9/11

PolyNewbie · February 8, 2007

Black Dog:I already schooled you on the Mark Bingham thing and "pull it" was give a logical and wholly plausible explanation.

All the firefighters were already removed from the building when Silverstein said that. If you want to believe that "pull it" means pull firefighters thats fine, but you are not "schooling" anyone with your own opinion.

Listen to Silvertein himself here.

PolyNewbie · February 8, 2007

me:Anyways we know that the hijeckers were not on the planes when they crashed into the buildings because many were found alive after the crashes.

Black Dog:Also nonsense.

Not according to NBS, ABC, NY Times, LA Times, BBC, etc.

Black Dog:Can you give me a mainstream source that says that. There were cell calls being made right up to the point of impact with the towers.

Mainstream will not get into detail about the cell phone calls but this link does. Chossodovosky is a mainstream professor.

The Report confirms that by 8:33, "it had reached its assigned cruising altitude of 31,000 feet." According to the Report, it maintained this cruising altitude until 8.51, when it "deviated from its assigned altitude":
"The first operational evidence that something was abnormal on United 175 came at 8:47, when the aircraft changed beacon codes twice within a minute. At 8:51, the flight deviated from its assigned altitude, and a minute later New York air traffic controllers began repeatedly and unsuccessfully trying to contact it."

And one minute later at 8.52, Lee Hanson receives a call from his son Peter.

[Flight UAL 175] "At 8:52, in Easton, Connecticut, a man named Lee Hanson received a phone call from his son Peter, a passenger on United 175. His son told him: “I think they’ve taken over the cockpit—An attendant has been stabbed— and someone else up front may have been killed. The plane is making strange moves. Call United Airlines—Tell them it’s Flight 175, Boston to LA.

Press reports confirm that Peter Hanson was using his cell (i.e it was not an air phone). Unless the plane had suddenly nose-dived, the plane was still at high altitude at 8.52. (Moreover, Hanson's call could have been initiated at least a minute prior to his father Lee Hanson picking up the phone.)

Another call was received at 8.52 (one minute after it deviated from its assigned altitude of 31,000 feet). The Report does not say whether this is an air phone or a cell phone call:

...

Canadian Blue · February 8, 2007

That was on mainstream media. You can search for "John Yoo torture children" on google. You were likely in a hypnotic state when you heard it on TV yourself.
Its not a statute, its John Yoos interpretation meaning it is affectively law in reality. Those guys interpret the law.

I looked up the quote, and really couldn't find anything else substantial behind it. If all you're going to give me is one quote and that's it, then their is no point to bringing it up here, especially since it's only one man.

What is happening in the USA now is a lot stranger than any fiction.
What do you think the detention centers are being built for ?

They aren't, that's the problem. You have brought up these detention centers before, however when I saw the video it seems odd to me that they wouldn't have any guards there. As well why would their only be a "black helicopter", which in itself is merely a coincidence. It doesn't make any sense, and the fact that they would be building it in what seems to be an urban area is just as innane.

Not according to NBS, ABC, NY Times, LA Times, BBC, etc.

Actually they said it was mistaken identity, or perhaps even a case of the terrorists stealing a passport for example.

Don't you think its odd that you said that the mainstream media is all in on it, yet now you want to build a case based on a few reports from the mainstream media.

Which brings me to another thing you have not addressed: if the government is made up of a bunch of satan-worshipping child molesters and they intend to exterminate huge tracts of humanity: yet they let people like you and Alex Jones run around telling everybody their stories? WHY HAVEN'T THEY TAKEN YOU OUT YET?

Good point, but one which will never be answered since it would take some twisted explaination.

PolyNewbie · February 8, 2007

CanadianBlue:I looked up the quote, and really couldn't find anything else substantial behind it. If all you're going to give me is one quote and that's it, then their is no point to bringing it up here, especially since it's only one man.

That one man is the attourney general of the country.

CanadianBlue:They aren't, that's the problem.

(re detention centers)

See Keith Olberman video mentioning detention centers

Audio/Video 1/6 way down this page labeled as "1" in a list of audio video links.

PolyNewbie · February 8, 2007

CanadianBlue:Don't you think its odd that you said that the mainstream media is all in on it, yet now you want to build a case based on a few reports from the mainstream media.

Its implicit control not explicit.

PolyNewbie · February 8, 2007

CanadianBlue:yet they let people like you and Alex Jones run around telling everybody their stories? WHY HAVEN'T THEY TAKEN YOU OUT YET?

They can't take out 30 % of the population with at least a few of you fine folks figuring it out.

Canadian Blue · February 8, 2007

So we're not really living in a police state then, correct???

I haven't heard of any police state which allows so much criticism of it's government, especially in the public arena.

Its implicit control not explicit.

Actually, when you compare the picture of the hijacker, to the person who is still alive they don't match up. As was reported it's believed that identities were stolen.

Black Dog · February 8, 2007

All the firefighters were already removed from the building when Silverstein said that. If you want to believe that "pull it" means pull firefighters thats fine, but you are not "schooling" anyone with your own opinion.

Gee. You still haven't addressed the Mark Bingham thing: qu'elle shocking.

Not according to NBS, ABC, NY Times, LA Times, BBC, etc.

Oh, so mainstream media sources are valid when they report something that conforms to your beliefs? Anyway: the BBC (the only cite I bothered to look up) said later that got the wrong guy

A five-year-old story from our archive has been the subject of some recent editorial discussion here. The story, written in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, was about confusion at the time surrounding the names and identities of some of the hijackers. This confusion was widely reported and was also acknowledged by the FBI.
The story has been cited ever since by some as evidence that the 9/11 attacks were part of a US government conspiracy.

We later reported on the list of hijackers, thereby superseding the earlier report. In the intervening years we have also reported in detail on the investigation into the attacks, the 9/11 commission and its report.

We’ve carried the full report, executive summary and main findings and, as part of the recent fifth anniversary coverage, a detailed guide to what’s known about what happened on the day. But conspiracy theories have persisted. The confusion over names and identities we reported back in 2001 may have arisen because these were common Arabic and Islamic names.

In an effort to make this clearer, we have made one small change to the original story. Under the FBI picture of Waleed al Shehri we have added the words "A man called Waleed Al Shehri..." to make it as clear as possible that there was confusion over the identity. The rest of the story remains as it was in the archive as a record of the situation at the time.

They can't take out 30 % of the population with at least a few of you fine folks figuring it out.

No but they could easily make a few active rabblke rousers liek you and ALex Jones vanish without much effort. Assuming they are as all-powerful (albeit incompetent) as you say they are.

PolyNewbie · February 8, 2007

Black Dog: Gee. You still haven't addressed the Mark Bingham thing: qu'elle shocking.

Everyones free to have their own opinion. I don't really give your opinion any credibility. I still think his own mom would have recognised his voice even if someone else in the family was named Mark.

GostHacked · February 9, 2007

Polynewbie

Then you are an idiot. I've never met Jenna.

Calling me an idiot is not going to get you anymore support here at all. So stop it, or I report you and you are gone ok? Cool.

Check 911Research if you want the facts.

We all can check plenty of sites that will give us FACTS, it is all a matter of perspective. Again, you need to change your tactics.

Canadian Blue

So we're not really living in a police state then, correct???

No, obvious we are not in a police state. But with some of the things put in place to fight this war on terror, it can easily slip into one without much people noticing. Britian is about as close to a police state as I can find so far.

Let's take a look at Britian.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1953770.stm Holy crap, this article is from 2002

Camera software, dubbed Cromatica, is being developed at London's Kingston University to help improve security on public transport systems but it could be used on a wider scale.
...

The UK has the largest percentage of the 25 million CCTV cameras worldwide, with 2.5 million cameras watching citizens in town centres, car parks and train stations.

Now alot of these things advanced before the attack on the public transit system in London. All those security measures amounted to absolute SHIT. They did not prevent an attack.

http://cbs5.com/specialreports/local_story_188204442.html

For years, London has been considered one of the most high-tech, bomb-resistant cities in the world. London is blanketed with tens of thousands of security cameras, first installed to combat a wave of bombings by the IRA in the 1990s. The cameras are so powerful that they can zoom in on cars, drivers, and even pedestrians on the street. After one bombing in London's financial district, the cameras produced images of the bomber buying explosives and carrying them to the sites in duffel bags. The images helped ultimately to crack the case.

To bad they did not crack the case before the bombings.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1770

Big Brother is not only watching you - now he's barking orders too. Britain's first 'talking' CCTV cameras have arrived, publicly berating bad behaviour and shaming offenders into acting more responsibly.
....

'This isn't about keeping tabs on people, it's about making the streets safer for the law-abiding majority and helping to change the attitudes of those who cause trouble. It challenges unacceptable behaviour and makes people think twice.'

Makes people think twice? Is that not what the cameras were put in for? To make people think twice about doing something bad?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/6309917.stm

X-ray cameras that would "undress" passers-by in a bid to thwart terrorists concealing weapons, could be coming to a street near you, according to reports. Aside from the obvious privacy issues, would such a plan work?

Now the X-ray thing is new to CCTV. It is being tested in a couple airports in the United States.

So Even over the time frame of these articles, all this security will not amount to shit. It will NOT prevent another terror attack at all.

I am not sure how the CTC cameras are used in the United States.... but I will look into it.

jbg · February 9, 2007

Na na boo-boo

PolyNewbie · February 9, 2007

Ghost Hacked:Calling me an idiot is not going to get you anymore support here at all. So stop it, or I report you and you are gone ok? Cool.

You called me on it. Calling me a scoundrel doesn't help.

Ghost Hacked:We all can check plenty of sites that will give us FACTS, it is all a matter of perspective. Again, you need to change your tactics.

Perspective changes when people come into uncomfortable positions. None of us will ever convince CanadianBlue, Riverwind, JBG, & the rest that 911 was an inside job. Even if George Bush himself said there may have been explosions in wtc7 these guys are going to stick with the official version.

kimmy · February 9, 2007

From what I understand is the 2.3 trillion was for the fiscal year of 1999 to 2000. Rumsfeld wanted to crack down on bad accounting practices. He said the 2.3 equals about 25% of the Pentagons budget for that year.

I don't believe it, and I insist on seeing a credible source for that claim before I'll take it seriously.

It says here that the DoD had a budget of $257 billion for that year. Not $9.2 trillion.

Secretary of Defense William S. Cohen today released details of President Clinton's Fiscal Year (FY) 1999 defense budget. It requests $257.3 billion in budget authority and $252.6 billion in outlays for the Department of Defense (DoD). The President's proposed defense spending levels for FY 1999-2003 are generally consistent with last year's Bipartisan Budget Agreement.

( http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/1998/b...8_bt026-98.html )

I claim again: $2.3 trillion would represent every penny of the DoD budget for Clinton's 2nd term, plus every penny of the DoD budget under Bush Jr prior to Sept 11 2001, plus a bunch more.

Does it make any sense that this $2.3 trillion figure Rumsfeld mentioned means what the Truthies think it represents?

Hammer - 1000 dollars
Toilet seat - 5000 dollars

Kleenex - 100 dollars

New military? Priceless

a trillion is a million million dollars. You can buy alot of stuff with 2.3 trillion. Those who are not recording the transactions should have been held accountable. This is no chump change. I would even guess Bill Gates considers that a large sum of money ... anyways. Money goes unnacounted for all the time in the US. Would you not want to punish those who cannot account for everything?

Of course. Nobody likes government waste. But the question wasn't whether the Pentagon does a good job of accounting. The question was whether this is a believable motive for faking a terror attack. Is it? Do you think so? Does PolyNewbie think so?

The bureaucratic waste, shoddy accounting, and outrageous spending of the Department of Defense have been well known for many years. (it's the reason Rumsfeld was making that speech, in fact.) If the supposed motive of the "9/11 plot" was to cover up waste at the Pentagon, they were definitely closing the gate after the horses were gone:

Twenty years ago, Department of Defense Analyst Franklin C. Spinney made headlines exposing what he calls the "accounting games." He's still there, and although he does not speak for the Pentagon, he believes the problem has gotten worse.

( http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/...ain325985.shtml )

(amazing that Franklin Spinney exposed this corruption 20 years ago, yet hasn't been made to "disappear.")

The same article gives some insight into how the Pentagon *really* covers up its finances:

$2.3 trillion — that's $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America. To understand how the Pentagon can lose track of trillions, consider the case of one military accountant who tried to find out what happened to a mere $300 million.
"We know it's gone. But we don't know what they spent it on," said Jim Minnery, Defense Finance and Accounting Service.

Minnery, a former Marine turned whistle-blower, is risking his job by speaking out for the first time about the millions he noticed were missing from one defense agency's balance sheets. Minnery tried to follow the money trail, even crisscrossing the country looking for records.

"The director looked at me and said 'Why do you care about this stuff?' It took me aback, you know? My supervisor asking me why I care about doing a good job," said Minnery.

He was reassigned and says officials then covered up the problem by just writing it off.

"They have to cover it up," he said. "That's where the corruption comes in. They have to cover up the fact that they can't do the job."

They cook books. They reassign accountants. They "write off" missing money.

They don't fake terror attacks. They don't need to, and never did.

-k

GostHacked · February 9, 2007

Kimmy (had to edit for gammer)

Money and greed go hand in hand.

They cook books. They reassign accountants. They "write off" missing money.

And that is not cause for some alarm at all? Why does so much money go missing? So no money trail, or a covered up one. What was this money being used for? Where did it go? Who benefited from it? What was bought with it? Who knows it is UNACCOUNTED FOR.

Money goes missing all the time yeah, but. Rumsfeld said it was a matter of life and death to find out where this money goes. He wanted to crack down on Pentagon spending.

I bet for sure each and every one of you can account for more than 95% of your money over any given year. Less than that and you would be freaking out. Worrying and stuff. Stress. WHERE DID I SPEND MY MONEY !!!! I cannot account for it. Hmmm maybe I should look into it.

I maye have been wrong about the time frame, but 25% of any budget that is unallocated or COOKED is a shame and a crime to the American taxpayers. Imagine if 2.3 million dollars was injected back into the pockets of the taxpayers. 8000 for every person in the United States. So where does this go?

If you follow the money trail, I am sure you can find out what happened during 9/11 and the years after it. 2.3 trillion is not chump change people. Some countries on this planet do not have that as a GDP. Some citizens in sweatshops around the world are making pennies a day to produde the crap we buy in the stores.

So to me 2.3 trillion is a big deal. 25% ONE/QUARTER of the total budget. But just shrug this off as cooked books. Well who the hell is cooking the books and for what purpose??

No one has bothered to look into this at all??

If anyone is married or even have observed their parents with financial matters. My mom would always get in a tiff when dad could not account for some money (he went to the titty bar) and really did not tell my mom what it was for. It was not a huge amount of money , but it was enough fof r them to get into fights about it. Possibly not being able to pay the mortgage or other utility bill in full for that month. Throwing finances off for a whole month.

Imagine what 2.3 trillion will do.So what have they done with 2.3 trillion? Even if it is over a 5 to 10 year period, it still amounts to 25% of the entire budget for that time period.

The bureaucratic waste, shoddy accounting, and outrageous spending of the Department of Defense have been well known for many years. (it's the reason Rumsfeld was making that speech, in fact.) If the supposed motive of the "9/11 plot" was to cover up waste at the Pentagon, they were definitely closing the gate after the horses were gone:

Then the next day things changed. I bet the spending practices are still the same in the Pentagon. Funny that we have not revisited this. No investigations or followups. Nothing. Odd??

And with all the other scandals about money missing makes me thing something is up. Money is all that matters and all that will matter to some. Those are then ones that are dangerous.

Cooking the books is a crime. Enron execs got changed for cooking books, as well as other corporations in the United States. So who is accountable in the government for these cooked books?

Us Canadians get out undies in a bunch when the Liberals blew 100 million dollars. Chump change compared to the 2.3 trillion the American taxpayers lost. Such a shame.

Addition - that missing money could have been spent on providing the US troops in Iraq with the right equipment for the job in the first place. Also add up to the total cost of the wars with Afghanistan and Iraq to this day.... and it does not even come to 2.3 trillion is that perspective for you?

PolyNewbie · February 9, 2007

kimmy:Of course. Nobody likes government waste. But the question wasn't whether the Pentagon does a good job of accounting. The question was whether this is a believable motive for faking a terror attack. Is it? Do you think so? Does PolyNewbie think so?

I think that with the difference in wealth between the poor and the extremely rich you can expect that people on opposing sides do not see others as people. In our society today there is very little responsibility taken by those in power and indicates my first statement. With this in mind the establishemnt can be looked as a machine and there were probably 213 reasons to do the fake terror attacks and only may 51 reasons not to. The effect of the terror attacks would be known, perhaps modeled on a super computer using agent based modeling (The Sims). Agent Based modeling is a very powerful social science study and experimental method that allows accurate prediction of group reactions and behaviour.

I found this Aldous Huxley audio presentation in thje list spells out part of the message that I have been trying to convey - that is that there is a controlling oligarchy and we are puppets in a play. Every aspect of our society is managed and the North America Union is a way of exerting more control by those who are truly in charge by erasing borders and politician/court control.

The terrorist attacks were done by the government to scare the people into allowing a police state to form. As they form the police state it gets easier as they go along in the process to exert more and more control. Terrorism is only believeable for a certain period of time before the people catch on as Huxley explains. At that point a replacement is required. Presently that seems to be global warming. Huxley doesn't mention global warming but the Report From Iron Mountain does. Galbraith also confirms the reality of the Report From Iron Mountain. It is not a hoax and this is how elites think and you can see all the aspects of this report in our news today.

Many people believe what I am saying but when I meet these people in person they all are much older than I am. Few younger people realize what is actually happeing because they don't read, they watch far to much TV and they tend to be the more suggestable amoung us.

PolyNewbie · February 9, 2007

Ghost Hacked:Then the next day things changed. I bet the spending practices are still the same in the Pentagon. Funny that we have not revisited this. No investigations or followups. Nothing. Odd??

The plane that hit the Pentagon killed all of the investigators (except for 1) and destroyed the records, same with wtc7 and the enron stuff. See "Seven Days In September" written by a colonel from the Pentagon that was at the Pentagon that day. Very interesting read.

PolyNewbie · February 9, 2007

From my earlier post, the grand agenda is Meet Dr Doom. This is what is being said at the top levels of the UN.

Many people are being conned into thinking the worlds population is too high and must be reduced through a Chinese style police state with mass exterminations. The police state is also being put in place to facilitate this. This is why we have detention centers.

GostHacked · February 9, 2007

Ghost Hacked:Then the next day things changed. I bet the spending practices are still the same in the Pentagon. Funny that we have not revisited this. No investigations or followups. Nothing. Odd??

The plane that hit the Pentagon killed all of the investigators (except for 1) and destroyed the records, same with wtc7 and the enron stuff. See "Seven Days In September" written by a colonel from the Pentagon that was at the Pentagon that day. Very interesting read.

http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-56...ys+In+September is this linked to that book at all?? Got a name for that Colonel ?

Now we are getting somewhere. Screw the bombs in the building thing (for now). The money trail will lead to these crooks. Then with that evidence, you can back up the inside job thing for 9/11.

We can work together on this one Polynewbie. I know we can.

PolyNewbie · February 9, 2007

If you type in Seven Days HOURS In September (sorry) on google the document will come up.

This document describes explosions that occured 5 minutes before anything hit the building

As far as finances go, go to HawksCafe (google it) I haven't had time to vett this site but Hawkings really makes a lot of sense regarding 911 issues. He has his own theory on how the buildings collapsed that is based on an installed insulation that looks feels and acts like insulation and is a stable rocket fuel that burns at 5000 deg C. It was set off according to him. He has a phd in thermodynamics but has been a financial detective for a career.

jbg · February 10, 2007

Perspective changes when people come into uncomfortable positions. None of us will ever convince CanadianBlue, Riverwind, JBG, & the rest that 911 was an inside job. Even if George Bush himself said there may have been explosions in wtc7 these guys are going to stick with the official version.

Now that's company I'm honored (honoured????) to be associated with.

guyser · February 10, 2007

Now that's company I'm honored (honoured????) to be associated with.

Honoured , spell it right

Me...I am just PO'd that I wasnt included in such august company.

Any more room on that couch jbg?

jbg · February 10, 2007

Now that's company I'm honored (honoured????) to be associated with.

Honoured , spell it right

Me...I am just PO'd that I wasnt included in such august company.

Any more room on that couch jbg?

I suppose, But you and I are never going to agree on spelling. I speak English, you speak Canadian.

Canadian Blue · February 10, 2007

Perspective changes when people come into uncomfortable positions. None of us will ever convince CanadianBlue, Riverwind, JBG, & the rest that 911 was an inside job. Even if George Bush himself said there may have been explosions in wtc7 these guys are going to stick with the official version.

What about Black Dog, and Kimmy???