| Welcome! You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| How to prove 9/11 was a conspiracy!; 1st draft, please point out errors. | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Apr 2 2008, 08:44 AM (2,444 Views) | |
| Stundie | Apr 2 2008, 08:44 AM Post #1 |
|
How to prove 9/11 was a conspiracy! By Stundie An investigation into the 9/11 conspiracy without mentioning the World Trade Centres, Thermite, Put Options, Molten Steel, PNAC, demolitions or even explosions. Disclaimer If you simply believe that an event like 9/11 could not possibly be an inside job, whether they made it happen or let it happen on purpose, or if you simply think it's JUST not possible. Then please do not post on this thread. It is pointless debating someone with a closed mind and arguing with somebody's own personal beliefs. If you believe there is a possibility, even if it’s a 1 in a million chance that 9/11 could be an inside job, even if you think it's not true, then please feel free to comment, forward your ideas, thoughts. Also please feel free to share this for anyone to try and debunk. Introduction I would like to add my research so far which proves that there was at the very least a cover up by either the 9/11 commission or Dick Cheney and that the Vice President allowed the Pentagon to be attacked. This is my 1st draft and there is much more to come to support my conclusion. The point of this paper will prove to you without a shadow of a doubt that there was indeed a conspiracy on 9/11. Someone is not telling the truth as there are blatant contradiction in the stories we have been told. Dick Cheney met the commission along with George Bush, they didn’t testify under oath, there was no recording or notes allowed and it as not been disclosed what was said at this meeting. What was spoken about at this meeting is pure speculation, but if the commission based the movements of Dick Cheney from this meeting which is used in reference and footnotes, then it would be easy to speculate that Dick Cheney lied to the commission. When looking at all the evidence, it is becomes apparent that Cheney lied because he appears to be a major part of the conspiracy. The paper will deal with different items in exposing the 9/11 myth and will show you that: -
I will back up all my claims with testimonies, statements, eyewitness accounts and news reports. I will break it down into the following chapters. Chapter 1 – The Official Story from The 9/11 commission Chapter 2 – Dick Cheneys Interview from Meet The Press with Tim Russert on 16th Sept 2001 Chapter 3 – Norman Mineta statement to the Commission on 23rd May 2003 Chapter 4 – Other evidence which doesn’t support the official story. Chapter 5 – Dealing with debunker claims. Conclusion. – Outlining the conspiracy, Dick Cheneys involvement and why the 9/11 Commission lied. This is a work in progress and could change as work progresses, there is much more evidence to come. I will post Chapter 1-3 to start with so I can make any corrections before I post the remaining chapters. ------------------------------------------------------------------- |
 |
 
|
| Stundie | Apr 2 2008, 08:51 AM Post #2 |
|
Chapter 1 The Official Story from The 9/11 Commission Lets take a look at the 9/11 commissions account of Cheney movements on the morning of 9/11. http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Notes.htm
So to round it up......
Note that the 9/11 Commission states…. “There is conflicting evidence about when the Vice President arrived in the shelter conference room.” What evidence supports the official account? Here are the footnotes which support the official story.
It looks quite convincing until you start breaking down the evidence to support this story.
So the commission claims are all based on evidence the public do not get to see. The worst part is the alarm data which wouldn’t be admissible in court and it as never explain how or why it is irretrievable. Who creates an alarm system where the data is not accessible? The evidence is hardly evidence, but claims based on interviews, memos and transcripts which nobody has seen. We have to trust the commission are telling us the truth. The only evidence which could support the official story is from Newsweek and an Interview from Bob Woodward, but I cannot find these. Any help tracking these down to help support the official story would be helpful. This is very poor evidence to support the official claims and when you look at all other evidence which the commission ignores, it will become clear why they lied and how it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. |
|
|
|
| Stundie | Apr 2 2008, 09:01 AM Post #3 |
|
Chapter 2 Dick Cheneys Interview from Meet The Press with Tim Russert on 16th Sept 2001 On the 16th Sept 2001 before the 9/11 Commission was put together. Dick Cheney was interviewed by Tim Russert 2001 on NBC’s Meet the Press. The transcript can be found on the White House own website. http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/news-speeches/speeches/vp20010916.html In the interview, Tim Russert asks Dick Cheney about what he did on the morning of 9/11. I’ve broken the interview down into smaller chucks, so we can establish what Dick Cheney as stated and compare this with other evidence like the 9/11. These events only happened 5 days ago and would have been fresh in his memory. It also tells a different story as to what the official story states. So Dick Cheney heard of the 1st plane because his secretary had told him, so he switched the TV on and saw the 2nd plane strike at 9:03am. As soon as he saw the 2nd plane, he thought “terrorism” and this was an attack. Cheney sensed it was a terrorist attack immediately, he asks to speak with Andy Card or the President “as soon as they could hook it up. This call came in and the President knew at this point about that.” Someone called to say the President knew about the attacks, this could be the point were Andy Card told the President Bush who was in the classroom reading "My Pet Goat" until 9:16am that we have seen on the now famous footage of Bush in the classroom. Cheney is watching the events unfold after seeing the 2nd plane hit at 9:03, several minutes pass by before Secret Service grabbed Cheney as they thought a plane was heading to the White House! Sothey evacuated the VP after 9:03 and before 9:16 because he has not spoken with Bush yet and as we are aware, Bush was still in the Classroom. So which plane was heading towards the White House?
So the Secret Service was tracking AA77 by radar at sometime after 9:03 and before 9:16am. Debunkers have often speculated that they were tracking AA77 on a projected path, but this is not what Dick Cheney says. They were tracking it by radar as “The Secret Service has an arrangement with the F.A.A.” Cheney says he spoke with Bush who was still down in Florida, Cheney could not have spoken with Bush until he finished reading "My Pet Goat" just after 9:16am. The shelter he refers to with the secure telephone could be the corridor to the PEOC which the commission mentions, but its not the actual PEOC as he references this later on.
Cheney urges Bush to delay his return to the White House because we’ve been targeted. He then talks about how they evacuated the cabinet to essentially protect the government. This evacuation is very important because debunkers will often use this to discredit Minetas statement. Mineta states that when he arrived at the PEOC before 9:20am, it was being evacuated which is consistent with what Cheney is stating here. Bush didn't leave the School until after he addressed the nation at 9:30. So Cheney claims the White House was evacuated, this is before the AA77 hit the Pentagon at 9:37am and long before the 9/11 commission claims it happened at URL=http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a945whitehouseevacuation#a945whitehouseevacuation]approximately 9:45a.m.[/URL] Cheney goes on to states how there is a credible threat to Air Force One.
Bush took off from Florida on Air Force One, with no fighter support covering or protecting the President. This is odd behaviour considering that planes were being used as missiles and contradicts what he states earlier about protecting the presidency during his time in office during the cold war. Did Cheney know that Bush was never a target?? Maybe there was a credible threat but it appears it wasn't credible enough to provide air support from a couple of jet fighters. Some people doubt these claim in this Washington Times article. (cached) Representative Martin Meehan (D) says, “I don’t buy the notion Air Force One was a target. That’s just PR, that’s just spin.” Paul Begala, White House counsellor to President Clinton. "He didn't come home for 10 hours. 10 hours, when all the planes were accounted for," Mr. Begala said on CNN. "And he gave us some cock-and-bull story about Air Force One being under attack." Where was this threat coming from? Why wasn’t it ever investigated? Threatening the President is a serious offence, yet it seems to either the person who made this threat as got away with it, or was Dick Cheney lying? After Cheney urged the President to stay away, he leaves that “immediate shelter” after he spoke with the President sometime after 9:16am and enters the PEOC where he meets with Norman Mineta. Norman Mineta says he arrived at the PEOC at approx 9:20 in his sworn testimony to the commission and at this point, the Pentagon has not been hit so it's before 9:37am. So Cheney was definitely in the PEOC long before 9:58am as the 9/11 Commission states. The question is who is lying? The Commission or Cheney? So here Cheney states that he was in the PEOC and on a secure video conference with the Pentagon. This is ASTONISHING considering that Cheney has already stated that the Secret Service was already tracking AA77. Why did they not warn anyone over at the Pentagon that a plane was heading their way considering that he was on a video conference with the Pentagon? Cheney also states that he was "able to see all the stuff coming in, receive reports and then make decisions in terms of acting with it." So why did he not warn the Pentagon? Cheney contradicts the 9/11 commission claims that he was in the tunnel to the PEOC and heard about the Pentagon attack on the TV between 9:37 and 9:45am. Cheney states here that he was at the PEOC when he had word that the Pentagon had been which was at about 9:37am. This is before the 9/11 commission 10:00am, perhaps 9:58am claim! He already said that Secret Service were tracking AA77, so why was there no warning given to the Pentagon which costs the lives of 125 people? Was it because it was planned?? If you look into Mineta statements in Chapter 3, you'll see how this all fits in. |
|
|
|
| Stundie | Apr 2 2008, 09:10 AM Post #4 |
|
Chapter 3 Norman Mineta statement to the Commission on 23rd May 2003 Norman Mineta's testimony to the 9/11 Commission contradicts the Final Report by revealing the fact that Dick Cheney knew about an aircraft approaching the Pentagon, long before the impact. His testimony was broadcast on C-Span http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y and is also available online though the 9/11 Commission’s official website where the entire transcript of the May 23rd, 2003 hearing is available. http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-05-23.htm This testimony was never mentioned in the 9/11 Commissions Final Report and no official explanation as to why it is not mentioned or referred to as never been given? Neither as any of the contradictions been adequately addressed by supporters of the official story. Mr Hamilton suggests that the President had given the order to shoot down commercial to the Dick Cheney which would again contradict the times given by the official story in the 9/11 commission final report. Mineta states he was not there when this order was given, but states that there was a young man who came to Dick Cheney and said "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." But when it got to 10 miles out, the young man said “Do the orders still stand?” And Cheney replies “"Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" So what were those orders? Later in Norman Mineta’s testimony, he was asked to explain in more detail, the time of the events and the order given by Cheney in the PEOC. Mineta also states that Cheney is in the PEOC at 9:20am. This long before the commission claims and again is consistent with what Cheney states in his NBC interview (See Chapter 2) Because of his experience in the Military, Mineta infers that “the orders” were orders to have the plane approaching the Pentagon shot down. But was it a shoot down order? There are some major problems with Mineta's shoot-down assumption. 1) This interpretation would imply that Cheney had given shoot-down authorisation at some time around 9:26, which is much earlier than the 9/11 commission and what Richard Clarke states. 2) Mineta's interpretation would not fit with the subsequent facts, because AA77 which headed towards the Pentagon was not shot down. Fighters sent to intercept it were sent the wrong way. 3) Mineta's interpretation would not make the episode intelligible. Had Cheney given the order to have an aircraft approaching the Pentagon shot down, we could not explain why the young man asked if the order still stood. It would have been abundantly obvious to him that it would continue to stand until the aircraft was actually shot down. 4) Why would he wait until the flight was 10 miles out before questioning a shoot down order? If there was an order to shoot down AA77, then it should have been shot down as soon as possible to protect the Pentagon and their lives. If he was worried about shooting it down, then it would be much worse to have left it killing both the passengers on AA77 and the Pentagon personnel. It could be argued that the young man was worried about shooting down this plane, however he was given an order by Cheney and he would be absolved of any responsibility as he was following orders, not giving them. We also learned that the planes sent to intercept AA77 were sent in the wrong direction, so they were never on track to target or shot down AA77. So it simply could not have been a shoot down order. His question would ONLY make sense, however, if "the orders" were ones that seemed unusual. Examination of this event suggests that “the orders” that the “young man” referred too, were in fact to a stand down order, rather than shoot down. The military uses the excuse, backed by the 9/11 Commission, that they were only made aware of the AA77 approaching the Pentagon at 9:34, less than four minutes before it struck the Pentagon. Even though Cheney states in his NBC interview that USSS were tracking AA77 sometime after 9:03am and before he spoke with the President at 9:16am. If it is revealed that Cheney knew of the plane approaching the Pentagon when it was 50 miles out at about 9:26 or even before this as stated in his NBC interview, rather than when it was 6 miles out at 9:34, it would prove that the Military could possibly have had enough time to intercept AA77 too shoot it down, thereby saving the lives of 125 employees killed as a result. This begs the question, why wasn’t the Pentagon warned? Both Cheney and Mineta have stated that they knew of AA77 before the commission claims which suggest that the commission as to lie in order cover these facts up. Edited by Stundie, Apr 2 2008, 09:20 AM.
|
|
|
|
| look-up | Apr 2 2008, 10:26 AM Post #5 |
|
I'll have to read this through and offer feedback later. Nice topic choice though. And I would like to reiterate that someone who is just in this forum to oppose us should not post in this thread. Bring serious arguments or say nothing. Thanks. |
|
|
|
| SPreston | Apr 2 2008, 10:32 PM Post #6 |
Patriotic American
|
Looks real good so far Stundie. Some interesting material. It appears that in Chapter 2, VP Cheney was describing the same flight path banking around Reagan National which Steve Chaconas witnessed and the aircraft location southeast of the White House described by the NORAD tapes. But this flight path according to Cheney was tracked by Secret Service radars (which would likely have anti-jamming capability) to protect the White House under any extreme circumstance. This would explain the Secret Service agents looking anxiously up at the sky, spooked by either this aircraft or the E-4B also aloft over Washington, or both. These aircraft penetrating P-56 restricted airspace unopposed really had them worried, especially with the extremely unusual non-availability of F-16C fighters from Andrews AFB only 10 miles away, or anywhere else. As the White House was evacuating, they must have felt extremely vulnerable without the usual F-16C fighter protection overhead. The Secret Service had to eventually take control of the odd situation and scramble the Andrews fighters themselves. Why would loading only 20 mm M61 Vulcan gatling gun ammo belts take longer than 5 minutes instead of an hour? The M61 could easily take care of any commercial aircraft.
Edited by SPreston, Apr 2 2008, 10:35 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Citizen Pawn | Apr 3 2008, 04:34 PM Post #7 |
|
Just two cents Stundie. The word 'proof' and 'evidence' are not really the same concept, which I'm sure you know. I can say for myself, that there is much 'evidence' for 9/11 being either covered up, showing complicity, or willful negligence. I am not so certain which things are absolute 'proof'. Just saying this because the terms get blurred a lot. The term 'proof' is overused. I do thought see 'proof' by way of showing what CANNOT happen. I think that demonstrating the improbable or near impossible is sufficient. At least casting doubt on the burden of proof that is up to the official story tellers and their defenders. Yes I said it, the burden of proof is on them and always has been. They haven't satisfied any "beyond a shadow of a doubt" claus of guilt for their usual suspects, not to me. |
|
|
|
| Stundie | Apr 3 2008, 05:18 PM Post #8 |
|
Hi Spreston, Thanks for the feedback. While I was looking over the CIT evidence on the Pentagon threads, I thought this could be the case regarding Steve Chaconas. The lack of F-16 fighters protecting the White House, The Pentagon and Air Force One even after the supposed threat just highlights what Cheney knew and as he says.... VICE PRES. CHENEY: ...secretary of Transportation, access to the FAA. I had Condi Rice with me and several of my key staff people. We had access, secured communications with Air Force One, with the secretary of Defense over in the Pentagon. We had also the secure videoconference that ties together the White House, CIA, State, Justice, Defense--a very useful and valuable facility. We have the counterterrorism task force up on that net. And so I was in a position to be able to see all the stuff coming in, receive reports and then make decisions in terms of acting with it. Just a quick question, the flight path you have shown on the above image? Can you give us a start and finish time for this flights manoeuvres? Cheers Stundie  |
|
|
|
| Stundie | Apr 3 2008, 06:21 PM Post #9 |
|
Hi Citizen, your 2 cents are very welcomed. It's the 1st draft of my very 1st paper. So any constructive and valid criticisms which will improve the context or quality of the paper are always encouraged.
The "evidence" should I say suggests that Cheney knew the plane was heading towards the Pentagon. The only time I use proof/prove is in the introduction and once in the 3rd chapter. I thought I would include it in the introduction and title to outline the overall subject of what I set out to "prove" in my paper. I understand what you are saying about the word prove/proof but I hope that the evidence will support my theory conclusively. I could suggest a theory instead of providing proof of it, but I hope it will provoke a strong reaction from the debunking crowd because ultimately, this paper is a challenge for debunkers to disprove it. What would you suggest as the title? I could put it up as Teh Stundie Challenge or something! lol 
Of course it is and it always as been. It is one of the largest misconceptions of debunkers aka pseudoskeptics. That is the point of my paper, to satisfy anyone who reads it doubt and it's much harder to dismiss than other theories. It is quite easy to argue with debunkers over the CD theory, Molten steel, WTC and NIST etc etc....because we have to speculate, plus the requirement of debunkers is that some experts need to come forward to support it. When an expert does come forward and agree with our CT theories, then they are dismissed as woo, whacky etc etc! My theory doesn't require any experts whatsoever or any speculation as it is accessible to anyone who can read. Its harder to dismiss because I'm not speculating but using the statements of Cheney and Mineta that are mutually exclusive and tell a different story over the commissions claims which are not backed up by any reliable evidence. Cheney says USSS were tracking AA77 and that he was in contact with the Pentagon before it hit. However, I'm sure some debunkers will find some reason to deny/ignore it. Thanks for your feedback and thoughts. Cheers Stundie
|
|
|
|
| SPreston | Apr 5 2008, 02:05 AM Post #10 |
|
Patriotic American
|
Stundie this would be my guesstimate and not CITs. At the final end of the bank around Reagan National and pulling up over Hwy 27 near the Pentagon wall would be somewhere between 9:37 and the original 9:43 official time of the alleged 757 impact with the wall. At the other end or beginning of the decoy aircraft spiral would be when O'Brien first spotted the decoy aircraft from the C-130. O'Brien took off (wheels off) from Andrews AFB at 9:32:26 for about 4.5 miles north and then was vectored west by Morningside One to fly south of the Washington Mall. This distance was about 8 more miles to where he spotted the decoy aircraft 4 miles to the west. The C-130 takeoff speed is about 115 knots (132 mph) and the cruising speed of a C-130H is 292 knots (336 mph) but slower at lower altitudes. The C-130 climb speed is 180 knots (207 mph or 3.45 miles per minute) and the rate of climb about 2000 fpm. That gives us about 2 minutes time to 3500 ft altitude using up 7 miles of the 12.5 mile total distance. Assuming a speed of 300 mph for the remaining 5.5 mile distance to where O'Brien spotted the decoy aircraft about 4 miles away would equate to about 3.1 total minutes flying time. Adding 3 min 4 sec to 9:32:26 would equal 9:35:30 as the time the decoy aircraft reaches the beginning of our yellow spiral. Beginning of spiral: (about) 9:35:30 Ending of spiral: Between 9:37 and 9:43 (9:37:57) The entire decoy aircraft flight loop as drawn on our map is about 17 miles in length. The NORAD tapes gave a last known speed for the assumed Flight 77 as 290 knots (333 mph) The NORAD tapes also position the aircraft 6 miles southeast of the White House (about the tail of the red aircraft marker on the map (about 8 miles along the loop)) at 9:35:41. At 5.55 miles per minute, the aircraft would take 1.44 minutes from the beginning time of 9:35:30 to reach that position or 9:36:56. Of course the NORAD report was likely delayed through the actions of sending and receiving the message and the aircraft was flying faster at the beginning of the spiral. The alleged 757 (what we have determined is the north of Citgo decoy aircraft) would be descending from its cruising altitude into Virginia and slowing from its cruising speed of 530 mph, from wherever it originally departed. The aircraft would be slowing along its entire bank around Reagan National and should arrive between 9:37 and 9:43. Let's assume an average speed of 450 mph between the beginning of the loop and the tail of the aircraft symbol (8 miles). At 7.5 miles per minute, the aircraft would take 1.06 minutes from the beginning time of 9:35:30 to reach that position or 9:36:34. An average speed of 392 mph between the tail of the aircraft symbol and the Hwy 27 pull up (9 miles) or at 6.5 miles per minute, the aircraft would take 1.38 minutes from the last time of 9:36:34 (450 mph average speed for 8 miles) or an arrival time at the pull up of 9:37:57. Wasn't there an official 9:39 impact time also? Do you see why they were monkeying with the official impact times? Remember these are my figures and not CITs. I believe firmly that the decoy aircraft flew this spiral flight path and we can only guess at the speeds. But we do have a very good witnessed flight path from many sources while the official FDR flight path has not one single witness and the FDR and 84 RADES data have been proven fakes.
Edited by SPreston, Apr 5 2008, 08:48 AM.
|
|
|
|
| SPreston | Apr 5 2008, 11:22 AM Post #11 |
|
Patriotic American
|
Plugging in alternate aircraft speeds - Assuming a speed at pull up of 333 mph (NORAD tapes) - refer to map showing decoy aircraft spiral loop around Reagan National in previous post The decoy aircraft coming into the north Arlington area very fast Let's assume an average speed of 490 mph (530 - 450) between the beginning of the loop and the tail of the aircraft symbol (8 miles). At 8.167 miles per minute, the aircraft would take .979 minutes (59 seconds) from the beginning time of 9:35:30 to reach that position or 9:36:29. An average speed of 400 mph (450 - 333) between the tail of the aircraft symbol and the Hwy 27 pull up (9 miles) or at 6.67 miles per minute, the aircraft would take 1.35 minutes (1 min 21 sec) from the last time of 9:36:29 (490 mph average speed for 8 miles) or an arrival time at the pull up of 9:37:50. Beginning of spiral: (about) 9:35:30 Ending of spiral: Between 9:37 and 9:43 (9:37:50) Or The decoy aircraft coming into the north Arlington area relatively slow Let's assume an average speed of 390 mph (420 - 360) between the beginning of the loop and the tail of the aircraft symbol (8 miles). At 6.5 miles per minute, the aircraft would take 1.23 minutes (1 min 14 sec) from the beginning time of 9:35:30 to reach that position or 9:36:44. An average speed of 346 mph (360 - 333) between the tail of the aircraft symbol and the Hwy 27 pull up (9 miles) or at 5.77 miles per minute, the aircraft would take 1.56 minutes (1 min 34 sec) from the last time of 9:36:44 (390 mph average speed for 8 miles) or an arrival time at the pull up of 9:38:18. Beginning of spiral: (about) 9:35:30 Ending of spiral: Between 9:37 and 9:43 (9:38:18) Or The decoy aircraft coming into the north Arlington area very slow Let's assume an average speed of 350 mph (360 - 340) between the beginning of the loop and the tail of the aircraft symbol (8 miles). At 5.8 miles per minute, the aircraft would take 1.38 minutes (1 min 23 sec) from the beginning time of 9:35:30 to reach that position or 9:36:53. An average speed of 336 mph (340 - 333) between the tail of the aircraft symbol and the Hwy 27 pull up (9 miles) or at 5.6 miles per minute, the aircraft would take 1.61 minutes (1 min 37 sec) from the last time of 9:36:53 (350 mph average speed for 8 miles) or an arrival time at the pull up of 9:38:30. As you can see, the final arrival times vary very little between a fast initial descent into Arlington and a slow initial descent into Arlington. But the 9-11 planners and disinformation manipulators jockeyed the impact times around to add confusion and camoflage the actual impact time. These are my guesstimates and the aircraft positions and the actual placement of of the spiral decoy aircraft flight path approximate with the information CIT and others have managed to collect to date. What we do know is that the official FDR flight path has not one single real live witness that saw it and the alleged Flight 77 FDR and 84 RADES data are obvious fakes.  Beginning of spiral: (about) 9:35:30 Ending of spiral: Between 9:37 and 9:43 (9:38:30) Actual Decoy Aircraft flight path over DC and southeast of White House and banking around airport and north of Citgo  C-130 flight path (Yellow line) - Faked RADES C-130 flight path (blue) - Faked Flight 77 (red) - Decoy aircraft spotted by O'Brien to the west after C-130 passed the Mall - Never forget the RADES data with the fake C-130 straight flight path to the southwest and the fake Flight 77 loop to match the FDR loop, was invented 4+ years later because the fake Flight 77 FDR was under a lot of suspicion and investigation, and there were no live witnesses to the FDR loop southwest of the Pentagon. Are we to believe that nobody down there in Alexandria or Springfield or Washington Forest or Crystal City saw the awesome sight of a 757 aircraft descending in a 45+ degree bank at 500+ mph over their homes? That would be an unforgettable sight and the newswires should have been humming and surely a few awesome videos and award winning photos would have popped up. But NOTHING. Not a word. No witnesses at all of the official Flight 77 FDR flight path, because it was FAKED. Fake Flight 77 FDR flight path with the alleged very tight and very difficult 530 mph loop southwest of the Pentagon over Alexandria and Springfield and never over or east of the Potomac as shown by the NORAD tapes and numerous witnesses, and a 530 mph flight path which nobody living actually witnessed with never to be found real live witnesses which the FBI forgot to invent. 
Edited by SPreston, Apr 5 2008, 12:33 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Stundie | Apr 6 2008, 05:26 PM Post #12 |
|
Hi SPreston, Thanks for all the information. Its really helpful and it would explain what Cheney is describing in his interview. Although I didn't get the answer I was look for but it's interesting. I was wondering where AA77 based on the FDR would have been at times between 9:06-9:15 (Around the time Cheney was moved by Secret Service) and also at 9:26-9:27am (The time Mineta says young man told Cheney plane was 50 miles.) I did ask Rob at PFT at what time would AA77 have been 50 miles from the Pentagon and I remember he said it was around 9:27 but I can't find his email. If I can find out the movements of AA77 which alerted the Secret Service, it would definitely help the theory. Even though it's pretty water tight already. lol Cheers Stundie
|
|
|
|
| Stundie | Apr 6 2008, 06:16 PM Post #13 |
|
Just to let you know...Here is the only bit of debunking of my theory so far....lol I posted my paper at my old stomping ground at SLC which has not gotten any real response as they failed at debunking this last time I brought it up, however it as found it's way JREF as I suspected. Debunker Challenge VS Stundie Theory (Part 1) Horatius says this... http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3590926&postcount=4
Oh those debunkers! They just make a claim and provide no evidence for it. Which means it must be true? Right?? Err...Wrong!! Here are the 2 theories:- Stundie Theory = Phone call that Cheney says came in wasn't Bush, Security then whisked Cheney off over the next several minutes after 9:06 (When Bush was told) but before 9:15am. (When Bush leaves the Classroom.) Horaitus Theory = Phone call that Cheney says came in was Bush which after 9:15, (When Bush leaves the Classroom) then security whisked Cheney over the next several minutes after 9:15am but before 9:29am. (When Bush addresses the nation) The call could not have come from Bush. The problem is when you add this interview from Karl Rove who states that when Bush left the classroom, he couldn't get hold of Cheney! I'll let Rove tell you why?
So according to Rove, Bush left the classroom after 9:15am but he couldn't get hold of Cheney because he was being grabbed by his belt by Secret Service...cause a plane was approaching. But Cheney states that he was still in his office when this call came in and over the next several minutes, while watching developments on the television the Secret Service agents came in and grabbed him by his belt..cause a plane was approaching. It couldn't have been Bush because he was still in the classroom when Cheney was So lets look at our theories. Stundie Theory = Phone call that Cheney says came in wasn't Bush, Security then whisked Cheney off over the next several minutes after 9:06 but before 9:15am. Rove states that Bush couldn't get hold of him just after 9:15am because Cheney was in the process of being whisked away. So the call that Cheney states he got was before he was whisked away by secret service cannot be Bush because he got the call before secret service bust in. Cheney told Andy Card staff to get hold of the President or Card, they wouldn't have gotten Bush as he was in the Classroom but would have gotten Andy, so he would have more than likely have called Cheney to tell him the President was aware. However, it could have come from any of Bush entourage but it couldn't have come from Bush as he was reading "My Pet Goat" Horatius Theory = Phone call that Cheney says came in was Bush which after 9:15, then security whisked Cheney over the next several minutes after 9:15am but before his speech at 9:29am. Rove says that Bush & Cheney do not speak until after 9:15 because Cheney was already being whisked away. The problem with Horatius theory, is this call had happened before Cheney was being whisked away by secret service. It was a great try by Horatius however, it was a better save by Stundie. So my theory still stands so far. Unless Horatius or others have some more debunking delights, I'll keep you updated. Cheers Stundie |
|
|
|
| Stundie | Jun 9 2008, 08:52 AM Post #14 |
|
I see they are flogging a dead horse again over the J**F forum. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=115212 Hilarious stupidity is being shown, here is Gumboot explaining it all in a backwards arse way... http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=115212&page=5
I've highlight these bits as an example of how denial and revision works. When 4 happens, Cheney states that.....
So he went to the PEOC and where he had Mineta there......So on Gumboots revision of Cheneys own words, he as put 5 in a little early...reworked to fit the fact it should be... 4. VP relocates to PEOC 6. Norman Mineta arrives As for 5.... PEOC learns that Pentagon was hit...Cheney states that AFTER he arrives in the PEOC and AFTER he sees Mineta...
So that should be according to Cheney.... 4. VP relocates to PEOC 6. Norman Mineta arrives 5. PEOC learns that Pentagon was hit Not 4, 5, 6! And you see this is how denial works, here is word from the horses mouth that he states he arrives at the PEOC, meets Mineta and then within a short order, the Pentagon is hit. But that is ignored, because that could mean that Mineta was telling the truth...so what does Gumboot do, revise the facts that Cheney arrives at the PEOC, hears of the Pentagon attack and then Mineta arrives. This bit should give the game away....because AFTER they had heard the Pentagon hit....Cheney states... We had a report that Norm had provided that there were six airplanes that might have been hijacked, and that's what we started working off of, was that list of six. So Cheney confirms that Mineta was already there, because Mineta gave him a report....lol  My god, the denialism is very strong in the J**F Groupthink heard... The funniest thing about Mineta times being wrong, is that you have to believe that he imagined a whole conversation with Belger about AA77, plus you have to imagine that on the single most important day in his career, a defining moment, that he got his times wrong.....and was talking about UA93, not AA77....even though he says in his testimony that the only word they got about UA93 when it crashed.
Simply put, there is no evidence to suggest that Minetas times are wrong, if he is, it is probably +/- a few mins at the very most. I wish Gumboot would put some times around all these events, so I could have a laugh at how he thinks it all played out. Cheers Stundie Edited by Stundie, Jun 9 2008, 08:55 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Stundie | Jun 16 2008, 01:25 PM Post #15 |
|
----------Edited to add--------- I was in the middle of a post and had to nip out, but I accidentally pressed the reply button. So I've edited this to how it should have looked. Stundie ----------------------- A quick update on the failure better known as the J**F forum. This time from Boloboffin? http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3762022&postcount=190
Errr! If you are going to do a time line, it helps if you start at the right time. 2nd plane hits at 9:03am. Wrong from the start...but his revision gets worse.
At 9:12am Bush is still in the classroom....He leaves at 9:1 6a.m. http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a916takestime#a916takestime
Problems is....We never get to see these interviews and of course... Bush can't get hold of Cheney....
Why 9:38am??...Because Rove states that Bush couldn't get hold of Cheney when he left the Classroom at 9:16am. As cheney was being taken by SS. Oh dear! It seems like Boloboffin as fast forwarded into the future...lol Even funnier the Pentagon attack happened at 9:37am. So the SS grabbed Cheney to the corrider one minute after the Pentagon is hit?? WOW.  There are doubts that these calls even took place....
That's about seven minutes for Cheney to sit in the corrider trying to speak to the President?? WTF!! So it's now 9:43 and the VP or the SS isn't aware that the Pentagon was struck 6 mins ago?? Even though SS removed Cheney because they were tracking it by radar??
lolBoloboffin wants us to believe that Cheney didn't know of the Pentagon attack until after 9:43am, even though there was live coverage after the attack on CNN at 9:39am. Oh I forget, the commission claims Cheney knew of this when he is in the corridor which contradicts what he says in his interview, that he arrived at the PEOC and within a short order, heard of the attacks. Lets ignore that contradiction in Boloboffins theory. So now Boloboffin thinks Cheney waited in the tunnel for 7 mins?
The White House logs there. So boloboffin is just parroting and ignoring the obvious contradictions with his timeline. He as no account for the VP between 9:12 to 9:38. So what does he think Cheney was doing for 26 minutes in his office? He ignores what Cheney states oly 5 days after the attacks, that he arrives at the PEOC and hears of the Pentagon attack. I love how these debunkers wish these things weren't true. So he thinks by parroting the official story, proves the official story. When Cheney clearly contradicts what the commission claim. Edited by Stundie, Jun 16 2008, 03:34 PM.
|
|
|
|
| look-up | Jun 16 2008, 02:17 PM Post #16 |
|
RE: Evidence vs. Proof. Sure, evidence of inside job does not equal proof of an inside job, necessarily. That wording means that it could possibly prove it, but doesn't always prove it. However, one piece of evidence could prove another version of events false, and then a logical argument can be put forth which proves that no other option exists than to consider the event an inside job, and can indirectly be proven. For instance, there's no way that Al-qaeda could have demolished the WTC7 building. Consider who the tenants of that structure were! CIA, SEC, IRS OEM... countless others. It is reasonable to say that if the building was deliberately demolished on 9/11, and not a side-effect of the collapses of the other structures, that 9/11 was an inside job because there is no other option than al-qaeda or the U.S. government. That proves the U.S. government deliberately imploded building 7. The only shadow of a doubt is that someone can argue that somehow the building collapsed in the exact manner of a controlled demolition, yet wasn't one - and that would be very difficult. Or that some terrorist group infiltrated the building and planted explosives without these agencies knowing about it. That is also extremely difficult to argue. For most people, this can be considered proof. No wonder why NIST is taking so long to produce their report on BUilding 7. THey know how detrimental it will be if they can't explain the collapse in another way. So remember you need to prove that one or more piece of evidence contradicts the official story of al-qaeda doing the job alone. you also need to have a very sound argument that no one else could have done this but the U.S. government. However, let it be understood that someone could have contracted the U.S. government to participate in or fully realize the attacks. Then show the overall evidence linking 9/11 to the New World Order cult, showing reasonable suspicion that they are involved indirectly. Edited by look-up, Jun 16 2008, 02:21 PM.
|
|
|
|
| hbgtruth | Jun 16 2008, 06:49 PM Post #17 |
|
Why would you put the disclaimer that "if you don't believe 9/11 was an inside job, then don't reply to this" in the Skeptics forum?? |
|
|
|
| Bitterman | Jun 16 2008, 07:31 PM Post #18 |
|
I think what he's hoping for is for someone to participate in the discussion so that things can be fleshed out so a solid argument can be made. He's hoping it won't turn into a huge pointless debate with skeptics pointing out little things that have little or no bearing on the topic. He's just trying to keep the BS to a minimum. Care to join in? |
|
|
|
| Stundie | Jun 16 2008, 09:36 PM Post #19 |
|
Cherry picking... What I say is.... If you simply believe that an event like 9/11 could not possibly be an inside job, whether they made it happen or let it happen on purpose, or if you simply think it's JUST not possible. Then please do not post on this thread. It is pointless debating someone with a closed mind and arguing with somebody's own personal beliefs. Bolded for your wisdom. i.e. If you think it is impossible, then we are not arguing with the evidence, just your personal belief that it is impossible. So it is pointless debating. To be a true skeptic, you have to believe there is a possibility. If there is no chance, then nothing will convince you. Feel free to reply if you meet the conditions. |
|
|
|
| Stundie | Nov 13 2008, 06:12 PM Post #20 |
|
Just come across this information....from over at From The Wilderness. http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/021405_faa_knew.shtml
Which kind of tallies up with what Dick is say here...
Its an interesting because this pretty much what I have always suspected with Dick Cheney and the commissions avoidance of Mineta statement, if true, then it would expose Dick Cheneys involvement and why the commission was lied to or covered up Cheney movements. Another interesting things I have come across is this guy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dov_S._Zakheim
He is also a signatories to statements with....you guessed it. PNAC!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_for_the_New_American_Century#Signatories_to_Statement_of_Principles Again, this is all coincidence of course! |
|
|
|
| JackD | Nov 13 2008, 07:14 PM Post #21 |
|
stundie -- i like what you wrote. however, Mineta is not to be trusted; google woodybox's blog. the stories are all in contradiction; timelines too -- and all you can conclude at end of day is "timeline A does not match timeline B" Also, I think Cheney's responses and accounts of what he is doing should raise serious red flags -- HOWEVER i do not think you can hand Cheney or Bush much of an active role in 9/11 events & logistics. With Lynn Cheney snapping, turning up volume on CNN... with Cheney's heart condition... plus deniability issues -- a coherent plan for 9/11 might have a role for Cheney, but NOT an operative - critical role. look at cheney as more of a cover-up, steer-the-discussion after the fact guy, not a fingers-on-buttons guy. having said that, Cheney seems to have foreknowledge, just like Rumsfeld - and his brief seemd to be - "on 9/11/01, something odd might happen. on that day, when somethign happens, delay, deny, obfuscate ,and make sure that no records survive - tell conflicting accounts, be vague, be deceptive" |
|
|
|
| Stundie | Nov 13 2008, 07:36 PM Post #22 |
|
Thanks Jack D. Mineta statement is factually correct and he might be out on some of this times, but no more than +/- a few minutes. I've spoke with Woodybox at length on this subject, he is correct that Mineta took the credit when it should have been Belger as he grounded the plane, but it doesn't make his statement unreliable. http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/708878/1/ Woody's argument boils down to Mineta witnessing an evacuation, therefore according to him (And others!) this was after 9:43am. The problem is there was an evacuation before this time. Again, Cheney, Clarke, Rice and even CNN report this happening before 9:43am. And the thing is both Cheneys and Clarkes timeline both confirm that Mineta was in the PEOC before the Pentagon attack. Others confirm that Cheney was there before the Pentagon attack, therefore before the commission claims. The only thing unreliable is the commission version of events. On the contrary, the commission as not explained why Dick Cheney says he is the PEOC before the Pentagon attack 5 days after the attack, but they will conclude that he arrives there after 9:58, perhaps 10:00. Even when they conclude there is conflicting evidence. Why cover something up? It could be negligence, but for my own reasons, I suspect that Cheney and Rumsfeld (And possibly others!) made sure the terrorists were successful. I think the fact we do not know what the orders Mineta overheard could prove that he had a operative/critical role. Hence the reason Cheney lied to the commission, or they lied covered up for him. He obviously didn't want an investigation, and of course would be a coverup guy, but this doesn't negate his complicity as a finger on button guy. Might be the case, however, I think they would have been given more of a brief than that as it appears that Cheney could be controlling the confusion. I think Bush might have been told something odd was going to happen, but I do not think, nor have I seen any evidence that he is a fingers on button guy either. As we know, he was flying about on Airforce One while Cheney was in control. Cheers Stundie |
|
|
|
| JackD | Nov 14 2008, 12:50 AM Post #23 |
|
cool. clearly you're way ahead of me on Mineta issue. I used to think Mineta was just a kindly square -- then i found out he was ex CEO Lockheed Martin, deep defense sector, savvy. Regarding Cheney -- if I were setting up the 9/11 op, i'd make sure that anyone who could take executive action was carefully kept off-stage, out of the loop, during the critical 830-1030am window. that way, the ops, stand-down, whatever, could be pulled off, certain personnel replaced, and you could more or less brazen it out that for 50 or 90 or 110 minutes you were in confusion, fog of war. I see Cheney's role as being an enforcer on "orders" of some type, maybe that we can't fathom, either to not engage, or to simply assume power away from president, or to institute Continuity of Govt, change the chain of command -- "do the orders still stand?" could be just about anything, but what it DOES reveal is that something out of the order was going on. note who was kept from taking action Bush, by means of being kept at school, kept away from his secure phone in the limo, by his staff, secret service Joint Chief of Staff Hugh Shelton, who was put on a plane in the Canary freakin' islands Colin Powell, Secy State, who was flown to Chile or south america The FBI/CIA counter-terror task force, who had been flown to Monterey, CA for a training (so they couldnt come back for 2 days!!) etc these guys were sort of voluntarily away from battle stations: General Montague Winfield, head of NMCCwho purposefully stood down from 830am to 1030am only, giving the reins to the rookie Acting JCS Richard Myers, who was ;'in a meeting' and unable to respond Rumsfeld, who 'ran over to help wounded, then was gaining situational awareness' from 945 onward (doesnt really explain his 8:14 to 9:38am activity) meanwhile, Richard Clarke was doing god knows what, and Secret Service and OffuttAFB and NEADS and NORAD and NRO were engaged in some bizarre war games - which kinda looked like real games -- with Brent Scowcroft, a secret govt old hand, up in one of the 747-200 E4B doomsday planes quarterbacking the operation, or some aspect of it. |
|
|
|
| Stundie | Nov 17 2008, 01:05 PM Post #24 |
|
I found out about Mineta and Lockheed a few years ago, but because someone has links within the defence sector doesn't implicate them in the attacks or even in a cover up. And this is what happened. Bush was told to stay away, even to the point where Cheney said there was a threat to Air Force One, which was never subsequently investigated. Cheney was in the PEOC and would have been able to communicate or create the necessary fog to allow this to happen. I think of Cheney as an enforcer too, although this doesn't negate his possible complicity in planning it. Cheney and his old partner Rummy have been in and round the White House for many years, in various roles and they have a good handle on how things run. All I can say is that there is enough evidence already to suggest a LIHOP with Cheney. It is very funny, weird how some of these people were not on hand or were conveniently away. Some of them like Shelton and Powell could have been sent on a jaunt to keep them out of the way. The important ones are Winfield and Rumsfeld who I think were instrumental in not being available. Why Winfield never took over suggest some kind of foul play. And where Rummy is anyones guess. I think the commission let them off relatively easy! After reading his book, I think Richard Clarke was no part of it. This is quite obvious from the decisions he made and any of his requests for actions all went though the Vice President. If he had kept his position when Bush took over, I think 9/11 would have been less likely to have happened. As for Scowcroft, I know very little about him, I do know he was overseeing Global Guardian exercise but I would not go as far as to say he was involved at the moment. Thanks for your input. Cheers Stundie |
|
|
|
| DoYouEverWonder | Nov 17 2008, 01:21 PM Post #25 |
|
If Cheney wasn't in the PEOC until after the Pentagon was hit, then where was he? Still sitting in his office, twiddling his thumbs, watching the attack go down on CNN? Either way, Cheney didn't not respond appropriately to the attack while it was in progress. None of them did. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Skeptics · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
11:33 AM Dec 3
