George Washington Bridge and Building Seven connection?

page: 3
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by homervb
 


Pentagon footage being withheld is just your supposition. What is your evidence for its existence. FBI says not :-

www.911myths.com...

You are confusing Flight 11 with AA 77 which struck the Pentagon. The data you refer to is from the flight data recorder recovered at the Pentagon so if you don't believe a plane crashed there why is it relevant to you ? However, assuming it was from AA 77 the FDR doesn't indicate the cockpit door was ever opened on multiple previous flights, including trans-continental. Fact is there is not a shred of evidence that the cockpit door parameter was ever hooked up to be recorded.

Who do you think should suffer consequences over antiquated DoD accounting systems failing to fully reconcile expenditure over many years ? The $2.3 trillion figure was being bandied about before Rumsfeld took office; indeed before GWB was elected.

So you agree it was one passport recovered at the WTC , not multiple passports. Various other personal documents belonging to people who died that day were recovered.




posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by homervb
 


Wow! I havent seen such ignorant commentary in a long time from a truther. Oh wait, yes I have.

Your personal incredulity notwithstanding, why are you regurgitating the FALSE facts and ASSUMPTIONS based solely on incredulity from all of those damned fool conspiracy sites? Do some actual research regarding the education background of most of the hijackers. Then I want you to explain how our "air defense" system works, since I can tell the only place you learned about it is from the movies and other ignorant sources. Also I wish for you to explain to me the SOP that was enacted with regards to airliner hijackings, prior to 9/11/01. Once you can correctly give me all of this information, then we'll see if you can provide anything useful to the thread.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by homervb
 


Wow! I havent seen such ignorant commentary in a long time from a truther. Oh wait, yes I have.

Your personal incredulity notwithstanding, why are you regurgitating the FALSE facts and ASSUMPTIONS based solely on incredulity from all of those damned fool conspiracy sites? Do some actual research regarding the education background of most of the hijackers. Then I want you to explain how our "air defense" system works, since I can tell the only place you learned about it is from the movies and other ignorant sources. Also I wish for you to explain to me the SOP that was enacted with regards to airliner hijackings, prior to 9/11/01. Once you can correctly give me all of this information, then we'll see if you can provide anything useful to the thread.


Three months before Sept. 11, 2001, the Bush administration changed the protocol for responding to commercial hijackings.

Donald Rumsfeld, secretary of defense under President George W. Bush, issued directive J-3 CJCSI 3610.01A to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on June 1, 2001.

Prior to Rumsfeld’s protocol change, some experts believe that the authority to shoot down a hijacked airplane was delegated by the president to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The 9/11 Commission concluded that approval was needed from the president to shoot down the hijacked aircraft.

Rumsfeld’s position has been that the 2001 directive merely updated a 1997 directive by clarifying language relating to the protocol for responding to hijacked aircrafts.

Directive J-3 CJCSI 3610.01A—which Rumsfeld issued to the chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff on June 1, 2001—states: “When notified that military escort aircraft are needed in conjunction with an aircraft piracy (hijacking) emergency, the DDO, NMCC, will notify the appropriate unified command or USELEMNORAD to determine if suitable aircraft are available and forward the request to the secretary of defense for approval in accordance with DODD 3025.15, paragraph D.7.”

The language “aircraft piracy” or “hijackings” is not included in the 1997 directive, which J-3 CJCSI 3610.01A replaced.

Compare section 4.5 of the directive 3025.15 issued Feb. 18, 1997: “With the exception of immediate responses under imminently serious conditions, as provided in subparagraph 4.7.1 below, any support that requires the deployment of forces or equipment assigned to a combatant command by secretary of defense memorandum, must be coordinated with the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Saff. The chairman shall evaluate each request to use combatant command forces or equipment to determine if there is a significant issue requiring secretary of defense approval. Orders providing assistance to civil authorities that are approved by the secretary of defense involving the use of combatant command forces or equipment shall be issued through the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Upon secretary of defense approval, the secretary of the army, when designated ‘the DoD Executive Agent,’ shall implement and oversee DoD support in accordance with such approval orders.”

Section 4.6 continues: “This Directive does not address non-Federalized National Guard assets in support of local and/or state civil agencies approved by the governor.”

Section 4.7.1: “Requests for an immediate response (i.e., any form of immediate action taken by a DoD component or military commander to save lives, prevent human suffering, or mitigate great property damage under imminently serious conditions) may be made to any component or command.”


On Sept. 11, 2001, General Richard Myers was acting chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Henry Shelton, chairman, was out of the country. General Myers was promoted to chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff three days after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

According to Myers’ testimony before the 9/11 Commission on June 17, 2004, “The Chairman serves as the principal military advisor to the president, the National Security Council, and the secretary of defense; and makes recommendations to Congress. The chairman’s responsibilities include strategic planning, contingency planning and readiness of the armed forces.

“Unified command roles are directed by Title 10 and the Unified Command Plan. Each of the combatant commander’s chain of command runs through the secretary of defense to the President. Several other documents outlined the armed forces’ roles and responsibilities in combating terrorism: The National Security Strategy for a Global Age (2000), Presidential Decision Directives 39 (1995) and 62 (1998), and the National Military Strategy (1997)."



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 12:45 PM
link   
Oh, before you call it all bull# like you do everything else, this really does exist.

www.dtic.mil...

Oh and don't even respond if it's the "complete coincidence" story lol seriously.

edit on 27-3-2012 by homervb because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 01:08 PM
link   


You are confusing Flight 11 with AA 77 which struck the Pentagon. The data you refer to is from the flight data recorder recovered at the Pentagon so if you don't believe a plane crashed there why is it relevant to you ? However, assuming it was from AA 77 the FDR doesn't indicate the cockpit door was ever opened on multiple previous flights, including trans-continental. Fact is there is not a shred of evidence that the cockpit door parameter was ever hooked up to be recorded.

Pentagon footage being withheld is just your supposition. What is your evidence for its existence. FBI says not :- www.911myths.com...


I'm sorry for confusing the flights, my mind is thinking faster then I can type. If there isn't a shred of evidence of the cockpit door being open, then all I can say is you're right, I'm wrong. But if you truly believe the Pentagon lacks all surveillance of it's parameters, then there really is nothing more I can say. I would just think the Department of Defense would have at least *some* sort of surveillance (at the VERY LEAST). Do you not agree with this?




Who do you think should suffer consequences over antiquated DoD accounting systems failing to fully reconcile expenditure over many years ? The $2.3 trillion figure was being bandied about before Rumsfeld took office; indeed before GWB was elected.


I pointed that out in an effort to show how perfect the timing was in releasing that story since it pretty much was buried within 24 hours of it's release.




So you agree it was one passport recovered at the WTC , not multiple passports. Various other personal documents belonging to people who died that day were recovered.
I guess just thinking bout how the burning infernos from the plane melted all that steel (turning it molten) but a hijackers passport remained completely intact. The passport survived a high speed aircraft to skyscraper collision which happened to burn so hard that it took down a skyscraper. Yes, I acknolwedge that other personal belongings were recovered, just not from the exact point of impact/explosion/fires within the WTC
edit on 27-3-2012 by homervb because: (no reason given)
edit on 27-3-2012 by homervb because: add more



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by homervb
 


Very good, Im glad to see someone is trying. Now, how many airliners have been hijacked around the world resulting in an actual shootdown of said airliner? What were the reasons of hijackings and what were the usual outcomes?

A majority of the hijackings of airplanes ended up with either negotiations for ransoms or demands, and upon completion, people were released and/or the plane was stormed by special forces. Nothing about the hijackings of the airliners seemed out of the "ordinary" as a regular hijacking. No one was expecting for the aircraft to be used as missiles and aimed at buildings. Here is where the issue begins. You speak of the military SOP, while it mentions that the directive is implemented only at the request of the FAA when it is obvious that something far more serious is a foot. The DoD gets involved only when the FAA requests special assistance


a. Aircraft Piracy (Hijacking) of Civil and Military Aircraft. Pursuant
to references a and b, the Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA), has exclusive responsibility to direct law enforcement activity
related to actual or attempted aircraft piracy (hijacking) in the “special
aircraft jurisdiction” of the United States. When requested by the
Administrator, Department of Defense will provide assistance to these
law enforcement efforts.
Pursuant to reference c, the NMCC is the focal
point within Department of Defense for providing assistance. In the
event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious
means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate
responses as authorized by reference d, forward requests for DOD
assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval. DOD assistance to
the FAA will be provided in accordance with reference d. Additional
guidance is provided in Enclosure A.



b. Support. When notified that military assistance is needed in
conjunction with an aircraft piracy (hijacking) emergency, the DDO,
NMCC, will:
(1) Determine whether or not the assistance needed is reasonably
available from police or commercial sources. If not, the DDO, NMCC, will
notify the appropriate unified command or NORAD to determine if suitable
assets are available and will forward the request to the Secretary of
Defense for approval in accordance with DODD 3025.15, paragraph D.7
(reference d).

(2) If suitable assets from a unified command or NORAD are not
reasonably available, the DDO, NMCC, will coordinate with the appropriate
Military Service operations center to provide military assistance.


As you can see, hijackings usually fall under police and FAA jurisdiction, and as such, are not military matters unless requested by the FAA. You are coming from the DoD SOP, not the FAA and local police authority SOP. Once again, usually hijackings are relegated to police depts, as it is a criminal matter.

www.dtic.mil...

As far as the FAA was concerned, the hijackers were going to land, make demands, and hold for ransom, or fly to Cuba or whatever country they wished. It wasnt until the first and second impacts that DoD assistance was requested and realized by the FAA controllers.
edit on 3/27/2012 by GenRadek because: clarifying



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 01:59 PM
link   
There were lots of reports at the time about a mysterious van that got stopped and was supposedly tied in with the attacks with a plan to destroy a bridge at the same time.

Everyone seems to have forgotten about this with the hysteria over the rest of the 9/11 cover ups.



posted on Mar, 27 2012 @ 02:00 PM
link   
reply to post by babybunnies
 


There were a lot of erroneous reports on 9/1, including car bombs at the Capitol Building, car bombs in the tunnels, another plane heading for the Sears Tower in Chicago. Many many many unfiltered reports that turned out to be false.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 07:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by homervb
 


Very good, Im glad to see someone is trying. Now, how many airliners have been hijacked around the world resulting in an actual shootdown of said airliner? What were the reasons of hijackings and what were the usual outcomes?

A majority of the hijackings of airplanes ended up with either negotiations for ransoms or demands, and upon completion, people were released and/or the plane was stormed by special forces. Nothing about the hijackings of the airliners seemed out of the "ordinary" as a regular hijacking. No one was expecting for the aircraft to be used as missiles and aimed at buildings. Here is where the issue begins. You speak of the military SOP, while it mentions that the directive is implemented only at the request of the FAA when it is obvious that something far more serious is a foot. The DoD gets involved only when the FAA requests special assistance


a. Aircraft Piracy (Hijacking) of Civil and Military Aircraft. Pursuant
to references a and b, the Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration
(FAA), has exclusive responsibility to direct law enforcement activity
related to actual or attempted aircraft piracy (hijacking) in the “special
aircraft jurisdiction” of the United States. When requested by the
Administrator, Department of Defense will provide assistance to these
law enforcement efforts.
Pursuant to reference c, the NMCC is the focal
point within Department of Defense for providing assistance. In the
event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious
means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate
responses as authorized by reference d, forward requests for DOD
assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval. DOD assistance to
the FAA will be provided in accordance with reference d. Additional
guidance is provided in Enclosure A.



b. Support. When notified that military assistance is needed in
conjunction with an aircraft piracy (hijacking) emergency, the DDO,
NMCC, will:
(1) Determine whether or not the assistance needed is reasonably
available from police or commercial sources. If not, the DDO, NMCC, will
notify the appropriate unified command or NORAD to determine if suitable
assets are available and will forward the request to the Secretary of
Defense for approval in accordance with DODD 3025.15, paragraph D.7
(reference d).

(2) If suitable assets from a unified command or NORAD are not
reasonably available, the DDO, NMCC, will coordinate with the appropriate
Military Service operations center to provide military assistance.


As you can see, hijackings usually fall under police and FAA jurisdiction, and as such, are not military matters unless requested by the FAA. You are coming from the DoD SOP, not the FAA and local police authority SOP. Once again, usually hijackings are relegated to police depts, as it is a criminal matter.

www.dtic.mil...

As far as the FAA was concerned, the hijackers were going to land, make demands, and hold for ransom, or fly to Cuba or whatever country they wished. It wasnt until the first and second impacts that DoD assistance was requested and realized by the FAA controllers.
edit on 3/27/2012 by GenRadek because: clarifying


I see your point and it does make sense. But, think about it this way. Let's assume the conspiracy is true, Rumsfeld knows in advance that these planes aren't going to land. He changes the policy because he knows these planes aren't going to stop, the old policy would give a shoot down clearance to someone below him. He knows that if he doesn't have the final say on the shoot down order, someone else would decide it and foil the plan. If they shoot down the plane then this could leave a lot of evidence, including all of the black boxes. WTC 7 contained the offices of the CIA,FBI, DoD, etc. Given the plane will definitely hit,the towers collapse, the right people are there to collect whatever evidence they deem a risk to the conspiracy. This is assuming the conspiracy is true and Rumsfeld knew all the details of the plan.

This make sense? lol If it doesn't, I apologize, it's early and I'm tired as hellll



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by homervb
 


No I see what you are getting at, and in that case it would make sense.

However, I still do believe that even in the old directive, the DoD only gets involved once it is requested. But then, for all of this to be happening, you would still require a lot of people "in on it". Also, hitting WTC7 with a plane would have been very difficult, and it would have made people wonder what the point was. Also, if WTC7 was rigged, the impact and fires of a 767 or 757 would have set off the charges immediately. And here is where we'd get deepr and deeper into the CT rabbit hole and then more and more things would get ridiculous.



posted on Mar, 28 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by GenRadek
reply to post by homervb
 


No I see what you are getting at, and in that case it would make sense.

However, I still do believe that even in the old directive, the DoD only gets involved once it is requested. But then, for all of this to be happening, you would still require a lot of people "in on it". Also, hitting WTC7 with a plane would have been very difficult, and it would have made people wonder what the point was. Also, if WTC7 was rigged, the impact and fires of a 767 or 757 would have set off the charges immediately. And here is where we'd get deepr and deeper into the CT rabbit hole and then more and more things would get ridiculous.


Nah, I don't believe building 7 being hit with a plane would be a part of the plot. That would be way too suspicious b/c it really had no symbolism to it lol





top topics
 
8
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join