9/11: What really happened on that day? >>MOD WARNING<<

Top officials, no, but minions, yes. That is their job, Plague. To take 'notes'. Unless you're suggesting on 9/11 that assistants working for NORAD officials were suddenly incapable of taking complete and accurate notes.

 

I don't believe anyone at NORAD takes notes. Thats why everything is recorded, even line, every conversation, is recorded to audio, thats why we have it available to us now.

http://911datasets.org/index.php/NORAD-USNORTHCOM_9/11_Tapes

 

I am fully aware of what top officials and minions do at a job. I think your impression of the military might be completely off. They aren't infallible, they make mistakes, they are just like a normal business. The reason everything is recorded is because taking notes is outdated, and unneeded with today's technology. To rely on something hand written that might be subjective to mistake over a machine that time stamps something would be dumb.

Plus, what did they need to take notes on that wasn't displayed in front of the entire world on television? It was the most documented event in human history.

 

The Secretary of Defense had a notes-taker taking hand-written notes on 9/11. But if what you say is true, half of NORAD's ass is still flying out in the wind, uncovered. (Event happens) ... "Time on deck..." Etc. There is no excuse for messing up the timeline several times if everything is audio recorded, as you say. The military takes notes on events. They would not forego this duty simply because there was an inordinate amount of chaos going on. The military aren't civilians for a reason.

 

The technology of today is different than the technology of 2001. And if you recall, the Secretary of Defense had a notes-taker taking hand-written notes on the day of 9/11, so the point of it's "outdated" apparently wasn't memo'ed out in 2001. Besides, I never said that NORAD was infallible. They showed their fallibleness on 9/11. But the point I'm driving home is that 'getting the right timeline' shouldn't and wouldn't be a problem for them, or any military organization. When something happens, people look at their watches.

 

Your belied that the gov't was complicit in the 9/11 attacks hinges on the presupposition that because the goverment was less than forthright, deceptive, inconsitant and/or dishonest the gov't must have orchestrated the attacks. The fact that our gov't may have lied or been untruthful in and of itself proves nothing more than that the gov't lied or was dishonest.

 

Yes of course, that's true. One would have to wonder why our government would need to be "inconsistent/deceptive/less than forthright/dishonest" about such aspects of the incident that they plainly were. My take is that they obviously have something to hide. One needs to question why it is that deceptions/lies are needed in such a supposedly blatant attack, and why there are so many inconsistencies/lies/deceptions throughout the fiasco. Stands to reason that if lies have to be told, then there must be something true in hiding that somebody doesn't want John Q.Public to know about.
If a murderer changes his/her story several times or more, that alone doesn't prove the murderer murdered anybody but, it sure throws up a lot of red flags for the investigator. Usually, when lies are used, it hides a guilty party of some sort. Because we can't prove exactly how they pulled it off, the idea that we must dismiss all charges is ridiculous to the thinking individual.

 

We need to remember here that the Sec Def at the time was kind of a whacky old schmuck who was kind of losing his marbles and could not get his facts straight about what happened to Flt 93. Anything that Rummy has ever touched turns out badly. I doubt that the old doofus had half the brains that it would have taken to pull this off.

 

I am fully aware what the technology of 2001 was like, I've worked in IT since that year. I don't recall the SoD having a notes taker, got a source so I can read up on it? You think that people look at their watches when something happens? That's completely ridiculous. You're telling me if you came home, saw your dead mother on the floor, the first thing you would do is look at your watch? Make sure you know what time it is? Then when you saw the intruder running, you'd check the time again? When the ambulance came, you'd give it another look? Then you'd be able to recant all of those times back during the interview?

The fact that you actually said that is evident that you have never been in, or dealt with, a catastrophe in your life.

 

no you would activate your cell phone to make a call and the time would be right in front of you in HUGE LETTERS

 

he rigged aspartame to get it past the fda just fine.

lets see the "official" psychological tests to back up your claim

 

Ok, so now I understand how you would get 1 exact time. In fact, I was even operating under the assumption that you would have a decent idea of when you got home. How about everything after that? Furthermore, my phone (samsung SIII) doesn't display the time in HUGE LETTERS (which is retarded to say, because the time is displayed in numbers, at least in every phone I've had). In fact, it shows it in little numbers in the upper right hand corner. Now how about when you ID the person, give chase, your mom gets carted away. How do you get times for those?

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500249_162-520830.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/feb/24/freedomofinformation.september11

Besides your analogy being bunk, (*)(*)(*)(*) you. Don't (*)(*)(*)(*)ing cross that line.

 

Thanks

It's not bunk, and only you would say so. It's a perfect analogy to the situation, people die, it's traumatic, and it goes to show frame of mind.

Secondly, stuff it Jango. You and your ilk accuse people of (*)(*)(*)(*)ing murdering 3,000 people without a shred of evidence. You blame it on people that weren't there, and had nothing to do with it. It's nice that you get all fired up that I brought mommy up, but the people you're accusing, they're mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, daughters and brothers. So until you shut your mouth, step back and apologize to those people, I'll cross what ever (*)(*)(*)(*)ing line I want too, and there isn't a DAMN thing you can do about it.

 

In my opinion, I don't think 9-11 was an inside job.

 

Alright, but do you believe the (ever shifting) official story of what happened? And if so, which version? This was the version that was fairly current during the time the documentary "Zeitgeist" was made. I'm quoting what they said the official version was:
**19 hijackers, directed by Osama Bin Laden, took over 4 commercial jets
with box cutters and, while evading the Air Defense System (NORAD), hit
75% of their targets. In turn, World Trade Towers 1, 2 & 7 collapsed due
to structural failure through fire in a "pancake" fashion, while the
plane that hit the Pentagon vaporized upon impact, as did the plane
that crashed in Shanksville. The 911 Commission found that there were
no warnings for this act of terrorism, while multiple government
failures prevented adequate defense.**

 

The official story is never shifting or changing it is in fact quite consistent.

It is the claims of the twoofers which is constantly morphing to fit new delusions such as thermite or holograms or missiles etc.

Your description is flawed in many ways. Osama Bin Laden was the ultimate leader of Al Queda and he may well have given his blessing for the attack or orders to carry it out but did not direct it.

None of the hijacked aircraft evaded NORAD. This claim that they evaded NORAD demonstrates ignorance of what NORAD is and does. NORAD monitors many radar and satellite and other systems to detect possible attacks against North America from beyond other nations. They watch for missile launches and incoming tracks which follow missile profiles etc. NORAD does not monitor the air traffic WITHIN US airspace for threats. Certainly if hijacked airliners were used as weapons NORAD would be part of the coordination for any response but it is not their focus.

No one ever claimed that the planes which hit the Pentagon and crashed in Shanksville were vaporised. Plenty of debris and wreckage was found in both sites.

The commission did find warnings which were overlooked or underestimated and yes we still have less than adequate defense for such attacks.

If you are going to present an argument at least know what you are arguing against

 

This excerpt from the linked article at the bottom was written over a year ago... "An absolutely monumental shift is in process that most have not recognized yet. The truth, or at least some truth, is about to be shown to the American masses about 9/11. I say American masses because everywhere I&#8217;ve gone in the world outside of the US, with few exceptions, almost everyone knows that the US government conspiracy theory on 9/11 is for people with tinfoil hats that are either completely zombified or are under mass hypnosis. Most of the rest of the world looks on the US like &#8220;The Truman Show&#8221; and can&#8217;t believe how many people in the show don&#8217;t realize it&#8217;s not real...."

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-walls-are-crumbling-down-around-the-official-911-story-why/5394984

 

So much hot air without a speck of supporting evidence

 

Oh what a load of road apples...

 

So much said so little.

 

That's debateable. I atleast quoted around a paragraph of material that can be responded to. You, on the other hand, wrote 5 words. If your goal is to kill the conversation, you're definitely on the right track...

 

A paragraph of speculation and opinion devoid of factual material. Hardly worthy of a response.

So the word count gives it validity?

Nice.

 

Actually, it was the introduction to the main theme. Can you even identify what the main theme was?

 

Yes, it will be a piece validating the lunacy of conspiracy theorists no doubt, with the introduction making the fallacious case of argumentum ad populum. It was still an opinion piece despite the fact that is an introduction, for in my travels my experience denotes otherwise.

Is this going anywhere of merit?