Friday, June 02, 2006

The Real Conspiracy

Now it can be revealed!

14 Comments:

At 02 June, 2006 19:00, Blogger Chad said...

Classic. You know Dylan's positively FUMING right now for not putting two and two together before this guy.

Looks like ticket sales for Loose Change - Episode III: Revenge of the Naudets might take a hit after this revelation.

 
At 02 June, 2006 20:21, Blogger roger_sq said...

How disgusting is this?

First I suggest you apologize to the moonbats first for the constant "shame on you for insulting the families of those who lost their lives".

The "quotes" you are bastardizing came directly from firefighters who were describing exactly what they saw and heard. Your repugnant attempt at humor is relying on skewring eyewitness testimony of firefighters who had just narrowly escaped death, who lost hundreds of friends and fellow firemen. And you take their words and turn them into a sick joke to make fun of people who are genuinely concerned about what happened that day.

I think you owe them all an apology, and that pitiful attempt at humor should be deleted.

That's all, you can hang your moral superiority at the door on your way out, you clearly don't give a fu*k for the memory of those men who died, nor respect the valor of those who survived whom you are so blatantly mocking.

 
At 02 June, 2006 20:33, Blogger Pat said...

Rog, coming from you that is priceless. Get a grip, man. It's a spoof of the conspiracy theories, backed up by the same kind of "evidence" that the Truthers use to prove controlled demolition. And it's Friday night and I was looking for something a little lighter.

 
At 02 June, 2006 20:35, Blogger undense said...

Roger,

The faux indignation and poorly playing the moral superiority card doesn't suit you whatsoever.

The only thing this insults is the insulting moonbats. Though it's not surprising you don't get it.

Woo, woo.

 
At 02 June, 2006 20:48, Blogger Chad said...

...relying on skewring eyewitness testimony...

Odd coming from a Looser whose beliefs stem from a film that does nothing but skewer eyewitness testimony while at the same time dismissing those whose testimony doesn't fit within their little world of "corrupt government".

And you take their words and turn them into a sick joke to make fun of people who are genuinely concerned about what happened that day.

Boy oh boy have you been taken for a ride my friend. Wow.

 
At 03 June, 2006 09:48, Blogger shawn said...

Roger, you are one of the dumbest people I have ever seen on the internet (and that's saying a hell of a lot).

They mock Loose Change by taking a simile and making it into something literal. You know like someone saying it was "like a missle" as opposed to "it was a missle"?

I think you owe them all an apology, and that pitiful attempt at humor should be deleted.

Are you talking about Loose Change? I got a few laughs out of it.

 
At 03 June, 2006 09:48, Blogger shawn said...

Roger, when are you going to back up your blind faith belief in the JFK assassination?

 
At 03 June, 2006 11:09, Blogger roger_sq said...

My comments stand. I hope you won't be adding anyomore 'olier than thou' commentary to this blog, and again I'd suggest you remove what's already been put up.

Grossly insensitive, and ironic that a you'd take a fireman's eyewitness testimony, which states nothing less than hearing a series of bombs going off in a classic controlled demolition pattern, and use it for your own amusement. I can only assume you believe he is a moonbat CT then.

Denial runs deep don't it.

PS- Shawn, you have no capacity for learning anything so I won't waste time with a fruitless attempt. Stay ignorant, the world needs fry cooks.

 
At 03 June, 2006 11:37, Blogger Chad said...

which states nothing less than hearing a series of bombs going off in a classic controlled demolition pattern...

Help me out here Roger. Which of these quotes indicates "a series of bombs"?

- At the time, I would have said they sounded like bombs...

- ...and I just heard like an explosion and then cracking type of noise

- It was like being on a train, being in an earthquake....


My guess would maybe be the first one. Except for the fact the he said "like bombs". Just as the last quote said "like being on a train". Doesn't mean a train brought down the towers. Or an earthquake.

Or your precious bombs.

 
At 03 June, 2006 11:51, Blogger roger_sq said...

FDNY Captain Dennis Tardio, speaking of the south tower, said: "I hear an explosion and I look up. It is as if the building is being imploded, from the top floor down, one after another, boom, boom, boom

Fireman 1: “We made it outside, we made it about a block . . . .”

Fireman 2: “We made it at least two blocks and we started running.” He makes explosive sounds and then uses a chopping hand motion to emphasize his next point: “Floor by floor it started popping out . . . .”

Fireman 1: “It was as if they had detonated--as if they were planning to take down a building, boom boom boom boom boom . . . .”

Fireman 2: “All the way down. I was watching it and running. And then you just saw this cloud of shit chasing you down.”


The bastardization of those actual eyewitness accounts (from moonbat CT fireman just coming out of the most horrific day of their life)

" At the time, I would have said they sounded like bombs, but it was boom boom boom and then the lights all go out. I hear someone say oh, s___, that was just for the lights out. I would say about 3, 4 seconds, all of a sudden this tremendous roar. It sounded like being in a tunnel with the train coming at you. "

Yeah, haha very funny. Take eyewitness accounts from firemen and degrade them to further your own denial. If it's debunkable, debunk it. If it isn't, make fun of it until it goes away.

you guys are pathetic.

 
At 03 June, 2006 12:35, Blogger undense said...

A few months ago I was taking a shower in the morning when I saw a flash and heard what sounded like a large explosion. After finishing my shower, I quickly dressed and went outside to discover the cause. Looking around I noticed that the transformer on a power pole near my house had blown.

Now it may have happened all on its own, but I've seen another transformer blow on a television documentary some years previous and the recent failure just seemed much larger and much brighter than the other one I saw on TV. My vast experience with that previous exploding transformer got me thinking, "Could this have happened naturally and only have been a transformer?" Once again, using my vast experience in exploding transformers I decided that no, it could not have happened naturally. At the same time I happened to glance off in the distance and noticed a helicopter, which looked black in color, moving off in the distance at a high rate of speed and in a general direction away from the power pole. That's when it clicked.

To this very day I am still befuddled as to exactly why George W. Bush and the neocons would wanted demolish a power pole in my neighborhood. I have requested, through the FOIA, information on the destruction of that transformer, the failed attempt to bring down the power pole, and detailes on the black helicopter flight plan. Thus far they have refused to respond. That refusal is clear evidence that the government was involved. It could not imply anything else. Why are they coverring this act of domestic terrorism up?

I urge everyone to keep close tabs on their neighborhood power poles and transformers, particularly those with black helicopters hovering over them.

You have been warned.

 
At 03 June, 2006 14:41, Blogger shawn said...

It is as if the building is being imploded

Never heard of a similie (a comparison using "like" or "as").

I would have said they sounded like bombs

Oh shucks, another simile.

It was as if they had detonated

Would you look at that! Another simile!


Yeah, haha very funny. Take eyewitness accounts from firemen and degrade them to further your own denial.

Are you absolutely retarded? They're making fun of the morons taking those firemen's word as literal gospel (when they're a set of similes). God, you are dumb.

you guys are pathetic.

You should take a look in the mirror, kiddo.

 
At 03 June, 2006 15:04, Blogger insidejob said...

here are a couple of good web pages that make strong arguments that the makers of Loose Change and In Plane Site were part of a deliberate disinformation campaign - they blend false claims with true claims in order to discredit the truth movement. there is very strong evidence that 9-11 was an inside job, and a lot of serious researchers are putting it together, and Loose Change and In Plane Site both ignore most of the real evidence, while blending in a lot of false claims. mixing false claims with true claims is a common disinformation tactic. the cover of the Loose Change DVD actually sandwiches 2 false claims with 2 true claims. the websites below give strong evidence that both videos were intended to throw people off the scent of the real evidence of an inside job. the author of the first site writes "if it (Loose Change) is not naive, foolish, uninformed and ignorant, then it is the work of a calculating mole or at best a naïf who has been used by such." in other words, the authors of Loose Change may be trying to throw us off from the real evidence of an inside job, or they may have good intentions but have been fooled somewhat by, for example, the maker of In Plane Site:

http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/JoeR/2005_07_21_Michael_Green_Loose_Change_analysis.htm

http://www.oilempire.us/loose-change.html

Rumsfeld's "slip-up" about a "missile" hitting the Pentagon was an intentional part of the Flight 77 red herring (Flight 77 did hit the Pentagon, but they are intentionally perpetuating the red herring to throw people off, make us argue, and discredit us, and I think the whole hoax probably originated from Rumsfeld and others as a deliberate tactic.

People are right to debunk Loose Change, but 9-11 was definitely an inside job.

here is a link to a bunch of eyewitness accounts of people who saw Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. it would make no sense at all for the conspirators to try to hit the Pentagon with a missile, when they were perfectly capable of hitting the WTC towers with airplanes, or at least getting terrorists to do so by using ISI operatives as middle-men, especially considering that it doesn't make any sense that they would risk people seeing the missile or something other than what they said hit the Pentagon. there were so many people around to see what actually hit, and they did see it:

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html

this site talks about the removal of the passengers' bodies:

http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/13_AP70bodiespentagon.html

too many people would have had to have been in on the conspiracy for them to have hit the Pentagon with a missile (emergency responders galore, numerous FBI agents, CIA personnel, and so on).

the real question to ask ourselves is, why won't Rumsfeld release the videos that actually show Flight 77? why do they keep releasing only videos that show nothing, when they have the videos from the Sheraton Hotel (eyewitnesses there actually watched the tapes over and over in horror before they were confiscated - so they would have noticed if it was a missile instead of a 757) and the Freeway camera. they are trying to bait us. it's reeeally clear to me now. that's why Rumsfeld had his little 'slip-up' about a 'missile' hitting the Pentagon, and that's why Fox News and CNN showed clips from Loose Change (Fox News actually interviewed Dylan Avery), while they completely ignore the real truth movement, the real documentaries (Denial Stops Here, The Truth and Lies of 9/11, The Great Conspiracy, and the footage from the 9/11 Citizens Commission hearing in New York City), and the powerful evidence and numerous improbable 'coincidences,' (such as the inexplicable and methodical collapse of Building 7, which was housing files for numerous ongoing SEC investigations and was housing elements of the CIA and Secret Service, the presence of sulfidation and rapid corrosion in the steel beams, indicating the use of thermate cutter-charges, the unexplained evacuations of the WTC Towers in the three weeks prior to the attacks, Larry Silverstein's unprecedented privatization of the WTC just 6 weeks prior with an insurance policy specifically covering acts of terrorism and a 3.5 billion dollar payout, which was way more than Silverstein had paid, the multiple war games on 9-11 that crippled the Air Force's ability to respond, the 3-year project reinforcing that particular section of the Pentagon that was hit by Flight 77 against an attack of just such a nature, and the completion of that renovation on the very day of the attacks, put-options on Boeing and American Airlines stock in the weeks before the attacks, the Mossad agents (implicating Israel, the American government's bosom-buddy), Silverstein's connections with Israel, the mailing of Anthrax to Democratic officials (Anthrax which was found to have come from a U.S. military lab), Porter Goss' meeting on the morning of Sept. 11th with the Pakistani general who had had $100,000 wired to Mohammed Atta - all these improbable 'coincidences' that, when multipled (the multiplication rule of the laws of probability), make the probability that 9-11 was not an inside job about 1 in 1,000,000.

There are disinformation websites out there: The site www.911myths.org claims to be an objective website, saying that it only wants to show that some claims are without merit, but the site seems to me to be a deliberate disinformation website. They cherry-pick the claims that they can most easily cast doubt on, and they never mention the numerous and damning true claims – the real evidence. They don’t allow people to contact them to refute their claims (and thus test their objectivity), and their dishonesty is often obvious. For example, in “debunking” the claim that progressive collapse hasn’t happened before, the website mentions L’Ambience Plaza and the Ronan Point apartment building. They expect website visitors to not actually look into what actually happened in these 2 incidents:

L'Ambience Plaza was still in the early stages of construction and was using a special construction method – the lift-slab system – and wasn’t doing it properly. the Ronan Point incident, which happened in London in 1968, is most often cited by disinformation websites, although they don’t tell you what actually happened - this incident actually consisted of one tiny corner of balconies, and the collapsed balconies were short cantilever sections supported by the building's main structure - so there were no steel beams to prevent this little corner of balconies from collapsing progressively. To use these incidents to “debunk” the clear evidence of controlled demolition, without mentioning what actually happened, shows deliberate dishonesty.

first, my humble assessment of what happened: hijackers were involved, but they were puppets of Washington insiders, without knowing it. Pakistani intelligence agency (ISI) was the middle-man. Israeli intelligence agency (Mossad) and Israeli government knew the attacks were coming, and may have been directly involved (note - this isn't saying 'the Jews did it.' there are many many Jewish people who oppose the Israeli government, including Israelis). Flight 77 definitely hit the Pentagon, and the missile claim was a deliberate red herring to discredit the truth movement. the CIA recently released videos, but they don't show anything more than the 5 previously-released frames, and this is more bait, considering that they definitely have videos that clearly show Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon (such as from the Sheraton Hotel). they may be planning to later release the videos that actually show Flight 77 at some point and say, "look fools. here's flight 77 hitting the Pentagon." The war games on Sept.11, under the direction of Cheney and Rumsfeld, were a smokescreen and an excuse to explain why the Air Force did not respond for over an hour. Finally, without a hint of uncertainty, WTC 1, 2, and 7 were definitely brought down by controlled demolition. WTC 7 is the most damning:

(1) WTC (a) WTC 1, 2, and 7 were the first 3 steel-frame buildings in history to (allegedly) collapse due to fire. Several steel-frame skyscrapers around the world have had huge fires that burned throughout several floors for several hours, and none of these buildings collapsed. The official explanation of the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 claims that the impact of the aircrafts weakened the structures (which of course they would have to some degree), but NIST actually admits to fudging its models to make them more plausibly (to the casual researcher) explain the collapses, and it also simply lies and contradicts itself. For example, they alter the path of flight 175 so they can argue that it damaged the core columns. The report is misleading in many other ways. much more here:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/

The NIST Report completely ignores building 7, saying it will be considered “at a later date.” The Bush-appointed, 10-member corruption-squad known as the 9-11 Commission also ignored building 7 - most Americans don't even know about building 7, because the media have ignored it. Also, if you look at the video of the North Tower’s collapse, you can see that the top portion above the impact zone actually collapses in on itself from the bottom up, before the rest of the collapse proceeds (b) WTC 7 is the most obvious - no jet hit this building, and although some mention that the fuel tanks in the building may have contributed, FEMA said they were all intact, and, as already noted, fires do not make steel-frame buildings collapse, and random fires could not, by any stretch of the imagination, make a steel-frame building collapse so methodically into a neat little rubble pile within its own footprint, maintaining perfect radial symmetry all the way down, and falling at freefall speed. This only happens with controlled demolition. Unfortunately, most people are unaware of building 7, but the word is spreading thanks to many serious researchers. FEMA was actually able to obtain sections of the steel beams from WTC 7, and it found sulfidation in combination with rapid corrosion – a trademark of the use of thermate (the military version of thermite) cutter chargers – the presence of sulfidation and rapid corrosion can only be explained by the use of thermate. the fires in WTC 7 were only on partial sections of 2 floors, and even if the fires had engulfed the building for days, it would not have collapsed. Silverstein's slip-up about 'pulling it' also gave it away. his publicist later claimed that Silverstein meant 'pulling' the firefighters out of the building. 'pulling' is a term commonly used to refer to controlled demolition. FEMA has actually admitted that it cannot explain the collapse of building 7 (b) the official explanation ignores the thermal conductivity of steel. There would have been a massive heatsink from the steel beams, and the heat would have spread to other parts of the steel-beam mesh, rather than weakening nearby beams (b) the 'Pancake Theory', used to describe the collapse mode, has never existed as a collapse mechanism theory in structural engineering prior to 9-11. ‘Pancaking’ has happened before, but to one building (L'Ambience Plaza) that was still in the early stages of construction and was using a special construction method – the lift-slab system – and wasn’t doing it properly, and what happened wasn’t called ‘pancaking’ before 9-11. the term 'progressive collapse' has been used before, but no steel-frame building has ever collapsed due to this mechanism. the Ronan Point incident, in 1968, is most often cited by disinformation websites, although they don’t tell you what actually happened - this incident actually consisted of one tiny corner of balconies, and the collapsed balconies were short cantilever sections supported by the building's main structure - so there were no steel beams to prevent this little corner from collapsing progressively. (c)'squibs', a trademark of controlled demolition, can be seen in the videos of the collapses, and are especially obvious in WTC 7. the offical story attempts to explain them away as concrete dust and debris being pushed out of the windows by the force of the collapse, but they occur much below the level of collapse, and they occur just prior to the initiation of collapse in WTC 7. (d) Marvin Bush's contract with Stratesec(Securicom), the company that provided security for the WTC, United Airlines, and Dulles Internation Airport, was set to end on 9/10/01, the day before 9/11. (e) I've verified that there were several unexplained evacuations in the WTC towers in the weeks prior to the attacks: Ben Fountain, a financial analyst with Fireman's Fund, was coming out of the Chambers Street Station, headed for his office on the 47th floor of the south tower. "How could they let this happen? They knew this building was a target. Over the past few weeks we'd been evacuated a number of times, which is unusual. I think they had an inkling something was going on." (Source: People Magazine. Sept. 12th 2001). (f) Battalion Chief Orio J. Palmer had reached the 78th floor of the South Tower by 9:48 -- 11 minutes before the explosive collapse began -- and reported via radio "two isolated pockets of fire." (g) all three buildings maintained prefect radial symmetry as they collapsed – if the buildings had collapsed due to randomly-placed fires (which simply doesn’t happen – even full-fledged infernos don’t make steel-frame buildings collapse), they would not have fallen straight down into their own footprints (h) as Professor Steven Jones of BYU points out, flowing pools of molten steel were reported by eyewitnesses – impossible with hydrocarbon fires, but easily explained by the use of thermate cutter charges (i) the temperatures simply were not hot enough, and weren’t sustained long enough, to weaken the steel, let alone melt it, in such a short period of time, especially considering the thermal conductivity of steel (j) the explosive force of the collapses cannot be explained by mere gravity – debris was ejected out several hundred feet – huge steel beams were found 300 feet away.


Pakistani Intelligence Agency (ISI, which was founded by the CIA and still has close ties with the CIA, like Al Qaeda) was the middle-man between Washington insiders and the clueless terrorists:

October 9, courtesy of the Times of India:
"While the Pakistani Inter Services Public Relations claimed that former ISI [Pakistani intelligence] director-general Lt-Gen Mahmud Ahmad sought retirement after being superseded on Monday, the truth is more shocking. Top sources confirmed here on Tuesday that the general lost his job because of the 'evidence' India produced to show his links to one of the suicide bombers that wrecked the World Trade Center. The U.S. authorities sought his removal after confirming the fact that $100,000 were wired to WTC hijacker Mohammed Atta from Pakistan by [Omar Saeed] at the instance of General Mahmud [Ahmad]."

September 9—two days before 9/11 — Karachi News made the following observation:
"ISI Chief Lt-Gen [Mahmud Ahmad's] week-long presence in Washington has triggered speculation about the agenda of his mysterious meetings at the Pentagon and National Security Council . . . What added interest to his visit is the history of such visits. Last time Ziauddin Butt, [General Ahmad's] predecessor, was here during Nawaz Sharif's government, the domestic politics turned topsy-turvy within days. That this is not the first visit by [General Ahmad] in the last three months shows the urgency of the ongoing parleys."

Israeli intelligence agency (Mossad) and government insiders knew the attacks were coming, and may have been involved in them:

Mossad agents were filming the towers before the airplanes even hit them, and began dancing and celebrating when the planes hit and when the towers collapsed :
This is a link to the article originally published by ABC News:

http://www.uscrusade.com/forum/config.pl/noframes/read/1405

Source: ABC News, Saturday, June 22nd, 2002.

“A counterintelligence investigation by the FBI concluded that at least two of them were in fact Mossad operatives, according to the former American official, who said he was regularly briefed on the investigation by two separate law enforcement officials.”

Source: The Forward, March 15th, 2002

This has been reported on by several mainstream media outlets, but has simply been forgotten

Larry A. Silverstein – signed a 99-year lease on the World Trade Center 6 weeks before the attacks. A $3,500,000,000 insurance policy, specifically covering acts of terrorism, was included in the lease. This lease was an unprecedented privatization of the WTC complex. After 9/11, Silverstein demanded $7 billion, claiming that the two planes constituted two separate acts of terrorism.

Larry A. Silverstein is a close friend of Ariel Sharon, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Ehud Barak: “Shortly after the events of September 11, Prime Minister Ariel Sharon called Larry Silverstein, a Jewish real estate magnate in New York, the owner of the World Trade Center's 110-story Twin Towers and a close friend, to ask how he was. Since then they have spoken a few more times. Two former prime ministers - Benjamin Netanyahu, who this week called Silverstein a "friend," and Ehud Barak, whom Silverstein in the past offered a job as his representative in Israel - also called soon after the disaster.”

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=97338&contrassID=3&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=0


Flight 77 and the Pentagon:

JUNE 2001: The Pentagon initiates new instructions for military intervention in the case of a highjacking. these new instructions state that, for all "nonimmediate" responses (whatever that means), the Department of Defense must get permission directly from the Secretary of Defense (Rumsfeld).

Source: Joint Chiefs of Staff Document:

http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf
http://www.911review.com/means/standdown.html



October 24, 2000: the Pentagon conducted the first of two training exercises called MASCAL (Mass Casualty), which simulated a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon.

Source: The U.S. Army Military District of Washington (MDW)

Charles Burlingame had actually retired 20 years earlier, but he still participated in the MASCAL exercise at the Pentagon, a year before the attacks:

Charles F. Burlingame III was the pilot of flight 77. He was an F-4 pilot in the Navy, and as his last Navy mission, he had helped craft Pentagon response plans in the event of a commercial airliner hitting the Pentagon.

Source: Associated Press. August 22, 2002

http://anderson.ath.cx:8000/911/pen08.html

Barbara Honegger, who worked in the White House under Reagan, points out another coincidence. Researching press reports, she found a 9/16/01 Washington Post story about the pilot of AA flight 77 that, on the morning of 9/11, was said to have crashed into the Pentagon.

Here's Barbara Honegger:

...the main pilot of the 9-11 Pentagon plane, former Navy and then Navy Reservist pilot Charles Burlingame, had recently, in a Reserve assignment at the Pentagon, been part of a Task Force that drafted the Pentagon's emergency response plan on what to do in case a plane hit the building - which his own plane then did. It is therefore very possible - in fact extremely likely, if not certain - that this 'task force' that Flight 77 pilot "Chick" Burlingame was part of was the Cheney counterterrorism preparedness task force, and that the Pentagon plane pilot, therefore, directly knew and even worked with/for Cheney. and

Burlingame's 9-11 Pentagon plane not only hit the Pentagon that morning, it struck a Command and Control center for that morning's counterterrorism "game" exercise, killing most, if not all, of the "players". We know this because Army personnel from Ft. Monmouth, New Jersey were on special duty assignment at the Pentagon that morning for an emergency response exercise and were killed when Burlingame's plane hit. Ft. Monmouth, New Jersey also happens to be the headquarters for White House/Presidential communications, including therefore probably also for Air Force One (this is discoverable) -- and recall the warning "Air Force One is next" and the 'secret code' which was called into the White House that morning which WH press secretary Ari Fleischer revealed as a means of explaining why Pres. Bush left Florida for a military base and did not return to the White House. This "warning" was probably called into the White House, if true, by either the Ft. Monmouth White House communications headquarters and/or the Ft. Monmouth counterterrorism exercise "game" players temporarily at the Pentagon that morning.

This means the pilot of Flight 77 participated in MASCAL in October of 2000, an exercise which simulated a Boeing 757 crashing into the Pentagon.


Flight 77 hit the one and only section of the Pentagon that had been renovated to withstand just such an attack:

"Luck — if it can be called that — had it that the terrorists aimed the Boeing 757 at the only part of the Pentagon that already had been renovated in an 11-year, $1.3 billion project meant to bolster it against attack. That significantly limited the damage and loss of life by slowing the plane as it tore through the building and reducing the explosion's reach." Source: USA Today (1/01/02)

“Not all the offices were occupied that morning because of the renovation. In addition, the outer ring had been reinforced by floor-to-ceiling steel beams that ran through all five floors. Between them was a Kevlar-like mesh, similar to the material in bulletproof vests, which kept masonry from becoming shrapnel. Together, the beams and the mesh formed a citadel that kept the top floors from collapsing for about 35 minutes, time enough for some people to escape. New blast-resistant windows above the crash site didn't shatter. A new sprinkler system kept the fires from consuming the entire place.
When the plane hit wedge 1, workers were just a few days away from completing a three-year renovation of that section."

Source: USNews (12/10/01)


“The Pentagon has been undergoing some structural upgrades and retrofits, including new blastproof windows made of KevlarT that were, fortuitously, in place on the side of impact. This reinforced section of the building had a significant effect on reducing the extent of damage.”

Source: Fire Engineering Magazine (11/02)

"The 1,000,000-square-foot wedge was five days away from completion when it was struck by hijacked American Airlines Flight 77." Source: Annual Status Report to Congress (3/01/02)


FAA delayed reporting the hijackings for an hour, whereas it was bound by law to report them. The top FAA officials were appointed by Bush, and were close friends of Bush.

Norad (Pentagon) response was delayed, once FAA finally reported.

The jets that responded would have made it in time if they had flown at full speed. Why didn’t they fly at full speed? The Pentagon (Norad) must have given this order.

Several war games had been planned by Rumsfeld and Cheney on September 11th, in which most American fighter jets were off fighting imagined enemies. A particularly telling detail is that the CIA was conducting an exercise on Sept. 11th, under Cheney’s direction, that simulated a plane hitting NRO (National Reconnaissance Organization headquarters (near Dulles Airport, Virginia) - this was not a "terrorism" exercise but it did result in the evacuation of most NRO employees just as the "real" 9/11 was taking place, making it more difficult for the nation's spy satellites to be used to track the hijacked planes.


Terrorists were given visas based on incomplete forms. President Bush appointed James Ziglar commissioner of the INS (Immigration and Naturalization Service) one month before September 1lth

 
At 03 June, 2006 16:22, Blogger Chad said...

You know Roger, your hypocrisy is sickening. Where's your outrage from Dylan and company mocking the call the flight attendant made as the plane was flying over Manhattan?

Where's your outrage from the disgusting implication that the calls from family members aboard Flight 93 were faked?

Where's your outrage for these things that your buddys at Louder Than Words used to describe people who actually DIED THAT DAY?!?

The firefighters you refer to are at least alive today to be able to back up or refute how people interpret what they said.

Your messiahs piss on the graves of those who perished that day.

So don't you even DARE attempt to climb atop a pillar of moral authority.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home