|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 24, 2013 10:46:25 GMT -5
"how do you come to the conclusion that there was a stand down order"
From Mineta's testimony on video. Do you have a comprehension problem?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 25, 2013 7:06:08 GMT -5
I've watched Mineta's testimony do you have a problem listening or reading ?
These are direct quotes from that video which say there wasn't a stand down order but there was a shoot down order:
Lee Hamilton: "Erm, I want to focus for just a moment on the er, Presidential Emergency Operating Centre. You were there, er for a good part of the day, I think you were there with the vice President? And er, we had that order given, I think it was by the President, that authorised er the shooting down of commercial aircraft that were suspected to be controlled by terrorists. Erm were you there when that order was given?"
Norman Mineta: "No I, I was not, I was made aware of it er during the time that the airplane coming in to the Pentagon, er there was a young man come in and say to the vice President 'the plane is 50 miles out, the plane is 30 miles out' and when he got down to plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice President, 'do the orders still stand ?' and the vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said 'of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary?' ".
When are you going to stop lying and face facts ?
Mineta's testimony does not say that there was a stand down order.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 25, 2013 8:26:03 GMT -5
How many times are you going to post the same STAND DOWN testimony and claim that's not it?
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 25, 2013 13:13:02 GMT -5
I'd believe there was a stand down order if Norman Mineta had said there was a stand down order, but he didn't.
I had to watch the video to transcribe it.
So which words of Normans to you consider mean a stand down order? (because he never uses the phrase).
Here's the video again:
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 25, 2013 13:29:00 GMT -5
"Here's the video again:"
Awww c'mon, you disappoint me. I was sure you'd post the transcript highlighted in red yet again. Oh well, at least you posted the video where Minetta describes the Cheney STAND DOWN yet again. Please post the transcript again, don't fail me now mate.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 25, 2013 13:50:02 GMT -5
Put up or shut up (in other words this is your chance to quote him exactly). Where does he state categorically that Cheney gave a stand down order ?
Admit it Bob, he doesn't say that Cheney gave a stand down order, none of the words he uses say that at all.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 25, 2013 14:08:14 GMT -5
I never said he testified that Cheney gave a stand down order, he clearly said Cheney said the order stands as the "plane" approached the Pentagon. And we all know the "plane" hit the Pentagon with not one single hint of a defense mounted. That's a STAND DOWN no matter how much of a tantrum you put up. In FACT, no defense was ever mounted for any of the 4 "planes" that day. I know you want to be a US government and NIST apologist and try to call it, what, a "failure of imagination", "caught with their pants down" or whatever other idiocy you spew directly from government and the complicit media but intelligent people just don't swallow bulls**t that easily.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 25, 2013 14:16:05 GMT -5
No Bob, he meant Cheney was saying the shoot down order still stood. Watch the video again Lee Hamilton mentions the shoot down order given by the President and Mineta talks about it.
These are the exact words:
Lee Hamilton: "Erm, I want to focus for just a moment on the er, Presidential Emergency Operating Centre. You were there, er for a good part of the day, I think you were there with the vice President? And er, we had that order given, I think it was by the President, that authorised er the shooting down of commercial aircraft that were suspected to be controlled by terrorists. Erm were you there when that order was given?"
Norman Mineta: "No I, I was not, I was made aware of it er during the time that the airplane coming in to the Pentagon, er there was a young man come in and say to the vice President 'the plane is 50 miles out, the plane is 30 miles out' and when he got down to plane is 10 miles out, the young man also said to the vice President, 'do the orders still stand ?' and the vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said 'of course the orders still stand, have you heard anything to the contrary?' ".
If you think I'm wrong, re-transcribe it yourself from the moment Lee Hamilton starts speaking.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 25, 2013 14:19:14 GMT -5
There you go. I knew you could do it. One more time please, I especially like the red colored letters, very artistic.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 25, 2013 14:23:04 GMT -5
If you think I'm wrong, re-transcribe it yourself from the moment Lee Hamilton starts speaking.
You're the one claiming that Cheney ordered fighters to stand down.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 27, 2013 5:52:32 GMT -5
Oh so you've no evidence of a stand down order then Bob ? Come on, just admit that you were wrong, it won't hurt you.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 27, 2013 8:52:22 GMT -5
"you've no evidence of a stand down order then Bob ?"
The Minetta video describing a stand down, Bush's stand down video and generally, the 9/11 stand down speaks for itself. You want to call it something else (such as a "failure of imagination" and "getting caught with our pants down"), feel free. There are many ignorant fools who throw and swallow the same s**t you're trying to toss.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 27, 2013 10:12:21 GMT -5
A video of two men discussing a shoot down order is not evidence of a stand down order.
I challenged you to transcribe the thing to prove your point and you could not. As usual you're lying.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 27, 2013 10:53:18 GMT -5
A video of two men discussing a shoot down order is not evidence of a stand down order. I challenged you to transcribe the thing to prove your point and you could not. As usual you're lying. Then I'm lying to you, ask me if I care. 9/11 was a STAND DOWN by the US government, it's a historical FACT, not an opinion or a conspiracy theory, it is irrefutable. Only gullible fools swallow the propaganda bulls**t that the US government was "caught with its pants down" and "never could have imagined...". You want to sell bulls**t, go sell it, it's what you do best.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 28, 2013 5:08:15 GMT -5
On what evidence do you base your allegation that it was a stand down ? Nowhere in Mineta's testimony does he say there was an order to stand down.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 28, 2013 7:11:42 GMT -5
"On what evidence do you base your allegation that it was a stand down ?"The actual and irrefutable HISTORY of 9/11 including in no particular order: 1. The fully successful destruction of 3 WTC towers and a specifically chosen part of the Pentagon. 2. Cheney STAND DOWN - Minetta testimony on video. 3. Bush STAND DOWN - Pet Goat video and Bush's own admission/lies on video. 4. NORAD & all alphabet agencies STAND DOWN - Every alleged "airplane" reached its objective unmolested except the one that crashed in Shanksville though that one was also allegedly unmolested. 5. STAND DOWN by others in charge (see Consensus Point G): www.consensus911.org/the-911-consensus-points/ 6. FIOA documents detailing multiple warnings prior to 9/11 that were ignored. 7. Testimonies of whistle blowers (Sibel Edmonds, Susan Lindauer, etc.). There's much more, the above is the most glaring EVIDENCE. But you know all this, there's not one point above you're ignorant about so your question is an OBVIOUS bulls**t question.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 28, 2013 8:44:02 GMT -5
1) The twin towers were destroyed because Airliners flew into them damaged them structurally set them on fire and weakened load bearing structure to the point of failure. WTC7 was destroyed because WTC1 hit it severely damaged it and set it on fire. 2) The video of Mineta and Hamilton talking is a discussion about a SHOOT DOWN ORDER not a stand down order, it speaks for itself. 3) George W Bush had the appearance of an incompetent who was s**tting himself with fear knowing the eyes of the world were upon him, knowing he had no idea what to do as his country was being attacked. 4) NORAD sent jets up, but had no shoot down policy in place until flight 175 hit the South Tower and the Presidential shoot down order was given. www.wbur.org/2011/09/07/fighter-pilots5) The bulls**t troofer site you link to is evidence of nothing. 6) FOIA (not FIOA) evidence prove incompetence in preventing terrorism, not pre planted explosives, nor does it prove stand down nor does it prove inside job. 7) Testimonies of eyewitnesses i.e. Norman Mineta, Fighter pilots Col Dan Nash, Col Tim Duffy, Major Heather Penney and others disprove the stand down lie of the 'truth' movement.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 28, 2013 8:53:12 GMT -5
So they stopped 9/11 from happening then? I must be confused, I thought I was dreaming and it all happened without anyone lifting a finger to stop it. Whew, I'm glad it didn't happen, what a nightmare!
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 28, 2013 9:00:09 GMT -5
NORAD reacted and sent fighters up, they lifted their finger to stop it, but they were too late.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 28, 2013 9:48:41 GMT -5
NORAD reacted and sent fighters up, they lifted their finger to stop it, but they were too late. How convenient. So they made sure it all went off without a hitch before taking any action. And here I thought you said NORAD who is tasked to defend North America, can't see anything that happens in North America, it's all one big black hole and they exist only for show and tell. No wonder they had "no idea what's going on".
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 28, 2013 10:04:34 GMT -5
NORADS radar looked outwards. The FAA radar could see the hijacked jets but not the altitude that they were at (as transponders were off). NORAD and the FAA did not have commonality at the time Flights 11 and 175 were hijacked. Fighters were sent up to look for the hijacked jets but didn't get there in time and didn't have had a shoot down order to stop Flight 11 hitting the North Tower, after 175 hit the south, George W Bush issued the shoot down order himself (this is mentioned in the Norman Mineta interview).
Fighters had orders to either shoot down or ram Flight 77 and Flight 93 (Major Heather Penney was up, supersonic and heading to intercept to ram it). Even if the shoot down order had been given as soon as Flight 11 was taken, fighters weren't close enough to it to shoot it down.
NORAD failed at stopping the hijacked planes, but they tried.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 28, 2013 12:31:32 GMT -5
"NORADS radar looked outwards."
Yes I know, you already said that Mr. NORAD apologist. They were looking at the fish in the oceans surrounding North America, they were forbidden to look at North America because that would be too easy.
"NORAD failed at stopping the hijacked planes, but they tried."
I guess the fish told NORAD something smelled fishy and NORAD woke up. Well it was a good try anyway so the head of NORAD got a promotion for trying after the towers and the Pentagon were already destroyed. He deserved it, what a hero. He almost saved over 3,000 people.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 28, 2013 17:32:59 GMT -5
If they'd shot down the hijacked flights you'd be screaming about that and saying how they shouldn't have shot down the hijacked planes.
Basically you need to wake up and stop apologising for the hijackers fella. They're the ones who flew planes into buildings. FAA contacted NEADS, NEADS contacted NORAD who contacted the Air National Guard. All these phone calls took precious time. It took time to get the pilots suited and scrambled, nobody had a procedure to deal with kamikaze hijackings.
The Air National Guard didn't have pilots on standby next to the planes in the same way the RAF's Battle of Britain pilots sat by their Hawker Hurricanes smoking pipes and playing draughts, until at the drop of a hat they'd run to their fighters and take off as fast as they could to get up and shoot down some Heinkels.
NORAD and the Air National Guard's problems that day lay with the way the Clinton administration set protocols and cut budgets. NORAD were still operating on Clinton era limitations, just 14 fueled fighters to cover the USA, their military radar looked only outwards for foreign threats (as Chain Home did), there was no commonality with the FAA, time lags between the FAA becoming aware of hijackings and the relevant airfields being notified to launch fighters. There were no orders permitting the shoot down of commercial aircraft until Flight 175 had been deliberately crashed and it became obvious that Flight 11's crash was no accident.
They hadn't got the right protocols, they hadn't anticipated suicide hijackings, they weren't prepared. But they did not stand down, they sent fighters up, there was a time lag between the FAA informing NEADS and the ANG getting scrambled, but scrambled they were and the fighters were up. Now with improved technology and there being commonality between the FAA and NORAD and NEADS and the ANG scramble orders come quicker, there are more fighters to protect mainland America, cockpit doors are locked in flight, it's now virtually impossible for terrorists to do the same thing again.
The only way terrorists could try to do it now, would be to get their men jobs as airline pilots, and airline vetting procedures are now very stringent.
I blame the terrorists. To a lesser extent I blame the politicians for not doing enough preparation to deal with the threat from terrorists and I blame Bush for war crimes in reaction to terrorism and war crimes in Iraq, but I don't blame the ordinary men and women of NORAD who tried to save lives and failed. It wasn't NORAD's fault.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 28, 2013 18:57:50 GMT -5
"If they'd shot down the hijacked flights you'd be screaming about that and saying how they shouldn't have shot down the hijacked planes."
Sure, like I said, you're in everyone's head and know and anticipate what they think, me included. Delusional a bit aren't you?
"Basically you need to wake up and stop apologising for the hijackers fella."
First, I have to go to sleep before I wake up. Second, remind me and post any link where I apologized for any hijackers, whoever those may be, I must have missed where I posted that apology.
"FAA contacted NEADS, NEADS contacted NORAD who contacted the Air National Guard."
I know, you were there and witnessed the whole thing. We only have your word for it. Are you the guy who destroyed the video tape and threw all the pieces all over the place? I'm guessing you are. That was not very nice.
"It wasn't NORAD's fault."
Apparently, that Eberhart guy in charge got a promotion for making sure 9/11 went off without a hitch. He deserved a reward for a job well done.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 29, 2013 11:42:16 GMT -5
Logic Bob, you've demonstrated that you need a good conspiracy theory regardless of whether it's true. Facts don't matter to you, you hate the government so much anything you come across on the internet that portrays them in a bad light is good enough for you even if it's total fiction. The Hijackers: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 29, 2013 13:39:29 GMT -5
"you hate the government so much anything you come across on the internet that portrays them in a bad light is good enough for you even if it's total fiction."
You're absolutely right, I detest a Nazi form of government. Don't you? I don't need any conspiracy theory or anything I come across on the internet that portrays a Nazi form of government for what it is to convince me of what I've already known for many years now.
This nation was founded because it was originally run by a Nazi form of government (a ruling monarchy is just about the same thing). And the new form of government that was created as a result was a Constitutional Republic, not another Nazi form of government. It has since morphed into a murderous illegitimate Nazi form of government to the extent that even a former President has declared that we no longer have a functional democracy.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 31, 2013 6:01:46 GMT -5
I hated the Bush government, both him and Tony Blair deserve to face trial in the Hague for what they did in Iraq.
But 9/11 was the work of foreign terrorists. It wasn't an inside job. The buildings weren't brought down by pre-planted demolition charges. Airliners hit the twin towers at speeds beyond design considerations, damaged the twin towers beyond design tolerances and caused their collapses which hit other buildings and caused the collapses of three other buildings including WTC7.
I absolutely understand your hatred of the US government, but get some perspective, they're not the only bad guys in the world. Other bad guys (from Al Qaeda) attacked your country that day.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 31, 2013 9:11:54 GMT -5
"I absolutely understand your hatred of the US government, but get some perspective, they're not the only bad guys in the world. Other bad guys (from Al Qaeda) attacked your country that day."
So if there's any truth to government's claim about al Qaeda (obtained mostly through 3rd party accounts from those who were mercilessly tortured), it was bad guys helping bad guys. The problem is bad guys always lie so truth is not something one can ever expect from bad guys. Only the ignorant and gullible accept what they're fed from bad guys as truth. Intelligent people always assume bad guys are lying and always demand independent investigations. Government (bad guys) investigating itself is not an independent investigation and is automatically worthless as it almost always primarily serves to cover up its crimes.
|
|
|
Post by shred on Aug 31, 2013 10:07:19 GMT -5
I don't give a s**t what the politicians say, I give a s**t what the ordinary FBI types say, the investigations into the hijackers was fairly simple as they used their own names to buy plane tickets. From there it was just a case of back tracking from the airports and finding out what they'd been up to. Back tracking someone's financial history through bank records is a doddle. Every ATM they used, every shop they bought something on plastic with (for example Victorinox knives, GPS devices, aviation videos), their purchases created a paper trail that ultimately lead all the way to the Marienstraß in Hamburg where Atta and other hijackers lived shortly before the attacks. With the financial history and movements of the hijackers known other people who associated with them could be investigated. There's also the issue of Zacarias Moussawi. Zacarias Moussawi had not earned a pilot's licence. Despite 57 hours of training he had not flown solo & his behaviour at the flight school drew suspicion. He was arrested by the FBI in August 2001 on an immigration violation after a tip off from the flight training school he was attending. He was found to have knives, fighting gloves, shin guards, and a laptop computer with flight simulation software on it. The Minnesota FBI agents who captured Moussawi were not able to get a warrant to fully search his hard drive as it would have breached the FISA act:- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zacarias_Moussaoui#Captureen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_Intelligence_Surveillance_ActMoussawi's own financial records also lead back to the the Marienstraß in Hamburg. The FBI also had another Al Qaeda terrorist in custody, Ahmed Ressam (who had tried to bomb Los Angeles airport on New Years Eve 1999), when questioned about Moussawi, Ressam admitted knowing Moussawi and had attended the same training camp in Afghanistan with him. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_RessamI share your disgust that the FBI were not able to search Moussawi's laptop. They could have blown the whole plot wide open and arrested all the hijackers before they were able to commit mass murder.
|
|
|
Post by bob0627 on Aug 31, 2013 10:27:59 GMT -5
"I don't give a s**t what the politicians say, I give a s**t what the ordinary FBI types say"Why is that? You actually believe the FBI doesn't lie or cover-up? Are you that gullible or just pretend to be? The information in the documents runs counter to previous FBI statements. It also adds to concerns raised by official investigations but never fully explored, that the full truth about Saudi Arabia and the 9/11 attacks has not yet been told.
***
The documents are the first released by the FBI about its once-secret probe in Sarasota. Information contained in the documents flatly contradicts prior statements by FBI agents in Miami and Tampa who have said the investigation found no evidence connecting the al-Hijjis to the hijackers or the 9/11 plot.www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/04/fbi-report-implicates-saudis-in-911.html
|
|