It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Richard Gage Is Cruel

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 30 2014 @ 09:37 PM
link   
Thank you! People make it way to complicated. No matter what the truth is, no matter what side you're on, you can argue concrete. You can argue steel, planes, witnesses, videos, blah blah blah. This is all easy pickings. Can someone from the official side tell me how they feel about the fact Bush and Cheney were allowed to testify together behind closed doors? Don't argue the technical 10,000 page NIST report. Argue how even though two planes were already confirmed hijacked when flight 77 went missing at 8:56 and on sept 18, after a week to get their facts straight, NORAD submitted an official document stating they weren't notified until 9:24. This document also stated they were notified of flight 175 at 8:43. They resubmitted these same times under oath years later at a hearing directly before the commission who then publishes that they weren't notified of 175 until 9:03, and they weren't notified of 77 at all, but secret phantom flight 11. With all the recordings, these very simple facts should be readily verifiable, yet several officials independently reported the wrong times. Do these things mean it's a conspiracy and the whole thing is a lie? Not necessarily. But why is no one held accountable? Instead of arguing if cell phone calls were possible from planes or not, why can't the FBI simply
contact one, just one, of the passengers cell phone companies and get a document saying a call was placed at the time of the hijacking? That's a much more important, and simple to answer question than how many megatons of concrete and/or steel fell at what rate. reply to: DelegateZero88





posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 01:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheBolt

Can someone from the official side tell me how they feel about the fact Bush and Cheney were allowed to testify together behind closed doors?


If they testified under oath there wold have been separation of powers issues.

en.wikipedia.org...

'Based on law and practice, White House staff members have not testified before legislative bodies,'' Mr. McCormack said, ''and this is considered a legislative body.''

www.nytimes.com...

Google : Bush 911 commission separation of powers , if you want to learn more.






Argue how even though two planes were already confirmed hijacked when flight 77 went missing at 8:56 and on sept 18, after a week to get their facts straight, NORAD submitted an official document stating they weren't notified until 9:24. This document also stated they were notified of flight 175 at 8:43. They resubmitted these same times under oath years later at a hearing directly before the commission who then publishes that they weren't notified of 175 until 9:03, and they weren't notified of 77 at all, but secret phantom flight 11. With all the recordings, these very simple facts should be readily verifiable, yet several officials independently reported the wrong times.

These are the best Time lines I have seen involving NEADS on 911.

www.vanityfair.com...

www.internationalskeptics.com...

www.internationalskeptics.com...

Here is an interview with John Farmer, 9/11 Commission senior counsel, if you want to know how he feels about being lied to. You could also read his book.

www.wnyc.org...

I have more links if you are interested.



But why is no one held accountable? Instead of arguing if cell phone calls were possible from planes or not, why can't the FBI simply contact one, just one, of the passengers cell phone companies and get a document saying a call was placed at the time of the hijacking?


The documents are easy to find, For example this one from Renee May

www.metabunk.org...

911research.wtc7.net...



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 07:30 AM
link   
First of all, thank you for taking the time and also for being so calm and respectful in your response. Second of all, I haven't quite figured out how to do the whole "quote" thing yet, so sorry for maybe not being clear in this response.
1)that's a great article you linked to about separation of powers. It gives a legitimate reason and shows this was brought up at the time, not an afterthought excuse, so thank you very much.

2) I do understand about the military response not being efficient. It was a tough situation. I don't care if it took them half an hour to respond or 3 days. What I can't figure out is why the FAA, NORAD, and the Commission have all had different timelines at all. With all the recordings and testimony your link should be able to send me to a document of physical evidence saying "this is when the notification of each flight happened and this is how we know it", not to another article with a best guess based on available information. I want to believe the commission report, but it seems in order to do that I have to not believe the FAA or NORAD, and that doesn't make sense. Maybe I'm misinterpreting their statements, but that's the point. It shouldn't be a statement to interpret. It's kind of like the building performance reports on the pentagon. Why do certain drawings show different columns damaged or undamaged? The point for me isn't deciding which analysis to believe. The point for me is that no matter what conclusion is drawn, it should at the very least be drawn from the same physical damage information taken directly from the site investigation evidence. The cause of the damage can be open to some debate, but what the actual physical damage was should not be.

3) I know some of the commissioners feel they were lied to, but this kind of links to point 2. The document they provided TWICE was erroneous. This is a very important document, so you would think NORAD would want to be 100% sure on that. It shouldn't take much to fact check it, but even the Commission investigators can't pin point these times precisely.

4)that phone call record from my understanding is an airphone record. That to me is significantly different. The only proof the FBI has of Barbara olsen's phone call is the fact that there were a couple of unaccounted for airphone calls that may be attributed to her. I've seen a 21 page report with testimony from ted's secretary, and from others within the office. Ted's testimony has been scrutinized of course, but I don't believe he contradicts himself. I believe he simply doesn't know for sure how she made the calls. All of what we know certainly suggests that the calls were made, and I'm inclined to believe it. It shouldn't be an inclination though. Why can't they show something saying they contacted Barbara's cell phone provider and checked her cell phone records specifically if anything just to eliminate the possibility once and for all. Yes or no, we determined a CELL phone call was or was not made on that date on that timeIs that harder than it seems for some technical reason I may not be aware of? This kind of in thoroughness opens the door for sceptics.



waypastvne



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheBolt
"this is when the notification of each flight happened and this is how we know it"



The article i linked gives you this information. What was said and when it was said with time stamp, and if you click the play button you can hear the people say it.

www.vanityfair.com...#

if you want to know what ATC and NORAD were saying at what time in real time, here are some links. warning they are long and boring











Why do certain drawings show different columns damaged or undamaged?


Post a link so we can see your evidence.




The document they provided TWICE was erroneous.



Post a link so we can see your evidence.



4)that phone call record from my understanding is an airphone record. That to me is significantly different. The only proof the FBI has of Barbara olsen's phone call is the fact that there were a couple of unaccounted for airphone calls that may be attributed to her. I've seen a 21 page report with testimony from ted's secretary, and from others within the office. Ted's testimony has been scrutinized of course, but I don't believe he contradicts himself. I believe he simply doesn't know for sure how she made the calls. All of what we know certainly suggests that the calls were made, and I'm inclined to believe it. It shouldn't be an inclination though. Why can't they show something saying they contacted Barbara's cell phone provider and checked her cell phone records specifically if anything just to eliminate the possibility once and for all. Yes or no, we determined a CELL phone call was or was not made on that date on that timeIs that harder than it seems for some technical reason I may not be aware of? This kind of in thoroughness opens the door for sceptics.



Do you have any proof that Barbara Olson's phone records were not checked ? If the phone records showed no calls made why would they report it ?

www.911myths.com...

www.911myths.com...:FBI_compilation_re_Flight_77_calls.pdf



posted on Oct, 31 2014 @ 10:08 PM
link   
I apologize. The first time I loaded your article I only got the first two paragraphs apparently. That was a great read, and I gratefully concede that it offers definitive documented evidence on times. I've heard of the NORAD tapes before, but hadn't seen it broken down so thoroughly before. It also does state right out my point that NORAD provides false evidence twice, once to the public on sept 18, 2001, and again to the commission during its hearings.
standdown.net...
This is a link to the document. Please forgive the "Standdown.net" reference. For the record I have no interest in believing there was a stand down, but it is the document I've seen everywhere. This is simply the first reference I came across tonight. I've also listened to hours of recordings between military, internal FAA sources and controllers to the cockpits. The time stamps were the relevant information missing, which your article again clears up.
I'll have to look back in my notes for links to the contradictory structural damage references. They were difficult enough to find the first time. However, as I said, your article does confirm that erroneous and conflicting evidence was submitted in the case of the NORAD and FAA timelines. The NIST, NTSB, and performance reports of the pentagon are just another one of several other examples.

Lastly, the link to the phone records. I've seen that document many times, always listed as evidence of airphone calls. I don't understand how to read them for sure so correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't it show all five of those calls as lasting zero seconds duration time? If I'm wrong, please correct me because it would alleviate a lot of my doubts. I don't know for sure if they checked the cell phone records, but we should know for sure and that's the problem. Why report it if it showed no calls? For the same reason that when something is taken illegally from behind a locked door, for example, they will report if there were no signs of forced entry. It proves it was eliminated as an option. Unless I'm very much mistaken, they have never definitively proved any of those calls were made by Olsen. Otherwise they probably wouldn't have to say "believed to be Barbara Olsen to Ted Olsen" on the official document. If I wasn't sure, I'd want to eliminate as many other possibilities as I could. Interestingly, I've only ever found airphone records for any calls. Even a document from 911myths debunking the claims that the Tom Burnett calls from flight 93 were faked only provides airphone documents from the FBI, and nowhere does it give cell phone records even though it is trying to prove cell phone calls were possibly made. This site says the FBI claims "additional cell phone calls may have been made" in reference to the fact that there could have been more calls than the airphone ones they evidence. Why can't they evidence these calls?



911myths.com...


a reply to: waypastvne


edit on 31-10-2014 by TheBolt because: Spelling mistakes everywhere.



posted on Nov, 9 2014 @ 08:02 PM
link   
a reply to: waypastvne
I really am interested in your response to my response for you.



new topics

top topics
 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join