|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
![]() |
#161 |
Banned
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,705
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#162 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 386
|
Hijack I would call the military immediatelly through a hotline if I have one, that would be NEADS. Crash works differnetlly and a different group of military, my supervisor would call the OMIC, who would start the Search and Rescue process through Scott AFB, NEADS wouldn't be involved at all.
As far as what went on at Indy I don't know how soon they knew about it. Even in there own Center some people may have known. Other's not. Today a different story. |
__________________
'Two things are infinite: The Universe and Human Stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.' - Albert Einstein |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#163 |
lorcutus.tolere
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
|
|
__________________
![]() ![]() O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#164 |
lorcutus.tolere
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
|
This is incorrect. The reason AA77 did not appear on primary radar was because Indianapolis ARTCC's Radar Data Processor didn't display the primary data on AA77. By my estimations primary coverage would have been supplied by an ARSR-1E at London, Ohio and an ARSR-2 at Lynch, Kentucky, with maybe ARSR-1Es at Brecksville, Ohio and Indianapolis, Indiana and an ARSR-3 at Bedford, Virginia also giving coverage (they would have been at the very limit of their range).
The problem was that the Radar Data Processor only displays radar feeds from the site that's assigned to a given sort box, and the nearest site to where AA77 crashed was the beacon-only site at Harmony, West Virginia which has no primary radar and only an ATCBI-4/5 beacon. When the controller turned on their primary coverage they would have received primary returns on their screen from aircraft flying in airspace assigned to radar sites with primary coverage. The controller has no way of knowing what parts of their display are assigned to which radar site (or even which radar sites are feeding their screen) therefore they would have assumed AA77 was no longer in the air. The 9/11 Commission Report was able to confirm this - the FAA records all radar data - not just data that is displayed, so they were able to go back and track AA77's movements on primary radar even though it had not been displayed on the day. I just want to reiterate, for the dense of understanding, that Indianapolis ARTCC were not informed about the events on the East Coast until about 0920, and that upon learning of what had been happening they immediately reassessed AA77 and decided it was a hijacking. |
__________________
![]() ![]() O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#165 |
lorcutus.tolere
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
|
|
__________________
![]() ![]() O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#166 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 883
|
If it is true, then it is suspicious in fact. This day, it happened many strange things ...
Shortly before noon on 9/11, about sixteen people at the New York Air Route Traffic Control Center recorded their version of the response to the 9/11 attack. At least six are air traffic controllers who dealt with two of the hijacked airliners. But officials at the center never tell higher-ups about the tape. Around this time, a quality-assurance manager, whose name has not been released, crushes the cassette recording in his hand, shreds the tape, and drops the pieces into different trashcans. This manager later asserts that keeping the tape would have been a violation of union rules and accident procedures. When he destroyed the tape, he had already received an e-mail from the FAA instructing officials to safeguard all records. Washington Post, 5/6/2004 |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#167 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,546
|
Oh dear lord. How is it you guys manage to find the versions from the conspiracy tabloids, but you never ever ever bother to actually research these things beyond the conspiracy tabloids? If you DID, then you would find out the WHOLE story. one that has been discussed to death on here. Sure it does sound suspicious. Why? Because half the story has been edited out. The reason it was edited out is because if it wasn't, then it wouldn't appear like some kind of scandal, you wouldn't click on the links, and your conspiracy tabloids wouldn't get their banner ad sales.
Go read the whole article, not just that snippet. And remember, just because the conspiracy tabloid you got it from quotes it as being from a reliable source, it's not the part they include that matters, it's the parts they take out. But of course this is many years old and an outdated conspiracy theory anyways. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#168 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,910
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#169 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,423
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#170 |
0.25 short of being half-witted
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,279
|
Okay, so an FAA manager destroyed a tape that was not of the ATC radio communications, or anything real-time during the event, but was of post event interviews of ATCs. That was stupid, but how does it falsify anything about the events of 9/11? It's not like it was a live recording of anything they did that day; it's an after-action interview. And it's not like they don't have radar data. Or the NORAD tapes.
Oh, wait... supposedly those are faked... so now both the ATC's in the tower centers and the NEADs personnel involved that day are in on the plot... got it... ![]() ... and it's supposedly the government who's bending over backwards to make their story work... |
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once." |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#171 |
lorcutus.tolere
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
|
I like how Conspiracy Theorists skip out the fact that the controllers only agreed to making the tapes on the condition that they were destroyed after the controllers had completed their reports.
Oh yeah, they forget to mention that too - the purpose of the tapes was to capture the controllers recollections of events so they could play their own tape back later and use it as a reference tool for writing their reports. The tapes might have been destroyed but their reports weren't. |
__________________
![]() ![]() O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#172 |
lorcutus.tolere
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
|
|
__________________
![]() ![]() O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#173 |
lorcutus.tolere
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
|
I just want to jump on this... Even assuming your ridiculous claim is true - that FAA facilities were required to notify their local ADS the moment they lost communication with an aircraft - why would Indianapolis ARTCC contact NEADS? The answer is they wouldn't. They would have contacted WADS, in Washington State, who could only call on fighters based in Oregon and California. These four fighters were about 2,400mi from the WTC. Please, please, please stop making stupid, stupid comments about things you have not even the most basic understanding of. You are making yourself look like a... well... never mind. I think we all know. |
__________________
![]() ![]() O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#174 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 432
|
I've never made such a claim. I am well aware that NORDOs occur every single day, and are no big deal. Usually its a couple of pilots who missed a digit on a frequency change, or are too deep into their Sports Illustrated to be bothered by ATC.
What we are dealing with here is a NORDO aircraft, which also lost its transponder and A)deviated drastically off course (AAL11 & UAL175), or, B)disappeared from radar altogether(AAL77). These are very unusual, disturbing events which would have prompted an immediate call to the military. You might be right that that it wouldn't be NEADS they call. I stand corrected. The point is they call the military, meaning some division of NORAD. Do you really think the various branches of NORAD wouldn't communicate with each other? Begging me to stop posting will do you no good. It is you that has no instinctual understanding of the ATC system or the military's intercept procedure. It is obvious to me that you have zero hands-on experience with the organizations that played a role in the failed response to the hijackings on 9/11. To you, this whole series of events is nothing more than a mountain of words on printed pages and websites that you have spent too much time staring at. That's why much of your debating style is to throw out all sorts of obscure details and impressive-sounding acronyms-- to hide the fact that you are incapable of any truly independent analysis, and that your only real function is to parrot the official story. Gumboot, I've been following your posts for a long time now, and I've noticed a change. You are becoming increasingly shrill and abusive toward anyone who disagrees with you. This is especially true as you are being challenged by posters who have had time to research the events, and who do not buy into the official story as you do. Gone is the old, confident Gumboot who used to wow the peanut gallery of fellow JREFers. The new Gumboot is a man on the edge. I'm worried about you, buddy. I understand you are a film maker. Why don't you drop the whole 9/11 thing, and concentrate on something you understand? |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#175 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In Space
Posts: 3,693
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#176 |
lorcutus.tolere
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
|
Why? The duty of the United States military is to protect the people of the United States and its territories from attack by foreign aggressors, and to project US power overseas for political benefit.
It is not their job to clean up after air crashes or criminal acts. Your consistent claim that in any sort of serious airborne incident the military would be the first port of call. This simply is not the case. In a military dictatorship like North Korea, sure, you're probably right. In the USA? No. Why, why, why? Why would they call NORAD? You have not given a single logical reason why an ARTCC controlling a domestic en route flight would call NORAD immediately upon total loss of contact with that flight. I can see it now.
Quote:
I know, but I had to ask. "Instinctual"? Right... I can say with certainty that I understand more about Air Traffic Control and NORAD than every single member (formal or informal) of the 9/11 Truth Movement combined. Your ignorance isn't exactly special in anyway - you all seem to be equally "factless", as Beachnut would put it. I came to my own conclusions, totally oblivious to what the "official story" was. Indeed, I can provide you far more details about what happened than any "official story" can. Your claim that this series of events is nothing more than "words on printed pages" could not be further from the truth. This series of events is about the cold blooded and unjustified murder of 2,998 human beings. It is about the baseless and unsupported accusation of guilt for those murders being laid against tens of thousands of decent ordinary (and utterly innocent) people. It is about lies, bad science, stupidity, political point-scoring, bigotry and paranoia being spread like a plague by complete pieces of human scum for no reason than their own ego masturbation. It is about ensuring that the human race can know what actually happened on that horrific day, and not succumb to the palimpsest of stupid that comes from people like you. I think you're grossly misinterpreting my posts. I made a decision some time ago that it was not worth my time expending enormous amounts of effort arguing back and forward with blinded fools with no desire to learn. As a result of that I changed tack dramatically; Now, I give every new arrival a chance to learn. Once they've revealed that they don't have the faintest interest in learning anything, I cease to waste my time, and instead revert to using them as my own personal stress relief, choosing when I'll post, limiting what I post to what I can be bothered putting in, and going more for entertainment value than education. (Bio just got downgraded into my "stress relief" pool, you've been in it for a while). I suppose most other rationalists would just put you on ignore, but I have a policy of never putting anyone on ignore, so this is my alternative. It amuses me that you talk of people challenging me who have "researched" the events. Bio has quoted almost exclusively from the Complete 9/11 Timeline. Bio hasn't even bothered to trace it back to the original sources. I know they are doing this because I know the Complete 9/11 Timeline well - it's the first thing I came across in regards to 9/11 and my first act of 9/11 research involved reading the entire thing from beginning to end, and then following all of the source links (those that worked). That was about three years ago. So people like Bio are three years behind me. I don't use jargon and acronyms to sound witty or clever, I use them because it's easier and faster - see above about wanting to save time. If I'm giving a detailed post I could refer to the Air Traffic Control System Command Center dozens of times. Why on earth would I want to type that out repeatedly? I feel confidently that I have collected some unique knowledge about 9/11. I'm not a debunker, and I never approached this as someone wanting to disprove Conspiracy Theories. I was only ever interested in finding out what did happen, not proving what didn't. As such, my research has been approached at a much deeper level, it's about understanding the entire Air Traffic and Air Defense system. It all plays a part. How much do you know about radar? How much does Bio know? Not much, I am sure. I've learned quite a bit about it. Specifically, I've learned exactly how AA77 managed to go missing. I didn't read this in some sort of official script. I worked it out myself by studying AA77s flightpath, understanding how long range surveillance works, and locating the radar sites. And I've had consistent verification that I'm right, and that my findings are useful. Just a few days ago Cheap Shot thanked me for letting him know about a NORAD Regulation that explained something about 9/11 that he had always wondered about. I've yet to come across a single Conspiracy Theorist who had even the most basic understanding of these matters. You certainly don't, and neither does Bio. I'm a storyteller, and what draws me to 9/11 is the human stories. And you'd be amazed at how useful studying 9/11 has been for my storytelling. My understanding of a thousand different things has increased exponentially. Have no fear for me, ChildlikeEmpress is way off base. The one and only reason I spend time looking at 9/11 is because I want to. It's fun, and it interests me. I'm certainly not doing it out of any sense of duty, or a need to "protect" anything - frankly I'm not much of a fan of the United States full stop. It probably looks like I spend a lot of time here, but the reality is I don't. I'm a very fast typer, and I don't sleep a lot. See why I don't put you people on ignore A-train? If I'd had you on ignore we couldn't have had this fun derail into my personality. Wouldn't that be a shame? ![]() |
__________________
![]() ![]() O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#177 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In Space
Posts: 3,693
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#178 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 883
|
I think you are on the right track. I read a paper of Mister Robin Horden.
What Should Have Happened in the 9/11 Skies... Quote: "Finally, here is my smoking gun regarding the "effects" of the CJCSI change made in June, 2001. During the summertime, usually the busiest aviation time of the year, there were NO REPORTED SCRAMBLES from June 2001, [after the CJCSI change was put in place], until the morning of 9/11/2001. If the CJCSI change made in June had NOT made any difference in operational protocol use "priorities", then there should have been approximately 45 scrambles during this time period. It is fair to say that this frequency had been the summertime monthly average for the preceeding ten years where approximately 1500 scrambles had occurred. [ Note: estimated scrambles...3 months @ 15 scrambles per month = 45...] In conclusion, that there are reports of 67 scrambles happening for the year up until June, 2001, and then there were NO scrambles reported after June, serves as my personal smoking gun! Its my position that after June, all such requests for scrambles were dealt with by seeking Pentagon approval as the CJCSI "reorganizing" suggests. I further suggest that before the "delayed style" scramble releases were granted after June, 2001, the original "need" for the scramble had dissipated. I do remember that Rummy wanted to "save" some money and pare down? the military as he took office, and the hard truth is that very few such scrambles actually result in intercepts. Usually, the events calling for the scrambles in the first place, do come to a safe or secure end. " The "Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction", CJCSI 3610.01A organizational was put in place in June, 2001 and should have sabotaged the process. |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#179 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 6,862
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#180 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,910
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#181 |
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 32,433
|
Have you read CJCSI 3610.01, the instruction from July 1997 that CJCSI 3610.01A superceded? You'll find liks to both on http://www.911myths.com/html/hijack_..._approval.html
CJCSI 3610.01 states:
Quote:
Quote:
http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/c...df/302515p.pdf which states that:
Quote:
The only possible interpretation of this, therefore, is that CJCSI 3610.01A did not restrict the freedom of action of NORAD to respond to 9-11, but quite the reverse; it provided a specific framework for NORAD to respond to 9-11 without authorisation from the Secretary of Defense, that did not exist before June 2001. CJCSI 3610.01A is a very good example of a piece of evidence that points in exactly the opposite way to the way conspiracy theorists like to claim. Dave
|
__________________
There is truth and there are lies. - President Joseph R. Biden, January 20th, 2021 |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#182 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 883
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#183 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,910
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#184 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 883
|
Answer from Robin Hordon from above link:
"An important fact...the FAA serves as the "first responder" or "initiator" of scrambles that are required...for aircraft suffering IN FLIGHT EMERGENCIES...for aircraft violating critical airspaces...for aircraft that do not follow certain procedures...or for aircraft being hijacked IF the FAA air traffic controllers are the first ones to conclude that there is a hijacking underway. As we have always known, under normal protocols, scrambles for intercepting hijackings require Pentagon approval before launch unless the situation is determined to be very critical, and then the launch can be considered an IN FLIGHT EMERGENCY and made without such approvals. Should there be a need for NORAD to launch interceptors strictly for a National Air Defense reasons, then NORAD tells the FAA that they are launching, and the FAA has standard operating procedures for this and the FAA clears the required airspace for that scramble activity. The FAA is a full partner in the National Air Defense System. As a reminder, each of the airliners on 9/11 showed uncontestable signs of aircraft suffereing IN FLIGHT EMERGENCIES well before there were any indications of any hijackings[?]. For many decades prior to June, 2001, responding to AN IN FLIGHT EMERGENCY would have called for an immediate scramble to assist the aircraft from the nearest "hot base" in hopes of helping or saving the aircraft under duress. In addition to both public and my own "insider evidence" that the controllers at Boston Center indeed were taking such IN FLIGHT EMERGENCY steps early on in the attacks, actually, some 15-20 minutes later, it is admitted in the NORAD tapes that, in fact, the Boston Center made a DIRECT request to NEADS for assistance and asked directly for some interceptors to be launched to help out the situation. This direct request was not acted upon by NEADS, and this is another point that the US Military has had to cover up." A statement of cheap shot would be interesting ... |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#185 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 386
|
I have read some of the report, I don't know where Robin got this info, and in the 24 years I have been at Boston Center, it would be hard for me to count 45 total intercepts from 1982 up to 9/11/2001. And as far as requesting intercepts for emergencies other than Payne Stewart, I can't remember any. Intercepts almost came to a hault after the Korean Air Incident, don't know why, but I think the rules for games changed after that incident. The 1500 or so scrambles that he talks about on that blog, unless they are down around Miami and the west coast, is so far off. Calling the Coast Guard out to a plane having problems over the ocean is not an intercept, and it is something we do, as well as when informed of a boat sinking by a pilot over the water and we call the Coast Guard for that, its not an intercept either. We didn't call scrambles for inflight emergencies at all prior to 9/11 period. I have worked numerous inlfight emergencies, and never once thought of calling NEADS about it unless it was a plane they were working.
|
__________________
'Two things are infinite: The Universe and Human Stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.' - Albert Einstein |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#186 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,448
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#187 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 883
|
"Dr. Robert Bowman, retired USAF pilot, notes that anytime an aircraft goes off course, or loses radio communication, or loses it's transponder signal, anytime any ONE of those things happen, the aircraft is supposed to be intercepted. On 9/11, all three of those things happened and still there was no intercept. The planes flew around from 20 minutes to an hour and a half without ever being intercepted."
http://www.911blogger.com/node/16623#comment-192061 |
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#188 |
このマスクによっ
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,863
|
How long has that been a policy?
September 11th was far from the first hijacking, the only thing that distinguished it from others is that it ultimately turned out to be a suicide mission. I don't recall any previous hijacking over US soil, which resulted in a military intervention. |
__________________
Current Set:http://i.imgur.com/IoqiUdK.jpg |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#189 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 386
|
Then there wouldn't be enough planes to intercept them all. We have planes go NORDO all of the time, normally we get them back in several minutes, but at what time is the controller supposed to call for the intercept. Inflight emergenices don't last very long, if it is a seroius emergency then they are landing at the closest field possible. Why would I call up a scramble to intercept someone who just lost an engine or a fire on board, when the quickest thing we are trying to do is get them down. Makes no sense at all. Most of the emergencies I have worked were over in 10 to 15 minutes.
|
__________________
'Two things are infinite: The Universe and Human Stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.' - Albert Einstein |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#190 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,448
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#191 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: In Space
Posts: 3,693
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#192 |
lorcutus.tolere
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
|
CJCSI 3610.01A applies specifically to escorts for hijacked aircraft and does not influence drug interdiction or Active Air Defense scrambles. In the ten years prior to 9/11 Alert Fighters were only scrambled once to escort a hijacked aircraft - Lufthansa Flight 592 in February 1993. As such the regulation in question would have had no impact on the number of scrambles that occurred, as they were all drug interdiction or Active Air Defense scrambles which are not covered by the regulation. |
__________________
![]() ![]() O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#193 |
lorcutus.tolere
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
|
|
__________________
![]() ![]() O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#194 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 883
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#195 |
Master Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,685
|
It was taken offline, because of the book, yes. The interview contained information that was released too early considering the content of the upcoming book.
However, now since the book is out, I might be able to put the interview back online soon. I'll inform on the updates. |
__________________
9/11 Guide homepage Conspiracy theories abound and I believe firmly that all of them are without merit. - Chief Daniel Nigro |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#196 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,448
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#197 |
lorcutus.tolere
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 25,327
|
|
__________________
![]() ![]() O xein', angellein Lakedaimoniois hoti têde keimetha tois keinon rhémasi peithomenoi. A fan of fantasy? Check out Project Dreamforge. |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#198 |
0.25 short of being half-witted
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Somewhere north of the South Pole
Posts: 12,279
|
Where there's smoke, there's misfire. Let me single out the one, key element in that whole misrepresentation:
"Its my position that after June, all such requests for scrambles were dealt with by seeking Pentagon approval as the CJCSI "reorganizing" suggests" Dave Rodgers said it best: And Mike W. laid out what was really changed in the new CJCSI:
Originally Posted by 9/11 Myths
|
__________________
"AND ZEPPELINS!!! We haven't even begun to talk about Zeppelins yet! Marauding inflatable Teutonic johnsons waggling their way across the sky! Indecent and flammable all at once." |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#199 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 883
|
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
#200 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 14,519
|
|
__________________
"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things not because they are easy, but because they are hard. Because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our abilities and skills, because that challenge is one we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win." |
|
![]() ![]() |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | |
|
|