Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafesj

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2] [3] [4]


BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition

Related threads:
Sept 11, 2001 - 10 yr anniversary thread (39)
BS: Remember 9/11 (123)
BS: Building What? 9/11 (68)
BS: Firefighters for 9/11 Truth: Press Conference (311)
BS: Did We Imagine 9/11??? (128)
BS: An Investent And Momento Of 9/11, Not! (12)
BS: The Legacy of 9/11 (25)
BS: Michael Moore - 9/11 could be inside job (715)
BS: David Ray Griffin's 9/11 debunking book (1)
BS: 9/11 Solved-Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Confessed (121)
BS: 9/11 eyewitness in WTC sub-basement (23)
BS: Five years after 9/11 (88)
WTC survivor - virus (Hoax) (2)
BS: Did the FBI bomb the WTC in '93? (111) (closed)
BS: 9/11 Conspiracy Theories (24) (closed)
BS: why did the wtc fall down (62) (closed)
BS: Were the 9/11 Hijackers Gay? (161) (closed)
BS: Great Collection of 9/11 Related Stuff (2) (closed)
BS: WTC Attackers: An Alternative View (14) (closed)
Is this the WTC? (19)


GUEST,Scary Kerry 25 Apr 07 - 11:38 PM
Don(Wyziwyg)T 26 Apr 07 - 07:34 AM
GUEST,Scary Kerry 26 Apr 07 - 09:19 AM
WFDU - Ron Olesko 26 Apr 07 - 09:20 AM
WFDU - Ron Olesko 26 Apr 07 - 09:58 AM
GUEST,Scary Kerry 26 Apr 07 - 12:40 PM
beardedbruce 26 Apr 07 - 12:51 PM
Peace 26 Apr 07 - 01:09 PM
WFDU - Ron Olesko 26 Apr 07 - 01:09 PM
Peace 26 Apr 07 - 01:17 PM
WFDU - Ron Olesko 26 Apr 07 - 01:22 PM
Bill D 26 Apr 07 - 01:37 PM
Peace 26 Apr 07 - 01:41 PM
beardedbruce 26 Apr 07 - 01:41 PM
beardedbruce 26 Apr 07 - 01:44 PM
Peace 26 Apr 07 - 01:45 PM
beardedbruce 26 Apr 07 - 01:50 PM
WFDU - Ron Olesko 26 Apr 07 - 01:54 PM
beardedbruce 26 Apr 07 - 03:19 PM
WFDU - Ron Olesko 26 Apr 07 - 03:25 PM
beardedbruce 26 Apr 07 - 03:30 PM
WFDU - Ron Olesko 26 Apr 07 - 03:49 PM
beardedbruce 26 Apr 07 - 04:22 PM
WFDU - Ron Olesko 26 Apr 07 - 04:52 PM
beardedbruce 26 Apr 07 - 05:14 PM
WFDU - Ron Olesko 26 Apr 07 - 07:18 PM
GUEST,Scary Kerry 26 Apr 07 - 07:43 PM
Peace 26 Apr 07 - 07:46 PM
GUEST,Scary Kerry 26 Apr 07 - 09:00 PM
Peace 26 Apr 07 - 09:04 PM
Bill D 26 Apr 07 - 10:57 PM
WFDU - Ron Olesko 27 Apr 07 - 10:56 AM
beardedbruce 27 Apr 07 - 11:06 AM
Bill D 27 Apr 07 - 11:10 AM
Donuel 27 Apr 07 - 12:43 PM
GUEST,Scary Kerry 30 Apr 07 - 11:45 PM
GUEST,Scary Kerry 30 Apr 07 - 11:49 PM
GUEST,Podkayne 01 May 07 - 02:29 AM
Sorcha 01 May 07 - 02:38 AM
GUEST,Scary Kerry 01 May 07 - 01:28 PM
Wesley S 01 May 07 - 01:36 PM
Bill D 01 May 07 - 01:39 PM
Ebbie 01 May 07 - 01:49 PM
GUEST,Scary Kerry 01 May 07 - 09:44 PM
CarolC 02 May 07 - 06:52 AM
Wesley S 02 May 07 - 09:12 AM
GUEST,Scarry Kerry 02 May 07 - 01:53 PM
beardedbruce 02 May 07 - 01:58 PM
Wesley S 02 May 07 - 02:00 PM
GUEST,Scary Kerry 03 May 07 - 01:20 AM

Share Thread
more
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum Child
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:













Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: GUEST,Scary Kerry
Date: 25 Apr 07 - 11:38 PM

But Cheney WAS in charge. The U.S. Secretary of Transportation testified before congress that Cheney was making the command decisions.

So how did the transfer of power from the Department of Defense to the Vice President occur? Where is that in the 911 Commission report? Or any report? Please link to a source explaining how the order transferring control of NORAD to the Dept of Defense resulted in Dick Cheney giving the orders on 9/11. And that's what they were called as events unfolded..."orders." Norman Mineta testified to that.

But Mineta failed to give PROPER testimony, as the last two quotes from your portion of the transcript show. Mineta failed to add it "very clearly was an order to shoot commercial aircraft down," so Lee Hamilton put the words in his mouth. Hamilton was coaching Mineta. Such testimony would be stricken in a court case.

You don't provide any support of your interpretation of the events. Everyone has an opinion, and I'm not asking for yours. If you can supply the opinion of someone who's studied the issue thoroughly, that would be welcomed, but personal interpretation is worthless.

"Had Cheney given the expected order - 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. His question would make sense, however, if "the orders" were ones that seemed unusual.

Some critics of the official account have suggested, therefore, that "the orders" in question were orders not to have the aircraft shot down. But of course this interpretation, while arguably being the more natural one, would also be very threatening to the Bush administration and the Pentagon.

It is not surprising, therefore, that although Mineta's account was released in the 9/11 Commission's staff report in May 2003, this account is not included, or even mentioned, in the Commission's final report. This omission provides rather clear evidence that the Commission's real mission was not to provide the fullest possible account of 9/11 but to defend the account provided by the Bush administration and the Pentagon.

Griffin's analysis of this event proposes that "the orders" that the "young man" referred too, were in fact to stand down, rather than shoot down...."

http://www.jonesreport.com/articles/250906_norman_mineta.html

(The Griffin referred to is David Ray Griffin, 9/11 investigative author. His analysis shows that the order could only have been a stand down order).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 07:34 AM

" the hijackers took the planes through maneuvers a jet pilot couldn't perform without a pressure suit."

BOLLOCKS!

There is not a civil airliner in existance which would survive any maneouvre pulling enough G to require a pressure suit. A Russian Tupolev actually fell apart at an air show under a loading of one negative G.

The only thing scary about you, Kerry is the monumental ignorance you display when you stae such nonsense as fact.

Go play with your marbles..... Oh no! Sorry you've lost them....

Don T.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: GUEST,Scary Kerry
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 09:19 AM

One thing at a time.

Waiting for an explanation as to why Dick Cheney gave the stand down order.

You got any input on that?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 09:20 AM

"The U.S. Secretary of Transportation testified before congress that Cheney was making the command decisions. "

Do you have a source for that? I don't see Mineta confirming that in the source you gave us - it seems to be your interpretation.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 09:58 AM

" If you can supply the opinion of someone who's studied the issue thoroughly, that would be welcomed, but personal interpretation is worthless."

Nice try. You present your opinions as fact when the reality is they are nothing substantial and based on someone elses opinion - not fact. Think for yourself for a change.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: GUEST,Scary Kerry
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 12:40 PM

Fact: It is on the record (see Mineta's testimony above) that Cheney was making the command decisions on 9/11. He was issuing orders regarding the handling of the "hijacked" planes.

Cheney was asked if the order still stands, and he said it did. He was asked more than once. If it had been a shoot-down order, he would not have been asked more than once. The aide asked more than once because the order was unusual. Of course it was. An order to let a hijacked plane reach its target violated half a century of NORAD protocol. That's the opinion of the foremost authority on this subject, David Ray Griffin (link above). Show me an analysis of Cheney's actions that credibly contradicts Griffin's.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 12:51 PM

An order to shoot down a hijacked plane violated half a century of NORAD protocol AND all previous US policy. If the aide had NOT rechecked it, he SHOULD have been fired!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: Peace
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 01:09 PM

Link to Mineta's testimony. Cheney fuckin' well knew.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 01:09 PM

"Cheney was asked if the order still stands, and he said it did. He was asked more than once. If it had been a shoot-down order, he would not have been asked more than once."

What???????????????? Are you an expert on protocol? Were you in the room? Was that said in the testimony?   I bet the answer to the last three questions is "no".

" The aide asked more than once because the order was unusual. Of course it was. An order to let a hijacked plane reach its target violated half a century of NORAD protocol. That's the opinion..."

Bingo!!!   That's the OPINION. Whether it is your opinion, an opinion of a a so-called "expert", or Mineta - it is simply AN OPINION.

Again, you are using screwed up logic to try to turn opinion into fact.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: Peace
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 01:17 PM

I think maybe both sides ought to read the link here. CHENEY KNEW!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 01:22 PM

Thanks Peace. Again, it does not show that there was a "stand down".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 01:37 PM

I'm reading thru the tesimony of Mineta and others....(there's a LOT of it)...and trying to sort out the details of 1) who knew what about Flight 77, and when - 2)When various orders to a) scramble b)shoot or NOT shoot were given - 3)what fighters, F-15 & F16, were a)in the air, b) armed c where located -4) Flying time for any fighters available TO the Pentagon - 5)Who was a)in charge b) authorized to issue a 'shoot down' order [Gen. McKinley states there were several)

and finally, the precise sequence of all these things in relation to the actual impact.

It ain't easy, folks.....I do NOT like Cheney, but I gotta read more before I'd accuse him of intentionally allowing an attack that 'could have been' avoided.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: Peace
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 01:41 PM

True, Ron. The problem all of us have had with trying to determine what happened on 9/11 is caused by half-truths from Washington and the 'conspiracy' people. I am of the opinion that there was conspiracy on the part of government (or members in it) to allow an event to happen. The resulting chaos created a vacuum into which stepped Neocons. And they have made trillions of dollars. And taxpayers have funded their wealth.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 01:41 PM

Peace,

Perhaps I am missing something, but having just reread the testimony you linked to, I fail to see that Cheney knew beforehand about 9/11. Can you point out what makes you think this?

8-{E

"There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" " seems obviously refering to the orders to SHOOT DOWN a commercial aircraft.

"MR. ROEMER: So about 9:25 or 9:26. And your inference was that the vice president snapped his head around and said, "Yes, the order still stands." Why did you infer that that was a shoot-down?

MR. MINETA: Just by the nature of all the events going on that day, the scrambling of the aircraft and, I don't know; I guess, just being in the military, you do start thinking about it, an intuitive reaction to certain statements being made. "

As for the aircraft disappearing from the radar,

"The first time that anything untoward, and this was gleaned from FAA response, that anything out of the ordinary happened was at 8:20, when the electronic transponder in American Airlines 11 blinked off if you will, just disappeared from the screen. Obviously the terrorists turned that transponder off, and that airplane, although it did not disappear from the radarscope, it became a much, much more difficult target to discern for the controllers who now only could look at the primary radar return off the airplane. That was at 8:20. "

" At 8:46, our next log event, we get the last, and, by the way, much of this radar data for these primary targets was not seen that day. It was reconstructed days later by the 84th Radar Evaluation Squadron, and other agencies like it who are professionals at going back and looking at radar tapes and then given that they are loaded with knowledge after the fact, they can go and find things that perhaps were not visible during the event itself. "

"At 9:05, FAA reports a possible hijack of United 175. Again, that's three minutes after the impact in the tower. That's how long it is taking now the information to flow through the system to the command and control agencies and through the command and control agencies to the pilots in the cockpit. At 9:09, Langley F-16s are directed to battle stations, just based on the general situation and the breaking news, and the general developing feeling about what's going on. And at about that same time, kind of way out in the West, is when America 77, which in the meantime has turned off its transponder and turned left back toward Washington, appears back in radar coverage. And my understanding is the FAA controllers now are beginning to pick up primary skin paints on an airplane, and they don't know exactly whether that is 77, and they are asking a lot of people whether it is, including an a C-130 that is westbound toward Ohio. At 9:11 FAA reports a crash into the South Tower. You can see now that lag time has increased from seven minutes from impact to report; now it's nine minutes from impact to report. You can only imagine what's going on on the floors of the control centers around the country. At 9:11 -- I just mentioned that -- 9:16, now FAA reports a possible hijack of United Flight 93, which is out in the Ohio area. But that's the last flight that is going to impact the ground.

At 9:24 the FAA reports a possible hijack of 77. That's sometime after they had been tracking this primary target. And at that moment as well is when the Langley F-16s were scrambled out of Langley.

At 9:25, America 77 is reported headed towards Washington, D.C., not exactly precise information, just general information across the chat logs; 9:27, Boston FAA reports a fifth aircraft missing, Delta Flight 89 -- and many people have never heard of Delta Flight 89. We call that the first red herring of the day, because there were a number of reported possible hijackings that unfolded over the hours immediately following the actual attacks. Delta 89 was not hijacked, enters the system, increases the fog and friction if you will, as we begin to look for that. But he lands about seven of eight minutes later and clears out of the system.

At 9:30 the Langley F-16s are airborne. They are 105 miles away from the Washington area; 9:34, through chat, FAA is unable to precisely locate American Airlines Flight 77; 9:35, F-16s are reported airborne. And many times, reported airborne is not exactly when they took off. It's just when the report came down that they were airborne. At 9:37 we have the last radar data near the Pentagon. And 9:40, immediately following that, is when 93 up north turns its transponders off out in the West toward Ohio, and begins a left turn back toward the East.

At 9:49, FAA reports that Delta 89, which had been reported as missing, is now reported as a possible hijacking. So again he is --

MR.: That's 9:41, sir.

MR. SCOTT: I'm sorry, 9:41. Again, he is in the system. He is kind of a red herring for us.

Now, the only thing that I would point out on this chart is this says 9:43, American Airlines 77 impacts the Pentagon. The timeline on the impact of the Pentagon was changed to 9:37 -- 9:43 is the time that was reported that day, it was the time we used. And it took about two weeks to discover in the parking lot of the Pentagon this entry camera for the parking lot, which happened to be oriented towards the Pentagon at the time of impact, and the recorded time is 9:37. And that's why the timeline went from 9:43 to 9:37, because it is the best documented evidence for the impact time that we have. Getting toward the end now, 9:47 is when Delta 89 clears the system by landing in Cleveland. So he is not a hijack. Lots of things are going on now in the system as the sectors begin to call both units that are part of 1st Air Force and NORAD, as well as units that have nothing to do with us. We are beginning to call everyone now and the 103rd Air Control Squadron, for instance, stationed in Connecticut, is an air control squadron, a radar squadron, and they got their radar online, operational, and begin to link their radar picture into the Northeast system. They are not normally part of NORAD. This is really the initial part of a huge push the rest of that day to link as many radars in on the interior as we can, and to get as many fighters on alert as we can. "


So, where is the mystery???


"GEN. MCKINLEY: On the day of September 11th, 2001, our mission was to defend North America, to surveil, to intercept, to identify, and if necessary to destroy, those targets which we were posturing were going to come from outside our country. In fact, that tracks originating over the landmass of the United States were identified friendly by origin. Therefore those alert sites that were positioned on the morning of September 11th were looking out primarily on our coasts at the air defense identification zone, which extends outward of 100 to 200 miles off our shore. So that was the main focus of NORAD at the time.

MR. BEN-VENISTE: I asked you about your responsibilities, sir, and I ask you again, whether it was not your responsibility as NORAD to protect the United States and its citizens against air attack.

GEN. MCKINLEY: It is, and it was, and I would just caveat your comment by saying that our mission was at that time not designed to take internal FAA radar data to track or to identify tracks originating within our borders. It was to look outward, as a Cold War vestige, primarily developed during the Cold War, to protect against Soviet long-range bomber penetration of our intercept zone.

MR. BEN-VENISTE: Well, I think, sir, that you have used a good term, not good for the United States, but accurate, in terms of the vestigial mandate operationally to look outward toward the borders rather than inward. And as vestigial you mean, I am sure, as a result of our decades of confrontation with the former Soviet Union.

GEN. MCKINLEY: Correct, sir.

MR. BEN-VENISTE: And so on the day of September 11th, as you can see these dots -- I know it may be difficult to see -- NORAD was positioned in a perimeter around the United States, but nothing in the central region, nothing on the border with Canada?

GEN. MCKINLEY: That's correct, sir. "

"And I also remembered as I went downstairs, before I even talked to him, that it had been a long time since we had had a hijacking, but the fact that we had reviewed the procedures of what it is we do for a hijacking, because we were in the middle of an exercise. So we were pretty well familiar with those procedures, and of course we have our own checklist that we follow.

As I picked up the phone, Bob told me that Boston Center had called possible hijacking within the system. He had put the aircraft at Otis on battle stations, wanted permission to scramble them. I told them to go ahead and scramble the airplanes and we'd get permission later. And the reason for that is that the procedure -- hijacking is a law enforcement issue, as is everything that takes off from within the United States. And only law enforcement can request assistance from the military, which they did in this particular case. The route, if you follow the book, is they go to the duty officer of the national military center, who in turn makes an inquiry to NORAD for the availability of fighters, who then gets permission from someone representing the secretary of Defense. Once that is approved then we scramble aircraft. We didn't wait for that. We scrambled the aircraft, told them get airborne, and we would seek clearances later. I picked up the phone, called NORAD, whose battle staff was in place because of the exercise, talked to the deputy commander for operations. He said, you know, "I understand, and we'll call the Pentagon for those particular clearances." It was simultaneous almost for that decision that we made that I am looking at the TV monitor of the news network and see a smoking hole in what turned out to be the North Tower of the World Trade Center, wondering, What is this? And like many of us involved in that, Does it have anything to do with this particular incident? Which we didn't think it did, because we were talking Boston Center, and we were not thinking of the immediate New York metropolitan area. Shortly after that, of course our airplanes became airborne. It just so happens that Colonel Duffy, who was a pilot of that first F-15, had been involved in some conversation because, as telephone calls were made, he was aware that there was a hijacking in the system. It's kind of interesting because he concluded that that indeed might have been that airplane himself, and [he]elected to hit the afterburner and to speed up his way towards New York. "


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 01:44 PM

"MR. LEHMAN: To follow up on that, General Arnold, did you have authority to shoot down 93 when it was heading towards Washington? And where did you get it?

GEN. ARNOLD: A lot of discussion on that. Our intent on United 93 -- the simple answer is, to my knowledge, I did not have authority to shoot that aircraft down. We were informed after the airplane had already hit the ground. That's the simple answer.

MS. GORELICK: I'm sorry, could you say that again? You were informed of what after it hit the ground?

GEN. ARNOLD: We were informed of presidential authority some five minutes after that aircraft had hit the ground, according to our records.

MR. LEHMAN: So you were given it after the fact, presidential authority to shoot it down?

GEN. ARNOLD: To my knowledge. Now, I can tell you that in our discussion with the NORAD staff at that particular time that we -- you know, we intended to intercept that aircraft at some point in time, attempted to deviate that aircraft away from the Washington, D.C. area. There was discussion at that particular time whether or not that aircraft would be shot down. But we, I did not know of presidential shoot down authority until after that aircraft had crashed. "

"MR. BEN-VENISTE: You say it was received subsequent to the crash of 93?

GEN. ARNOLD: Yes, that's correct.

MR. BEN-VENISTE: From what source was that received?

GEN. ARNOLD: It was passed down to us from the NORAD, from Cheyenne Mountain, that they had received shootdown authority. And then, you know, the timeframe escapes me at the moment, but you know for example over the Washington, D.C. area it was declared a no-fly zone by clear -- just by the fact that any aircraft was present, if we could not determine if that aircraft was friendly, then we were cleared to shoot that aircraft down.

MR. BEN-VENISTE: When was the declaration of no-fly zone authorized?

GEN. ARNOLD: I don't know. It was shortly during that timeframe.

MR. BEN-VENISTE: So are you saying that that declaration gave you shootdown authority?

GEN. ARNOLD: It gave us -- that particular declaration that I am referring to is a class bravo airspace within the Washington, D.C. area that was shut down to aviation, except for military or for law enforcement emergency response aircraft at that particular time.

MR. BEN-VENISTE: To help me understand, does it mean once that condition exists, that unless you were able to determine that this was a friendly aircraft, which under the circumstances I suppose means under the control of the terrorists at that time making it an unfriendly aircraft, that you had authority --

GEN. ARNOLD: That's correct. "


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: Peace
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 01:45 PM

First, I have never SAID he knew before hand. He knew WHEN the attacks were taking place. He KNEW a half hour ahead. I have not suggested that he knew days ahead. I think he is one of the more repugnant people in a position of power. I hope the fucker drops dead by breaking his neck falling down stairs. I'd spit on his grave just because. And I hope there is a hell so the miserable bastard can rot there for eternity. That said, please don't put words in my mouth. Thank you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 01:50 PM

Peace,

I did not intend to put words in your mouth.

I believe you just said "He KNEW a half hour ahead."


Perhaps I am missing something, but having just reread the testimony you linked to, I fail to see that Cheney knew before THE FACT about 9/11. Can you point out what makes you think this?

I am looking for the information, not quesytioning your OPINION.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 01:54 PM

My OPINION is that they were aware something was being planned but chose to ignore the warnings. On 9/11 I do BELIEVE that we were caught off-guard and the flaws in our defense became evident. I THINK that the attention spent on conspiracies diverts attention from the serious failures and inadequate preparations that our government had.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 03:19 PM

Ron O,

"My OPINION is that they were aware something was being planned but chose to ignore the warnings."

Something, perhaps, but I do not think they had definite enough indications to be able to know what. IMO, of course. Looking back, perhaps it is obvious, but with the information THEY HAD AT THE TIME, could they REASONABLY have put the information together and come up with what actually happened? If 10 people each know one part, can they know what ( of all that they know) NEEDS to be told to the other 9 people to fill out the picture?

And then, COULD they have taken action (under the situation at the time)?


"On 9/11 I do BELIEVE that we were caught off-guard and the flaws in our defense became evident."

Absolute agreement on this one.

"I THINK that the attention spent on conspiracies diverts attention from the serious failures and inadequate preparations that our government had."

Absolute agreement on this one, as well.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 03:25 PM

BB - I think we agree on some of my first point as well. I may not have worded it properly. When I said they knew something was up, I did not mean to infer that they had particulars.

As you say, 10 people knowing one part does not give a full picture.   Still, I think there was reasonable "chatter" reported to indicate that we needed to be prepared. No one knew exactly how or exactly when, but I do think if we were cautious we might have been prepared when the acts started.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 03:30 PM

And if PAST actions were any indication, the increased chatter indicated a planned attack on US assets ( embassies, ships, or companies ) OUTSIDE the US ( look at what had happened previously).
Without some definite information that the target was IN the US, HOW would it have been handled any differently? Had there been increased alerts to embassies, and to ships in foreign waters? Did anyone presently judging the administration's actions, or lack thereof EVER ask that?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 03:49 PM

"Without some definite information that the target was IN the US, HOW would it have been handled any differently? Had there been increased alerts to embassies, and to ships in foreign waters? Did anyone presently judging the administration's actions, or lack thereof EVER ask that? "

There have been plots that were detected and stopped in the past. There have been alerts to embassies and ships. There had been indications that they might hijack and blow up plans, so YES, there should have been more action on the part of the administration.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 04:22 PM

And what would have been done that would have

a)been of use
b)been acceptable at the time to the impacted individuals?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 04:52 PM

a) possibly
b) possibly


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: beardedbruce
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 05:14 PM

Such as?

Everything ** I ** can think of ( post 9/11) would have been considered as too unlikely to guard against or have been too retricvtive to others rights to have been considered.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 07:18 PM

If they were gathering intelligence properly, they might have been able to prevent the entire plan. The warning signs were there, but ignored.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: GUEST,Scary Kerry
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 07:43 PM

So the, the aide kept returning to the room asking Cheney if the order to shoot down the plane was still in effect? Is that what's being said here?

I need to see some links to reasonable argument that Cheney's aide kept coming back to ask if the shootdown order still stood. I haven't seen the argument here, so please link to it if it is out there somewhere.

The #1 man at the Dept of Transportation was in the room with Cheney at the time, and that man quoted Cheney verbatim. The evidence is all on the table, and the best analysts have concluded that Cheney could only have been talking about an order to override protocol.

Show me something to the contrary. Still waiting.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: Peace
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 07:46 PM

"Show me something to the contrary. Still waiting. "

I catually read a link that showed that. However, I don't like it when people get snotty about it. With that attitude you're gonna wait one long fuckin' time.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: GUEST,Scary Kerry
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 09:00 PM

Cheney's actions on 9/11 (witnessed by Secretary of Transportation Mineta) are the biggest public display of guilt out there. His actions can't be denied, they can't be explained in a way that makes him look like a good guy.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: Peace
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 09:04 PM

I agree. Cheney is NOT a good guy. He is a money-grubbing piece of shit who helped his old company procure billions in contracts in Iraq. He is garbage. He is also dangerous. Ask thousands of dead American kids in Iraq. Tens of thousands of wounded and maimed. You won't see anyone here whitewwashing that that no-good sonuvabitch.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Apr 07 - 10:57 PM

Peace....if you have an opinion on Cheney, spit it out! Don't be tiptoeing around the issue.















*chuckle*


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: WFDU - Ron Olesko
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 10:56 AM

"So the, the aide kept returning to the room asking Cheney if the order to shoot down the plane was still in effect? Is that what's being said here?"

It is one possibility. We don't really know for sure.


Cheney is scum. He is also as inept as the rest of the fools in this regime. There is so much blood on their hands.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: beardedbruce
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 11:06 AM

Again, from the transcript:

""There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" "

He asked this once. So,

"I need to see some links to reasonable argument that Cheney's aide kept coming back to ask if the shootdown order still stood. I haven't seen the argument here, so please link to it if it is out there somewhere."

is meaningless- as the aide did not do so. He asked ONCE- as anyone else in the circumstances might have.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 11:10 AM

I saw an interview somewhere with the 2 fighter pilots who tried to GET to the Pentagon, but simply did not have enough information early enough. They were very upset, but as I remember, they had no way to manage an intercept in the time frame.

I'll see if I can find something...(It would make moot the question of 'whether' any shoot-down OR stand-down order was given, cancelled, not given.)


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: Donuel
Date: 27 Apr 07 - 12:43 PM

"There is also the fact that NORAD-Northeast was conducting war game exercises that morning, a fact that has been very little talked about and certainly not reported to the general public. What's also not been reported, according to the information that I have, at least one of the scenarios they were considering in their war game exercises concerned hijacked aircraft being crashed into buildings. Now, this could explain the lack of response when the air traffic controllers began to report that four planes were off course..." - Jim Marrs, Author, Inside Job


This is well known enough to be in the 9 11 commission report, the made for tv 911 movie and tabloids.

What are we supposed to say?
Gee what an unfortunate coincedence. It made for incredible confusion and dely in getting a real response in the air. This must be the reason for the stand down orders we heard about.

Oh dear, of all days for the terrorists to choose, it had to be the one when we were pretending to be under attack by hijacked planes that were guided into buildings.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: GUEST,Scary Kerry
Date: 30 Apr 07 - 11:45 PM

http://patriotsquestion911.com/#Baer

Secretary Mineta's testimony is entirely omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report. His testimony directly contradicts the 9/11 Commission Report in two key points.

1. Mr. Mineta testified he arrived at the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) in the White House at 9:20 a.m. and observed Vice President Dick Cheney discussing with an aide that the incoming Flight 77 was 50 miles out at 9:25 or 9:26. The 9/11 Commission Report maintains Vice President Cheney did not arrive at the PEOC until 9:58, over one-half hour later. Mr. Mineta's testimony is further supported by the fact that Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon at 9:37, which is the correct time it would have taken Flight 77 to arrive at the Pentagon, if it had been about 50 miles out at 9:26.

2. The Commission Report maintains the government did not know the whereabouts of Flight 77 prior 9:32, when Dulles Tower air controllers "observed a primary radar target tracking eastbound at a high rate of speed". Mr. Mineta's testimony reveals Vice President Cheney was being informed of the plane's position for several minutes before that, and perhaps considerably longer.

"....I state unequivocally; There is absolutely no way that four large commercial airliners could have flown around off course for 30 to 60 minutes on 9/11 without being intercepted and shot completely out of the sky by our jet fighters unless very highly placed people in our government and our military wanted it to happen...."

-- Robert Baer, former CIA Case Officer and Specialist in the Middle East

Also, this, from a list of 9/11 Commission Omissions and Distortions by David Ray Griffin:

100. The claim that Cheney did not reach the underground shelter (the PEOC [Presidential Emergency Operations Center]) until 9:58 (241-44).

101. The omission of multiple testimony, including that of Norman Mineta to the Commission itself, that Cheney was in the PEOC before 9:20 (241-44).

102. The claim that shoot-down authorization must be given by the president (245).

104. The omission of reports that there were two fighter jets in the air a few miles from NYC and three of them only 200 miles from Washington (251).

http://www.serendipity.li/wot/571-page-lie.htm

There have been 3 "versions" of what happened with Flight 77, but the one that Mineta outlines is the only one that makes historical, chronological sense. Cheney issued an "order," and he said it still stood. Flight 77 was allowed to proceed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: GUEST,Scary Kerry
Date: 30 Apr 07 - 11:49 PM

And here's something new. It just keeps piling up:

An eyewitness who evacuated WTC 7 before its collapse reported an explosion inside the building, before exiting via the lobby which had been almost completely destroyed - before either of the twin towers had collapsed nearly 400 yards away in the WTC complex.

This testimony severely undermines the flawed explanation that Building 7 collapsed as a result of the damage it sustained following the collapse of the towers....

http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/wtc_7_eyewitness_reported_explosions_before_collapse.htm


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: GUEST,Podkayne
Date: 01 May 07 - 02:29 AM

This thread was better when the Martians were involved.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: Sorcha
Date: 01 May 07 - 02:38 AM

Martians??? Look Man, that insults us Venusians! Not to mention the Jupitarians! And, keep your ham sammitches to yourself, please. We venerate pigs.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: GUEST,Scary Kerry
Date: 01 May 07 - 01:28 PM

So, let's recap:

*Explosions inside WTC 7 before the twin towers came down

*Cops telling people to get back because they're going to bring down the building

*The BBC reporting 23 minutes before it came down that the building had fallen (past tense)

*After a perfectly-controlled demolition at free-fall speed, where the building falls into its own footprint, the lease-holder says he made the decision to "pull" the building. "Pull" is a demolition industry term meaning "demolish"

*It would have taken days or weeks to plant the charges needed for a perfect demolition, but only 8 hours elapsed between the attacks and the collapse of WTC 7

*Photographic evidence shows minimal fires coming from the windows of WTC 7, but WTC 5 & 6 are consumed in flames and never fall (plus, WTC 7 is much more reinforced than 5 & 6 -- WTC 7 is the mayor's "command bunker" and may have been the most reinforced civilian building in the world)

*The government's Safety organization NIST has as of this date changed its "reason" for the collapse of WTC 7 six different times.

*The 9/11 Commission did not even mention the collapse of WTC 7 in its "final" report

*John Kerry says WTC 7 was intentionally brought down for safety reasons

*If you question the story outlined above, you are arrested by the government that benefitted from the terrorist attacks. See video below:

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2007/160407Jam.htm


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: Wesley S
Date: 01 May 07 - 01:36 PM

Scary Kerry - So how many people were involved in all of this? Counting the planners, explosives experts, cops, reporters, ect. Do you think it took over 100 people to pull it off? 200 ? 500 ?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: Bill D
Date: 01 May 07 - 01:39 PM

You keep USING already discredited stories, plus your own claims, plus 'reports' which are anecdotal at best, to bolster your argument.


The BBC has admitted they were wrong to report the collapse early.
One man 'says' he heard an explosion...(in a burning building, there likely to be LOTS of things making explosive noises.)

It all boils down to "here is the evidence *I* like".


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: Ebbie
Date: 01 May 07 - 01:49 PM

I watched the video. As given (edited?) in it, during the confrontation the protesters come off much better than the authorities. The Port Authority came across as thoroughly confused and uncertain.

Don't pretend that they are part of the "conspiracy". These people are confused and without instruction.

It strikes me that if the evidence is so compelling for '911 was an Inside Job' then some respected and influential US figures need to become convinced of it. And don't tell me that 'they' are all fearful sheep. There is no way anyone will convince anyobody as long as they speak as though they were the only ones smart enough and free enough and in-the-know enough.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: GUEST,Scary Kerry
Date: 01 May 07 - 09:44 PM

Well bless you, Ebbie. You said "if" when talking about 9/11. My work here has not been in vain.

That video is really just an example of what America's going to become BECAUSE of 9/11. Those cops are doing what they do best...behave like thugs. And if it's not stopped, they'll be looking over your shoulder 24/7 before long making sure YOU toe the line. The entire American economy is shifting to the phony "war on terrorism" because of 9/11. Look at the disgusting link below:

http://view.fdu.edu/default.aspx?id=2787

I mean, today we have admitted "illegals" parading around America flaunting their illegality (today, May 1), but why are they even HERE if there's a real threat of terrorism? Why are the Mexican and Canadian borders so totally open if our govt wants to "protect" us from terrorists?

As far as prominent people saying 9/11 was an inside job, here's a link to a bunch who say it was:

http://patriotsquestion911.com/

More and more people come out with evidence every week. Professors publish papers, the research goes on, but the mainstream media doesn't report it because they're owned by the government that benefits from the terrorism. Rosie O'Donnell talks about WTC 7 not being struck by a plane, and she's out of a job a month later. Eventually the truth will out, but it's a slow process. Meanwhile, the federal govt (Democrats and Republicans) are going to continue selling the myth of 9/11 so that they can retain their stranglehold on power.

Wesley S. -- The neo-cons in charge of the federal govt nowadays are Trotskyite communists. They began taking over the Republican party in the 1960's and now control it. For an explanation of what neo-cons are, you can go to this link:

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2003/cr071003.htm

The communists in America learned during the "Red Scares" that they could best operate in small groups unaware of each other. Applied to the 9/11 scenario, that would mean maybe 5-6 people knew the overall details of the operation. All they had to do to pull it off was make sure everyone else followed Standard Operating Procedure on the day of the attacks. There would be a larger number than the 5-6 needed to plant explosives, and probably MI-6 and the Mossad were used there. The CIA has historically done dirty work for them, and they've reciprocated. Been that way for decades. So some "foreign assets" were probably used to plant the bombs that would kill Americans, then the ringleaders just gave a green light.

As far as WTC 7, I expect if the truth is ever made known about it, the building was always wired for demolition. It was the regional headquarters of the CIA, FBI, BATF, SEC, etc., and the govt can claim it HAD to be wired in case it was ever "compromised." But there are thousands of government-issued gag orders in place now, so the truth about WTC 7 will probably never come out. It's a hell of a smoking gun when it comes to coverup, though. The govt has changed its story repeatedly concerning what happened at WTC 7, and none of those changes were made because of new "findings"--they were made because of new accusations.

And Bill D. -- Of course the BBC said they were wrong to report the collapse early. It was a major screwup. Major. Of COURSE they were wrong. lol

The latest WTC 7 development (the report by Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings) is just the latest in a continuing stream of evidence that continues to come out. The 9/11 Commission Report doesn't even mention WT7, but it's become anecdotal that it was "damaged by debris from the collapse of the towers." Wrong. An employee in the building just destroyed that timeline.

So refer me again to the Popular Mechanics bits about WTC 7. Popular Mechanics is a Hearst Publication (link to Wikipedia "Yellow Journalism" entry below):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism

Refer me to the debunked Popular Mechics "debunking" piece and tell me again how WTC 7 fell. NONE of the points I've made have been "discredited" by your "expert" Benjamin Chertoff (cousin of Homeland Security "Czar" Michael Chertoff). No serious-thinking person takes that nonsense literally. The Chertoff piece is just a bunch of footnotes for the Myth. The Chertoffs, Bushes, Clintons, Kennedys, etc. benefit from bigger big govt. Don't let them make a chump out of you.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: CarolC
Date: 02 May 07 - 06:52 AM

September 11 Revisited...

http://911revisited.com/


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: Wesley S
Date: 02 May 07 - 09:12 AM

Scary Kerry - I didn't ask about Neocons. Let me repeat the question:

Scary Kerry - So how many people were involved in all of this? Counting the planners, explosives experts, cops, reporters, ect. Do you think it took over 100 people to pull it off? 200 ? 500 ?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: GUEST,Scarry Kerry
Date: 02 May 07 - 01:53 PM

5-6 plotters. Hundreds of unwitting operatives. Probably 10-20 MI-6 wiring the Pentagon for maxamum damage, and 40-50 Mossad wiring the twin towers over weeks or months. One of the companies that was working on the pentagon (area that was hit by the plane) was British and was still in town when the attacks happened. And Mossad could have been used easily to come and go in Manhattan and plant the charges needed in the towers. The clandestine services keep their mouths shut, too, if that's what you're getting at. The spooks wouldn't talk, neither would the half-dozen plotters. The rest...they were just following orders. A lot of people have a PIECE of the puzzle, but the number of plotters would be minimal.

As to who the plotters were, Cheney controlled the airspace on that day and Rumsfeld was in the pentagon. SOMEONE had to turn off the phalanx gatling guns and surface to air missiles that were protecting the pentagon at the time, and the boss was in the building. So Cheney and Rumsfeld definitely.

Beyond that, who knows? I'd say Bush #1, since he's been in on every major step in the destruction of America in the past 30+ years, and Cheney and Rumsfeld are his men.

I used to think that Eberhart and Myers of the Joint Chiefs had to be involved, but maybe they weren't. They certainly aided in the coverup, but on the day of 9/11 they may have been as confused as their NORAD pilots.

No one not involved in the actual carrying out of the plot would have known all the details, unless they stumbled across them by accident, but I suspect Jeb Bush knew the whole plan. His father once called him the "smart one," and the PNAC document was copied to him a year before 9/11, so he may have been taken in to his father's confidence, since George W. would be in Jeb's state of Florida that day.

So Cheney and Rumsfeld definitely, Bush #1 probably, and possibly Eberhart, Myers, Jeb Bush and Henry Kissinger (Kissinger just because he makes daily trips to the White House and always seems to be around when trouble pops up).


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 May 07 - 01:58 PM

"SOMEONE had to turn off the phalanx gatling guns and surface to air missiles that were protecting the pentagon at the time,"

And what makes you think there WERE any, prior to 9/11?

If so, they wasted a LOT of money bringing in things AFTER 9/11, that YOU claim were already in place.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: Wesley S
Date: 02 May 07 - 02:00 PM

Other posts you've made make it sound like you think some of the police and some reporters were in on it too. Correct or have I misunderstood?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: Kerry acknowledges WTC7 demolition
From: GUEST,Scary Kerry
Date: 03 May 07 - 01:20 AM

beardedbruce --

92. Thierry Meyssan, who has referred to these anti-missile batteries (Pentagate [London: Carnot, 2002], 112, 116), has said with regard to his source of information: "The presence of these anti-missile batteries was testified to me by French officers to whom they were shown during an official visit to the Pentagon. This was later confirmed to me by a Saudi officer."

http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060405112622982

There are other mentions of the surface-to-air system in various articles. Can't find anything about the phalanx system right now, but I remember they announced they were going to put arms on the roof of the pentagon AFTER 9/11 and lots of articles at the time pointed out that there already WERE arms, and the phalanx was mentioned. I also remember thinking the phalanx was pretty outdated. That may have been about the time the new rolling airframe missiles was being deployed. GWBush had a surface-to-air battery set up on the roof where he was staying in Sarasota on 9/10/01. The things are portable and hard to argue with, so why would the pentagon be without a few? I'd look more, but some of those other forums get even me down. It's incredible how many people support the murder in Iraq. Just poke around with some word combinations in search engines and something will turn up.

Point is, the pentagon wasn't defenseless. And the boss was in the building (and reportedly patched in to a videoconference call discussing the unfolding events, so he knew a plane was coming his way). So he should have had MPs with rifles on the lawn shooting at the thing, if nothing else. But he just sat safely on the other side of the building while not a single round of anything was fired in defense.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate


Next Page

 


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 22 September 1:39 AM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 2022 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.