Loose change on the view May 24th

Originally posted by sherfey
I'm not sure how anyone, who has done research, can look at the 9/11 report and not be blown away by the bull----. There is no way that the airliners could have caused enough damage to bring down the towers and the report on WTC 7 is in a whole other category of fantasy.

This is what I'm talking about. Sherfey...please tell me what in the 911 report is wrong? What is missing.

Was the 911 report responsible for investigating the after effects of the crash? No. That was NIST. NIST did the investigations into the collapses of the WTC buildings.

Your issues seem to be with the NIST report, which I doubt you have read.

Cameron
I suppose it was just the largest string of coincidences in history then?

Options on the 2 airlines used in the attacks, opitions on occupant corporations inside the towers, but still just a coincidence?

Has that unclaimed 2.5 millions been claimed yet?

The put options were already investigated AND explained.(this is an open thread right now )

I will ask you again... What part of the 911 Report in your eyes is wrong.

This is all about Rosie taking the show down with her after she got slapped around for her publicity stunt. She has until June of this year to totally screw the show over and I suspect she will do a bang up job of it if she can keep brining in things like the LC retards. Its funny for all the fear of the MSM floating around ATS that people still rally behind a talking head like Rosie because she appears to support their cause, all the while conveniently forgetting all her past transgressions that would cast her character in a less-than-great light.

Originally posted by CameronFox What part of the 911 Report in your eyes is wrong.

Your asking of this question suggests you're prepared to address any queries relating to the report more thoroughly that a 'do your own research' type answer.

In which case, I'd appreciate your view on the following.

I'm not satisifed that the FBI and the 9/11 Commission have correctly identified the alleged hijackers. To me (and I'll admit that I have not read every word of the 560+page report) the Commission simply accepted the FBI's word that they were who they said they were (the corrected version, that is, after removing the suspect that turned out to have died a year earlier) and built a narrative around this information.

We know - and the Commission acknowledges this - that the alleged hijackers were proficient in passport manipulation and that 11 of the 19 were believed to have been using manipulated passports on 9/11. Some of my 'scratch-the-surface' research also shows that the current 'official' timelines for the movements of Mohamed Atta and Marwan al-Shehhi require either body-doubles or a revision.

There are many other anomalies too, but I'd be interested to learn your thoughts on the above first.

cameronfox
I will ask you again... What part of the 911 Report in your eyes is wrong.

The endorsement of the claim that the loss of an airplane’s transponder signal makes it virtually impossible for the US military’s radar to track that plane (166-67)

The claim that Flight 77 flew almost 40 minutes through American airspace towards Washington without being detected by the military’s radar (191-92)

The claim that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down authorization until after 10:10 (several minutes after Flight 93 had crashed) and that this authorization was not transmitted to the US military until 10:31 (237-41)

The claim that Richard Clarke did not receive the requested shoot-down authorization until 10:25 (240)

The omission of Clarke’s own testimony, which suggests that he received the shoot-down authorization by 9:50

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

The claim---made in explaining why the military did not get information about the hijackings in time to intercept them---that FAA personnel inexplicably failed to follow standard procedures some 16 times (155-56, 157, 179, 180, 181, 190, 191, 193, 194, 200, 202-03, 227, 237, 272-75)

The omission of any exploration of why General Montague Winfield not only had a rookie (Captain Leidig) take over his role as the NMCC’s Director of Operations but also left him in charge after it was clear that the Pentagon was facing an unprecedented crisis (235-36)

The failure to explore why the Secret Service did not summon fighter jets to provide air cover for Air Force One (43-46)

Excellent list, Shooter!

What's wrong... well, there's the assertion that because those profitable and apparently psychic put option strategies were hatched by Americans, they were obviously harmless.

There's their caving to Bush/Cheney on the time the shoot-down order was issued (tho they have dropped enough hints that they don't really buy it), turning 10:18 to 10:10 on the off-the-record WH word.

And their failure to wonder or explain WHY tthe order was not passed on at, say, 9:10?

Their complete neglect of the air-based wargames that day.

Lots of little things, the list could go on. One last example: Their professed disinterest in even the faintest possibility of "politics" (ie, assessing ANY domestic blame), which shows a prior bias that would effectively blind them to ANY sign of internal complicity. For evidence that this skewed the objectivity of their outcomes, see above.



[edit on 20-5-2007 by Caustic Logic]

First Of All.... let me start by saying... I have read the 911 report. Pretty boring. If I don't have an answer for you...does that mean its a Conspiracy? No...it means I havent a clue as to what they are talking about. Also, is there a reason why Bush waited so long to get the commission together...... give me some time and I'll try to get answers for you.

EDIT.. i am 1/2 asleep... need coffee...

[edit on 20-5-2007 by CameronFox]

Shooter, I should be able to answer the first two questions with one long simple answer. With the exception of AA77, all aircraft were tracked through their entire flight, until they flew below radar coverage (radars cannot track targets below a very low altitude of perhaps 1,000ft).
AA77 was lost because of where it was. In the region where the hijacking occurred, there was no primary radar coverage.

Basically, there's two types of radar coverage. Primary Radar is a direct response from the radar station itself, and detects the actual physical radar return from a physical object in the air. Any object over a specific size will make a return.

The main type of radar used in ATC is secondary radar. Secondary radar "interrogates" an aircraft's transponder, and receives information from it. This information is the flight number, type of aircraft, heading, air speed, altitude, and so on.

Obviously, the primary radar cannot determine all of this, although with a number of radar towers cross-referencing they can determine position, altitude, and roughly determine speed.

In a normal situation the ATC uses the secondary radar, with only the transponder returns.

If the transponder is turned off, you still have the primary return, you just don't have all of the information you need, such as the flight number etc...

However, if you're in an area with no primary radar coverage (as happened with AA77) if the transponder is turned off, the aircraft simply vanishes.

The natural assumption in this instance is the aircraft has crashed. That's what the ARTCC assumed.

Obviously later, when AA77 comes back into primary radar coverage again - which it did - ARTCC will be able to track it again (again, which they did). However they (obviously) won't know the flight number or any such details.

In the case of AA11 and UA175, each dropped below radar coverage a matter of minutes before impact - until then they were both being tracked. UA93 was being tracked on radar right up until it crashed. AA77 was lost on radar for some 50 minutes for the reasons previously stated, and was detected again approximately 3 minutes before it crashed.

I'm not too sure if this helps with the first two questions you have. I'm trying to figure out what your asking on the rest of your thread. Again, please give me some time to type up my answers.. i am at work today and supposed to be getting payroll done!

Originally posted by coughymachine

I'm not satisifed that the FBI and the 9/11 Commission have correctly identified the alleged hijackers. To me (and I'll admit that I have not read every word of the 560+page report) the Commission simply accepted the FBI's word that they were who they said they were (the corrected version, that is, after removing the suspect that turned out to have died a year earlier) and built a narrative around this information.
There are many other anomalies too, but I'd be interested to learn your thoughts on the above first.

I'm not sure where you're heading with this. The men that are on the list, along with their photos are dead. Are you questioning their mortality status, or if their names were just hand picked? Since a common CT was that some of the highjackers are still alive, I will do my best to disprove that.

The "Alive Hijackers" stories occurred very soon after 9/11. Once the FBI released their official list of hijackers, complete with photographs (on 9/27/01), these stories pretty much disappeared. This suggests that they were only ever a mixup over names, and once the photos appeared as well these individuals realised they weren’t wanted men after all. Still CT'ers pushed along with their claims that the terrorists were not on the victims list. That is correct, although their names DID appear on the flight manifest (flight 11)that was obtained by the Boston Globe. (i posted a copy of this manifest with the seating chart some time ago) Here it is again:





There was also an article the BBC had put out that is still to this day being used as a CT tool even though the BBC released a statement in regards to it.

Here it is:

www.bbc.co.uk...

In part:

The FBI is confident that it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Also, the 9/11 investigation was thoroughly reviewed by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and the House and Senate Joint Inquiry. Neither of these reviews ever raised the issue of doubt about the identity of the nineteen hijackers.

Also, Saudi Arabia acknowledged that 15 of the Sept. 11 suicide hijackers were Saudi citizens...

Previously, Saudi Arabia had said the citizenship of 15 of the 19 hijackers was in doubt despite U.S. insistence they were Saudis. But Interior Minister Prince Nayef told The Associated Press that Saudi leaders were shocked to learn 15 of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia.

"The names that we got confirmed that," Nayef said in an interview. "Their families have been notified."

www.usatoday.com...

Remember that all but one of the highjackers alienated themselves from their families to join up with Osama.


One more thing, there was a video called “The 19 Martyrs” that was released and aired on al Jazeera, which reportedly featured photographs of hijackers, and included bin Ladin giving a brief description of each. The video is now gone. I will have to see if I can find it somewhere. (i am not 100% certain of its authenticity, but i thought i would throw it out there). I did a quick Youtube/ Google search and found nothing. I'm pretty sure there has to be something floating around there.


Edit to Add:

There is a lot of detail on the highjackers in the 911 Report. Section 5:1 answers many questions.

www.gpoaccess.gov...

[edit on 20-5-2007 by CameronFox]

Originally posted by CameronFox
I'm not sure where you're heading with this. The men that are on the list, along with their photos are dead. Are you questioning their mortality status, or if their names were just hand picked? Since a common CT was that some of the highjackers are still alive, I will do my best to disprove that.

Can you disprove this article updated on 16 july 2004 ?

www.trackingthethreat.com...

[edit on 20-5-2007 by ULTIMA1]

Hey Ultima ~

You and I talked about this in the past. I can only say that it is some form of mistaken identity. I should look into it more closely. Thanks for reminding me !

CF

Whilst i think its good more people will get to hear of the conspiracy theories surronding 9/11, i suspect that the new film won't touch upon the issues that alot of people are just coming to realise now..

I bet you anything they will continue to stick with the Thermite/ate theory, despite it being a pile of crock.

cameron fox

I served
I worked on "data acquisition" systems
Our military can track just about whatever they please any claim otherwise is an outright lie

Any info about that unclaimed $2.5 mil from the put options?

Originally posted by CameronFox
The put options were already investigated AND explained.(this is an open thread right now )

By this (?)

A single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95 percent of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10. Similarly, much of the seemingly suspicious trading in American on September 10 was traced to a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades. These examples typify the evidence examined by the investigation. The SEC and the FBI, aided by other agencies and the securities industry, devoted enormous resources to investigating this issue, including securing the cooperation of many foreign governments. These investigators have found that the apparently suspicious consistently proved innocuous.

I'm sure this has been researched and determined, but who was the "single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda"?

Also, who is/was "a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades." ?

Just curious, here. Anyone know?


l c


 

Originally posted by 12m8keall2cAlso, who is/was "a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades." ?

Just curious, here. Anyone know?

l c

To the best of my knowledge, the investor remains unidentified.

The lack of connection to al Qaeda was all the 9/11 Commission needed to know in order to claim no ties to the attackers.

Their logical fallacy was based upon:

a) Assume the hijacker list provided to the media by the FBI at 10:00am on the morning of the attacks was correct.

b) Assume that all those identified were members of a known terror group identified as "al Qadea".

c) The the investor who made such an unusually coincidental assortment and volume of put options was not listed as a member of known terror group identified as "al Qadea", so there was no connection between the investments and the attacks.

The problem is that both assumptions a) and b) are most likely false.

The FBI could not possibly have known the identities of all hijackers if the scope of the attacks were not yet known. It was entirely possible that another plane or planes were involved. There were also no accurate manifests and no DNA identifications could have been made.

In short, the FBI had acquired this list, probably in advance of the Pentagon being hit.

It is also a misnomer to consider al Qaeda to be an organized entity. While we Westerners have a standardized official definition for al Qaeda, they are loosely connected by their fundamental beliefs. The role of Osama bin Laden was formally introduced to the U.S. populace in the minutes following the attack on the Pentagon. At that point, the Mainstream media began a video and audio onslaught which ingrained the image and name of this Bush Family Oil associate as the most probable mastermind behind the attacks.

I submit that al Qadea is nothing more than a list of former Mujahideen fighters accumulated by international intelligenca agencies following the end of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Many of these individuals received U.S. sponsored military training as aid against the Soviet involvement.

In effect, the Reagan/Bush administration was giving the scorpion a ride across the river on its back. At the same time, the very same adminsitration was engaging in very provocative military attacks against sovereign Islamic nations. The story goes that it was around this time that bin Laden had added the U.S. to his list of Islam's enemies.

Regardless, the lot of them made for excellent patsies, partly due to the very loose nature of their connection. Add the Israeli Mossad into the equation, and you have the makings of a PNAC-driven New Pearl Harbor.

The whole ring is wrapped up for the American public with a bow, and the phase of nonstop disinformation begins.

Some of this disinfo is provided from directly within the Truth Movement itself.

So whether or not some or all of the alleged hijackers are still alive is probably a moot point. The planes were more likely flown by some remote means.

After all, if you had invested the time, manpower and resources into loading up three steel-framed buildings with an assortment of demolition material, are you going stake the success of the entire operation on the flying skills of a handful of goofball rookies?

These guys had supposedly been out heavily drinking the night before. Is this any condition to be in if you are going to attempt a precision crash at over 600 knots the following morning?

I gotta believe that if Columbo had been given this case, he'd be spending an awful lot of time around the White House talking to Dick Cheney.

Well, that's damn near my allotment of 4000 characters for this article, so before the almighty forum character counter crushes my speculative post, c ya L8r

I'm sure this has been researched and determined, but who was the "single U.S.-based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda"?

Also, who is/was "a specific U.S.-based options trading newsletter, faxed to its subscribers on Sunday, September 9, which recommended these trades." ?

Just curious, here. Anyone know?

Not yet, but I started a thread to try and figure it out. So far I've been cheesing...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

In the months leading up t o 9/11, there were warnings and according to hte 9/11 commission, there was not enough resource to track down and decipher or translate all of the communication. The Russians and Germans both stated that they had intel stating there were imminent attacks.

Now, if the US knew of these attacks, and we were already going into Afghanistan, why would we need to allow 9/11 to happen. It was a simple matter of not bieng able to stop it. They admitted to it under oath. They screwed up and the attack moved forward.

Loose Change is worse than a Micheal Moore film, because at least in Farenheit he respected us enough to not show footage or argue it was our administration that planned and executed 9/11.

It is one thing to place blame, it is another to elaborate on it to a point that no one listens. Could this be the true aim of the Truth movement?