is what you are suggesting. . It's happened in the past, so sure, its possible.

1) However, One Commission Chairman is Republican. . One Chairman is a Democrat. . Both are retracting their support for the study (see the 2nd video I provided). . Both, joined by other Commissioners say that Administration Officials and Military officers lied to them during the hearings. . And now they are not sure what really happened. . They are joined by Commission Legal Counsel John Farmer who backs them all up. . Do you have any evidence that this is merely political? Can you tell us what party is at fault? . You see, with Commissioners from both parties withdrawing support for their findings, which party, and what politics do we point to in support of your theory? The 9/11 Commission Rejects own Report as Based on Government Lies - Salem-News.Com

2) Lets just pretend that we all agree here that the turmoil among the Commissioners is merely political, nothing more (your theory). . If so, when did this hand picked bi-partisan group of Commissioners get so political that we suddenly can't trust them? . They wrote the report that posters here are trying to defend. . At what point did the Commissioners start letting politics govern their opinions and actions. . Did it begin when they were writing the Report that posters are defending, or did they spin out of control after report completion? Which part of what these suddenly "highly partisan politcal operatives" have told us can we trust? Which part should we reject? . You say they cannot be trusted? O.K. That's possible. . But were they being untruthful then or now? It does not seem to me like we can defend the integrity of their judgement with regards to their initial Report, and then suddenly declare them to be political hacks when they update their findings.

You see Gonzo, I'm not alleging that there was an inside job. . I'm not alleging anything .. I don't know what happened. . And I'll concede, just for the sake of argument here, that these Commissioners make statements based upon political considerations, not facts. . O.K.? But if I accept your theory, doesn't that take me right back to Square 1? Who can I trust, and what really happened on 911?

I don't think many Americans like the idea of accepting any story other than the "Official Story" since it largely exonerates the American people and their government officials of intentional wrongdoing. . I certainly wanted to accept the story. . My question though is - how do I defend a Report that's own authors say they were wrong, and we should now question everything? How do I defend a Report that's authors (using your theory if I understand it correctly), were reliable when they wrote the Report, but cannot be trusted now?
Click to expand...

You focus far too much on the 9/11 Commission's report. I'm not even talking about the report, or saying that you should use it as the basis for your beliefs in what happened on 9/11. What I am saying is that the absolute mountain of evidence points to one clear truth: radical Islamic fundamentalist terrorists hijacked four airliners. Two of them were crashed into the North and South Towers of the World Trade Center, eventually leading to their collapse. A third was crashed into the Pentagon. The fourth was crashed into a field in Pennsylvania after the passengers and crew tried to regain control. It wasn't an "inside job," it wasn't a controlled demolition, there were no "holograms," no missiles were fired, yadda, yadda, yadda. I don't care what you think of the 9/11 Commission or the report that they produced. Setting aside the Commission as if it never existed, the clear facts in this case point to the above conclusions.

MikeD said:
Agree. As I wrote before, things aren't always as they seem. You look at things like this, and you have to dig for them, as they're not really advertised. We started a whole war based on this one false premise. It's known the first Tonkin Gulf attack occurred, but this second one which started the war ramp-up, never did.

Part of the reason I don't really trust our government further than I can throw it on a number of issues, even though I work for it. And am skeptical at anything Im told or instructed to buy at face value. Kind of like the then mandatory anthrax vaccines that were fully researched and found to be completely safe.......supposedly.
Click to expand...

I agree, Mike, but there is a rather large difference between politicians manipulating events to their benefit, and politicians deliberately staging events that kill thousands of Americans, or even sitting idly by with advance knowledge and letting them happen. It's quite clear that politicians will use events and distort facts to get their way. That's how we ended up in Iraq, after all. But claiming anything beyond that is where it goes too far. I think President Bush is probably one of the worst presidents that this country has ever had, and thousands of people are dead because of his stupid decisions and political maneuvering. But to think that he engaged in any sort of conspiracy to deliberately kill innocent Americans is over the top BS.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Point taken.

I agree, Mike, but there is a rather large difference between politicians manipulating events to their benefit, and politicians deliberately staging events that kill thousands of Americans, or even sitting idly by with advance knowledge and letting them happen. It's quite clear that politicians will use events and distort facts to get their way. That's how we ended up in Iraq, after all. But claiming anything beyond that is where it goes too far. I think President Bush is probably one of the worst presidents that this country has ever had, and thousands of people are dead because of his stupid decisions and political maneuvering. But to think that he engaged in any sort of conspiracy to deliberately kill innocent Americans is over the top BS.
Click to expand...

I have to say there's a fault in your argument there. Let's agree that facts were manipulated and lies were told in order to start the war in Iraq, whether for political or economical purposes (read votes, weapon manufacturers' profits, oil exploitation, etc.). How is getting the country in a war which kills thousands of US citizens and hundreds of thousands of other humans any different than staging/allowing to happen an incident where some other thousands die? I happen to think that the willingness to start a war has worse consequences. The Bush administration presented so called 'evidence' to the Congress to get the war started. Thus, I don't see them above staging/letting happen 9/11, which was the trigger for their war ambitions.

I'm not saying there were holograms, controlled demolitions, that Bush was involved or anything like that. Rather that most politicians are dumb puppets whose strings are pulled by some very few and important people, who may have had an interest to let 9/11 happen. There's a saying I heard a long time ago: if you want to hide the truth, just create a fact finding commission.
 
The difference is that I think President Bush and people like him actually believed that the war in Iraq was the right thing to do to protect the country from further terrorism. I think they're dead wrong, but I don't believe any of the crazy theories about it being a "war for oil," or a way to make his buddies rich, or any other such nonsense. Quite simply, he thought the war was the right thing to do to protect the country, so he exaggerated claims and sent advisors to Congress that did the same. That is a whole lot different that intentionally killing people just because you want to conjure up a war from thin air. The war was a response to a real threat. I and many other people believe it was a very wrong response to a real threat, but that's a reasonable disagreement between people of different ideologies. Claiming that the President and thousands of other government workers engaged in a conspiracy to kill 3,000 innocent Americans is on a completely different level, and is no longer a reasonable disagreement. It's just lunacy.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
I agree, Mike, but there is a rather large difference between politicians manipulating events to their benefit, and politicians deliberately staging events that kill thousands of Americans, or even sitting idly by with advance knowledge and letting them happen. It's quite clear that politicians will use events and distort facts to get their way. That's how we ended up in Iraq, after all. But claiming anything beyond that is where it goes too far. I think President Bush is probably one of the worst presidents that this country has ever had, and thousands of people are dead because of his stupid decisions and political maneuvering. But to think that he engaged in any sort of conspiracy to deliberately kill innocent Americans is over the top BS.
Click to expand...

Agree, which is why my questions are geared more towards the monumental intelligence failures we had and how something like this was SO successful for the hijackers. While I believe their operation was indeed brilliantly planned and executed, I can't believe that on our end, we dropped the ball so bad, essentially "shoring up" the parts of the hijackers planning that may have been in doubt or dicey. Thats where my questions lie, in addition to the lax attitudes towards the immigration status of the guys we knew were here and who were reported to the FBI by the flight schools in AZ.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
The difference is that I think President Bush and people like him actually believed that the war in Iraq was the right thing to do to protect the country from further terrorism. I think they're dead wrong, but I don't believe any of the crazy theories about it being a "war for oil," or a way to make his buddies rich, or any other such nonsense. Quite simply, he thought the war was the right thing to do to protect the country, so he exaggerated claims and sent advisors to Congress that did the same. That is a whole lot different that intentionally killing people just because you want to conjure up a war from thin air. The war was a response to a real threat. I and many other people believe it was a very wrong response to a real threat, but that's a reasonable disagreement between people of different ideologies. Claiming that the President and thousands of other government workers engaged in a conspiracy to kill 3,000 innocent Americans is on a completely different level, and is no longer a reasonable disagreement. It's just lunacy.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
I think they're dead wrong, but I don't believe any of the crazy theories about it being a "war for oil," or a way to make his buddies rich, or any other such nonsense.
Click to expand...

I didn't know that the Iraq oil war was a "crazy theory." Government officials talk about that all the time and this is covered by our mainstream media.
 
Jet said:
I didn't know that the Iraq oil war was a "crazy theory." Government officials talk about that all the time and this is covered by our mainstream media.
Click to expand...

So now we are to believe government officials and mainstream media?
 
Jet said:
I didn't know that the Iraq oil war was a "crazy theory." Government officials talk about that all the time and this is covered by our mainstream media.
Click to expand...

Yes, the idea that the President of the United States and all of the other government officials that testified and lobbied on his behalf at the United Nations and in Congress were starting a war just to get access to oil is a crazy theory.
 
MikeD said:
-----As I wrote before, things aren't always as they seem. You look at things like this, and you have to dig for them, as they're not really advertised.-----
Click to expand...


ATN_Pilot said:
"------It wasn't an "inside job," it wasn't a controlled demolition, there were no "holograms," no missiles were fired, yadda, yadda, yadda. I don't care what you think of the 9/11 Commission or the report that they produced.------"
Click to expand...


ATN_Pilot, I don't think the posters here are claiming that holograms were used. Maybe someone, somewhere, is claiming that. That's not the thrust of this thread. Beyond that, they're just saying, and the Commissioners are saying, they don't yet know what happened because the answers they got from government witnesses were lies. Here, posters with historical expertise are just recalling that the U.S. government has planned deadly "false flag" operations in the past against Americans such as Operation Northwoods, or performed deadly experiments on them like MKULTRA. Posters here with significant military or military related research experience like MikeD, Qutch and inigo88 are just suggesting that it may be possible to determine what happened if we "dig", because the correct information quietly makes it into the public domain, without getting much mass media exposure. Posters who do "dig" here have linked us to interviews with the 911 Commissioners who've exhaustively studied all of the issues surrounding 911 and they believe we are being lied to and "manipulated". I think they've proven their points with the information they've posted here so far, and many of us are anxious to hear more from those like them (people with relevant military experience and those who do careful research).


ATN_Pilot said:
------Setting aside the Commission as if it never existed, the clear facts in this case point to the above conclusions.-------But to think that he (Bush) engaged in any sort of conspiracy to deliberately kill innocent Americans is over the top BS.
Click to expand...


Again, I don't think they're alleging that Bush conspired to kill 3000 Americans on 911. Maybe someone, somewhere, is claiming that. But that's not the thrust of this thread.


ATN_Pilot said:
------You focus far too much on the 9/11 Commission's report.------I'm not even talking about the report, or saying that you should use it as the basis for your beliefs in what happened on 9/11. What I saying is that the absolute mountain of evidence points to one clear truth: radical Islamic fundamentalist terrorists-----I don't care what you think of the 9/11 Commission or the report that they produced. Setting aside the Commission as if it never existed, the clear facts in this case point to the above conclusions.
Click to expand...


I'm not sure how we can just 'set aside the Commission Report as if it never existed.' The government and mass media hung their hats on that report, and still quote it to support government actions in curbing civil liberties and launching military actions. That report is the foundation of the government's "mountain of evidence" you site. The fact that the Commissioners now say that their Report is the result of a mountain of lies may be inconvenient, but we can't just toss it out because it has now become an inconvenience to our positions.


ATN_Pilot said:
Are you guys still arguing with the kids? Why are you wasting your time? In a few years they'll realize how crazy they sounded. Just give it time. Arguing with them will do no good. -------Sept 12th, post 372
Click to expand...

ATN_Pilot, you clearly had made up your mind before ever seeing any of the new research that has been posted here. Why are you "wasting your time" here? I can't understand why some of you keep reappearing to misstate and oppose thoughtful posters for taking positions that they didn't actually take (holograms), and trash the same Commission that handed you your "mountain of evidence". I think that the massive number of people following this thread appreciate those who take the time to research their positions.


ATN_Pilot said:
I don't have time to research the posting history of every conspiracy nut. -------- Sept 12th, post 374
Click to expand...

Some of us are researching posting histories, and you've revealed your position as well as your research policy. I hope you'll reconsider that policy. This is an amazing thread. The history lesson is awesome. Let's not spoil it.
 
PugetSoundMan said:
ATN_Pilot, I don't think the posters here are claiming that holograms were used. Maybe someone, somewhere, is claiming that. That's not the thrust of this thread. Beyond that, they're just saying, and the Commissioners are saying, they don't yet know what happened because the answers they got from government witnesses were lies. Can you post where a commissioner said witnesses lied to them? Here, posters with historical expertise are just recalling that the U.S. government has planned deadly Nobody was going to die in Northwoods "false flag" operations in the past against Americans such as Operation Northwoods, or performed deadly experiments on them like MKULTRA. Posters here with significant military or military related research experience like MikeD, Qutch and inigo88 are just suggesting that it may be possible to determine what happened if we "dig", because the correct information quietly makes it into the public domain, without getting much mass media exposure. Posters who do "dig" here have linked us to interviews with the 911 Commissioners who've exhaustively studied all of the issues surrounding 911 and they believe we are being lied to and "manipulated". I think they've proven their points with the information they've posted here so far, and many of us are anxious to hear more from those like them (people with relevant military experience and those who do careful research).
Click to expand...

So you tell us now what do you think is missing the the NIST report and 9/11 report?



PugetSoundMan said:
I'm not sure how we can just 'set aside the Commission Report as if it never existed.' The government and mass media hung their hats on that report, and still quote it to support government actions in curbing civil liberties and launching military actions. That report is the foundation of the government's "mountain of evidence" you site. The fact that the Commissioners now say that their Report is the result of a mountain of lies may be inconvenient, but we can't just toss it out because it has now become an inconvenience to our positions.
Click to expand...

I think you should read the NIST report. That is what I hang my hat on.
 
So, in summary, we have 9/11 commissioners and govt officials claiming that this report was railroaded from the beginning. The largest mass casualty in this country, the largest terrorist attack, the first time we were attacked by a foreign enemy on our soil in 60 years and this is what comes out of it? Sorry, there has to be more to it.


No one is claiming holograms (really??), missiles (really again??), or remote airplanes were used. What we are arguing about is there is some layer of coverup that has happened. I still don't see why one guy, one team, one rogue citizen couldn't be responsible. Anyone explain why that couldn't happen? No "thousands of people over two administrations" but one, maybe a few, people
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top