| Viewing Single Post From: Shanksville Chapter extra | |
|---|---|
| Gideon524 | Jan 17 2008, 10:44 PM |
Oh, you didn't know?
|
I don't determine who's more believable. I take all sides of the story in proper context into consideration. I examined the phone calls, the cvr transcript, interviews with family members, and all the other familiar things concerning Flight 93. I didn't start to question the official account until a year later. In this short video, you see Official Story 2002(news reports, government statements) vs. Official Story 2004(9/11 Commish, now etched in stone) and they don't jive. Why the change in story? Why these glaring contradictions between military statements and the Commish? And this isn't the only instance of the Commish contradicting NORAD statements either. The Commish would have us believe that UA93 would've hit its target had it reached D.C., even though there was a CAP already established . The Commish states the Langley fighters only orders were to "ID, type, and tail" but I have tv news reports within the first few months saying the Langley fighters were told to "keep planes away from the White House," BEFORE UA93 crashed. These same reports indicate the shootdown order was communicated from Bush to Cheney BEFORE the plane crashed. And as far as credibility goes, Gen. Winfield was in the NMCC during flight 93's hijack communicating with the FAA and Robert Marr was commander of NEADS, the branch of NORAD that the Commish says didn't learn of UA93 until four minutes after the crash. These aren't roadside eyewitnesses. These are the men in charge that day. |
 |
|
| Shanksville Chapter extra · Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup | |
3:19 AM Nov 27
