| 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! |
| Shanksville Chapter extra; LCFC | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jan 12 2008, 08:18 PM (1,628 Views) | |
| Gideon524 | Jan 12 2008, 08:18 PM Post #1 |
Oh, you didn't know?
|
Little something I tacked on to the Shanksville Chapter regarding United 93. If this isn't proof the 9/11 Commission is lying, I don't know what is. What are your thoughts? Comments? |
 |
 
|
| 911Jedi | Jan 13 2008, 01:15 AM Post #2 |
|
Excellent work. Something all truthers should be aware of. |
|
|
|
| illeagalhunter | Jan 16 2008, 11:56 AM Post #3 |
|
Not as slick as Dylan , but worth watching |
|
|
|
| Kaiya | Jan 17 2008, 01:01 AM Post #4 |
|
Interesting video. I noticed that there were some contradicting claims in the video. This is not surprising considering all of the data out there. How do you determine which persons in the clips you put in the video are the more believable? Have you examined any evidence that supported the official version of events and felt it was indeed true? Thanks. Kaiya Edited by Kaiya, Jan 17 2008, 01:15 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Gideon524 | Jan 17 2008, 10:44 PM Post #5 |
|
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. |
|
|
|
| ihatecreditors | Jan 22 2008, 01:59 PM Post #6 |
|
nice video |
|
|
|
| RKOwens4 | Feb 2 2008, 09:44 PM Post #7 |
|
This is what I love about Loose Change. First, they aren't even sure what "the truth" is, only that the official version is wrong. In 2nd Edition, they claimed United 93 landed at Cleveland Hopkins Airport. In the Final Cut, they claim (or at least imply) that United 93 was shot down. How many different versions of "the truth" can there be? Second, they apparently haven't paid attention to the footage IN THEIR OWN FILM. First things first, the report of another hijacked plane. Yes, this happened at 10:07. They believed then that the plane was hijacked and still heading for Washington. General Winfield says that the received a report from the FAA that the plane was heading for Washington. This doesn't mean that the plane was heading for Washington, but that he received a report from the FAA and was under the belief that it was heading for Washington. No contradiction with the 9/11 Commission Report there. Loose Change can show the misleading animation at 9:39 all it wants. This doesn't mean the conversation took place at 9:39. General Winfield again says that they were kept informed of the FAA's TIME ESTIMATES as to how far from Washington the plane was. Again, this took place between 10:07 and 10:15. It would have taken Flight 93 about 7 minutes - based on its last known speed - to travel from "80 miles out" to "10 miles out", so this too fits with the timeline. If they were aware of the plane at 9:39, they would have said the plane is about 500 miles out. 80 miles out fits EXACTLY with them learning of it around 10:07. The plane crashed at 10:03 when it was about 150 miles from Washington. General Winfield says it was about 10:03 when the fighters reported the plane had crashed. It's almost certain that he was confusing this with a private plane which was the first to circle over the area and report the rising smoke and crater. Although Loose Change likes to pretend that there was no confusion on 9/11 among anyone, the fact is that it's understandable that General Winfield would mistake the visible confirmation of the downed plane as coming from a fighter rather than a private plane. Loose Change claims that the NBC report, in which the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff talks of a conversation on 9/11 in which he said to someone that fighters were sent to intercept Flight 93, "completely contradicts" the 9/11 Commission. Wrong. The two Langely fighters were tangled up over D.C. trying to intercept two planes which they found out at 10:10 was their own transponders they were chasing, after which they focused on Flight 93, five minutes before NEADS was notified it had crashed. Ultimately, every single thing presented in Loose Change via media reports shortly after 9/11 fits with the 9/11 Commission's findings. It's just that all of these events took place after the plane had crashed, when military commanders (and even the FAA) BELIEVED the plane was still up and closing in on Washington. But wait, there's that one thing, "straight from the horse's mouth", which contradicts the report, right? And what is this? A statement that the fighter pilots were ordered to intercept Flight 93, supposedly contradicting the report's findings that the shoot down order wasn't passed to the pilots. Apparently Dylan Avery doesn't understand what an intercept is. In fact, an intercept means to reach the plane and trail it from a safe distance. INTERCEPT DOES NOT MEAN SHOOT DOWN. Dozens of planes were intercepted in the years prior to 9/11 (none of them in the United States, though). None were shot down. Again, Loose Change fails to present a single piece of evidence. Edited by RKOwens4, Feb 2 2008, 09:51 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Gideon524 | Feb 2 2008, 11:07 PM Post #8 |
|
Oh, you didn't know?
|
For the record, it's not specifically Loose Change's work. I tacked this info onto the Shanksville chapter myself since it was my research. What you are watching is Official Story 2002 vs. The Final Official Story(9/11 Commish) When you take the ABC report completely out of context, like you just did, then you can match it up all you want. The fact is, Winfield is clearly talking about events BEFORE the plane crashed. He says...
then says...
Then you turn around and make an excuse and say...
Your very next sentence talks about how Loose Change likes to pretend. Kind of ironic? You make this excuse because you know if it were FIGHTERS reporting the crash back at 10:03 that the Commish is DEAD WRONG about military notification. You said...
No matter how much you spin it, that's not what he said. You guys like to pretend there was no competence at all that day, that our military and government completely dropped the ball in every instance that any of the events of 9/11 could have been prevented or thwarted. You failed to see the contradictions I was pointing out in the film. One being that the Commish states that
Winfield, the year after 9/11, before the Commish was even formed, states on ABC...
and then...
That is a direct contradiction. It's clear in this interview that the NMCC, NEADS, the White House and the FAA were all aware of that plane DURING the hijack and talking amongst each other about what to do. Taken into the correct context the interviews aired on the news, the events described by Col. Marr and Gen. Winfield came BEFORE THE PLANE CRASHED. When you watch the interviews, they all go in the same order as put together in the short film. The military was notified of United 93, tracked it, ordered the fighters after the plane, THEN IT CRASHED. That is how it aired on Sept. 11, 2002, long before the Commish was even underway. The Commish also contradicts more NORAD statements when they'd have us believe that had the passengers not taken down the plane, that UA93 would've reached its target in D.C. Even NORAD doesn't buy this. You said...
Richard Myers' account of UA93, in the NBC report, also aired in the context that the events he is describing happened BEFORE THE PLANE CRASHED. It is also interesting to point out how he said that UA93 was "showing to the ground that it was transmitting this hijack code" I thought none of the planes sent 7500 code to the ground? You said...
You completely missed the point entirely with a nice game of bait and switch, confusing the handling of the shootdown order and then discussing an intercept, two different things. In regards to the passing of the shootdown order to fighter pilots, the 9/11 Commish states specifically...
Yet, two years earlier, on ABC News...
The shootdown order was INDEED passed to the fighter pilots according to this news story because it was earlier on they were discussing the communicating of the order from Bush to Cheney when Cheney broke into the conference call. The Commission is either wrong or lying to say that the NEADS Commander did not pass the shootdown order to the pilots. Marr said it on television before the Commish was even created. In the ABC report, they were clearly talking about a SHOOTDOWN ORDER, not an intercept order. The news videos used in this film all aired this information within a year of the attacks, in the context that the events being described my Marr, Winfield, Myers, etc, all occurred BEFORE THE PLANE CRASHED. Spin it however you must. The facts speak for themselves. |
|
|
|
| RKOwens4 | Feb 3 2008, 09:31 PM Post #9 |
|
Gideon: Thanks for a logical response. This is more than I can say about you, Terral (I'll get to your post shortly). Are you saying, Gideon, that you're the creator of the Shanksville chapter of Loose Change discussing the media reports? You're looking at the media reports and what is said entirely out of context. General Winfield says "the decision was made to try to go intercept Flight 93". The 9/11 Commission does not deny this. This did happen. The military commanders, FAA, and even the fighter pilots BELIEVED that they were in the process of intercepting Flight 93. However, they would soon learn that the plane was already down. One of the pilots even talks about how his mindstate at the time was "The game has changed. We can do something about it now." I have no doubt that that was his mindstate. General Winfield says that the fighters reported at 10:03 that the plane was down. This would have been impossible. Even if you believe the timeline of the planes being tangled up in Washington until 10:10 (still 150 miles away), consider the FAA air traffic control recordings of the controller calling for United 93 and then asking nearby planes if they see any smoke. If fighter planes were in the air, why didn't the controllers ask them, and why wouldn't they be the ones saying "Yeah, we do see smoke" instead of the pilot of the private plane? Why aren't the fighters on radar in Washington at 10:03 and not Shanksville? On 9/11, military commanders weren't even aware of most of the hijackings until after they had hit their targets or crashed. Norman Mineta's timeline concerning when he heard Dick Cheney say "Of course the order still stands" was off by over half an hour, and he mistook the plane being referred to as Flight 77 (it was actually Flight 93). To believe that every military commander knew exactly what was going on across the United States at each exact minute is doing an injustice to yourself, because this simply did not happen on 9/11. There are many reasons why General Winfield could have mistaken where the report that the plane was down came from, but the evidence shows that the report could not have possible come from any fighter. You then quote General Winfield about being notified of Flight 93 by the FAA and being given updates on time estimates as to how far away the plane was. FACT: On 9/11, General Winfield was notified by the FAA of Flight 93's hijacking and given time estimates. Norman Mineta, among 2 or 3 others in the White House bunker, confirm Dick Cheney being given the time estimates. THIS DOES NOT "DIRECTLY" OR INDIRECTLY CONTRADICT THE 9/11 COMMISSION. Once again, you're looking at his statement from the point of view of all of this happening before 10:03, when nothing in the report says when all of this took place. The 9/11 Commission does not state that United 93 would have reached Washington had the passengers not overtaken the plane. It says something like "NORAD insists that it would have intercepted Flight 93 before reaching Washington, but we aren't so sure." (I know that's not word for word what it says.) I don't blame NORAD for trying to portray a sense of competency on 9/11, but when you consider that Flight 93 would have reached Washington around 10:20, and Bush's order to shoot down planes didn't come until 10:15 and wasn't even passed onto the pilots, I'd have to agree with the 9/11 Commission that more than likely the plane would have reached it's target, unless maybe one of the pilots saw it heading for its target and shot it down anyway. We'll never know for sure. |
|
|
|
| JFK | Feb 3 2008, 09:42 PM Post #10 |
|
Another reason there needs to be a new investigation.. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5556726689782063831 |
|
|
|
| RKOwens4 | Feb 3 2008, 09:45 PM Post #11 |
|
You claim the ABC report contradicts the commission, saying that "they were clearly talking about a SHOOTDOWN ORDER, not an intercept order." Again, have you watched your own video clip as presented in Loose Change? The report, word for word, says, 'Marr orders his air controllers, "TELL THE PILOTS to intercept Flight 93.'" Where are you seeing the word shoot-down anywhere in this sentence, or anywhere in the report for that matter??? Like I've said, an intercept order is entirely different than a shoot-down order. The fighters WERE ordered to intercept Flight 93. But the shoot-down order WAS NOT given to them. If there's more to the report than was presented in Loose Change, please send me a link. But the report you've presented, word for word, proves that an INTERCEPT ORDER was given, not a shoot-down order. Once again, No, Marr did not give a shoot-down order to the pilots. The anchor talks about telling the pilots to intercept United 93, and then Marr talks about "that order". That order. The intercept order. Nowhere does a shoot-down order even come up. You, my friend, have twisted the words of the military commanders and others on 9/11 and then, baselessly, accused them (either directly or indirectly) of shooting down Flight 93. And on top of that, you've presented this baseless claim grounded on misquotations to likely tens of millions of viewers as "the truth". Are you proud of that? I've shown that not a single one of these reports contradicts the 9/11 Commission. If I'm wrong, then tell me where. Specifically where anyone mentions a shoot-down order as opposed to an intercept order or where anyone says that the events they refer to took place before 10:03. The burden of proof is on you. You've misled millions and denied the heroic actions of the passengers of United 93 without a single shred of proof. Aside from having no supporting proof, the evidence that does exist directly disproves any possibility of United 93 being shot-down. If the plane were hit by a missile, it would have shed debris (and likely at least one of its engines) north-west along its flight path. However, not a single piece of debris was found along the plane's flight path prior to the crater. (If you want to refer to the debris being found eight miles away, remember that this was lightweight insulation found in exactly the direction the wind was blowing, and south-east of the crater, in an area the plane never flew over.) Edited by RKOwens4, Feb 3 2008, 09:55 PM.
|
|
|
|
| Gideon524 | Feb 4 2008, 01:21 PM Post #12 |
|
Oh, you didn't know?
|
You said…
And they still believed that when the ABC story aired a year later. If they had been wrong about their initial beliefs, they would've made that clear to ABC. Surely they’d have cleared up the confusion about what happened by then and not talked of their experiences like the plane was still in the air as they did. It wasn't until the Commish came out in 2004 that the story changed. You said…
That was Colonel Robert Marr saying,
and he was referring to the shootdown order he’d just been passed. You said…
You guys accuse us of twisting facts and ignoring evidence and you’re doing it yourself right here by denying something out of the mouth of an NMCC staffer on national TV. After all the talk about the hijacked UA93, the shootdown order, the crash scene itself(the video aired earlier in the Shanksville chapter), he ends the UA93 story by saying,
If you’d like to see the entire report and how it aired on TV, here you go… You said…
We’re not turning this into a Mineta debate. You know damn well he was talking about American 77 because WeAreChange confronted him and asked him about it. 9/11 was a horrific day for everybody and everything we did that day as the events unfolded is forever burned in all of our minds. There is no doubt in Mineta’s mind Cheney tracked American 77 from the PEOC and he confirmed this when asked a few months ago by WeAreChange. You said…
Again, watch the actual news clip the way it aired on 9/11/02 and then tell me it’s not in the context that the events described all happened BEFORE the plane crashed. You said…
No sir. The President AUTHORIZED the order BEFORE the plane crash. The Langley fighters were later told to “keep planes away from the White House” as confirmed in this story. Maybe they weren’t given the order until after the crash, but they were most certainly in a position to keep the plane from reaching its target. Langley wasn’t the only fighter squad involved with United 93. There were fighters on a training mission from Selfridge Air National Guard Base near Detriot involved as well and the NEADS Commanders gave them the shootdown order as the news reported it. I’m not sure if they’re mentioned in the Commish. Now I know what you’re going to say. You’re gonna quote when the reporter says “The order was likely minutes away when the passengers took the plane down.” But then, when you refer back to Marr’s comment in the other video, fighter pilots were indeed told the shootdown order. All these news reports indicate at the very least that United 93 would’ve never reached its target and this belief was established long before the Commish was even formed. You said…
Again, watch the full clip posted above. It goes from talking about the shootdown order, right into Marr’s story. The lady says… Marr is CLEARLY talking about a shootdown order. That’s how the news reported it. Denying reality gets you no further to the truth. You said…
Millions, eh? That’s very generous of you but last time I checked the ticker on the video, it had about 334 views. Edited by Gideon524, Feb 4 2008, 02:29 PM.
|
|
|
|
| dylan avery | Feb 4 2008, 05:25 PM Post #13 |
|
Man, talk about wild speculation. |
|
|
|
| RKOwens4 | Feb 4 2008, 06:05 PM Post #14 |
|
Gideon, I totally understand the point of view in which you're looking at it, but there's not a single thing in any of the reports stating that the events and verbal statements referred to on 9/11 took place before 10:03 while the plane was still in the air, and not during the timeframe (10:07 to about 10:15) of the official version found by analyzing the NORAD recordings, FAA recordings, and so on. They simply don't give a timeframe for any of this. You can assume this all took place while the plane was still in the air, but this is your opinion, not a fact. You cannot use your opinion as evidence. "and he was referring to the shootdown order he’d just been passed." No, he wasn't. He said "there's something we can do about it". There is absolutely nothing in the report indicating that we was spefically talking about a shoot-down order. Again, you can assume this is what he's referring to, but that's just an assumption of yours, not a fact, not evidence. "We’re not turning this into a Mineta debate." I agree. And I'm still surprised that many still believe the incoming plane referred to was Flight 77, despite the overwhelming evidence that it was Flight 93. If the plane were Flight 77, then Norman Mineta would have had to had arrived at the bunker at 9:20 (which is the time he gave to the commission). However, every piece of evidence shows he couldn't have arrived at 9:20. He says the White House was being evacuated when he arrived. This didn't happen until 9:45. He says Dick Cheney was in the bunker and the phone with Bush when he arrived. Secret Service says Cheney was moved to the bunker at 9:34. Richard Clark wrote in his book that around 9:28, he was on the phone with Mineta, who was in a car in traffic, and told him to head to the White House bunker. Several other people heard Cheney's conversation with the young man and angrily snapping at him that of course the order still stands, but they all say that the plane referred to was Flight 93. The list of evidence goes on and on. I have no doubt that to this day, Mineta sticks to his story, but the evidence speaks for itself. As far as WeAreChange's video, I love that their title on YouTube is something like "Norman Mineta confirms stand down order", when he's only asked about the time when he arrived at the bunker. Regarding his original testimony to the commission, Jason Bermas, Jim Fetzer, and others went on NATIONAL TELEVISION and said that in his statement, he said when Cheney says "Of course the order still stands", that this was "a direct stand-down order" (Jason's own words). In fact, it's clear to anyone that Mineta was asked when he became aware of the shoot-down order, and he says he became aware of it when Cheney says of course the order still stands... the order being THE SHOOT DOWN ORDER given at 10:15, not a stand-down order. Mineta never mentioned a stand-down order to begin with, and in this video his interviewers claim that he "confirmed" the stand-down order, when he never mentions it in the video! That's about as dishonest as you can get. Do these people know the definition of misquoted? Anyway, enough about Mineta. "Millions, eh? That’s very generous of you but last time I checked the ticker on the video, it had about 334 views." Didn't Loose Change 2nd Edition get something like 10 million views? They promoted the hell out of Final Cut, despite making many false statements such as announcing that they'll be donating more to victims' causes than Michael Moore, Oliver Stone, and Paul Greengrass combined. To date, I'm not aware of them donating a penny to victims' causes. I'll end by asking you what motive would NORAD, the FAA, or the 9/11 Commission have in trying to cover up the fact, if there were indeed that case, that NEADS was aware of Flight 93 before its crash and was in the process of sending fighters to shoot it down? It's an embarrassment to our country's military that they were caught so off guard, so why wouldn't the 9/11 Commission (if it was really controlled by Bush as you imply) try to present the military in a competent and strong light? I could understand why they might want to cover up Flight 93 being shot down if it were indeed shot down, but even the reports you refer to say that Flight 93 wasn't shot down. Despite the lack of evidence that the military was aware of Flight 93 prior to 10:07, I just don't see why they would attempt to cover it up to begin with. Edited by RKOwens4, Feb 4 2008, 06:10 PM.
|
|
|
|
| RKOwens4 | Feb 4 2008, 06:19 PM Post #15 |
|
Dylan, while promoting Final Cut you announced, when a caller asked you about possibly donating part of your profits to the 9/11 victims' causes, that "We'll be donating more than Michael Moore, Oliver Stone, and Paul Greengrass have donated to date, which is right now at approximately zero percent." In fact, these filmmakers to date have donated over 4 million dollars to victims' causes. Do you have any plans to donate any of your profits (even if something less than these wealthier directors) to victims' causes? I don't remember exactly when or where you made this statement, but is this in fact a statement that you gave and not something someone made up? This question is raised in a short YouTube video I've made concerning the history of the makers of Loose Change, from your biographies to form of evidence. Currently the video has gotten over 2,500 views. I'm a debunker, but want to make sure I at least haven't misquoted any of you, so feel free to check out the video and tell me if I've gotten anything wrong (if so, I'll change it): http://youtube.com/watch?v=Zs5jWvu4tR8 |
|
|
|
| Gideon524 | Feb 6 2008, 10:49 AM Post #16 |
|
Oh, you didn't know?
|
If you'd have read what I posted, you'd know I just made the video about a month ago. It's not actually in the movie itself. |
|
|
|
| Killtown | Feb 6 2008, 08:54 PM Post #17 |
Childish Hypocrite
|
Just finished it. As a whole I give it a good thumbs up regardless of my believe that Flight 93 didn't crash and wasn't shot down anywhere near that area. My only advice was to help narrate the time discrepancies with subtitles on the screen when everyone is talking to help point out the time discrepancies better which kind of got confusing otherwise. |
|
|
|
| Lin Kuei | Feb 7 2008, 09:51 AM Post #18 |
|
Posting a link to a video YOU made with such quotes as that makes me think you are here purely to start trouble. Keep this on topic please, and you won't be here for long, (linking to you) saying things as ridiculous as that - let me assure you. Edited by Lin Kuei, Feb 7 2008, 11:04 AM.
|
|
|
|
| Domenick DiMaggio | Apr 4 2008, 02:26 PM Post #19 |
|
Calling it wild is being mild. Especially since we know there wasn't a private plane anywhere near that site until James Will from Berlin flew his Cessna over the site nearly an hour later. I would invite Mr. Owens to go to Shanksville and attempt to find some of these witnesses to the corporate plane but I know his idea of research is quoting the US government. Can't be bothered to pick up a phone or track a few eyewitnesses down. No time for that, need more time to regurgitate garbage invented by a bunch of rich men who only get richer from wars. |
|
|
|
| X_Splinter | Oct 14 2008, 07:14 PM Post #20 |
|
is this in the DVD? I think not |
|
|
|
| Gideon524 | Oct 15 2008, 01:05 AM Post #21 |
|
Oh, you didn't know?
|
No, it's my own short film(whatever you want to call it), that I made to help put the Commission lie in a more detailed perspective. Many of the Shanksville news clips you see were provided by me. Unfortunately, it's difficult to get the entire story out of one or two sentences. So, I did my best to put all the clips I've collected over the years into proper context to shoot down, if you will, the lie that the military never knew about United 93. |
|
|
|
| X_Splinter | Oct 15 2008, 05:56 AM Post #22 |
|
 CoolHow can get it in high quality? Is in it DvixStage6? |
|
|
|
| Gideon524 | Oct 15 2008, 10:58 AM Post #23 |
|
Oh, you didn't know?
|
No, I only have it uploaded to Google and Myspace. I could probably send you a copy on a disk in the best quality available if you want to shoot me your address through PM. |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup · Next Topic » |
3:07 AM Dec 5
