United 93 - Accident Investigation

Why is Qutch asking you to comment on this thread again? Why doesn't he just comment himself? The thread isn't picking up on its own, so he wants to force it without making it look like he's the one dredging it up again? Pretty transparent.
 
Why do people have such a hard time believing that 9/11 wasn't that hard of a job to pull off? All it needed were people crazy enough to do it.
 
hambone said:
Qutch has asked me to comment on this thread again, and since I haven't thought of anything else intelligent to say, I will say this: Qutch absolutely busts his ass to get his opposition to see his point of view, and in a friendly manner as well.
Click to expand...

Thanks. You're the OP. Welcome back. But I'd like to rephrase that slightly if you don't mind. It's not so much "my" point of view, since I don't know for sure what happened on 911 or to United 93. I only know that people died, we surrendered a lot of our civil liberties, and we're still at war because of it. It's more a matter of presenting the alternative points-of-view of scientists and Gov't Officials who are in a better position to know. Right now, we're in the uncomfortable position of needing to face the fact that the 911 Commissioners, who created the Official Story, are now saying that their report was based largely on lies/untruths told to them by Gov't Officials. They now say they were deprived of the time and money they needed to investigate, and that the American people are being "manipulated." Commissioner Max Cleland called their investigation a "scam."

My central point-of-view on this is that it's a subject we should allow to be discussed without ridiculing those who are inclined to question the findings of the 911 Commission. It's not a "conspiracy theory" when the 911 Commissioners are openly questioning their own investigation's integrity and encouraging Americans to ask questions.
.
 
GX said:
Do you have a source for this misquote, or is it merely hyperbole on your part?
Click to expand...

All you have to do is watch the Youtube videos that Qutch himself posts. For people who actually watch them and listen to what the people say, it's blatantly obvious that Qutch's conclusions are completely off base. Either he's deliberately distorting what they're saying (as many conspiracy theorists do), or he's delusional and actually believes what he's saying. Either way, the words of the commissioners do not back up his analysis.
 
GX said:
Do you have a source for this misquote, or is it merely hyperbole on your part?

He's posted the quotes, whether you choose to accept them is your deal, but the quotes are what they are.
Click to expand...
The word is "quotation", quote is a verb. And posting a "quotation" doesn't necessarily mean the message was conveyed properly. Reference Obama's "you didn't build that". I'm all for discussion, buts let's make sure we're aware of how things can be taken out of context. I would like ATN to show how Qutch is distorting what the "quotations" show though.
 
Qutch said:
........ They now say they were deprived of the time and money they needed to investigate, and that the American people are being "manipulated." Commissioner Max Cleland called their investigation a "scam.".....
.
Click to expand...

"Not enough money, not enough time. Set up to fail."



"A Scam...disgusting" . Senator/Commissioner Cleland quit the Commission after learning that the White House refused to show most of their own Commissioners the evidence.
 
Golly, there it is. Right from the mouth of a Gov't official.

Did we miss this one too? Take it out of context? Misquote it?
 
darrenf said:
The word is "quotation", quote is a verb. And posting a "quotation" doesn't necessarily mean the message was conveyed properly. Reference Obama's "you didn't build that". I'm all for discussion, buts let's make sure we're aware of how things can be taken out of context. I would like ATN to show how Qutch is distorting what the "quotations" show though.
Click to expand...

Darren, I don't mind if you, ATN and Loft want to politely highlight alternative interpretations of "scam", "disgusting", "set up to fail", "not enough money and time." That's part of a good discussion. Maybe you felt they meant all good things in these statements. All I'm trying to do is present evidence of what the Commissioners and other Gov't insiders are now saying. JC members can make up their own minds regarding what these men and women are trying to convey to us.

But why do you have to present what I do as "Qutch is distorting" ? Why make it personal? Just present your point of view, your evidence, and let JC viewers decide. You don't have to keep reminding JC members of my malevolent intent in order to make your point, do you?
.
 
Notice what Qutch does: he posts clips of interviews. He gets those clips from conspiracy theorist channels on Youtube. He doesn't post the whole interviews. He only posts the parts that can be taken out of context to support his delusional world view. Those who want to know what Lee Hamilton really said should look for the entire interview. I've watched it before, but I couldn't find it with a quick search on Youtube just now. Maybe someone else knows a good link for it. It's enlightening to see just how much Qutch tries to twist the words of these people.
 
darrenf said:
The word is "quotation", quote is a verb. And posting a "quotation" doesn't necessarily mean the message was conveyed properly. Reference Obama's "you didn't build that". I'm all for discussion, buts let's make sure we're aware of how things can be taken out of context. I would like ATN to show how Qutch is distorting what the "quotations" show though.
Click to expand...

You didn't write that.....

:)
 
On topic, the big question I have regarding 9/11 isn't as much the sequence of events or how they necessarily occurred; but to begin with, why the events were able to occur and why we suffered such a gross intelligence failure, the likes of which haven't been seen since probably Pearl Harbor. For the amount of intelligence capability we possess as a country and for the amount of gathering organizations we have (CIA, DIA, FBI, NRO, state/local, for example); be they military, law enforcement, etc; I have a hard time believing that it was any sort of incompetence or any sort of "we just plain missed that". The puzzle pieces were there, albeit scattered. On one hand and to be perfectly fair, intelligence gathering and analysis is a tough science and isn't perfect by any means. But at the same time, we employ alot of smart people whose sole job is to analyze data gathered in the field by whatever sources, and essentially spend their time "putting puzzles together". Looking back at a number of indicators that were seen, some of them pretty high profile, I want to know why those were minimized or written off? Of course, if anyone had told me on 9/10, exactly what was going to happen the next day; I'd have thought they were off their rocker. However I at that time, didn't have the various pieces of intelligence that had been gathered yet seemingly put on the backburner by some senior people as something less-than-important and/or to be left for later to deal with.

Those are the questions I have, to begin with. Because that intel failure of ours is key to the weaknesses that the hijackers supposedly exploited.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Notice what Qutch does: he posts clips of interviews. He gets those clips from conspiracy theorist channels on Youtube. He doesn't post the whole interviews. He only posts the parts that can be taken out of context to support his delusional world view. Those who want to know what Lee Hamilton really said should look for the entire interview. I've watched it before, but I couldn't find it with a quick search on Youtube just now. Maybe someone else knows a good link for it. It's enlightening to see just how much Qutch tries to twist the words of these people.
Click to expand...

Sorta like how you like to clip pieces of quotes from other people, to make your point? Sort of like that?

Would you like some examples? ;)

Sorta hypocritical. Just sayin, bruh.
 
MikeD said:
On topic, the big question I have regarding 9/11 isn't as much the sequence of events or how they necessarily occurred; but to begin with, why the events were able to occur and why we suffered such a gross intelligence failure, the likes of which haven't been seen since probably Pearl Harbor. For the amount of intelligence capability we possess as a country and for the amount of gathering organizations we have (CIA, DIA, FBI, NRO, state/local, for example); be they military, law enforcement, etc; I have a hard time believing that it was any sort of incompetence or any sort of "we just plain missed that". The puzzle pieces were there, albeit scattered. On one hand and to be perfectly fair, intelligence gathering and analysis is a tough science and isn't perfect by any means. But at the same time, we employ alot of smart people whose sole job is to analyze data gathered in the field by whatever sources, and essentially spend their time "putting puzzles together". Looking back at a number of indicators that were seen, some of them pretty high profile, I want to know why those were minimized or written off? Of course, if anyone had told me on 9/10, exactly what was going to happen the next day; I'd have thought they were off their rocker. However I at that time, didn't have the various pieces of intelligence that had been gathered yet seemingly put on the backburner by some senior people as something less-than-important and/or to be left for later to deal with.

Those are the questions I have, to begin with. Because that intel failure of ours is key to the weaknesses that the hijackers supposedly exploited.
Click to expand...

So Mike, what possibility do you find more believable than it being "any sort of incompetence or any sort of "we just plain missed that" ?
 
darrenf said:
So Mike, what possibility do you find more believable than it being "any sort of incompetence or any sort of "we just plain missed that" ?
Click to expand...

I don't know. Having had a fair amount of exposure to various levels of the intelligence processes, from gathering to analysis to dissemination, I just find it hard to believe an intelligence failure of such a grand scale. So many different levels, sectors and pieces of various models of swiss cheese amongst all the different intel agencies would've had to fail at the same time, or build off one another, or be mis-analyzed; to have all allowed the situation to occur. The chances of that are pretty darn low, statistically speaking, based on the high competency level of our intelligence gathering agencies as a whole. One agency here or there dropping the ball? Sure. Happens all the time. But all of them, with the various amounts of information that was gathered and shared, to all fail as one big collective? The probability of that is not very high at all.

So what did happen in this case? That's what I'd like to know. Because not much is being revealed, in this realm. Granted, not much can, as it would likely reveal sources and methods, but thats where there needs to be a start.
 
Here is my one and only question for those interested...after 9/11, the government (no, I'm not going to look up youtube videos or anything like that, but it was said) came out and said they had no idea people would try to commit suicide using a modern jetliner. Now, when did FedEx 705 happen, in the 90's right? How did the government not know people would try this if it was already tried (also, I believe there was a book that talked about this same situation).

Carry on your discussion, but since this thread was reopened, I figured I would throw that out there...time for bed over here.
 
Stone Cold said:
Here is my one and only question for those interested...after 9/11, the government (no, I'm not going to look up youtube videos or anything like that, but it was said) came out and said they had no idea people would try to commit suicide using a modern jetliner. Now, when did FedEx 705 happen, in the 90's right? How did the government not know people would try this if it was already tried (also, I believe there was a book that talked about this same situation).
Click to expand...

As National Security Advisor to the President of the United States on 911, Condaleeza Rice repeatedly made the post 911 statement (available on YouTube ;) ) that "no one could have" predicted or foreseen that planes would be flown into buildings. That turned out to be false. In fact, even though she was officed in the White House, she was unaware that pilot Frank Corder had flown his plane into the White House itself a few years earlier? (It made the news) There were other known plots, as well as war gaming scenarios, that she had to know about. Terrific National Security Advisor.

corder.jpg
 
Didn't the killers from Columbine have journal entry's alluding to hijacking a plane and flying it into a city?
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Notice what Qutch does: he posts clips of interviews. He gets those clips from conspiracy theorist channels on Youtube. He doesn't post the whole interviews. He only posts the parts that can be taken out of context to support his delusional world view. Those who want to know what Lee Hamilton really said should look for the entire interview. I've watched it before, but I couldn't find it with a quick search on Youtube just now. Maybe someone else knows a good link for it. It's enlightening to see just how much Qutch tries to twist the words of these people.
Click to expand...

Let me know when YOU find it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top