[ms] · Est. May 2002
One durable person. One social graph. Many communities—and every way people speak, share, listen, write, gather and remember.
Re: you know what's astonishing?
[QUOTE=Miroslav;784806]^^^ LIES! All lies, I tell you!!! That is the way to strengthen your faith in the TRUTH!![/QUOTE]
I was going to look at them. However at the moment I'm yes watching runningman post on yes youtube:lol: But It should interest you particularly as you where interested in the witnesses. No scary music though and no spreadsheets
[YOUTUBE]j5FhQc-LJ-o[/YOUTUBE]
But i was getting to Florida's videos
Re: you know what's astonishing?
miro and florida, here is the thing, i'm willing to go thru the whole thing with you and debunk the governments line on everything that day.
but
dont assume that because some 9-11 researcher believes in one thing, that i do as well.
i wont get into any theory of what happened or who did it, most people have a hard enough time believing the government is lying to us.
i will be happy to have YOU leave this thread wanting a new investigation, but you have to be willing to go thru the information.
i will do this all, with only government reports/sites, and with any 9-11 conspriacy debunking sites/links that you can think of.
Re: you know what's astonishing?
I must just be unlucky. The first video I went to was on Google Video and the first 2 had some scary music. I will check more tomorrow. I'm going to bed.
Re: you know what's astonishing?
^That may very well be true of my second post, but not my first post, although one of the video's was no longer available on the Frontline website so I went to the trouble of tracking it down on Google, where it was hosted by another online archive.
As for the music, some are more deliberate than others, and I am always critical of these shows when they use dramatic music, not just the video's RM has posted.
With regard to the second list of documents and videos, I have not viewed them, but they are backed by scholarly sources.
I'm going to finish watching RM's video later tonight.
cheers
Re: you know what's astonishing?
Frontline could be the biggest propaganda show on TV. Are you kidding me Florida? Everything on that show is a lie.
Re: you know what's astonishing?
that is true. Even I know that and I live in the UK lol
Re: you know what's astonishing?
It may seem like plenty of posturing is going on, and of course one has to discriminate when they watch frontline, or any other journalism for that matter. But I assume Chunky will take the information with a grain of salt as well as further investigate presumably inaccurate information as he and other see fit. To simply disseminate everything Frontline reports as as propaganda is not only presumptuous but borderline egomaniacal, imo.
Re: you know what's astonishing?
no not at all. Frontline is lies. To think that is the truth is naive. That is like saying the mainstream is the truth. Frontline is the mainstream of the mainstream.
I will take independant media any day of the week over the corporate news.
Re: you know what's astonishing?
^There's still solid investigative journalism going on in several of those Frontline documentaries, but fine you disagree, at any rate, did you happen to see the post that follows?
Re: you know what's astonishing?
FAITH AND DOUBT AT GROUND ZERO
In the past Genocide, Famine, War, Disease. People questioning where god was on 9/11. What about all the other times. What what where these people doing? looking at the world and seeing nothing at all until it was on their doorstep.
[QUOTE=Father Geoge Rutler FAITH AND DOUBT AT GROUND ZERO;784870]
"We Where Being Reminded Of Our Own Mortality. The Biggest Buildings In The Biggest City In The Centre Of The Universe, I Speak As A New Yorker Now, Could Come Down, This World Will Come Down. Just The Buildings Being So Massive & Powerful, Gave Us The Illusion That We Where That Way To" [/QUOTE]
Re: you know what's astonishing?
[QUOTE=yesme;784824]miro and florida, here is the thing, i'm willing to go thru the whole thing with you and debunk the governments line on everything that day.
but
dont assume that because some 9-11 researcher believes in one thing, that i do as well.
i wont get into any theory of what happened or who did it, most people have a hard enough time believing the government is lying to us.
i will be happy to have YOU leave this thread wanting a new investigation, but you have to be willing to go thru the information.
i will do this all, with only government reports/sites, and with any 9-11 conspriacy debunking sites/links that you can think of.[/QUOTE]
no one took the offer eh?
telling.
Re: you know what's astonishing?
^By all means, please do. I am sure plenty of members would derive a great deal of value in your findings. If I don't respond as quickly as of late, it's because I'm busy preparing for a week long business trip that starts this Sat. ;)
Re: you know what's astonishing?
[QUOTE=yesme;784945]no one took the offer eh?
telling.[/QUOTE] go for it...why not? it's not like we have anything better to do around here. :lol:
Re: you know what's astonishing?
nobody mentioned the numerous training exercises before 9/11. guess what it was about? planes flying into buildings. this is also a fact. there's pictures of it but can't find it at the moment.
Re: you know what's astonishing?
^^ Also, if you rearrange the letters of the word "training", guess what you get? ANTI RING.
Thus showing WITH 100% CERTAINTY that any such exercises were intended "against" the "rings" of the Pentagon!
Also, do you know what else has rings? SATURN. And did you know they have rings named A-G? [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rings_of_Saturn[/URL]
Saturn was clearly in on this.
Coincidence or devilishly clever plot? I dunno..........YOU DECIDE!
DUUUUM DA DUM DUM :x
Re: you know what's astonishing?
I've got ring, I got left out:lol:
Re: you know what's astonishing?
first a couple of questions.
do you know about the missing 2.3 trillion?
do you know where in the pentagon they kept those files?
do you know who john o'neil is?
how much mass ended up outside the fottprint of the towers would you say?
did the upper block get pulverized in mid air, or did it stay intact until hitting the bottom.
do you understand conservation of momentium? how about path of least resistence?
thanks guys.
Re: you know what's astonishing?
[QUOTE=yesme;785166]first a couple of questions.
do you know about the missing 2.3 trillion?
do you know where in the pentagon they kept those files?
do you know who john o'neil is?
how much mass ended up outside the fottprint of the towers would you say?
did the upper block get pulverized in mid air, or did it stay intact until hitting the bottom.
do you understand conservation of momentium? how about path of least resistence?
thanks guys.[/QUOTE] I know the missing $2.3 trillion is a passage taken out of context from a Dick Cheney speech the day before 9-11, and it has been misconstrued to make it sound like he embezzeled the money.
I know who John O'Neil was.
And I know a bit about the basics of physics, but I'm not a physicist. I think I may have Googled some of those physics arguments in the past.
Proceed with your argument and evidence.
Re: you know what's astonishing?
[QUOTE]I know the missing $2.3 trillion is a passage taken out of context from a Dick Cheney speech the day before 9-11, and it has been misconstrued to make it sound like he embezzeled the money. [/QUOTE]
it was rummy, and we all should know this was a long process, and not a r or d thing. everyone swindled us here.
point being this very inexperenced pilot made a very hard turn to hit a bunch of files and accountants looking for that 2.3 trillion. instead of taking a nice, easy direct path right in.
[QUOTE]I know who John O'Neil was. [/QUOTE]
the one guy america would of believed when he said bin laden would not of done this, correct?
[QUOTE]And I know a bit about the basics of physics, but I'm not a physicist. I think I may have Googled some of those physics arguments in the past. [/QUOTE]
hey me either, but i'm a guy that learns as he goes you know? i have been looking into this things since this has happened.
[QUOTE]Proceed with your argument and evidence.[/QUOTE]
i wont be presenting an argument, i will be debunking the nist and 9-11 commission report.
first, do we all understand that the nist report fails to explain the collapse of the towers fully? it only covers up to the start of collapse, and then assumes global collapse cause they could not get their models to work.
[QUOTE]From a letter dated 9/27/07. From Catherine S. Fletcher - Chief, Management and Organization Division NIST
"NIST did not test for explosive residue and such tests would not necessarily have been conclusive."
"As we mentioned previously, we are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse."
"While NIST did not find evidence that any of the recovered core columns experienced temperatures in excess of 250 C, it is not possible to extrapolate from such a small sample size to state that none of the core columns on the fire affected floors reached temperatures in excess of 250C." [/QUOTE]
Re: you know what's astonishing?
The towers falling (both of them) were certainly shocking to see!
So a pilot hit the WTC to destroy files?
Re: you know what's astonishing?
[QUOTE=floridaorange;785256]The towers falling (both of them) were certainly shocking to see!
So a pilot hit the WTC to destroy files?[/QUOTE]
no that was the pentagon that had files in the impact zone.
Re: you know what's astonishing?
i mistyped that one, meant pentagon.
Re: you know what's astonishing?
[QUOTE=yesme;785192]it was rummy, and we all should know this was a long process, and not a r or d thing. everyone swindled us here.
point being this very inexperenced pilot made a very hard turn to hit a bunch of files and accountants looking for that 2.3 trillion. instead of taking a nice, easy direct path right in.[/QUOTE] This strikes me as pointless conjecture... If these are the arguments you're going to make for the Pentagon, then we're not going to get very far.
Here is Rummy's speech: [URL]http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=430[/URL]
It does not offer any shocking admission that he "stole" $2.3 trillion dollars. He just makes the point that technology in the military has to be upgraded and gives an example of the financial systems used. His point was that the lack of technological efficiency in the military was a waste to the taxpayers:
[quote]The technology revolution has transformed organizations across the private sector, but not ours, not fully, not yet. [B]We are, as they say, tangled in our anchor chain. Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions.[/B] We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are inaccessible or incompatible.
We maintain 20 to 25 percent more base infrastructure than we need to support our forces, at an annual waste to taxpayers of some $3 billion to $4 billion. Fully half of our resources go to infrastructure and overhead, and in addition to draining resources from warfighting, these costly and outdated systems, procedures and programs stifle innovation as well. A new idea must often survive the gauntlet of some 17 levels of bureaucracy to make it from a line officer's to my desk. I have too much respect for a line officer to believe that we need 17 layers between us. [/quote]
This is not some admission that he has stolen money. And you can bet your ass that with the inefficiency and sheer size of government, there are many other billions that the government probably couldn't track in many other sectors as well; that's basically "normal". I would be that the government has these sorts of accounting issues all the timebably - just pick your agency, and you'll probably discover that it's a mess, and no one is getting murdered over it. Keep in mind that this is not REAL MONEY, like a bunch of gold bars sitting in a vault; it's basically all credit on computer systems. Didn't you know that the government can basically print its own money? ;)
Also, the 2001 defense budget was many magnitudes smaller than $2.3 trillion. Even if Rummy had skimmed every penny he could off of that, there is no way that he could have embezzeled $2.3 trillion.
And do you really think that there would be no better, easier way for the government to cover up accounting issues than to fire cruise missiles or something into their own buildings? :roll:
[QUOTE=yesme;785192]the one guy america would of believed when he said bin laden would not of done this, correct?[/quote] So now you're suggesting to me that they had to blow up TWO of the biggest skyscrapers in the country in order to take out ONE SINGLE GUY? They couldn't just have arranged for someone to kill him or for an accident to happen to his car brakes or something?
Also, that is a huge conjecture that "America would have believed him" if he had said that.
And I thought you weren't going to be feeding me all of these crazy unsubstantiated, hollywood-style "coincidence - I think not" theories on WHY it happened. Now it seems that this is all you're doing. Really? :what
[QUOTE=yesme;785192]first, do we all understand that the nist report fails to explain the collapse of the towers fully? it only covers up to the start of collapse, and then assumes global collapse cause they could not get their models to work.[/QUOTE] Of course it doesn't. I would bet that NOBODY on the planet can "fully explain" the collapse of the towers.
Sounds like you're going to argue that none of the temperatures in the fire could have gone above 250C? ;)
Re: you know what's astonishing?
this thread is astonishing
Re: you know what's astonishing?
[QUOTE=bobjuice;785349]this thread is astonishing[/QUOTE]
hehe...agreed. :D:shock:
Re: you know what's astonishing?
[QUOTE]This strikes me as pointless conjecture... If these are the arguments you're going to make for the Pentagon, then we're not going to get very far.
Here is Rummy's speech: [URL="http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=430"][COLOR=#d2d2d2]http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/...x?speechid=430[/COLOR][/URL]
It does not offer any shocking admission that he "stole" $2.3 trillion dollars. He just makes the point that technology in the military has to be upgraded and gives an example of the financial systems used. His point was that the lack of technological efficiency in the military was a waste to the taxpayers: [/QUOTE]
again, not pointing out any argument, just stating these are things that need investigating. i mean 2.3 trillion dollars "unaccounted" for is alot of dough, 1/6th our national debt right?
why was this NEVER investigated at all, by anyone?
why did terrorist execute a near impossible turn to hit an area being reinforced the whole time they were planning this? are you telling me they planned this for 8 years and decided to hit the side of the pentagon where it was being reinforced AND where no top brass was located?
seriously?
[QUOTE]This is not some admission that he has stolen money. And you can bet your ass that with the inefficiency and sheer size of government, there are many other billions that the government probably couldn't track in many other sectors as well; that's basically "normal". I would be that the government has these sorts of accounting issues all the timebably - just pick your agency, and you'll probably discover that it's a mess, and no one is getting murdered over it.[/QUOTE]
2.3 TRILLION dollars, not millions or billions.
the size of this is incredible, madoff times 50.
also not only didthey just admit not being able to find 2.3 trillion that was never investigated, but then after 9-11 these same "opps i lost a trillion" money managers were given the biggest budgets they ever had for years and years now.
[QUOTE]Also, the 2001 defense budget was many magnitudes smaller than $2.3 trillion. Even if Rummy had skimmed every penny he could off of that, there is no way that he could have embezzeled $2.3 trillion. [/QUOTE]
maybe you missed it. i'll requote myself.
[QUOTE] and we all should know this was a long process, and not a r or d thing. everyone swindled us here. [/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]And do you really think that there would be no better, easier way for the government to cover up accounting issues than to fire cruise missiles or something into their own buildings?[/QUOTE]
do you mean do i think there would of been an easier way for a government agency tell the public they lost 2.3trillion bucks, and then get record budget amounts every year after that?
um, yeah the public might have had a problem with that one.
but lets get off of that, cause it does distract from the real issues, i was interested to see how many coincidences in one day you thought was normal.
[QUOTE]So now you're suggesting to me that they had to blow up TWO of the biggest skyscrapers in the country in order to take out ONE SINGLE GUY? They couldn't just have arranged for someone to kill him or for an accident to happen to his car brakes or something? [/QUOTE]
straw man much? no i did not say they took out the towers for this one guy, they might have gotten him the job already knowing what was going to happen.
[QUOTE]Also, that is a huge conjecture that "America would have believed him" if he had said that. [/QUOTE]
right, silly of me to believe the american sheep would listen to the worlds foremost expert on bin laden.
[QUOTE]And I thought you weren't going to be feeding me all of these crazy unsubstantiated, hollywood-style "coincidence - I think not" theories on WHY it happened. Now it seems that this is all you're doing. Really?[/QUOTE]
your right, lets move on from the coincidence theory the government has put forth and go to the facts instead.
[QUOTE]Of course it doesn't. I would bet that NOBODY on the planet can "fully explain" the collapse of the towers. [/QUOTE]
are you kidding me here or what? we have explained every building collapse for the last 50 years, except for this one right?:roll:
and btw, a 9-11 truth movement debunker had a theory out within the first couple of days, it was based on the failed pancake theory though.
[QUOTE]Sounds like you're going to argue that none of the temperatures in the fire could have gone above 250C?[/QUOTE]
argue?
whats there to argue about? you have no evidence that fires went ABOVE 250c.
so lets start working the government theory shall we.
the government's "conspiracy theory" states that there was a raging inferno in the buildings that day.
but yet has no evidence of this.
(but miro dont believe in conspriacys with no evidence to back them up i thought?)
sure he does.
miro, tell us about the path of least resistence and "an object in motion tends to stay in motion" with respect to this picture.
[IMG]http://cnparm.home.texas.net/911/911/SouthTowerCollapse.jpg[/IMG]
what should the upper block do according to physics?
Re: you know what's astonishing?
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_industrial_complex[/url]
Re: you know what's astonishing?
[QUOTE=yesme;785367] miro, tell us about the path of least resistence and "an object in motion tends to stay in motion" with respect to this picture.
[IMG]http://cnparm.home.texas.net/911/911/SouthTowerCollapse.jpg[/IMG]
what should the upper block do according to physics?[/QUOTE]
That's a picture of the 2nd building I would imagine?
Here's a great video featuring the sheer magnitude of the impact of the collision at that speed. The video is slowed down at the point of impact, it's 50 seconds long.
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0Qu6eyyr4c[/YOUTUBE]
Re: you know what's astonishing?
I have a ton of work to do before I leave for the weekend, so most likely I won't have time to mess with this for a few days.
Re: you know what's astonishing?
Published in the September, 2009, [URL="http://www.rockcreekfreepress.com/"]Rock Creek Free Press[/URL]
In an attempt to get to the bottom of what really happened on 9/11, citizen investigator Aidan Monaghan has filed dozens of Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests with federal agencies such as the FBI, SEC, Department of the Navy, and the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey. Agency after agency has refused to comply with his requests, instead claiming that the information cannot be found, does not exist, was never properly filed, or even, from the FAA, that it was simply “not in a position to release said records at this time.” The [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_Information_Act_%28United_States%29"]Freedom of Information Act[/URL] was signed into law by President Johnson in 1966. It mandates that information held by federal agencies must be made available to any citizen requesting it, unless that information is exempt. The Act specifies nine reasons why any given piece of information could be exempt, such as invasion of personal privacy, trade secrets, anything related to the supervision or regulation of financial institutions, and anything that could compromise either law enforcement or national security. In addition, the FBI has put an exemption on all of their 9/11 information and will release information only if compelled to do so by a lawsuit, of which Monaghan has filed two. Despite the persistent stonewalling, Monaghan has turned up some interesting discrepancies. While it was widely reported in the media, such as by [URL="http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/14/pentagon-fire.htm#more"]USA Today[/URL], that the flight data recorder (FDR) also known as the “black box,” for American Airlines flight 77 (the plane that allegedly hit the Pentagon on 9/11) was found at 4 am on September 14, 2001, the file containing the FDR data was dated over four hours earlier. In other words, we are asked to believe that the data from the FDR was downloaded prior to the FDR being found.
When Monaghan filed a Request for Correction with the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), and pointed out this disparity, his request was denied and an explanation offered that the file was created as a routine procedure prior to finding the FDR. However the FDR file indicates three parameters: date created, date modified, and date accessed. The “date created” and “date modified” fields are both listed as 11:45:38 pm on September 13, 2001, indicating that no data was added later, after the FDR was found. The “date accessed” field is blank. [URL="http://jabbajoo.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c0ac653ef0120a5683a7f970c-pi"][IMG]http://jabbajoo.typepad.com/.a/6a00d8341c0ac653ef0120a5683a7f970c-600wi[/IMG][/URL] This is, Monaghan says, “sufficient reason to wonder if the information is faked.” Monaghan has also established that the NTSB does not have either serial or part numbers for the FDRs from American Airlines flight # 77 or United Airlines flight # 93 (which allegedly crashed in Shanksville, PA). This is highly unusual, in fact, according to Monaghan, there is only one other occasion in the past 20 years when the NTSB report for a airplane crash did not contain the part and serial numbers for the FDR. That was, oddly enough, exactly ten years earlier, on September 11, 1991, when a Continental Express flight broke up in mid-air, killing 14 people, when the horizontal stabilizer failed. The accident was blamed on the negligence of Continental’s maintenance and inspection crew. The NTSB’s own handbook indicates that the part number and serial number of the FDR are required for data readout of the FDR. The NTSB did not have this information, giving us another reason to question how the FDR data was created. Other researchers have raised serious doubts about flight # 77. The fact that the file for American Airlines flight 77 FDR was created before the AA 77 FDR was found, was [URL="http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum//index.php?showtopic=8240"]first reported on the forum[/URL] for [URL="http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/"]Pilots for 9/11 Truth[/URL] in August of 2007, but with a timestamp of six hours earlier than reported by Monaghan. Pilots for 9/11 Truth have also concluded that the FDR data released by the NTSB has the plane flying too high to hit the Pentagon. [URL="http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/index.html"]Citizen Investigation Team[/URL] (CIT) have interviewed numerous people who saw the plane approach the Pentagon on 9/11 and have demonstrated that the plane could not have caused the damage at the building, and must have flown over it. [URL="http://www.sheilacasey.com/2009/04/new-research-contradicts-pentagon-911-story.html?cid=6a00d8341c0ac653ef0115711d4b06970c"]RCFP ran an extensive story about CIT in the April, 2009 issue. [/URL] Monaghan also uncovered a discrepancy that suggests that either the FAA or Popular Mechanics writers are lying. Monaghan filed a FOIA with the FAA requesting data about the number of times the FAA had asked NORAD to intercept an aircraft in three specific years, but received a reply stating that the FAA does not track or record that information, and that they “have no records responsive to your request.” But on page 22 of the 2006 Popular Mechanics book [I]Debunking 9/11 Myths[/I], the writers quote an unnamed source at the FAA as saying that scrambles were routine, but interceptions were not—especially over the continental United States. If the FAA does not track that information, how did the FAA source know this? Another discrepancy arose when Monaghan asked the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) for the last pre-9/11 flights of the aircraft that were allegedly destroyed on 9/11. BTS responded with a spreadsheet that showed that prior to 9/11, three of the four aircraft had not flown since December 2000. (No information was given for the plane that allegedly crashed into the Pentagon.) However a searchable online database on the BTS website shows that three of the four flights (again, no information for the Pentagon plane) flew continuously until September 11, 2001. The list of FOIAs that Monaghan has filed which have yielded no information is long. He asked the Secret Service for documents that reveal what time former Vice President Dick Cheney entered the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC), as well as documents pertaining to the names of persons admitted to PEOC on the morning of 9/11. Reply: [I]no records or documents pertaining to your request.[/I] He asked the SEC for a bibliography of the investigation records that were located in the SEC’s offices on floors 11-13 in World Trade Center 7, even attaching a copy of a [URL="http://www.wanttoknow.info/010917nylawyerwallstreetsecfiles"]September 17, 2001 article in the National Law Journal which stated that SEC and EEOC investigations had been delayed due to the loss of “substantial files” for 3,000 to 4,000 cases[/URL]. The reply: [I]did not locate or identify any information responsive to your request[/I]. In an attempt to shed light on what may have led to the destruction of the World Trade Center towers, Monaghan asked the Port Authority of NY & NJ for a complete list of outsourced contract projects performed upon World Trade Center buildings 1 and 2 from January 1, 2001 to September 11, 2001. Reply: [I]no documents in Port Authority files responsive to your request[/I]. (Monaghan notes that since the Port Authority was located in WTC 1, it is possible that all files were lost that day.) Monaghan sued the FBI to obtain “documentation revealing the process by which wreckage recovered by defendant, from the aircraft used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, was positively identified by defendant…as belonging to the said aircraft…” Reply: …[I]there are no responsive records. The identities of the airplanes hijacked in the September 11 attacks was never in question, and, therefore, there were no records generated…[/I] As reported in the April, 2008 RCFP, the aircraft were very much in question, as transponders were turned off and one plane, flight 77, was even lost to radar over Ohio for a time. NTSB officials are on record stating that they were involved in aircraft parts identification, and bins were set up at all three crash sites labeled “aircraft parts.” The RCFP reported in May 2009 that explosive, unreacted thermitic material containing nano particles of aluminum and iron oxide had recently been discovered in the dust from the World Trade Center buildings that collapsed on September 11, 2001. The Indian Head Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center was described in 1999 as “the only reliable source for aluminum nano-powders in the United States,” and in 2008 as "probably the most prominent US center for nano-thermite technology.” Monaghan asked the Naval Surface Warfare Center for records about the research and development of nano-sized aluminum powders or nano-sized iron oxide powders. Reply: [I]have not found any records responsive to your request.[/I] Monaghan is currently trying to get more information from the FBI with [I]Aidan Monaghan v. U.S. Dept of Justice, et al., 09-CV-0060.[/I] When you sue the FBI, Monaghan explained, you go up against the Department of Justice, since the FBI is a division of the DoJ. This lawsuit asks for information about the wreckage recovered from American Airlines flight # 77 and United Airlines flight # 93, the flight management computers and multi-mode receivers used on all four aircraft, the serial numbers for the flight data recorders and cockpit voice recorders for AA77 and UA93, communications between the four hijacked aircraft, information regarding the presence of bombs in the World Trade Center towers, three days of logs of the recovery of human remains from the crash sites of AA77 and UA93, an audio copy of the cockpit voice recorder from UA93, and information about phone calls placed from AA11, UA175, AA77 and UA93, including the existence of seatback or Airfone telephones for passenger use on all four aircraft. Monaghan admits that he is now “running out of ideas for FOIAs for file.” As recently as September 2007, the FBI denied Monaghan’s FOIAs under the law enforcement exemption, claiming that this is an “ongoing investigation” and that information related to identifying the aircraft used on 9/11 “could reasonably be expected to interfere with enforcement proceedings.” “I’m beginning to wonder if the FOIA is just a lot of theatre for public consumption to provide a perception that yes, government is accessible, it’s transparent,” said Monaghan. “For two years now I’ve tried to pull as much 9/11 info from the federal government as I can, and the most noteworthy thing I’ve found is the absence of information. Material that should be there just isn’t.” Monaghan is married, lives in Las Vegas and works in risk management and public safety for a large commercial property that gets a lot of public traffic. He was educated as an electrical engineer.
Re: you know what's astonishing?
^^Same site:
Testimony in the Japanese parliament, broadcast live on Japanese television in January 2008, challenged the premise and validity of the Global War on Terror. Parliament member Yukihisa Fujita insisted that an investigation be conducted into the war’s origin: the events of 9/11. In a parliament Defense and Foreign Affairs Committee session held to debate the ethics of renewing Japan’s “anti-terror law,” which commits Japan to providing logistical support for coalition forces operating in Afghanistan, Fujita opened the session by stating, “I would like to talk about the origin of this war on terrorism, which was the attacks of 9/11, . . . When discussing these anti-terror laws we should ask ourselves, what was 9/11? And what is terrorism?” Fujita pointed out that, “So far the only thing the government has said is that we think it was caused by al-Qaeda because President Bush told us so. We have not seen any real proof that it was al-Qaeda.” He reminded parliament that twenty-four Japanese citizens were killed on 9/11, yet the mandate of a criminal investigation by the Japanese government never followed. “This is a crime so surely an investigation needs to be carried out,” said Fujita (Censored 2008, #16). Fujita went on extensively to ask “about the suspicious information being uncovered and the doubts people worldwide are having about the events of 9/11.” The Japanese parliament viewed several slides from the Pentagon and World Trade Center (WTC) sites as Fujita explained each. The slides showed evidence inconsistent with official explanation: damage in and around the Pentagon was not consistent with the damage a 757 airplane would cause. Fujita noted, “Also, there were more than eighty security cameras at the Pentagon, but officials have refused to release the footage. In any case, as you have just seen, there is no picture of the airplane or of its wreckage in any of these photographs. It is very strange that no such pictures have been shown to us.” A US Air Force official corroborated the fact that the plane executed a U-turn and avoided the Defense Secretary’s office, a feat that would be impossible for an unskilled first-time pilot to maneuver; and no air defense was made in the ninety-minute interval between the initial impact of the planes at the WTC and the Pentagon. Fujita added, “It is baffling that no flight records were found at any of four sites.” On the ground at the WTC sites, both sounds and visual evidence from explosions were verified. Flying debris shot out as far as 150 meters consistent with buildings exploding. A New York fireman during rescue operations confirmed that a series of explosions resembled a professional demolition, and a Japanese survivor heard explosions while fleeing the site. The World Trade Center Building 7 (WTC 7), forty-seven stories high and located one block away, collapsed into its footprint, seven hours after the main WTC buildings were attacked, in five or six seconds, although no plane struck it and it had minimal fire damage. Not only did the 9/11 Commission fail to mention WTC 7, but the US Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA and National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) made no mention of it in their reports. Fujita went on to detail proof of insider trading from September 6 through 8, when investors executed “put options” to sell stock in United and American Airlines at a fixed price. Finance specialist Keiichiro Asao responded with confirmation that such complex transaction would be the work of insiders rather than al-Qaeda. Fujita then addressed Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda, “I would like to know why the Prime Minister thinks it was the Taliban who was responsible for 9/11.” He continued, “We need to go back to the beginning and not just simply and blindly trust the US government explanation and indirect information provided by them. . . . We need to look at this evidence and ask ourselves what the war on terrorism really is. . . . We need to ask who the real victims of this war on terrorism are. I think the citizens of the world are its victims.” “Prime Minister,” Fujita continued, “what about the origin of the War on Terror and the idea of whether it is right or wrong to participate in it? Is there really a reason to participate in this War on Terror?” Fujita received support for concluding that the reason for participating in the US War on Terror needs to be investigated and analyzed. Opposition blocked the extension of Japan’s anti-terror law and colleagues acknowledged his bravery with congratulatory phone calls. This came to an end in mid-January when, after months of parliamentary debates and the opposition of at least 50 percent of the Japanese public, Fukuda rammed the anti-terror bill through parliament. After the bill was voted down by opposition in the Upper House plenary session on January 12, the government resubmitted it later that same day to the Lower House, where the ruling conservative party holds the majority, and turned a bill into a law. Thus, they overturned a veto in the Upper House. This is the first time in half a century that a Japanese government has resorted to such tactics—deemed a drastic measure by Japanese standards.1 According to Christopher W. Hughes, professor of politics and international studies at University of Warwick, “Fukuda’s government was under a lot of US pressure to re-deploy ships, and even if he was always somewhat doubtful about the importance of the mission in military terms and the whole US War on Terror, he perceived passing the bill as very important to US-Japan relations. This was also impressed upon him by a personal meeting with US President Bush.”
Re: you know what's astonishing?
Channel 4 have 9/11 week this week, funny how there is no programmes regarding the conflicting opinions on 9/11. Its a shame Channel 4 used to like to push the boundaries a bit with their programmes, in the past we had Live Autopsy, Red Light Zone, 4 On Drugs, 4 On Porn, 4 On Gay Porn and Animal Farm. Plus the Banned Season where they showed the movies banned in the UK. Now they are just towing the official line.
Re: you know what's astonishing?
No news agency wants to rock the boat anymore...only some chubby fuckers sitting in their "control centers" writing blogs while they play wow or some other crap...
Re: you know what's astonishing?
up in Canada there is going to be a documentary on tonight called
9/11 The Third Tower
Talking about building 7 of course. Speakers in it
Steven Jones Dylan Avery and more..
Re: you know what's astonishing?
^That's certainly of interest, report back if you watch it, and perhaps a link if the producers make it available online.
Re: you know what's astonishing?
Propaganda Piece
[URL]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9072062020229593250#[/URL]
Theorists were interviewed for only a couple minutes. Government reps double time.
Here is an MIT Engineer Saying it was Controlled Demolition. Very Factual, Very Professional, Very reputable. Only 10 min Presentation.
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNbwLfczjt8[/YOUTUBE]
Miro you should watch this one.
Re: you know what's astonishing?
Gay stuff edit.. [URL="http://infowars.com/media/20min-w-President.pdf"][/URL]
Re: you know what's astonishing?
Alex Jones is retarded.
Re: you know what's astonishing?
[B][FONT=Times-Bold][SIZE=5][FONT=Times-Bold][SIZE=5][QUOTE=runningman;786813]Charlie Sheen Transcript with the President.. WOW he lays it down here.
[URL]http://infowars.com/media/20min-w-President.pdf[/URL][/QUOTE]
[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/B][LEFT][B][FONT=Times-Bold][SIZE=5][FONT=Times-Bold][SIZE=5][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/B] [B][FONT=Times-Bold][SIZE=5][FONT=Times-Bold][SIZE=5]Author’s Note[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/B][FONT=Times-Bold][SIZE=5] [/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Times-Roman][SIZE=5][FONT=Times-Roman][SIZE=5]: [/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][I][FONT=Times-Italic][SIZE=5][FONT=Times-Italic][SIZE=5]What you have just read didn’t actually happen… yet.[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/I]
[B][FONT=Times-Bold][SIZE=5][FONT=Times-Bold][SIZE=5]This is an open letter to the President requesting a new[/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT][/B]
[SIZE=5][FONT=Times-Bold][B][SIZE=5][FONT=Times-Bold]investigation.[/FONT][/SIZE][/B][/FONT][/SIZE][SIZE=5][FONT=Times-Bold][/LEFT] [/FONT][/SIZE]
Re: you know what's astonishing?
Ya what a crock of shit.. That is why I hate even saying anything about Alex Jones.. he is to sketchy.