100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: The Big Lie | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I think you missed my point about Norman Mineta's testimony under oath before the 911 commission, under oath got it? something Bush and Cheneye both refused to do. Anyhow turning off a transponder does not make them invisible to radar (FYI) ever hear of NORAD? that is who is suposed to be called when a plane goes off track and you cannot make contact. These and many other iregularaties realy make me quistion many of the events of 911 and its aftermath. As it should for most thinking people. Um, ok, and??? He was under oath talking about an order the president gave to shoot down commercial airliners. So... How does that show conspiracy??? Oh, I get it, if it were Bush or Cheney they would have admitted they ordered the attacks on the Twin Towers and that is why they refused to go under oath... I KNOW it doesn't make a plane invisible. Duh... Our radar system within the US isn't designed to locate a plane that does not have a transponder on it. Doesn't mean that can't look for it, but it was a confused day and there are a lot of small aircraft that fly without one. So, they were confused. The normal systems were not in place for a hijacking. Normally, hijackers want them to know where they are and where they are headed so their demands can be met when they get there. There were planes scrambled and the air traffic controllers were asking for updates from other airlines if they saw them. And this was the first time there were multiple planes hijacked at the same time. There was confusion just because of that. I remember a conversation - not sure who or where but it was something like this - Person 1) We aren't sure where they are now. Person 2) They are down now. Person 1) Where did they land. Person 2) They didn't, they crashed it. Then there were others where they were talking about flight 77 and 93 and getting them confused. I have no idea what you are saying here. Because they couldn't find them and fly escort in the 30 - 40 minutes they were in the air after being hijacked that it was somehow suspicious and a deliberate oversight? We don't normally have military aircraft airborne in case someone decides to hijack a plane. That means that a pilot had to rush into his flight suit climb in his jet and take off from wherever he is stationed in the country and intercept a plane that they aren't exactly sure where they are within 40 minutes? Wow. Apparently you have never been in the military. I am personally impressed they got planes in the air while the last airliner was still flying and almost within range to intercept the plane that crashed into the Pentagon. I forgot, Our aircraft don't sit around fully armed waiting for an emergency for the most part. So, even if we had aircraft up at the time of the hijacking, unless they were on a live fire exercise, there is a very good chance they couldn't do anything anyway... If you remember, there were a few reporters that were astounded later when our military was flying CAP over New York and D.C. We just don't do that in our country. Or at least we didn't. I think we have a revolving CAP now or did for awhile at least... |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bestinshow
on
Mon 04/18/11 10:55 AM
|
|
I think you missed my point about Norman Mineta's testimony under oath before the 911 commission, under oath got it? something Bush and Cheneye both refused to do. Anyhow turning off a transponder does not make them invisible to radar (FYI) ever hear of NORAD? that is who is suposed to be called when a plane goes off track and you cannot make contact. These and many other iregularaties realy make me quistion many of the events of 911 and its aftermath. As it should for most thinking people. Um, ok, and??? He was under oath talking about an order the president gave to shoot down commercial airliners. So... How does that show conspiracy??? Oh, I get it, if it were Bush or Cheney they would have admitted they ordered the attacks on the Twin Towers and that is why they refused to go under oath... I KNOW it doesn't make a plane invisible. Duh... Our radar system within the US isn't designed to locate a plane that does not have a transponder on it. Doesn't mean that can't look for it, but it was a confused day and there are a lot of small aircraft that fly without one. So, they were confused. The normal systems were not in place for a hijacking. Normally, hijackers want them to know where they are and where they are headed so their demands can be met when they get there. There were planes scrambled and the air traffic controllers were asking for updates from other airlines if they saw them. And this was the first time there were multiple planes hijacked at the same time. There was confusion just because of that. I remember a conversation - not sure who or where but it was something like this - Person 1) We aren't sure where they are now. Person 2) They are down now. Person 1) Where did they land. Person 2) They didn't, they crashed it. Then there were others where they were talking about flight 77 and 93 and getting them confused. I have no idea what you are saying here. Because they couldn't find them and fly escort in the 30 - 40 minutes they were in the air after being hijacked that it was somehow suspicious and a deliberate oversight? We don't normally have military aircraft airborne in case someone decides to hijack a plane. That means that a pilot had to rush into his flight suit climb in his jet and take off from wherever he is stationed in the country and intercept a plane that they aren't exactly sure where they are within 40 minutes? Wow. Apparently you have never been in the military. I am personally impressed they got planes in the air while the last airliner was still flying and almost within range to intercept the plane that crashed into the Pentagon. I forgot, Our aircraft don't sit around fully armed waiting for an emergency for the most part. So, even if we had aircraft up at the time of the hijacking, unless they were on a live fire exercise, there is a very good chance they couldn't do anything anyway... If you remember, there were a few reporters that were astounded later when our military was flying CAP over New York and D.C. We just don't do that in our country. Or at least we didn't. I think we have a revolving CAP now or did for awhile at least... Seriously, do you know that the washington air space is the most highly defended air space in the world? Edwards air base is about ten miles from washington and the air national guard there describes itself as being maintained in the highest possible state of combat readiness. I wonder if you have been in the Military because all I remember is training and training and simulateing possible situations. My thinking is that nothing could hit the pentagon unless someone in power wanted it too and Noman Minetas testimony indicates that someone did want it to hit. The defense that is made by the government, is basically stupidity and incompetence. That's what they say. "We were confused; we didn't know." This spectacle of Bush... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think you missed my point about Norman Mineta's testimony under oath before the 911 commission, under oath got it? something Bush and Cheneye both refused to do. Anyhow turning off a transponder does not make them invisible to radar (FYI) ever hear of NORAD? that is who is suposed to be called when a plane goes off track and you cannot make contact. These and many other iregularaties realy make me quistion many of the events of 911 and its aftermath. As it should for most thinking people. Um, ok, and??? He was under oath talking about an order the president gave to shoot down commercial airliners. So... How does that show conspiracy??? Oh, I get it, if it were Bush or Cheney they would have admitted they ordered the attacks on the Twin Towers and that is why they refused to go under oath... I KNOW it doesn't make a plane invisible. Duh... Our radar system within the US isn't designed to locate a plane that does not have a transponder on it. Doesn't mean that can't look for it, but it was a confused day and there are a lot of small aircraft that fly without one. So, they were confused. The normal systems were not in place for a hijacking. Normally, hijackers want them to know where they are and where they are headed so their demands can be met when they get there. There were planes scrambled and the air traffic controllers were asking for updates from other airlines if they saw them. And this was the first time there were multiple planes hijacked at the same time. There was confusion just because of that. I remember a conversation - not sure who or where but it was something like this - Person 1) We aren't sure where they are now. Person 2) They are down now. Person 1) Where did they land. Person 2) They didn't, they crashed it. Then there were others where they were talking about flight 77 and 93 and getting them confused. I have no idea what you are saying here. Because they couldn't find them and fly escort in the 30 - 40 minutes they were in the air after being hijacked that it was somehow suspicious and a deliberate oversight? We don't normally have military aircraft airborne in case someone decides to hijack a plane. That means that a pilot had to rush into his flight suit climb in his jet and take off from wherever he is stationed in the country and intercept a plane that they aren't exactly sure where they are within 40 minutes? Wow. Apparently you have never been in the military. I am personally impressed they got planes in the air while the last airliner was still flying and almost within range to intercept the plane that crashed into the Pentagon. I forgot, Our aircraft don't sit around fully armed waiting for an emergency for the most part. So, even if we had aircraft up at the time of the hijacking, unless they were on a live fire exercise, there is a very good chance they couldn't do anything anyway... If you remember, there were a few reporters that were astounded later when our military was flying CAP over New York and D.C. We just don't do that in our country. Or at least we didn't. I think we have a revolving CAP now or did for awhile at least... Seriously, do you know that the washington air space is the most highly defended air space in the world? Edwards air base is about ten miles from washington and the air national guard there describes itself as being maintained in the highest possible state of combat readiness. I wonder if you have been in the Military because all I remember is training and training and simulateing possible situations. My thinking is that nothing could hit the pentagon unless someone in power wanted it too and Noman Minetas testimony indicates that someone did want it to hit. First of all, the military was a lot more than "training" for me. Apparently you never went on a real world mission. Nothing there happens quickly. "Highest State of Readiness." Do you have any idea what those words mean in the military? That means they can put the vast majority of their weaponry into battle without having to repair it first. Mechanical failures occur all the time. State of readiness means the percentage of equipment that is operational. "Highest State" means they are in the highest percentage bracket the military has. Doesn't mean someone is sitting at the hanger ready to be launched down the runway on a moments notice. They had no reason to be on alert that morning. It wasn't until after a plane was hijacked that they would even consider an alert. Then first the FAA has to determine it was in fact hijacked then they have to call and then whoever they call have to call ... It's not like the air traffic controller is going to call the pilot at Edwards and tell him to take off right now. Probably takes 10 minute at least before anyone even talks to a pilot about getting into an airplane to intercept... Then if that pilot is at home (yes, Pilots have lives to) ready alert in peacetime situations doesn't necessarily mean they are at the airport. I am flat stunned by your last paragraph. You are saying again that his testimony was that someone intended to have the Pentagon hit??? Wow! Here. Let me type it out for you again. The opening statement before his testimony that you claim proves our Vice President was ordering the Pentagon to be hit. "I want to talk about the order given, I think by the President, that authorized the shooting down of commercial aircraft that were suspected to be controlled by terrorist." So, in his testimony when he said, "Does that order still stand?" It clearly is in reference to the order the President gave. How does his testimony indicate in any way that someone wanted it to be hit? Did you not watch the video you attached earlier? Did you not see my post where I already said this??? It isn't even that long a video. Like under 4 minutes. Thinking the Pentagon is the center of our nation's military therefore it could not be attacked is what you would expect to see in a movie. That is not reality. Our military strategy has been and mostly still is, to defend from attacks from outside our country against hostile forces. We didn't even know these were hostile forces until they already crashed one plane. Then there was debate and confusion about whether or not it was an accident. Another delay. No one is super human. Try to allow for people to be human on a terrible day. What you are demanding should have happened would have been a super human effort on everyone's part that was involved. And because they were not able to reach your 125% demands of excellence you are claiming there must be a cover up. The type of response you are insisting should have happened is from movies. yes, in a movie, everything would have happened just right. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think you missed my point about Norman Mineta's testimony under oath before the 911 commission, under oath got it? something Bush and Cheneye both refused to do. Anyhow turning off a transponder does not make them invisible to radar (FYI) ever hear of NORAD? that is who is suposed to be called when a plane goes off track and you cannot make contact. These and many other iregularaties realy make me quistion many of the events of 911 and its aftermath. As it should for most thinking people. Um, ok, and??? He was under oath talking about an order the president gave to shoot down commercial airliners. So... How does that show conspiracy??? Oh, I get it, if it were Bush or Cheney they would have admitted they ordered the attacks on the Twin Towers and that is why they refused to go under oath... I KNOW it doesn't make a plane invisible. Duh... Our radar system within the US isn't designed to locate a plane that does not have a transponder on it. Doesn't mean that can't look for it, but it was a confused day and there are a lot of small aircraft that fly without one. So, they were confused. The normal systems were not in place for a hijacking. Normally, hijackers want them to know where they are and where they are headed so their demands can be met when they get there. There were planes scrambled and the air traffic controllers were asking for updates from other airlines if they saw them. And this was the first time there were multiple planes hijacked at the same time. There was confusion just because of that. I remember a conversation - not sure who or where but it was something like this - Person 1) We aren't sure where they are now. Person 2) They are down now. Person 1) Where did they land. Person 2) They didn't, they crashed it. Then there were others where they were talking about flight 77 and 93 and getting them confused. I have no idea what you are saying here. Because they couldn't find them and fly escort in the 30 - 40 minutes they were in the air after being hijacked that it was somehow suspicious and a deliberate oversight? We don't normally have military aircraft airborne in case someone decides to hijack a plane. That means that a pilot had to rush into his flight suit climb in his jet and take off from wherever he is stationed in the country and intercept a plane that they aren't exactly sure where they are within 40 minutes? Wow. Apparently you have never been in the military. I am personally impressed they got planes in the air while the last airliner was still flying and almost within range to intercept the plane that crashed into the Pentagon. I forgot, Our aircraft don't sit around fully armed waiting for an emergency for the most part. So, even if we had aircraft up at the time of the hijacking, unless they were on a live fire exercise, there is a very good chance they couldn't do anything anyway... If you remember, there were a few reporters that were astounded later when our military was flying CAP over New York and D.C. We just don't do that in our country. Or at least we didn't. I think we have a revolving CAP now or did for awhile at least... Seriously, do you know that the washington air space is the most highly defended air space in the world? Edwards air base is about ten miles from washington and the air national guard there describes itself as being maintained in the highest possible state of combat readiness. I wonder if you have been in the Military because all I remember is training and training and simulateing possible situations. My thinking is that nothing could hit the pentagon unless someone in power wanted it too and Noman Minetas testimony indicates that someone did want it to hit. First of all, the military was a lot more than "training" for me. Apparently you never went on a real world mission. Nothing there happens quickly. "Highest State of Readiness." Do you have any idea what those words mean in the military? That means they can put the vast majority of their weaponry into battle without having to repair it first. Mechanical failures occur all the time. State of readiness means the percentage of equipment that is operational. "Highest State" means they are in the highest percentage bracket the military has. Doesn't mean someone is sitting at the hanger ready to be launched down the runway on a moments notice. They had no reason to be on alert that morning. It wasn't until after a plane was hijacked that they would even consider an alert. Then first the FAA has to determine it was in fact hijacked then they have to call and then whoever they call have to call ... It's not like the air traffic controller is going to call the pilot at Edwards and tell him to take off right now. Probably takes 10 minute at least before anyone even talks to a pilot about getting into an airplane to intercept... Then if that pilot is at home (yes, Pilots have lives to) ready alert in peacetime situations doesn't necessarily mean they are at the airport. I am flat stunned by your last paragraph. You are saying again that his testimony was that someone intended to have the Pentagon hit??? Wow! Here. Let me type it out for you again. The opening statement before his testimony that you claim proves our Vice President was ordering the Pentagon to be hit. "I want to talk about the order given, I think by the President, that authorized the shooting down of commercial aircraft that were suspected to be controlled by terrorist." So, in his testimony when he said, "Does that order still stand?" It clearly is in reference to the order the President gave. How does his testimony indicate in any way that someone wanted it to be hit? Did you not watch the video you attached earlier? Did you not see my post where I already said this??? It isn't even that long a video. Like under 4 minutes. Thinking the Pentagon is the center of our nation's military therefore it could not be attacked is what you would expect to see in a movie. That is not reality. Our military strategy has been and mostly still is, to defend from attacks from outside our country against hostile forces. We didn't even know these were hostile forces until they already crashed one plane. Then there was debate and confusion about whether or not it was an accident. Another delay. No one is super human. Try to allow for people to be human on a terrible day. What you are demanding should have happened would have been a super human effort on everyone's part that was involved. And because they were not able to reach your 125% demands of excellence you are claiming there must be a cover up. The type of response you are insisting should have happened is from movies. yes, in a movie, everything would have happened just right. Oh yes the lack of imagination award goes to Condi Rice. BEN-VENISTE: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6 PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB? RICE: I believe the title was, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States." http://flyingsnail.com/Dahbud/condis911lies.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think you missed my point about Norman Mineta's testimony under oath before the 911 commission, under oath got it? something Bush and Cheneye both refused to do. Anyhow turning off a transponder does not make them invisible to radar (FYI) ever hear of NORAD? that is who is suposed to be called when a plane goes off track and you cannot make contact. These and many other iregularaties realy make me quistion many of the events of 911 and its aftermath. As it should for most thinking people. Um, ok, and??? He was under oath talking about an order the president gave to shoot down commercial airliners. So... How does that show conspiracy??? Oh, I get it, if it were Bush or Cheney they would have admitted they ordered the attacks on the Twin Towers and that is why they refused to go under oath... I KNOW it doesn't make a plane invisible. Duh... Our radar system within the US isn't designed to locate a plane that does not have a transponder on it. Doesn't mean that can't look for it, but it was a confused day and there are a lot of small aircraft that fly without one. So, they were confused. The normal systems were not in place for a hijacking. Normally, hijackers want them to know where they are and where they are headed so their demands can be met when they get there. There were planes scrambled and the air traffic controllers were asking for updates from other airlines if they saw them. And this was the first time there were multiple planes hijacked at the same time. There was confusion just because of that. I remember a conversation - not sure who or where but it was something like this - Person 1) We aren't sure where they are now. Person 2) They are down now. Person 1) Where did they land. Person 2) They didn't, they crashed it. Then there were others where they were talking about flight 77 and 93 and getting them confused. I have no idea what you are saying here. Because they couldn't find them and fly escort in the 30 - 40 minutes they were in the air after being hijacked that it was somehow suspicious and a deliberate oversight? We don't normally have military aircraft airborne in case someone decides to hijack a plane. That means that a pilot had to rush into his flight suit climb in his jet and take off from wherever he is stationed in the country and intercept a plane that they aren't exactly sure where they are within 40 minutes? Wow. Apparently you have never been in the military. I am personally impressed they got planes in the air while the last airliner was still flying and almost within range to intercept the plane that crashed into the Pentagon. I forgot, Our aircraft don't sit around fully armed waiting for an emergency for the most part. So, even if we had aircraft up at the time of the hijacking, unless they were on a live fire exercise, there is a very good chance they couldn't do anything anyway... If you remember, there were a few reporters that were astounded later when our military was flying CAP over New York and D.C. We just don't do that in our country. Or at least we didn't. I think we have a revolving CAP now or did for awhile at least... Seriously, do you know that the washington air space is the most highly defended air space in the world? Edwards air base is about ten miles from washington and the air national guard there describes itself as being maintained in the highest possible state of combat readiness. I wonder if you have been in the Military because all I remember is training and training and simulateing possible situations. My thinking is that nothing could hit the pentagon unless someone in power wanted it too and Noman Minetas testimony indicates that someone did want it to hit. First of all, the military was a lot more than "training" for me. Apparently you never went on a real world mission. Nothing there happens quickly. "Highest State of Readiness." Do you have any idea what those words mean in the military? That means they can put the vast majority of their weaponry into battle without having to repair it first. Mechanical failures occur all the time. State of readiness means the percentage of equipment that is operational. "Highest State" means they are in the highest percentage bracket the military has. Doesn't mean someone is sitting at the hanger ready to be launched down the runway on a moments notice. They had no reason to be on alert that morning. It wasn't until after a plane was hijacked that they would even consider an alert. Then first the FAA has to determine it was in fact hijacked then they have to call and then whoever they call have to call ... It's not like the air traffic controller is going to call the pilot at Edwards and tell him to take off right now. Probably takes 10 minute at least before anyone even talks to a pilot about getting into an airplane to intercept... Then if that pilot is at home (yes, Pilots have lives to) ready alert in peacetime situations doesn't necessarily mean they are at the airport. I am flat stunned by your last paragraph. You are saying again that his testimony was that someone intended to have the Pentagon hit??? Wow! Here. Let me type it out for you again. The opening statement before his testimony that you claim proves our Vice President was ordering the Pentagon to be hit. "I want to talk about the order given, I think by the President, that authorized the shooting down of commercial aircraft that were suspected to be controlled by terrorist." So, in his testimony when he said, "Does that order still stand?" It clearly is in reference to the order the President gave. How does his testimony indicate in any way that someone wanted it to be hit? Did you not watch the video you attached earlier? Did you not see my post where I already said this??? It isn't even that long a video. Like under 4 minutes. Thinking the Pentagon is the center of our nation's military therefore it could not be attacked is what you would expect to see in a movie. That is not reality. Our military strategy has been and mostly still is, to defend from attacks from outside our country against hostile forces. We didn't even know these were hostile forces until they already crashed one plane. Then there was debate and confusion about whether or not it was an accident. Another delay. No one is super human. Try to allow for people to be human on a terrible day. What you are demanding should have happened would have been a super human effort on everyone's part that was involved. And because they were not able to reach your 125% demands of excellence you are claiming there must be a cover up. The type of response you are insisting should have happened is from movies. yes, in a movie, everything would have happened just right. Oh yes the lack of imagination award goes to Condi Rice. BEN-VENISTE: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6 PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB? RICE: I believe the title was, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States." http://flyingsnail.com/Dahbud/condis911lies.html Ok, did it say they were going to a attack Tuesday morning September 11th, 2001? Or was it more, be on the lookout, he plans to attack us ... sometime in the future. Not even going to address your Incompetent and stupid statements. You will believe that to be true regardless. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think you missed my point about Norman Mineta's testimony under oath before the 911 commission, under oath got it? something Bush and Cheneye both refused to do. Anyhow turning off a transponder does not make them invisible to radar (FYI) ever hear of NORAD? that is who is suposed to be called when a plane goes off track and you cannot make contact. These and many other iregularaties realy make me quistion many of the events of 911 and its aftermath. As it should for most thinking people. Um, ok, and??? He was under oath talking about an order the president gave to shoot down commercial airliners. So... How does that show conspiracy??? Oh, I get it, if it were Bush or Cheney they would have admitted they ordered the attacks on the Twin Towers and that is why they refused to go under oath... I KNOW it doesn't make a plane invisible. Duh... Our radar system within the US isn't designed to locate a plane that does not have a transponder on it. Doesn't mean that can't look for it, but it was a confused day and there are a lot of small aircraft that fly without one. So, they were confused. The normal systems were not in place for a hijacking. Normally, hijackers want them to know where they are and where they are headed so their demands can be met when they get there. There were planes scrambled and the air traffic controllers were asking for updates from other airlines if they saw them. And this was the first time there were multiple planes hijacked at the same time. There was confusion just because of that. I remember a conversation - not sure who or where but it was something like this - Person 1) We aren't sure where they are now. Person 2) They are down now. Person 1) Where did they land. Person 2) They didn't, they crashed it. Then there were others where they were talking about flight 77 and 93 and getting them confused. I have no idea what you are saying here. Because they couldn't find them and fly escort in the 30 - 40 minutes they were in the air after being hijacked that it was somehow suspicious and a deliberate oversight? We don't normally have military aircraft airborne in case someone decides to hijack a plane. That means that a pilot had to rush into his flight suit climb in his jet and take off from wherever he is stationed in the country and intercept a plane that they aren't exactly sure where they are within 40 minutes? Wow. Apparently you have never been in the military. I am personally impressed they got planes in the air while the last airliner was still flying and almost within range to intercept the plane that crashed into the Pentagon. I forgot, Our aircraft don't sit around fully armed waiting for an emergency for the most part. So, even if we had aircraft up at the time of the hijacking, unless they were on a live fire exercise, there is a very good chance they couldn't do anything anyway... If you remember, there were a few reporters that were astounded later when our military was flying CAP over New York and D.C. We just don't do that in our country. Or at least we didn't. I think we have a revolving CAP now or did for awhile at least... Seriously, do you know that the washington air space is the most highly defended air space in the world? Edwards air base is about ten miles from washington and the air national guard there describes itself as being maintained in the highest possible state of combat readiness. I wonder if you have been in the Military because all I remember is training and training and simulateing possible situations. My thinking is that nothing could hit the pentagon unless someone in power wanted it too and Noman Minetas testimony indicates that someone did want it to hit. First of all, the military was a lot more than "training" for me. Apparently you never went on a real world mission. Nothing there happens quickly. "Highest State of Readiness." Do you have any idea what those words mean in the military? That means they can put the vast majority of their weaponry into battle without having to repair it first. Mechanical failures occur all the time. State of readiness means the percentage of equipment that is operational. "Highest State" means they are in the highest percentage bracket the military has. Doesn't mean someone is sitting at the hanger ready to be launched down the runway on a moments notice. They had no reason to be on alert that morning. It wasn't until after a plane was hijacked that they would even consider an alert. Then first the FAA has to determine it was in fact hijacked then they have to call and then whoever they call have to call ... It's not like the air traffic controller is going to call the pilot at Edwards and tell him to take off right now. Probably takes 10 minute at least before anyone even talks to a pilot about getting into an airplane to intercept... Then if that pilot is at home (yes, Pilots have lives to) ready alert in peacetime situations doesn't necessarily mean they are at the airport. I am flat stunned by your last paragraph. You are saying again that his testimony was that someone intended to have the Pentagon hit??? Wow! Here. Let me type it out for you again. The opening statement before his testimony that you claim proves our Vice President was ordering the Pentagon to be hit. "I want to talk about the order given, I think by the President, that authorized the shooting down of commercial aircraft that were suspected to be controlled by terrorist." So, in his testimony when he said, "Does that order still stand?" It clearly is in reference to the order the President gave. How does his testimony indicate in any way that someone wanted it to be hit? Did you not watch the video you attached earlier? Did you not see my post where I already said this??? It isn't even that long a video. Like under 4 minutes. Thinking the Pentagon is the center of our nation's military therefore it could not be attacked is what you would expect to see in a movie. That is not reality. Our military strategy has been and mostly still is, to defend from attacks from outside our country against hostile forces. We didn't even know these were hostile forces until they already crashed one plane. Then there was debate and confusion about whether or not it was an accident. Another delay. No one is super human. Try to allow for people to be human on a terrible day. What you are demanding should have happened would have been a super human effort on everyone's part that was involved. And because they were not able to reach your 125% demands of excellence you are claiming there must be a cover up. The type of response you are insisting should have happened is from movies. yes, in a movie, everything would have happened just right. Oh yes the lack of imagination award goes to Condi Rice. BEN-VENISTE: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6 PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB? RICE: I believe the title was, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States." http://flyingsnail.com/Dahbud/condis911lies.html Ok, did it say they were going to a attack Tuesday morning September 11th, 2001? Or was it more, be on the lookout, he plans to attack us ... sometime in the future. Not even going to address your Incompetent and stupid statements. You will believe that to be true regardless. Iam not saying I know the how or why or who of 911 just that it doesnt add up. From three buildings falling at near free fall speed, the Pentagon being hit AFTER the twin towers had been hit. No fighter intercepters realy able to respond to pentagon attack? Come on man what is that trillion dollars we are spending on defence for? I think there are many quistions to be answered and alot is being swept under the rug. Somehow we find ourselvesat war in Iraq bankrupting our country. Personaly I think it was allowed to happen to achieve a political gain or some rouge part of the government actualy had a hand in it. regardless it seems to have been used as an excuse to invade Iraq |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lack of 'response'...
Because they thought the attack would come at Chicago. that is were the 'air assets' were. They guessed wrong. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think you missed my point about Norman Mineta's testimony under oath before the 911 commission, under oath got it? something Bush and Cheneye both refused to do. Anyhow turning off a transponder does not make them invisible to radar (FYI) ever hear of NORAD? that is who is suposed to be called when a plane goes off track and you cannot make contact. These and many other iregularaties realy make me quistion many of the events of 911 and its aftermath. As it should for most thinking people. Um, ok, and??? He was under oath talking about an order the president gave to shoot down commercial airliners. So... How does that show conspiracy??? Oh, I get it, if it were Bush or Cheney they would have admitted they ordered the attacks on the Twin Towers and that is why they refused to go under oath... I KNOW it doesn't make a plane invisible. Duh... Our radar system within the US isn't designed to locate a plane that does not have a transponder on it. Doesn't mean that can't look for it, but it was a confused day and there are a lot of small aircraft that fly without one. So, they were confused. The normal systems were not in place for a hijacking. Normally, hijackers want them to know where they are and where they are headed so their demands can be met when they get there. There were planes scrambled and the air traffic controllers were asking for updates from other airlines if they saw them. And this was the first time there were multiple planes hijacked at the same time. There was confusion just because of that. I remember a conversation - not sure who or where but it was something like this - Person 1) We aren't sure where they are now. Person 2) They are down now. Person 1) Where did they land. Person 2) They didn't, they crashed it. Then there were others where they were talking about flight 77 and 93 and getting them confused. I have no idea what you are saying here. Because they couldn't find them and fly escort in the 30 - 40 minutes they were in the air after being hijacked that it was somehow suspicious and a deliberate oversight? We don't normally have military aircraft airborne in case someone decides to hijack a plane. That means that a pilot had to rush into his flight suit climb in his jet and take off from wherever he is stationed in the country and intercept a plane that they aren't exactly sure where they are within 40 minutes? Wow. Apparently you have never been in the military. I am personally impressed they got planes in the air while the last airliner was still flying and almost within range to intercept the plane that crashed into the Pentagon. I forgot, Our aircraft don't sit around fully armed waiting for an emergency for the most part. So, even if we had aircraft up at the time of the hijacking, unless they were on a live fire exercise, there is a very good chance they couldn't do anything anyway... If you remember, there were a few reporters that were astounded later when our military was flying CAP over New York and D.C. We just don't do that in our country. Or at least we didn't. I think we have a revolving CAP now or did for awhile at least... Seriously, do you know that the washington air space is the most highly defended air space in the world? Edwards air base is about ten miles from washington and the air national guard there describes itself as being maintained in the highest possible state of combat readiness. I wonder if you have been in the Military because all I remember is training and training and simulateing possible situations. My thinking is that nothing could hit the pentagon unless someone in power wanted it too and Noman Minetas testimony indicates that someone did want it to hit. First of all, the military was a lot more than "training" for me. Apparently you never went on a real world mission. Nothing there happens quickly. "Highest State of Readiness." Do you have any idea what those words mean in the military? That means they can put the vast majority of their weaponry into battle without having to repair it first. Mechanical failures occur all the time. State of readiness means the percentage of equipment that is operational. "Highest State" means they are in the highest percentage bracket the military has. Doesn't mean someone is sitting at the hanger ready to be launched down the runway on a moments notice. They had no reason to be on alert that morning. It wasn't until after a plane was hijacked that they would even consider an alert. Then first the FAA has to determine it was in fact hijacked then they have to call and then whoever they call have to call ... It's not like the air traffic controller is going to call the pilot at Edwards and tell him to take off right now. Probably takes 10 minute at least before anyone even talks to a pilot about getting into an airplane to intercept... Then if that pilot is at home (yes, Pilots have lives to) ready alert in peacetime situations doesn't necessarily mean they are at the airport. I am flat stunned by your last paragraph. You are saying again that his testimony was that someone intended to have the Pentagon hit??? Wow! Here. Let me type it out for you again. The opening statement before his testimony that you claim proves our Vice President was ordering the Pentagon to be hit. "I want to talk about the order given, I think by the President, that authorized the shooting down of commercial aircraft that were suspected to be controlled by terrorist." So, in his testimony when he said, "Does that order still stand?" It clearly is in reference to the order the President gave. How does his testimony indicate in any way that someone wanted it to be hit? Did you not watch the video you attached earlier? Did you not see my post where I already said this??? It isn't even that long a video. Like under 4 minutes. Thinking the Pentagon is the center of our nation's military therefore it could not be attacked is what you would expect to see in a movie. That is not reality. Our military strategy has been and mostly still is, to defend from attacks from outside our country against hostile forces. We didn't even know these were hostile forces until they already crashed one plane. Then there was debate and confusion about whether or not it was an accident. Another delay. No one is super human. Try to allow for people to be human on a terrible day. What you are demanding should have happened would have been a super human effort on everyone's part that was involved. And because they were not able to reach your 125% demands of excellence you are claiming there must be a cover up. The type of response you are insisting should have happened is from movies. yes, in a movie, everything would have happened just right. Oh yes the lack of imagination award goes to Condi Rice. BEN-VENISTE: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6 PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB? RICE: I believe the title was, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States." http://flyingsnail.com/Dahbud/condis911lies.html Ok, did it say they were going to a attack Tuesday morning September 11th, 2001? Or was it more, be on the lookout, he plans to attack us ... sometime in the future. Not even going to address your Incompetent and stupid statements. You will believe that to be true regardless. Iam not saying I know the how or why or who of 911 just that it doesnt add up. From three buildings falling at near free fall speed, the Pentagon being hit AFTER the twin towers had been hit. No fighter intercepters realy able to respond to pentagon attack? Come on man what is that trillion dollars we are spending on defence for? I think there are many quistions to be answered and alot is being swept under the rug. Somehow we find ourselvesat war in Iraq bankrupting our country. Personaly I think it was allowed to happen to achieve a political gain or some rouge part of the government actualy had a hand in it. regardless it seems to have been used as an excuse to invade Iraq Yup and apparently you will believe that regardless of any evidence presented. You just took the testimony and used it twice after I have shown there was no way it could have referred to your take on it and you still insisted it did. Why does it make you feel good to blame our own people for this act of war perpetrated against our country? As long as you keep looking inward, you will miss the enemy coming up behind you... If you are so sure you are right. Why hasn't Obama done anything about it? Is he in on the conspiracy too??? btw - buildings are like 85 or 90% air. Why wouldn't they fall close to free-fall speeds??? Think about that for a moment. Both buildings had at least 10 floors collapse onto the floor below it. Buildings are designed to hold the structure up, not catch it as it falls. The momentum alone from those 10 stories would push through almost anything that could have been there. No surprise that the floor below it didn't slow it down. Actually, the biggest resistance the building had in collapsing was all the air in it. It got compressed and acted like a shock absorber until the pressure was released by windows blowing out. Have no idea why it would be significant in any way that the Pentagon was hit after the Twin Towers as proof of a conspiracy. So far every question you have asked has had an answer and you just summed it up saying there are too many unanswered questions and a lot is being swept under the rug. That pretty much proves what I said way back in the beginning. It doesn't matter if I can prove 90% of what you are claiming to be wrong. As long as you think there is 10% that is true, you will believe all of it to be true. Just because we spend a lot of money on our national defense doesn't mean that we can protect ourselves 100% from everything. There was only 50 minutes from the first crash until the plane hit the Pentagon. I am not sure when the president gave the order to shoot down any further planes, but I am fairly certain it wasn't immediately after the first crash. I think it took a little while after the second crash before he gave the order. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bestinshow
on
Mon 04/18/11 01:07 PM
|
|
I think you missed my point about Norman Mineta's testimony under oath before the 911 commission, under oath got it? something Bush and Cheneye both refused to do. Anyhow turning off a transponder does not make them invisible to radar (FYI) ever hear of NORAD? that is who is suposed to be called when a plane goes off track and you cannot make contact. These and many other iregularaties realy make me quistion many of the events of 911 and its aftermath. As it should for most thinking people. Um, ok, and??? He was under oath talking about an order the president gave to shoot down commercial airliners. So... How does that show conspiracy??? Oh, I get it, if it were Bush or Cheney they would have admitted they ordered the attacks on the Twin Towers and that is why they refused to go under oath... I KNOW it doesn't make a plane invisible. Duh... Our radar system within the US isn't designed to locate a plane that does not have a transponder on it. Doesn't mean that can't look for it, but it was a confused day and there are a lot of small aircraft that fly without one. So, they were confused. The normal systems were not in place for a hijacking. Normally, hijackers want them to know where they are and where they are headed so their demands can be met when they get there. There were planes scrambled and the air traffic controllers were asking for updates from other airlines if they saw them. And this was the first time there were multiple planes hijacked at the same time. There was confusion just because of that. I remember a conversation - not sure who or where but it was something like this - Person 1) We aren't sure where they are now. Person 2) They are down now. Person 1) Where did they land. Person 2) They didn't, they crashed it. Then there were others where they were talking about flight 77 and 93 and getting them confused. I have no idea what you are saying here. Because they couldn't find them and fly escort in the 30 - 40 minutes they were in the air after being hijacked that it was somehow suspicious and a deliberate oversight? We don't normally have military aircraft airborne in case someone decides to hijack a plane. That means that a pilot had to rush into his flight suit climb in his jet and take off from wherever he is stationed in the country and intercept a plane that they aren't exactly sure where they are within 40 minutes? Wow. Apparently you have never been in the military. I am personally impressed they got planes in the air while the last airliner was still flying and almost within range to intercept the plane that crashed into the Pentagon. I forgot, Our aircraft don't sit around fully armed waiting for an emergency for the most part. So, even if we had aircraft up at the time of the hijacking, unless they were on a live fire exercise, there is a very good chance they couldn't do anything anyway... If you remember, there were a few reporters that were astounded later when our military was flying CAP over New York and D.C. We just don't do that in our country. Or at least we didn't. I think we have a revolving CAP now or did for awhile at least... Seriously, do you know that the washington air space is the most highly defended air space in the world? Edwards air base is about ten miles from washington and the air national guard there describes itself as being maintained in the highest possible state of combat readiness. I wonder if you have been in the Military because all I remember is training and training and simulateing possible situations. My thinking is that nothing could hit the pentagon unless someone in power wanted it too and Noman Minetas testimony indicates that someone did want it to hit. First of all, the military was a lot more than "training" for me. Apparently you never went on a real world mission. Nothing there happens quickly. "Highest State of Readiness." Do you have any idea what those words mean in the military? That means they can put the vast majority of their weaponry into battle without having to repair it first. Mechanical failures occur all the time. State of readiness means the percentage of equipment that is operational. "Highest State" means they are in the highest percentage bracket the military has. Doesn't mean someone is sitting at the hanger ready to be launched down the runway on a moments notice. They had no reason to be on alert that morning. It wasn't until after a plane was hijacked that they would even consider an alert. Then first the FAA has to determine it was in fact hijacked then they have to call and then whoever they call have to call ... It's not like the air traffic controller is going to call the pilot at Edwards and tell him to take off right now. Probably takes 10 minute at least before anyone even talks to a pilot about getting into an airplane to intercept... Then if that pilot is at home (yes, Pilots have lives to) ready alert in peacetime situations doesn't necessarily mean they are at the airport. I am flat stunned by your last paragraph. You are saying again that his testimony was that someone intended to have the Pentagon hit??? Wow! Here. Let me type it out for you again. The opening statement before his testimony that you claim proves our Vice President was ordering the Pentagon to be hit. "I want to talk about the order given, I think by the President, that authorized the shooting down of commercial aircraft that were suspected to be controlled by terrorist." So, in his testimony when he said, "Does that order still stand?" It clearly is in reference to the order the President gave. How does his testimony indicate in any way that someone wanted it to be hit? Did you not watch the video you attached earlier? Did you not see my post where I already said this??? It isn't even that long a video. Like under 4 minutes. Thinking the Pentagon is the center of our nation's military therefore it could not be attacked is what you would expect to see in a movie. That is not reality. Our military strategy has been and mostly still is, to defend from attacks from outside our country against hostile forces. We didn't even know these were hostile forces until they already crashed one plane. Then there was debate and confusion about whether or not it was an accident. Another delay. No one is super human. Try to allow for people to be human on a terrible day. What you are demanding should have happened would have been a super human effort on everyone's part that was involved. And because they were not able to reach your 125% demands of excellence you are claiming there must be a cover up. The type of response you are insisting should have happened is from movies. yes, in a movie, everything would have happened just right. Oh yes the lack of imagination award goes to Condi Rice. BEN-VENISTE: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6 PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB? RICE: I believe the title was, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States." http://flyingsnail.com/Dahbud/condis911lies.html Ok, did it say they were going to a attack Tuesday morning September 11th, 2001? Or was it more, be on the lookout, he plans to attack us ... sometime in the future. Not even going to address your Incompetent and stupid statements. You will believe that to be true regardless. Iam not saying I know the how or why or who of 911 just that it doesnt add up. From three buildings falling at near free fall speed, the Pentagon being hit AFTER the twin towers had been hit. No fighter intercepters realy able to respond to pentagon attack? Come on man what is that trillion dollars we are spending on defence for? I think there are many quistions to be answered and alot is being swept under the rug. Somehow we find ourselvesat war in Iraq bankrupting our country. Personaly I think it was allowed to happen to achieve a political gain or some rouge part of the government actualy had a hand in it. regardless it seems to have been used as an excuse to invade Iraq Yup and apparently you will believe that regardless of any evidence presented. You just took the testimony and used it twice after I have shown there was no way it could have referred to your take on it and you still insisted it did. Why does it make you feel good to blame our own people for this act of war perpetrated against our country? As long as you keep looking inward, you will miss the enemy coming up behind you... If you are so sure you are right. Why hasn't Obama done anything about it? Is he in on the conspiracy too??? btw - buildings are like 85 or 90% air. Why wouldn't they fall close to free-fall speeds??? Think about that for a moment. Both buildings had at least 10 floors collapse onto the floor below it. Buildings are designed to hold the structure up, not catch it as it falls. The momentum alone from those 10 stories would push through almost anything that could have been there. No surprise that the floor below it didn't slow it down. Actually, the biggest resistance the building had in collapsing was all the air in it. It got compressed and acted like a shock absorber until the pressure was released by windows blowing out. Have no idea why it would be significant in any way that the Pentagon was hit after the Twin Towers as proof of a conspiracy. So far every question you have asked has had an answer and you just summed it up saying there are too many unanswered questions and a lot is being swept under the rug. That pretty much proves what I said way back in the beginning. It doesn't matter if I can prove 90% of what you are claiming to be wrong. As long as you think there is 10% that is true, you will believe all of it to be true. Just because we spend a lot of money on our national defense doesn't mean that we can protect ourselves 100% from everything. There was only 50 minutes from the first crash until the plane hit the Pentagon. I am not sure when the president gave the order to shoot down any further planes, but I am fairly certain it wasn't immediately after the first crash. I think it took a little while after the second crash before he gave the order. Maybe you can answer one quistion that troubles me, I so want to believe in the easter bunny and santa clause again. Why did Bush?Cheneye refuse to go under oath to the 911 commision? Could it be they had something to hide? Naw go ahead and tell me they were busy that day and just couldnt make it. Or maybe they tried to find the commision but got stuck in traffic they couldnot forsee that on that day there would be a big traffic jam. Maybe someone gave them bad directions or misleading directions and the presidential caravan took a wrong turn. Maybe someone turned off the presidential TOM TOM and they got lost. Regardless They both refused to go under oath and testify. WHY? |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Mon 04/18/11 01:09 PM
|
|
I trust government to be made of flawed men, who are capable of terrible things (justified as 'collateral damage') in the name of the 'greater good'
It would be defeatist at this point, while we still have troops there, to send out a message to the world that we in any way contributed to or in any way were gambling on 9/11 to happen. At this point, its a conspiracy that is necessary to maintain,,unfortunately. We have enough to deal with, like MANY OTHER COUNTRIES recovering from the global economic dilemma, whatever happened under Bush cant be undone and serves nothing but destructive purpose to reveal. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think you missed my point about Norman Mineta's testimony under oath before the 911 commission, under oath got it? something Bush and Cheneye both refused to do. Anyhow turning off a transponder does not make them invisible to radar (FYI) ever hear of NORAD? that is who is suposed to be called when a plane goes off track and you cannot make contact. These and many other iregularaties realy make me quistion many of the events of 911 and its aftermath. As it should for most thinking people. Um, ok, and??? He was under oath talking about an order the president gave to shoot down commercial airliners. So... How does that show conspiracy??? Oh, I get it, if it were Bush or Cheney they would have admitted they ordered the attacks on the Twin Towers and that is why they refused to go under oath... I KNOW it doesn't make a plane invisible. Duh... Our radar system within the US isn't designed to locate a plane that does not have a transponder on it. Doesn't mean that can't look for it, but it was a confused day and there are a lot of small aircraft that fly without one. So, they were confused. The normal systems were not in place for a hijacking. Normally, hijackers want them to know where they are and where they are headed so their demands can be met when they get there. There were planes scrambled and the air traffic controllers were asking for updates from other airlines if they saw them. And this was the first time there were multiple planes hijacked at the same time. There was confusion just because of that. I remember a conversation - not sure who or where but it was something like this - Person 1) We aren't sure where they are now. Person 2) They are down now. Person 1) Where did they land. Person 2) They didn't, they crashed it. Then there were others where they were talking about flight 77 and 93 and getting them confused. I have no idea what you are saying here. Because they couldn't find them and fly escort in the 30 - 40 minutes they were in the air after being hijacked that it was somehow suspicious and a deliberate oversight? We don't normally have military aircraft airborne in case someone decides to hijack a plane. That means that a pilot had to rush into his flight suit climb in his jet and take off from wherever he is stationed in the country and intercept a plane that they aren't exactly sure where they are within 40 minutes? Wow. Apparently you have never been in the military. I am personally impressed they got planes in the air while the last airliner was still flying and almost within range to intercept the plane that crashed into the Pentagon. I forgot, Our aircraft don't sit around fully armed waiting for an emergency for the most part. So, even if we had aircraft up at the time of the hijacking, unless they were on a live fire exercise, there is a very good chance they couldn't do anything anyway... If you remember, there were a few reporters that were astounded later when our military was flying CAP over New York and D.C. We just don't do that in our country. Or at least we didn't. I think we have a revolving CAP now or did for awhile at least... Seriously, do you know that the washington air space is the most highly defended air space in the world? Edwards air base is about ten miles from washington and the air national guard there describes itself as being maintained in the highest possible state of combat readiness. I wonder if you have been in the Military because all I remember is training and training and simulateing possible situations. My thinking is that nothing could hit the pentagon unless someone in power wanted it too and Noman Minetas testimony indicates that someone did want it to hit. First of all, the military was a lot more than "training" for me. Apparently you never went on a real world mission. Nothing there happens quickly. "Highest State of Readiness." Do you have any idea what those words mean in the military? That means they can put the vast majority of their weaponry into battle without having to repair it first. Mechanical failures occur all the time. State of readiness means the percentage of equipment that is operational. "Highest State" means they are in the highest percentage bracket the military has. Doesn't mean someone is sitting at the hanger ready to be launched down the runway on a moments notice. They had no reason to be on alert that morning. It wasn't until after a plane was hijacked that they would even consider an alert. Then first the FAA has to determine it was in fact hijacked then they have to call and then whoever they call have to call ... It's not like the air traffic controller is going to call the pilot at Edwards and tell him to take off right now. Probably takes 10 minute at least before anyone even talks to a pilot about getting into an airplane to intercept... Then if that pilot is at home (yes, Pilots have lives to) ready alert in peacetime situations doesn't necessarily mean they are at the airport. I am flat stunned by your last paragraph. You are saying again that his testimony was that someone intended to have the Pentagon hit??? Wow! Here. Let me type it out for you again. The opening statement before his testimony that you claim proves our Vice President was ordering the Pentagon to be hit. "I want to talk about the order given, I think by the President, that authorized the shooting down of commercial aircraft that were suspected to be controlled by terrorist." So, in his testimony when he said, "Does that order still stand?" It clearly is in reference to the order the President gave. How does his testimony indicate in any way that someone wanted it to be hit? Did you not watch the video you attached earlier? Did you not see my post where I already said this??? It isn't even that long a video. Like under 4 minutes. Thinking the Pentagon is the center of our nation's military therefore it could not be attacked is what you would expect to see in a movie. That is not reality. Our military strategy has been and mostly still is, to defend from attacks from outside our country against hostile forces. We didn't even know these were hostile forces until they already crashed one plane. Then there was debate and confusion about whether or not it was an accident. Another delay. No one is super human. Try to allow for people to be human on a terrible day. What you are demanding should have happened would have been a super human effort on everyone's part that was involved. And because they were not able to reach your 125% demands of excellence you are claiming there must be a cover up. The type of response you are insisting should have happened is from movies. yes, in a movie, everything would have happened just right. Oh yes the lack of imagination award goes to Condi Rice. BEN-VENISTE: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6 PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB? RICE: I believe the title was, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States." http://flyingsnail.com/Dahbud/condis911lies.html Ok, did it say they were going to a attack Tuesday morning September 11th, 2001? Or was it more, be on the lookout, he plans to attack us ... sometime in the future. Not even going to address your Incompetent and stupid statements. You will believe that to be true regardless. Iam not saying I know the how or why or who of 911 just that it doesnt add up. From three buildings falling at near free fall speed, the Pentagon being hit AFTER the twin towers had been hit. No fighter intercepters realy able to respond to pentagon attack? Come on man what is that trillion dollars we are spending on defence for? I think there are many quistions to be answered and alot is being swept under the rug. Somehow we find ourselvesat war in Iraq bankrupting our country. Personaly I think it was allowed to happen to achieve a political gain or some rouge part of the government actualy had a hand in it. regardless it seems to have been used as an excuse to invade Iraq Yup and apparently you will believe that regardless of any evidence presented. You just took the testimony and used it twice after I have shown there was no way it could have referred to your take on it and you still insisted it did. Why does it make you feel good to blame our own people for this act of war perpetrated against our country? As long as you keep looking inward, you will miss the enemy coming up behind you... If you are so sure you are right. Why hasn't Obama done anything about it? Is he in on the conspiracy too??? btw - buildings are like 85 or 90% air. Why wouldn't they fall close to free-fall speeds??? Think about that for a moment. Both buildings had at least 10 floors collapse onto the floor below it. Buildings are designed to hold the structure up, not catch it as it falls. The momentum alone from those 10 stories would push through almost anything that could have been there. No surprise that the floor below it didn't slow it down. Actually, the biggest resistance the building had in collapsing was all the air in it. It got compressed and acted like a shock absorber until the pressure was released by windows blowing out. Have no idea why it would be significant in any way that the Pentagon was hit after the Twin Towers as proof of a conspiracy. So far every question you have asked has had an answer and you just summed it up saying there are too many unanswered questions and a lot is being swept under the rug. That pretty much proves what I said way back in the beginning. It doesn't matter if I can prove 90% of what you are claiming to be wrong. As long as you think there is 10% that is true, you will believe all of it to be true. Just because we spend a lot of money on our national defense doesn't mean that we can protect ourselves 100% from everything. There was only 50 minutes from the first crash until the plane hit the Pentagon. I am not sure when the president gave the order to shoot down any further planes, but I am fairly certain it wasn't immediately after the first crash. I think it took a little while after the second crash before he gave the order. Maybe you can answer one quistion that troubles me, I so want to believe in the easter bunny and santa clause again. Why did Bush?Cheneye refuse to go under oath to the 911 commision? Could it be they had something to hide? Naw go ahead and tell me they were busy that day and just couldnt make it. Or maybe they tried to find the commision but got stuck in traffic they couldnot forsee that on that day there would be a big traffic jam. Maybe someone gave them bad directions or misleading directions and the presidential caravan took a wrong turn. Maybe someone turned off the presidential TOM TOM and they got lost. Regardless They both refused to go under oath and testify. WHY? Don't know. I can speculate as good as the next guy but that is all it would be, speculation. I am not them, I don't know what they knew, I don't know why they felt it would be inappropriate to go... I am not a mind reader. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Bestinshow
on
Tue 04/19/11 03:40 PM
|
|
I think you missed my point about Norman Mineta's testimony under oath before the 911 commission, under oath got it? something Bush and Cheneye both refused to do. Anyhow turning off a transponder does not make them invisible to radar (FYI) ever hear of NORAD? that is who is suposed to be called when a plane goes off track and you cannot make contact. These and many other iregularaties realy make me quistion many of the events of 911 and its aftermath. As it should for most thinking people. Um, ok, and??? He was under oath talking about an order the president gave to shoot down commercial airliners. So... How does that show conspiracy??? Oh, I get it, if it were Bush or Cheney they would have admitted they ordered the attacks on the Twin Towers and that is why they refused to go under oath... I KNOW it doesn't make a plane invisible. Duh... Our radar system within the US isn't designed to locate a plane that does not have a transponder on it. Doesn't mean that can't look for it, but it was a confused day and there are a lot of small aircraft that fly without one. So, they were confused. The normal systems were not in place for a hijacking. Normally, hijackers want them to know where they are and where they are headed so their demands can be met when they get there. There were planes scrambled and the air traffic controllers were asking for updates from other airlines if they saw them. And this was the first time there were multiple planes hijacked at the same time. There was confusion just because of that. I remember a conversation - not sure who or where but it was something like this - Person 1) We aren't sure where they are now. Person 2) They are down now. Person 1) Where did they land. Person 2) They didn't, they crashed it. Then there were others where they were talking about flight 77 and 93 and getting them confused. I have no idea what you are saying here. Because they couldn't find them and fly escort in the 30 - 40 minutes they were in the air after being hijacked that it was somehow suspicious and a deliberate oversight? We don't normally have military aircraft airborne in case someone decides to hijack a plane. That means that a pilot had to rush into his flight suit climb in his jet and take off from wherever he is stationed in the country and intercept a plane that they aren't exactly sure where they are within 40 minutes? Wow. Apparently you have never been in the military. I am personally impressed they got planes in the air while the last airliner was still flying and almost within range to intercept the plane that crashed into the Pentagon. I forgot, Our aircraft don't sit around fully armed waiting for an emergency for the most part. So, even if we had aircraft up at the time of the hijacking, unless they were on a live fire exercise, there is a very good chance they couldn't do anything anyway... If you remember, there were a few reporters that were astounded later when our military was flying CAP over New York and D.C. We just don't do that in our country. Or at least we didn't. I think we have a revolving CAP now or did for awhile at least... Seriously, do you know that the washington air space is the most highly defended air space in the world? Edwards air base is about ten miles from washington and the air national guard there describes itself as being maintained in the highest possible state of combat readiness. I wonder if you have been in the Military because all I remember is training and training and simulateing possible situations. My thinking is that nothing could hit the pentagon unless someone in power wanted it too and Noman Minetas testimony indicates that someone did want it to hit. First of all, the military was a lot more than "training" for me. Apparently you never went on a real world mission. Nothing there happens quickly. "Highest State of Readiness." Do you have any idea what those words mean in the military? That means they can put the vast majority of their weaponry into battle without having to repair it first. Mechanical failures occur all the time. State of readiness means the percentage of equipment that is operational. "Highest State" means they are in the highest percentage bracket the military has. Doesn't mean someone is sitting at the hanger ready to be launched down the runway on a moments notice. They had no reason to be on alert that morning. It wasn't until after a plane was hijacked that they would even consider an alert. Then first the FAA has to determine it was in fact hijacked then they have to call and then whoever they call have to call ... It's not like the air traffic controller is going to call the pilot at Edwards and tell him to take off right now. Probably takes 10 minute at least before anyone even talks to a pilot about getting into an airplane to intercept... Then if that pilot is at home (yes, Pilots have lives to) ready alert in peacetime situations doesn't necessarily mean they are at the airport. I am flat stunned by your last paragraph. You are saying again that his testimony was that someone intended to have the Pentagon hit??? Wow! Here. Let me type it out for you again. The opening statement before his testimony that you claim proves our Vice President was ordering the Pentagon to be hit. "I want to talk about the order given, I think by the President, that authorized the shooting down of commercial aircraft that were suspected to be controlled by terrorist." So, in his testimony when he said, "Does that order still stand?" It clearly is in reference to the order the President gave. How does his testimony indicate in any way that someone wanted it to be hit? Did you not watch the video you attached earlier? Did you not see my post where I already said this??? It isn't even that long a video. Like under 4 minutes. Thinking the Pentagon is the center of our nation's military therefore it could not be attacked is what you would expect to see in a movie. That is not reality. Our military strategy has been and mostly still is, to defend from attacks from outside our country against hostile forces. We didn't even know these were hostile forces until they already crashed one plane. Then there was debate and confusion about whether or not it was an accident. Another delay. No one is super human. Try to allow for people to be human on a terrible day. What you are demanding should have happened would have been a super human effort on everyone's part that was involved. And because they were not able to reach your 125% demands of excellence you are claiming there must be a cover up. The type of response you are insisting should have happened is from movies. yes, in a movie, everything would have happened just right. Oh yes the lack of imagination award goes to Condi Rice. BEN-VENISTE: Isn't it a fact, Dr. Rice, that the August 6 PDB warned against possible attacks in this country? And I ask you whether you recall the title of that PDB? RICE: I believe the title was, "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States." http://flyingsnail.com/Dahbud/condis911lies.html Ok, did it say they were going to a attack Tuesday morning September 11th, 2001? Or was it more, be on the lookout, he plans to attack us ... sometime in the future. Not even going to address your Incompetent and stupid statements. You will believe that to be true regardless. Iam not saying I know the how or why or who of 911 just that it doesnt add up. From three buildings falling at near free fall speed, the Pentagon being hit AFTER the twin towers had been hit. No fighter intercepters realy able to respond to pentagon attack? Come on man what is that trillion dollars we are spending on defence for? I think there are many quistions to be answered and alot is being swept under the rug. Somehow we find ourselvesat war in Iraq bankrupting our country. Personaly I think it was allowed to happen to achieve a political gain or some rouge part of the government actualy had a hand in it. regardless it seems to have been used as an excuse to invade Iraq Yup and apparently you will believe that regardless of any evidence presented. You just took the testimony and used it twice after I have shown there was no way it could have referred to your take on it and you still insisted it did. Why does it make you feel good to blame our own people for this act of war perpetrated against our country? As long as you keep looking inward, you will miss the enemy coming up behind you... If you are so sure you are right. Why hasn't Obama done anything about it? Is he in on the conspiracy too??? btw - buildings are like 85 or 90% air. Why wouldn't they fall close to free-fall speeds??? Think about that for a moment. Both buildings had at least 10 floors collapse onto the floor below it. Buildings are designed to hold the structure up, not catch it as it falls. The momentum alone from those 10 stories would push through almost anything that could have been there. No surprise that the floor below it didn't slow it down. Actually, the biggest resistance the building had in collapsing was all the air in it. It got compressed and acted like a shock absorber until the pressure was released by windows blowing out. Have no idea why it would be significant in any way that the Pentagon was hit after the Twin Towers as proof of a conspiracy. So far every question you have asked has had an answer and you just summed it up saying there are too many unanswered questions and a lot is being swept under the rug. That pretty much proves what I said way back in the beginning. It doesn't matter if I can prove 90% of what you are claiming to be wrong. As long as you think there is 10% that is true, you will believe all of it to be true. Just because we spend a lot of money on our national defense doesn't mean that we can protect ourselves 100% from everything. There was only 50 minutes from the first crash until the plane hit the Pentagon. I am not sure when the president gave the order to shoot down any further planes, but I am fairly certain it wasn't immediately after the first crash. I think it took a little while after the second crash before he gave the order. Maybe you can answer one quistion that troubles me, I so want to believe in the easter bunny and santa clause again. Why did Bush?Cheneye refuse to go under oath to the 911 commision? Could it be they had something to hide? Naw go ahead and tell me they were busy that day and just couldnt make it. Or maybe they tried to find the commision but got stuck in traffic they couldnot forsee that on that day there would be a big traffic jam. Maybe someone gave them bad directions or misleading directions and the presidential caravan took a wrong turn. Maybe someone turned off the presidential TOM TOM and they got lost. Regardless They both refused to go under oath and testify. WHY? Don't know. I can speculate as good as the next guy but that is all it would be, speculation. I am not them, I don't know what they knew, I don't know why they felt it would be inappropriate to go... I am not a mind reader. Why else would they not go under oath? After all it was only the worst event to happen to the US since Pearl Harbor. It was the event that caused us to go to war. Historians will look back and say it was the begining of the end of our country. Yet Bush and Cheneye both refused to go under oath to the 911 commision. stunning realy. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spare me. I am not in the boy scouts, I dont engage in fancifull thinking and I am not realy all that optimistic when it comes to believeing the government on items of national security. Maybe you can answer one quistion that troubles me, I so want to believe in the easter bunny and santa clause again. Why did Bush?Cheneye refuse to go under oath to the 911 commision? Could it be they had something to hide? Naw go ahead and tell me they were busy that day and just couldnt make it. Or maybe they tried to find the commision but got stuck in traffic they couldnot forsee that on that day there would be a big traffic jam. Maybe someone gave them bad directions or misleading directions and the presidential caravan took a wrong turn. Maybe someone turned off the presidential TOM TOM and they got lost. Regardless They both refused to go under oath and testify. WHY? Don't know. I can speculate as good as the next guy but that is all it would be, speculation. I am not them, I don't know what they knew, I don't know why they felt it would be inappropriate to go... I am not a mind reader. Why else would they not go under oath? After all it was only the worst event to happen to the US since Pearl Harbor. It was the event that caused us to go to war. Historians will look back and say it was the begining of the end of our country. Yet Bush and Cheneye both refused to go under oath to the 911 commision. stunning realy. You said you don't engage in fanciful thinking. Isn't the whole concept of a massive conspiracy by anyone "fanciful?" But anyway. I was saying I cannot speak for them as it is just a pure guess, just as your statement is a pure guess that they have something to hide. This is clearly a National Security issue in which they were going to be questioned. I can think of hundreds of reasons why the President of the United States would refuse to give sworn testimony about National Security. If you can't see that... It would be the same as calling FDR to give sworn testimony on Pearl Harbor in January 1942. And that IS a really good analogy because a lot of people believed he knew about Pearl Harbor prior to it as well and did nothing to defend it. Should FDR have given sworn testimony to congress about it? Gives you an idea of how much our country has changed in 70 years. Back then, we responded by declaring war on people that attacked us within days of the attack. Today, we still haven't declared war on who attacked us and most likely never will. But we did immediately set up a commission to figure out what WE did wrong how WE screwed up and what WE did that encouraged the attack. Very little was done about our enemy. It is a sad state of affairs when we get attacked and we blame ourselves for it saying we deserved it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spare me. I am not in the boy scouts, I dont engage in fancifull thinking and I am not realy all that optimistic when it comes to believeing the government on items of national security. Maybe you can answer one quistion that troubles me, I so want to believe in the easter bunny and santa clause again. Why did Bush?Cheneye refuse to go under oath to the 911 commision? Could it be they had something to hide? Naw go ahead and tell me they were busy that day and just couldnt make it. Or maybe they tried to find the commision but got stuck in traffic they couldnot forsee that on that day there would be a big traffic jam. Maybe someone gave them bad directions or misleading directions and the presidential caravan took a wrong turn. Maybe someone turned off the presidential TOM TOM and they got lost. Regardless They both refused to go under oath and testify. WHY? Don't know. I can speculate as good as the next guy but that is all it would be, speculation. I am not them, I don't know what they knew, I don't know why they felt it would be inappropriate to go... I am not a mind reader. Why else would they not go under oath? After all it was only the worst event to happen to the US since Pearl Harbor. It was the event that caused us to go to war. Historians will look back and say it was the begining of the end of our country. Yet Bush and Cheneye both refused to go under oath to the 911 commision. stunning realy. You said you don't engage in fanciful thinking. Isn't the whole concept of a massive conspiracy by anyone "fanciful?" But anyway. I was saying I cannot speak for them as it is just a pure guess, just as your statement is a pure guess that they have something to hide. This is clearly a National Security issue in which they were going to be questioned. I can think of hundreds of reasons why the President of the United States would refuse to give sworn testimony about National Security. If you can't see that... It would be the same as calling FDR to give sworn testimony on Pearl Harbor in January 1942. And that IS a really good analogy because a lot of people believed he knew about Pearl Harbor prior to it as well and did nothing to defend it. Should FDR have given sworn testimony to congress about it? Gives you an idea of how much our country has changed in 70 years. Back then, we responded by declaring war on people that attacked us within days of the attack. Today, we still haven't declared war on who attacked us and most likely never will. But we did immediately set up a commission to figure out what WE did wrong how WE screwed up and what WE did that encouraged the attack. Very little was done about our enemy. It is a sad state of affairs when we get attacked and we blame ourselves for it saying we deserved it. They pay people to study these things. Japan had a two year supply of Oil for its large navy, when we cut off their oil it was either use it or lose it. It was verry predictable. Not the first time we have been propagated with lies nor the last. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spare me. I am not in the boy scouts, I dont engage in fancifull thinking and I am not realy all that optimistic when it comes to believeing the government on items of national security. Maybe you can answer one quistion that troubles me, I so want to believe in the easter bunny and santa clause again. Why did Bush?Cheneye refuse to go under oath to the 911 commision? Could it be they had something to hide? Naw go ahead and tell me they were busy that day and just couldnt make it. Or maybe they tried to find the commision but got stuck in traffic they couldnot forsee that on that day there would be a big traffic jam. Maybe someone gave them bad directions or misleading directions and the presidential caravan took a wrong turn. Maybe someone turned off the presidential TOM TOM and they got lost. Regardless They both refused to go under oath and testify. WHY? Don't know. I can speculate as good as the next guy but that is all it would be, speculation. I am not them, I don't know what they knew, I don't know why they felt it would be inappropriate to go... I am not a mind reader. Why else would they not go under oath? After all it was only the worst event to happen to the US since Pearl Harbor. It was the event that caused us to go to war. Historians will look back and say it was the begining of the end of our country. Yet Bush and Cheneye both refused to go under oath to the 911 commision. stunning realy. You said you don't engage in fanciful thinking. Isn't the whole concept of a massive conspiracy by anyone "fanciful?" But anyway. I was saying I cannot speak for them as it is just a pure guess, just as your statement is a pure guess that they have something to hide. This is clearly a National Security issue in which they were going to be questioned. I can think of hundreds of reasons why the President of the United States would refuse to give sworn testimony about National Security. If you can't see that... It would be the same as calling FDR to give sworn testimony on Pearl Harbor in January 1942. And that IS a really good analogy because a lot of people believed he knew about Pearl Harbor prior to it as well and did nothing to defend it. Should FDR have given sworn testimony to congress about it? Gives you an idea of how much our country has changed in 70 years. Back then, we responded by declaring war on people that attacked us within days of the attack. Today, we still haven't declared war on who attacked us and most likely never will. But we did immediately set up a commission to figure out what WE did wrong how WE screwed up and what WE did that encouraged the attack. Very little was done about our enemy. It is a sad state of affairs when we get attacked and we blame ourselves for it saying we deserved it. They pay people to study these things. Japan had a two year supply of Oil for its large navy, when we cut off their oil it was either use it or lose it. It was verry predictable. Not the first time we have been propagated with lies nor the last. ok, you didn't answer the question. Should FDR have had to answer a congressional inquiry on what he knew about Pearl Harbor in January 1942? I believe FDR knew about it in advance. But I don't think he should have answered to congress about an inquiry. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spare me. I am not in the boy scouts, I dont engage in fancifull thinking and I am not realy all that optimistic when it comes to believeing the government on items of national security. Maybe you can answer one quistion that troubles me, I so want to believe in the easter bunny and santa clause again. Why did Bush?Cheneye refuse to go under oath to the 911 commision? Could it be they had something to hide? Naw go ahead and tell me they were busy that day and just couldnt make it. Or maybe they tried to find the commision but got stuck in traffic they couldnot forsee that on that day there would be a big traffic jam. Maybe someone gave them bad directions or misleading directions and the presidential caravan took a wrong turn. Maybe someone turned off the presidential TOM TOM and they got lost. Regardless They both refused to go under oath and testify. WHY? Don't know. I can speculate as good as the next guy but that is all it would be, speculation. I am not them, I don't know what they knew, I don't know why they felt it would be inappropriate to go... I am not a mind reader. Why else would they not go under oath? After all it was only the worst event to happen to the US since Pearl Harbor. It was the event that caused us to go to war. Historians will look back and say it was the begining of the end of our country. Yet Bush and Cheneye both refused to go under oath to the 911 commision. stunning realy. You said you don't engage in fanciful thinking. Isn't the whole concept of a massive conspiracy by anyone "fanciful?" But anyway. I was saying I cannot speak for them as it is just a pure guess, just as your statement is a pure guess that they have something to hide. This is clearly a National Security issue in which they were going to be questioned. I can think of hundreds of reasons why the President of the United States would refuse to give sworn testimony about National Security. If you can't see that... It would be the same as calling FDR to give sworn testimony on Pearl Harbor in January 1942. And that IS a really good analogy because a lot of people believed he knew about Pearl Harbor prior to it as well and did nothing to defend it. Should FDR have given sworn testimony to congress about it? Gives you an idea of how much our country has changed in 70 years. Back then, we responded by declaring war on people that attacked us within days of the attack. Today, we still haven't declared war on who attacked us and most likely never will. But we did immediately set up a commission to figure out what WE did wrong how WE screwed up and what WE did that encouraged the attack. Very little was done about our enemy. It is a sad state of affairs when we get attacked and we blame ourselves for it saying we deserved it. They pay people to study these things. Japan had a two year supply of Oil for its large navy, when we cut off their oil it was either use it or lose it. It was verry predictable. Not the first time we have been propagated with lies nor the last. ok, you didn't answer the question. Should FDR have had to answer a congressional inquiry on what he knew about Pearl Harbor in January 1942? I believe FDR knew about it in advance. But I don't think he should have answered to congress about an inquiry. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spare me. I am not in the boy scouts, I dont engage in fancifull thinking and I am not realy all that optimistic when it comes to believeing the government on items of national security. Maybe you can answer one quistion that troubles me, I so want to believe in the easter bunny and santa clause again. Why did Bush?Cheneye refuse to go under oath to the 911 commision? Could it be they had something to hide? Naw go ahead and tell me they were busy that day and just couldnt make it. Or maybe they tried to find the commision but got stuck in traffic they couldnot forsee that on that day there would be a big traffic jam. Maybe someone gave them bad directions or misleading directions and the presidential caravan took a wrong turn. Maybe someone turned off the presidential TOM TOM and they got lost. Regardless They both refused to go under oath and testify. WHY? Don't know. I can speculate as good as the next guy but that is all it would be, speculation. I am not them, I don't know what they knew, I don't know why they felt it would be inappropriate to go... I am not a mind reader. Why else would they not go under oath? After all it was only the worst event to happen to the US since Pearl Harbor. It was the event that caused us to go to war. Historians will look back and say it was the begining of the end of our country. Yet Bush and Cheneye both refused to go under oath to the 911 commision. stunning realy. You said you don't engage in fanciful thinking. Isn't the whole concept of a massive conspiracy by anyone "fanciful?" But anyway. I was saying I cannot speak for them as it is just a pure guess, just as your statement is a pure guess that they have something to hide. This is clearly a National Security issue in which they were going to be questioned. I can think of hundreds of reasons why the President of the United States would refuse to give sworn testimony about National Security. If you can't see that... It would be the same as calling FDR to give sworn testimony on Pearl Harbor in January 1942. And that IS a really good analogy because a lot of people believed he knew about Pearl Harbor prior to it as well and did nothing to defend it. Should FDR have given sworn testimony to congress about it? Gives you an idea of how much our country has changed in 70 years. Back then, we responded by declaring war on people that attacked us within days of the attack. Today, we still haven't declared war on who attacked us and most likely never will. But we did immediately set up a commission to figure out what WE did wrong how WE screwed up and what WE did that encouraged the attack. Very little was done about our enemy. It is a sad state of affairs when we get attacked and we blame ourselves for it saying we deserved it. They pay people to study these things. Japan had a two year supply of Oil for its large navy, when we cut off their oil it was either use it or lose it. It was verry predictable. Not the first time we have been propagated with lies nor the last. ok, you didn't answer the question. Should FDR have had to answer a congressional inquiry on what he knew about Pearl Harbor in January 1942? I believe FDR knew about it in advance. But I don't think he should have answered to congress about an inquiry. Well then, yell at congress. Stop crying cover-up just because they wouldn't testify in open court on a National Security issue. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spare me. I am not in the boy scouts, I dont engage in fancifull thinking and I am not realy all that optimistic when it comes to believeing the government on items of national security. Maybe you can answer one quistion that troubles me, I so want to believe in the easter bunny and santa clause again. Why did Bush?Cheneye refuse to go under oath to the 911 commision? Could it be they had something to hide? Naw go ahead and tell me they were busy that day and just couldnt make it. Or maybe they tried to find the commision but got stuck in traffic they couldnot forsee that on that day there would be a big traffic jam. Maybe someone gave them bad directions or misleading directions and the presidential caravan took a wrong turn. Maybe someone turned off the presidential TOM TOM and they got lost. Regardless They both refused to go under oath and testify. WHY? Don't know. I can speculate as good as the next guy but that is all it would be, speculation. I am not them, I don't know what they knew, I don't know why they felt it would be inappropriate to go... I am not a mind reader. Why else would they not go under oath? After all it was only the worst event to happen to the US since Pearl Harbor. It was the event that caused us to go to war. Historians will look back and say it was the begining of the end of our country. Yet Bush and Cheneye both refused to go under oath to the 911 commision. stunning realy. You said you don't engage in fanciful thinking. Isn't the whole concept of a massive conspiracy by anyone "fanciful?" But anyway. I was saying I cannot speak for them as it is just a pure guess, just as your statement is a pure guess that they have something to hide. This is clearly a National Security issue in which they were going to be questioned. I can think of hundreds of reasons why the President of the United States would refuse to give sworn testimony about National Security. If you can't see that... It would be the same as calling FDR to give sworn testimony on Pearl Harbor in January 1942. And that IS a really good analogy because a lot of people believed he knew about Pearl Harbor prior to it as well and did nothing to defend it. Should FDR have given sworn testimony to congress about it? Gives you an idea of how much our country has changed in 70 years. Back then, we responded by declaring war on people that attacked us within days of the attack. Today, we still haven't declared war on who attacked us and most likely never will. But we did immediately set up a commission to figure out what WE did wrong how WE screwed up and what WE did that encouraged the attack. Very little was done about our enemy. It is a sad state of affairs when we get attacked and we blame ourselves for it saying we deserved it. They pay people to study these things. Japan had a two year supply of Oil for its large navy, when we cut off their oil it was either use it or lose it. It was verry predictable. Not the first time we have been propagated with lies nor the last. ok, you didn't answer the question. Should FDR have had to answer a congressional inquiry on what he knew about Pearl Harbor in January 1942? I believe FDR knew about it in advance. But I don't think he should have answered to congress about an inquiry. Well then, yell at congress. Stop crying cover-up just because they wouldn't testify in open court on a National Security issue. The point being. Ready? Why wouldnt Bush/Cheneye testify under oath? They simply refused. They had something to hide . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spare me. I am not in the boy scouts, I dont engage in fancifull thinking and I am not realy all that optimistic when it comes to believeing the government on items of national security. Maybe you can answer one quistion that troubles me, I so want to believe in the easter bunny and santa clause again. Why did Bush?Cheneye refuse to go under oath to the 911 commision? Could it be they had something to hide? Naw go ahead and tell me they were busy that day and just couldnt make it. Or maybe they tried to find the commision but got stuck in traffic they couldnot forsee that on that day there would be a big traffic jam. Maybe someone gave them bad directions or misleading directions and the presidential caravan took a wrong turn. Maybe someone turned off the presidential TOM TOM and they got lost. Regardless They both refused to go under oath and testify. WHY? Don't know. I can speculate as good as the next guy but that is all it would be, speculation. I am not them, I don't know what they knew, I don't know why they felt it would be inappropriate to go... I am not a mind reader. Why else would they not go under oath? After all it was only the worst event to happen to the US since Pearl Harbor. It was the event that caused us to go to war. Historians will look back and say it was the begining of the end of our country. Yet Bush and Cheneye both refused to go under oath to the 911 commision. stunning realy. You said you don't engage in fanciful thinking. Isn't the whole concept of a massive conspiracy by anyone "fanciful?" But anyway. I was saying I cannot speak for them as it is just a pure guess, just as your statement is a pure guess that they have something to hide. This is clearly a National Security issue in which they were going to be questioned. I can think of hundreds of reasons why the President of the United States would refuse to give sworn testimony about National Security. If you can't see that... It would be the same as calling FDR to give sworn testimony on Pearl Harbor in January 1942. And that IS a really good analogy because a lot of people believed he knew about Pearl Harbor prior to it as well and did nothing to defend it. Should FDR have given sworn testimony to congress about it? Gives you an idea of how much our country has changed in 70 years. Back then, we responded by declaring war on people that attacked us within days of the attack. Today, we still haven't declared war on who attacked us and most likely never will. But we did immediately set up a commission to figure out what WE did wrong how WE screwed up and what WE did that encouraged the attack. Very little was done about our enemy. It is a sad state of affairs when we get attacked and we blame ourselves for it saying we deserved it. They pay people to study these things. Japan had a two year supply of Oil for its large navy, when we cut off their oil it was either use it or lose it. It was verry predictable. Not the first time we have been propagated with lies nor the last. ok, you didn't answer the question. Should FDR have had to answer a congressional inquiry on what he knew about Pearl Harbor in January 1942? I believe FDR knew about it in advance. But I don't think he should have answered to congress about an inquiry. Well then, yell at congress. Stop crying cover-up just because they wouldn't testify in open court on a National Security issue. The point being. Ready? Why wouldnt Bush/Cheneye testify under oath? They simply refused. They had something to hide . Right, the protection of National Security. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spare me. I am not in the boy scouts, I dont engage in fancifull thinking and I am not realy all that optimistic when it comes to believeing the government on items of national security. Maybe you can answer one quistion that troubles me, I so want to believe in the easter bunny and santa clause again. Why did Bush?Cheneye refuse to go under oath to the 911 commision? Could it be they had something to hide? Naw go ahead and tell me they were busy that day and just couldnt make it. Or maybe they tried to find the commision but got stuck in traffic they couldnot forsee that on that day there would be a big traffic jam. Maybe someone gave them bad directions or misleading directions and the presidential caravan took a wrong turn. Maybe someone turned off the presidential TOM TOM and they got lost. Regardless They both refused to go under oath and testify. WHY? Don't know. I can speculate as good as the next guy but that is all it would be, speculation. I am not them, I don't know what they knew, I don't know why they felt it would be inappropriate to go... I am not a mind reader. Why else would they not go under oath? After all it was only the worst event to happen to the US since Pearl Harbor. It was the event that caused us to go to war. Historians will look back and say it was the begining of the end of our country. Yet Bush and Cheneye both refused to go under oath to the 911 commision. stunning realy. You said you don't engage in fanciful thinking. Isn't the whole concept of a massive conspiracy by anyone "fanciful?" But anyway. I was saying I cannot speak for them as it is just a pure guess, just as your statement is a pure guess that they have something to hide. This is clearly a National Security issue in which they were going to be questioned. I can think of hundreds of reasons why the President of the United States would refuse to give sworn testimony about National Security. If you can't see that... It would be the same as calling FDR to give sworn testimony on Pearl Harbor in January 1942. And that IS a really good analogy because a lot of people believed he knew about Pearl Harbor prior to it as well and did nothing to defend it. Should FDR have given sworn testimony to congress about it? Gives you an idea of how much our country has changed in 70 years. Back then, we responded by declaring war on people that attacked us within days of the attack. Today, we still haven't declared war on who attacked us and most likely never will. But we did immediately set up a commission to figure out what WE did wrong how WE screwed up and what WE did that encouraged the attack. Very little was done about our enemy. It is a sad state of affairs when we get attacked and we blame ourselves for it saying we deserved it. They pay people to study these things. Japan had a two year supply of Oil for its large navy, when we cut off their oil it was either use it or lose it. It was verry predictable. Not the first time we have been propagated with lies nor the last. ok, you didn't answer the question. Should FDR have had to answer a congressional inquiry on what he knew about Pearl Harbor in January 1942? I believe FDR knew about it in advance. But I don't think he should have answered to congress about an inquiry. Well then, yell at congress. Stop crying cover-up just because they wouldn't testify in open court on a National Security issue. The point being. Ready? Why wouldnt Bush/Cheneye testify under oath? They simply refused. They had something to hide . Right, the protection of National Security. 
|
|
|
|
|
