Ten things we learned in 2004 about 9/11

Stretch

House Member
Feb 16, 2003
3,924
19
38
Australia
Friday, December 31, 2004
Ten things we learned in 2004 about 9/11
1. The World Trade Center Black Boxes were recovered, though officials perpetuate the lie that they weren't.

2. FEMA really did arrive early in New York City, for the "bioterror drill" Tripod II, and Rudi Giuliani's testimony to that effect before the 9/11 Commission is its only public testimony which remains officially untranscribed.

3. The Total Information Awareness program was ready to roll out before Sept 11, and John Poindexter's office was established in the Pentagon no later than Sept 12.

4. A recording of six air traffic controllers' same-day detailing of their communication with two hijacked planes on September 11 was purposefully destroyed by the FAA.

5. NORAD was conducting a live-fly simulation of multiple hijackings on the morning of 9/11, which effectively hamstrung a fighter response already compromised by exercises which took the bulk of interceptors far from the eastern seaboard.

6. Dick Cheney was running a separate command and control communications system on 9/11, which whistleblower Indira Singh recognized as having "the exact same functionality I was looking to utilize [for] Ptech," the high tech terrorist and intelligence cut-out that "was set up in the basement of the FAA" for two years before the attacks. (Go to this page to download video testimony of Mike Ruppert and Indira Singh on this subject.)

7. George Bush was unwilling to reluctanctly meet members of his reluctantly struck 9/11 Commission unless Cheney accompanied him, both were unsworn, their words were unrecorded and untranscribed, the meeting was private and in the White House, and the members' notebooks were confiscated afterwards.

8. That John Ashcroft made the case for Sibel Edmonds' State Secret Privilege gag order by claiming that disclosure of her testimony would "cause serious damage to the national security interests of the United States" suggests he is at least an accessory after the fact (Daniel Ellsberg believes Ashcroft deserving of jail time for his role in obstructing justice), as Edmonds has been able to say that her testimony involves "specific information implicating certain high level government and elected officials in criminal activities directly and indirectly related to terrorist money laundering, narcotics, and illegal arms sales."

9. Donald Rumsfeld confirmed what we knew all along, that Flight 93 was shot down, and the corporate media flew into damage control for the Pentagon, saying the Secretary "misspoke" and "stoked conspiracy theories."

10. As Pakistan wound down the search for Osama bin Laden and "prohibited" American forces based in Afghanistan from making cross-border incursions into the Tribal Areas, Musharraf was rewarded with the approving words that his continuing rule remains an internal matter for Pakistanis. (Afghanistan was, arguably, more cooperative in their attempt to bring bin Laden to justice, and Iraq was not a rogue nuclear state.)

We're getting there. Of course, they are there already, and have been for years. But we're catching on.

The big picture remains grim, and getting grimmer, but small pictures can still be pleasant ones. I hope yours are in 2005.

posted by Jeff at 1:35 AM

http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/12/ten-things-we-learned-in-2004-about.html
 

Stretch

House Member
Feb 16, 2003
3,924
19
38
Australia
Friday, December 31, 2004
Ten things we learned in 2004 about 9/11
1. The World Trade Center Black Boxes were recovered, though officials perpetuate the lie that they weren't.

2. FEMA really did arrive early in New York City, for the "bioterror drill" Tripod II, and Rudi Giuliani's testimony to that effect before the 9/11 Commission is its only public testimony which remains officially untranscribed.

3. The Total Information Awareness program was ready to roll out before Sept 11, and John Poindexter's office was established in the Pentagon no later than Sept 12.

4. A recording of six air traffic controllers' same-day detailing of their communication with two hijacked planes on September 11 was purposefully destroyed by the FAA.

5. NORAD was conducting a live-fly simulation of multiple hijackings on the morning of 9/11, which effectively hamstrung a fighter response already compromised by exercises which took the bulk of interceptors far from the eastern seaboard.

6. Dick Cheney was running a separate command and control communications system on 9/11, which whistleblower Indira Singh recognized as having "the exact same functionality I was looking to utilize [for] Ptech," the high tech terrorist and intelligence cut-out that "was set up in the basement of the FAA" for two years before the attacks. (Go to this page to download video testimony of Mike Ruppert and Indira Singh on this subject.)

7. George Bush was unwilling to reluctanctly meet members of his reluctantly struck 9/11 Commission unless Cheney accompanied him, both were unsworn, their words were unrecorded and untranscribed, the meeting was private and in the White House, and the members' notebooks were confiscated afterwards.

8. That John Ashcroft made the case for Sibel Edmonds' State Secret Privilege gag order by claiming that disclosure of her testimony would "cause serious damage to the national security interests of the United States" suggests he is at least an accessory after the fact (Daniel Ellsberg believes Ashcroft deserving of jail time for his role in obstructing justice), as Edmonds has been able to say that her testimony involves "specific information implicating certain high level government and elected officials in criminal activities directly and indirectly related to terrorist money laundering, narcotics, and illegal arms sales."

9. Donald Rumsfeld confirmed what we knew all along, that Flight 93 was shot down, and the corporate media flew into damage control for the Pentagon, saying the Secretary "misspoke" and "stoked conspiracy theories."

10. As Pakistan wound down the search for Osama bin Laden and "prohibited" American forces based in Afghanistan from making cross-border incursions into the Tribal Areas, Musharraf was rewarded with the approving words that his continuing rule remains an internal matter for Pakistanis. (Afghanistan was, arguably, more cooperative in their attempt to bring bin Laden to justice, and Iraq was not a rogue nuclear state.)

We're getting there. Of course, they are there already, and have been for years. But we're catching on.

The big picture remains grim, and getting grimmer, but small pictures can still be pleasant ones. I hope yours are in 2005.

posted by Jeff at 1:35 AM

http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/12/ten-things-we-learned-in-2004-about.html
 

Stretch

House Member
Feb 16, 2003
3,924
19
38
Australia
Friday, December 31, 2004
Ten things we learned in 2004 about 9/11
1. The World Trade Center Black Boxes were recovered, though officials perpetuate the lie that they weren't.

2. FEMA really did arrive early in New York City, for the "bioterror drill" Tripod II, and Rudi Giuliani's testimony to that effect before the 9/11 Commission is its only public testimony which remains officially untranscribed.

3. The Total Information Awareness program was ready to roll out before Sept 11, and John Poindexter's office was established in the Pentagon no later than Sept 12.

4. A recording of six air traffic controllers' same-day detailing of their communication with two hijacked planes on September 11 was purposefully destroyed by the FAA.

5. NORAD was conducting a live-fly simulation of multiple hijackings on the morning of 9/11, which effectively hamstrung a fighter response already compromised by exercises which took the bulk of interceptors far from the eastern seaboard.

6. Dick Cheney was running a separate command and control communications system on 9/11, which whistleblower Indira Singh recognized as having "the exact same functionality I was looking to utilize [for] Ptech," the high tech terrorist and intelligence cut-out that "was set up in the basement of the FAA" for two years before the attacks. (Go to this page to download video testimony of Mike Ruppert and Indira Singh on this subject.)

7. George Bush was unwilling to reluctanctly meet members of his reluctantly struck 9/11 Commission unless Cheney accompanied him, both were unsworn, their words were unrecorded and untranscribed, the meeting was private and in the White House, and the members' notebooks were confiscated afterwards.

8. That John Ashcroft made the case for Sibel Edmonds' State Secret Privilege gag order by claiming that disclosure of her testimony would "cause serious damage to the national security interests of the United States" suggests he is at least an accessory after the fact (Daniel Ellsberg believes Ashcroft deserving of jail time for his role in obstructing justice), as Edmonds has been able to say that her testimony involves "specific information implicating certain high level government and elected officials in criminal activities directly and indirectly related to terrorist money laundering, narcotics, and illegal arms sales."

9. Donald Rumsfeld confirmed what we knew all along, that Flight 93 was shot down, and the corporate media flew into damage control for the Pentagon, saying the Secretary "misspoke" and "stoked conspiracy theories."

10. As Pakistan wound down the search for Osama bin Laden and "prohibited" American forces based in Afghanistan from making cross-border incursions into the Tribal Areas, Musharraf was rewarded with the approving words that his continuing rule remains an internal matter for Pakistanis. (Afghanistan was, arguably, more cooperative in their attempt to bring bin Laden to justice, and Iraq was not a rogue nuclear state.)

We're getting there. Of course, they are there already, and have been for years. But we're catching on.

The big picture remains grim, and getting grimmer, but small pictures can still be pleasant ones. I hope yours are in 2005.

posted by Jeff at 1:35 AM

http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/12/ten-things-we-learned-in-2004-about.html
 

Stretch

House Member
Feb 16, 2003
3,924
19
38
Australia
Was it a slip of the tongue? Was it an error? Or was it the truth, finally being dropped on the public more than three years after the tragedy of the terrorist attacks that killed nearly 3,000?


Donald Rumsfeld

Here's what Rumsfeld said Friday: "I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten – indeed the word 'terrorized' is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be."

Several eyewitnesses to the crash claim they saw a "military-type" plane flying around United Airlines Flight 93 when the hijacked passenger jet crashed – prompting the once-unthinkable question of whether the U.S. military shot down the plane.

Although the onboard struggle between hijackers and passengers – immortalized by the courageous "Let's roll" call to action by Todd Beamer – became one of the enduring memories of that disastrous day, the actual cause of Flight 93's crash, of the four hijacked airliners, remains the most unclear.

Several residents in and around Shanksville, Pa., describing the crash as they saw it, claim to have seen a second plane – an unmarked military-style jet.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42112
 

Stretch

House Member
Feb 16, 2003
3,924
19
38
Australia
Was it a slip of the tongue? Was it an error? Or was it the truth, finally being dropped on the public more than three years after the tragedy of the terrorist attacks that killed nearly 3,000?


Donald Rumsfeld

Here's what Rumsfeld said Friday: "I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten – indeed the word 'terrorized' is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be."

Several eyewitnesses to the crash claim they saw a "military-type" plane flying around United Airlines Flight 93 when the hijacked passenger jet crashed – prompting the once-unthinkable question of whether the U.S. military shot down the plane.

Although the onboard struggle between hijackers and passengers – immortalized by the courageous "Let's roll" call to action by Todd Beamer – became one of the enduring memories of that disastrous day, the actual cause of Flight 93's crash, of the four hijacked airliners, remains the most unclear.

Several residents in and around Shanksville, Pa., describing the crash as they saw it, claim to have seen a second plane – an unmarked military-style jet.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42112
 

Stretch

House Member
Feb 16, 2003
3,924
19
38
Australia
Was it a slip of the tongue? Was it an error? Or was it the truth, finally being dropped on the public more than three years after the tragedy of the terrorist attacks that killed nearly 3,000?


Donald Rumsfeld

Here's what Rumsfeld said Friday: "I think all of us have a sense if we imagine the kind of world we would face if the people who bombed the mess hall in Mosul, or the people who did the bombing in Spain, or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon, the people who cut off peoples' heads on television to intimidate, to frighten – indeed the word 'terrorized' is just that. Its purpose is to terrorize, to alter behavior, to make people be something other than that which they want to be."

Several eyewitnesses to the crash claim they saw a "military-type" plane flying around United Airlines Flight 93 when the hijacked passenger jet crashed – prompting the once-unthinkable question of whether the U.S. military shot down the plane.

Although the onboard struggle between hijackers and passengers – immortalized by the courageous "Let's roll" call to action by Todd Beamer – became one of the enduring memories of that disastrous day, the actual cause of Flight 93's crash, of the four hijacked airliners, remains the most unclear.

Several residents in and around Shanksville, Pa., describing the crash as they saw it, claim to have seen a second plane – an unmarked military-style jet.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42112
 

Rick van Opbergen

House Member
Sep 16, 2004
4,080
0
36
The Netherlands
www.google.com
Interesting article Stretch. But I do have to say - and just say it when I'm whinging - is that in the article, Rumsfeld is quoted as saying "... or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon ..."; this confuses me. It seems that Rumsfeld is implying here that terrorists shot the plane. Am I wrong?

I also read the three links which are presented in the worldnetdaily.com about the story, and the one about the eyewitnessreports seems very interesting too. The fact that several witnesses saw another plane going over, in white with nothing on the sides, is enough to make me wonder about what happened to Flight 93.

But what would be the consequence if it were to be true that it were not the passengers itself on Flight 93, but a US military plane responsible for Flight 93's crash?
 

Rick van Opbergen

House Member
Sep 16, 2004
4,080
0
36
The Netherlands
www.google.com
Interesting article Stretch. But I do have to say - and just say it when I'm whinging - is that in the article, Rumsfeld is quoted as saying "... or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon ..."; this confuses me. It seems that Rumsfeld is implying here that terrorists shot the plane. Am I wrong?

I also read the three links which are presented in the worldnetdaily.com about the story, and the one about the eyewitnessreports seems very interesting too. The fact that several witnesses saw another plane going over, in white with nothing on the sides, is enough to make me wonder about what happened to Flight 93.

But what would be the consequence if it were to be true that it were not the passengers itself on Flight 93, but a US military plane responsible for Flight 93's crash?
 

Rick van Opbergen

House Member
Sep 16, 2004
4,080
0
36
The Netherlands
www.google.com
Interesting article Stretch. But I do have to say - and just say it when I'm whinging - is that in the article, Rumsfeld is quoted as saying "... or the people who attacked the United States in New York, shot down the plane over Pennsylvania and attacked the Pentagon ..."; this confuses me. It seems that Rumsfeld is implying here that terrorists shot the plane. Am I wrong?

I also read the three links which are presented in the worldnetdaily.com about the story, and the one about the eyewitnessreports seems very interesting too. The fact that several witnesses saw another plane going over, in white with nothing on the sides, is enough to make me wonder about what happened to Flight 93.

But what would be the consequence if it were to be true that it were not the passengers itself on Flight 93, but a US military plane responsible for Flight 93's crash?
 

moghrabi

House Member
May 25, 2004
4,508
4
38
Canada
Rick van Opbergen said:
But what would be the consequence if it were to be true that it were not the passengers itself on Flight 93, but a US military plane responsible for Flight 93's crash?

Then the whole 9/11 thing is a farce.
 

moghrabi

House Member
May 25, 2004
4,508
4
38
Canada
Rick van Opbergen said:
But what would be the consequence if it were to be true that it were not the passengers itself on Flight 93, but a US military plane responsible for Flight 93's crash?

Then the whole 9/11 thing is a farce.
 

moghrabi

House Member
May 25, 2004
4,508
4
38
Canada
Rick van Opbergen said:
But what would be the consequence if it were to be true that it were not the passengers itself on Flight 93, but a US military plane responsible for Flight 93's crash?

Then the whole 9/11 thing is a farce.
 

Rick van Opbergen

House Member
Sep 16, 2004
4,080
0
36
The Netherlands
www.google.com
Why's that, moghrabi?

What I thought is that instead of the heroic role that was given to the passengers of Flight 93 for their dealing with the hijackers, the US military has to take responsibility for the crash, which could mean a loss of image for the US government (and a "for real" implementation of what Dick Cheney talked about some days after 9/11: the shooting down of hijacked planes if they can pose an even greater threat to - lets say - targets on the grounds).

A farce? Rather a quick conclusion, don't you think?
 

Rick van Opbergen

House Member
Sep 16, 2004
4,080
0
36
The Netherlands
www.google.com
Why's that, moghrabi?

What I thought is that instead of the heroic role that was given to the passengers of Flight 93 for their dealing with the hijackers, the US military has to take responsibility for the crash, which could mean a loss of image for the US government (and a "for real" implementation of what Dick Cheney talked about some days after 9/11: the shooting down of hijacked planes if they can pose an even greater threat to - lets say - targets on the grounds).

A farce? Rather a quick conclusion, don't you think?