About 9/11

[cyberbri]

lingering questions - Flight 93

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/14439058.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

Many questions linger

By WILL BUNCH
bunchw@phillynews.com 215-854-2957

VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING that is known about United Flight 93, the hijacked jetliner that crashed into a coal field in western Pennsylvania, has been put into the new Hollywood feature film about the doomed voyage.

Director Paul Greengrass not only relied on known transcripts and accounts of real conversations that took place during the Sept. 11, 2001, drama, but he even used some real pilots, crew and flight controllers in filming "United 93."

"They also believed, as the families believed, that making this film an accurate account - not a conspiratorial effort - would help us," Greengrass told the Boston Herald recently. "It gave the film a veracity, an authenticity."

But while Greengrass tackled everything known about the flight - which the government believes was purposely crashed by its four al Qaeda hijackers because of the uprising by passengers who'd learned of the World Trade Center crashes - there were things the movie could not address.

Those are the unknowns of Flight 93.

Today, few but the most radical skeptics about 9/11 would question the events at the core of "United 93," the struggle with heroic passengers that was captured on the cockpit voice recording played in a Virginia courtroom earlier this month.

But other questions remain - most notably about the government's response. Why was the hijacked jet not intercepted by the military jets that had been sent aloft after the Trade Center strikes? Did President Bush or Vice President **** Cheney order a shoot-down as the plane neared Washington? And why didn't it happen?

"Unfortunately, we have yet to have a serious and honest investigation into what happened on 9/11," said Paul Thompson, the author of "The Terror Timeline: Year by Year, Day by Day, Minute by Minute."

Thompson believes that officials should still be held accountable for what he considers a flawed military response.

Here are some other questions:

Q. Why weren't military fighters under the command of the North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD, able to intercept the doomed flight?

A. Ever since 9/11, Pentagon officials have insisted that NORAD was geared toward a foreign attack and not set up to deal with a domestic hijacking, but there is considerable evidence to contradict that. In fact, the 9/11 Commission found that NORAD had been planning for a June 2002 exercise called Amalgam Virgo 2 that involved a scenario with two simultaneously hijacked planes.

NORAD also told the 9/11 Commission that it hadn't been informed of the Flight 93 hijacking until it was much too late to respond. However, NORAD Commander Larry Arnold told an author in 2004, "We watched the 93 track as it meandered around the Ohio-Pennsylvania area and started to turn south toward D.C." That was about 27 minutes, or more, before Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville, Pa.

In defending its actions, NORAD has said that it launched its remaining F-16 fighters from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia at approximately 9:30 a.m. - roughly 33 to 36 minutes before Flight 93 crashed - but after another hijacked jet had struck the Pentagon, the fighters were needed to defend the perimeter of Washington.

Q. Did high-ranking officials from the Bush administration order fighters to shoot down Flight 93, and did Bush know about it?

A. The 9/11 Commission said that it was about 10 a.m. when Cheney - running the White House command center because Bush had been speaking at a Florida elementary school - was told that a hijacked plane was 80 miles away and was asked for military authority to shoot it down.

Joshua Bolten, the aide who is now White House chief of staff, testified that he suggested that Cheney reconfirm that order with Bush, and the two top officials and other aides said such a call had been made.

But according to a June 24, 2004, article in Newsweek, "some on the [9/11] commission staff were, in fact, highly skeptical of the vice president's account and made their views clearer in an earlier draft of their staff report. According to one knowledgeable source, some staffers 'flat out didn't believe the call ever took place.' "

Some have even speculated this issue is why Bush and Cheney took the unusual step of testifying jointly to the 9/11 Commission.

Q. Who was flying the fast-moving, low-flying white jet that was seen by a dozen or more Shanksville residents just seconds after Flight 93 crashed?

A. After several accounts, the government and a supporting 2005 article in Popular Mechanics said the mystery jet had been a Dassault Falcon 20 business jet owned by the VF Corp., a North Carolina clothing firm. The magazine said the jet was descending into Johnstown Airport and circled the crash site at the request of the Federal Aviation Administration.

The plane was seen by about a dozen witnesses, including Susan McElwain, who told Britain's Daily Mirror in 2002: "It had two rear engines, a big fin on the back like a spoiler on the back of a car and two upright fins at the side... . It definitely wasn't one of those executive jets." Several residents said the plane resembled the military's A-10 Warthog.

Q. Why haven't we heard cockpit recordings nor seen the flight-data recording from the other three flights?

A. Government agencies have insisted that the "black boxes" (actually orange) found at the Pentagon were too badly damaged, while the four in New York were never recovered, which was a first.

However, the Daily News reported in 2004 that two Ground Zero rescue workers claimed they helped the FBI recover three of the four "black boxes" there. Last year, Philadelphia free-lance writer Dave Lindorff reported that a National Transportation Safety Board source told him: "Off the record, we had the boxes. You'd have to get the official word from the FBI as to where they are, but we worked on them here."

Has some good facts, although as previously reported, the strange phone calls weren't in the movie exactly as they were reported.

 

[craigsub]

Cyberbri ... Have you ever been interviewed by a reporter ? I have, several times, and it is amazing how the reporter will print stuff you never said.

I have even taped a couple of the conversations, just to have a completely accurate record. My personal favorite was a few years ago, a business of mine was burglarized. During the usual newspaper interview process, I was asked if the burglar was black or white. I responded I had no idea what the race was, and that anyone could be a suspect.

It was reported later that I suspected it was a black male. I confronted the reporter, and was told that I said it could have been anyone, black or white, male or female, thus the printing that I suspected a black male was an accurate depiction of the interview.

 

[cyberbri]

No, I have never been interviewed by a reporter.

I hope you submitted a formal complaint with the newspaper you speak of, and i hope they issued a correction in a subsequent issue.

 

[craigsub]

One can complain all one wants, it makes no difference to the paper. People wonder why politicians don't give simple answers - the simple fact is, a simple answer is giving the reporter an easy way to slam you.

Reporters are not hired to tell the truth. It is their job to sell newspapers.

Conspiracy theories just happen to sell. This means profits. Our "freedom of the press" means the paper (or radio, TV, etal ...) can print whatever they want, and there is no accountability.

This does not mean I want to abolish freedom of the press, by the way. Just keep in mind the motive of the reporter.

 

[Tsunamii]

Craigsub, good point.
Cyberbri, Corrections are inconsequential after a page one story runs above the fold. Corrections do not as a rule run any where even on page one never mind above the fold. Just look at the Boston Globe, I grew up with this paper and after the NY Times bought it the paper became a political soapbox for the DNC. They are wrought with errors and correct them on page 35 or where ever they can burry it.
Look at how up in arms the "main stream" media is about blogs. Blogs may have an agenda but that agenda generally goes against the profits of main stream media.

 

[cyberbri]

I don't disagree with anything you are saying, per se.


I personally wouldn't be one-sided, though, and only make that point when someone uses a news article that goes against my own views or beliefs though. If I didn't agree, I wouldn't respond, or if I wanted to say something, I would try to find evidence to the contrary rather than just saying I don't believe something for no reason. The source may not be 100% credible, but then I would still feel an obligation to find something to the contrary to back up my opinion on it.


Which brings me to my point. Do you have anything to counter what was in the article, the multiple differing testimonies quoted from the 9/11 Commission report or various testimonies? Or are we to believe it's all half-truths and lies and fabrications because we don't like what it says or implies?

 

[craigsub]

Try not to get angry when I do this ... it is to make a point, though.

Do you have proof that you were not involved in a crime, such as, say, a rape, last night ?

What if Joe Reporter said you were involved in a rape ? Does that mean you were ?

You see, it is hard to dis-prove an allegation. This is why we have a justice system which is based on the concept that one is innocent until proven guilty. Otherwise, if one has to prove one's innocence, and are assumed to be guilty, then the world as we know it is gone.

The burden of proof is on the conspiracy theorists, not anyone else.

 

[Johnd]

Allow me to add (as already stated above) that a reporter reports what he/she so chooses...not necessarily the whole truth. Context, para-phrases, partial statements, etc. do not give the entire substance of the statement given, and many readers infer from those half-truths which are printed. Reporters do this w/o exception: cut and paste a five minute spiel from a 40 minute diatribe.

To be well-informed, information must be had from several sources, and the more complete the article, the better informed the reader. Unfortunately, not everyone understands this basic tenet of published articles.

 

[cyberbri]

craigsub,

Try not to get angry when I do this ... it is to make a point, though.

Do you have proof that you were not involved in a crime, such as, say, a rape, last night ?

What if Joe Reporter said you were involved in a rape ? Does that mean you were ?

You see, it is hard to dis-prove an allegation. This is why we have a justice system which is based on the concept that one is innocent until proven guilty. Otherwise, if one has to prove one's innocence, and are assumed to be guilty, then the world as we know it is gone.

You are right.
The burden of proof should be on the government to provide a concrete explanation of all of these inconsistencies and holes.


I mean no disrespect, but you are saying not to believe an article about "unanswered questions" and merely points out different reports and testimonies. The article doesn't claim anything, except that there are still questions left unanswered.


But by your logic, why should we believe any article in a newspaper, or online, or anywhere? I am not quite sure what your point is.

The burden of proof is on the conspiracy theorists, not anyone else.

The burden of proof for what?

There is an official story around certain event "A."

There are holes in the story, inconsistencies, unanswered questions, which creates suspicion. People dig up all of these points, try to piece them together, in search of the truth.

In the opinion of many people who have looked at various arguments, the case for the official conspiracy (carried out by Al Qaeda) is weak, and therefore the burden of proof lies with the government to fully explain things. Remember that the 9/11 Commission didn't come about until after a year of victims' families pleading for answers. It was stonewalled for a year, and even then Bush wouldn't testify under oath, or without Cheney at his side.

Was it stonewalled because they wanted to cover their arses over the huge failures that day? Or because they were hiding something? We know they (NORAD, etc.) were running war games that morning all over Canada and the Atlantic, some of the games simulating hijacked planes (with the ability to show non-existant planes on the radar), and we know normally planes that don't respond are intercepted within 10-15 minutes, not allowed to fly for 45-60 minutes. Who knows?


And in the end, the 9/11 Commission failed to follow up on many things (including Able Danger), and was more of a suggestion or guide for what could be improved to prevent future attacks (note that barely anything has been done and we are no safer today than we were pre-9/11, hence the "D" grades the government has received for following up on 9/11 Comm suggestions for securing the homeland).


Passing off this "burden of proof" is just lazy, IMO. I am raising questions to make people think and/or answer and explain them away. If you choose not to believe that anything that is inconsistent with the official story is irrelevant, that's your right.

 

[cyberbri]

For example, let's take a look at Flight 93.
First, let's look at some other airplane crash sites:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/china/story/0,7369,684645,00.html

The plane is broken in pieces, and dead bodies are everywhere," said witness Park Byung-min on the news cable network YTN. The plane's debris was engulfed in flames, he said. The pilot was believed to be among the survivors and unverified reports claimed that recordings of conversations between him airtraffic controllers suggested he did not know a crash was imminent.

Crash

Crash
http://www.howtoadvice.com/FlightSafety/

Multiple pictures of plane crash in mountains of California, plenty of debris:
http://www.lazygranch.com/mtcrash1.htm

Crash in Indonesia:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/indonesia/Story/0,2763,1562962,00.html

plane crash and fire

What do the above all have in common?

Wreckage, the visible remains of a plane.


Now let's look at the crash site of Flight 93.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/images/static/terrorism/photogallery/flight9306.html

Mark Stahl of Somerset, Pa., shows a photograph he took after arriving at the crash scene where a jetliner crashed near Shanksville, Pa., Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001. (AP Photo/Keith Srakocic)

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/images/static/terrorism/photogallery/flight9301.html

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/images/static/terrorism/photogallery/9300.jpg

What's missing?
Wreckage and debris (large parts that look like the remains of a plane).


The crash site almost three years later:
http://dcpages.com/gallery/view_photo.php?set_albumName=Flight_93_Memorial&id=Dsc04315

The site remains protected and visitors are not allowed to get closer than this point.

Smoke above crash site, taken by local resident, on FEMA website:
http://www.shanksvillememorial.com/endofserenity.html

compare that to the smoke from the fire of a small leer jet:

Where is the scorched earth in any of the crash site photos, including this one?

Some trees burned:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/images/static/terrorism/photogallery/93001.jpg
Wouldn't the jet fuel have exploded and burned and scorched the earth, like the fireballs that shot out of the WTC? If so, where is the scorched earth?

But that smoke over the crash site does look similar to the smoke rising from this ordinance:

Article about the coroner (although you don't seem to believe what you read):

http://www.phillyburbs.com/pb-dyn/news/103-09102005-539399.html

When he got to the scene, about 65 miles southeast of Pittsburgh, there was little evidence that what crashed had been a plane.

The Boeing 757 hurtled into the ground at 580 mph, leaving a 20-by-10-foot deep gouge in the earth.

"I can just remember seeing very small bits of debris everywhere. There really wasn't any large sections of debris or aircraft," he says. "The thing that really struck my mind the most was hearing the melted plastic dripping out of the trees."

Transcripts from CNN on September 13, 2001:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/13/bn.01.html

BRIAN CABELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, Daryn, in the last hour or so, the FBI and the state police here have confirmed that have they cordoned off a second area about six to eight miles away from the crater here where plane went down. This is apparently another debris site, which raises a number of questions. Why would debris from the plane -- and they identified it specifically as being from this plane -- why would debris be located 6 miles away. Could it have blown that far away. It seems highly unlikely. Almost all the debris found at this site is within 100 yards, 200 yards, so it raises some question. We don't want to overspeculate of course. But there were some cell phone callers, one cell phone caller in particular, who said saw a bomb, or something that looked like a bomb with one of the hijackers. Also, the man who took over the plane apparently announced at one point, he had -- there was a bomb on board the plane.

Again, we don't want to speculate, we don't want to jump to conclusions. But what we do know is that there's a site about half mile behind me, where the plane went down, where most of the debris is, and then about six miles away up by a lake, there is another area that's been cordoned off, and state police and the FBI have said definitely there is debris from the plane located there. We have a crew on the way right now. We should have pictures of that a little bit later on.

....

They've also found some other debris scattered around this area. They say in fact some individuals have been collecting it. Again, we're talking about very, very tiny parts. The biggest part they found at this site is an engine, an engine part, and most of the other pieces are probably no bigger than this particular notebook.

If the plane came straight down, rather than skidding, hence the small 20'x10' hole made by the large plane (with wings and engines and jet fuel), why was there debris 6-8 miles away (including an engine)?

More:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/search/s_12969.html

Crowley said the FBI and NTSB have not determined whether a bomb exploded inside the aircraft before it crashed. Residents of nearby Indian Lake reported seeing debris falling from the jetliner as it overflew the area shortly before crashing.

...

Szupinka said searchers found one of the large engines from the aircraft “at a considerable distance from the crash site.”

“It appears to be the whole engine,” he added.

Szupinka said most of the remaining debris, scattered over a perimeter that stretches for several miles, are in pieces no bigger than a “briefcase.”

“If you were to go down there, you wouldn’t know that was a plane crash,” he continued. “You would look around and say, ‘I wonder what happened here?’ The first impression looking around you wouldn’t say, ‘Oh, looks like a plane crash. The debris is very, very small.

“The best I can describe it is if you’ve ever been to a commercial landfill. When it’s covered and you have papers flying around. You have papers blowing around and bits and pieces of shredded metal. That’s probably about the best way to describe that scene itself.”

And more:
http://post-gazette.com/headlines/20010913somersetp3.asp

...as they widened their search area today following the discoveries of more debris, including what appeared to be human remains, miles from the point of impact at a reclaimed coal mine.

Residents and workers at businesses outside Shanksville, Somerset County, reported discovering clothing, books, papers and what appeared to be human remains. Some residents said they collected bags-full of items to be turned over to investigators. Others reported what appeared to be crash debris floating in Indian Lake, nearly six miles from the immediate crash scene.

Workers at Indian Lake Marina said that they saw a cloud of confetti-like debris descend on the lake and nearby farms minutes after hearing the explosion that signaled the crash at 10:06 a.m. Tuesday.

If the plane was actually shot down, which there is much speculation about, a heat-seeking missile would have targeted the engine, blowing it off and explaining why it was found so far from the crash site. Or, was there really a bomb on board? And if so, how did the hijackers (remember none of the 19 hijackers were on the flight manifests or passenger lists) get a bomb on board? Why would they have needed box cutters if they could just threaten everyone with the bomb? Could a missile (fired by the "Happy Hooligans" squad as many suspect) have hit the plane, knocked off an engine, and caused the plane to spin? But what about the "cloud of confetti-like debris" over the lake MINUTES after the first explosion?


Who knows.

What does this all mean?

These are all just small tidbits of the inconsistencies and unanswered questions. What is wrong with asking these questions? What's wrong with trying to piece it all together and make sense out of it?

What really happened? And what's wrong with asking what really happened?

 

[craigsub]

Ok ... Cyberbri ... What does what you posted prove ? What is the real evidence ? It is all a bunch of cobbled together stuff. I have also seen very convincing evidence that the Loch Ness monster is really there, and that Bigfoot exists ... well, ok, it was not convincing, but those who had put together the material thought it was.

It is pretty clear that you want to believe all this, so enjoy.

 

[cyberbri]

But it does lend to speculation that something happened other than just the terrorists taking the plane into a dive and crashing into the ground because they were losing control, or that the passengers made it into the cockpit and took the plane down. Was there really a bomb on board, strapped to one of the hijackers (note that none of the 19 supposed hijackers were on any of the flight manifests or seen on airport security cameras), detonating a bomb before it hit the ground?


Part of the Operation Northwood document describes switching out a real passenger plane for a fake one painted to look real, and shooting it down to make it look like the Cubans did it. Since all the planes were silent, no transponders on, for a long time, going off the radar (and one plane flying normally for a long time with no pilot contact), it is plausible to think that perhaps a remote-controlled was used in place, and shot down. Or even that the actual plane was shot down and never reported. Even the black box recording that was recently publicized (at least to the families) doesn't have any conclusive evidence as to what happened - whether the passengers made it to the cockpit, who was in control when the plane dove and hit the ground, etc.

They have in-flight recordings and yet don't release them. Why not release them? What are they hiding? The FBI took the security camera tapes from the buildings along the flightpath of Flight 77, that showed the plane coming in for its strike. Why not release them? Why "leak" a few frames of security camera video that doesn't show anything except an explosion (that could very well have been faked)? What are they hiding?

 

[Johnd]

1) The burden of proof should be on the government to provide a concrete explanation of all of these inconsistencies and holes.

2) But by your logic, why should we believe any article in a newspaper, or online, or anywhere? I am not quite sure what your point is.

3) Passing off this "burden of proof" is just lazy, IMO. I am raising questions to make people think and/or answer and explain them away.

cyberbri:

Allow me to play the devil's advocate on three of your points (about the media, and that information which they choose to publish) w/o gettting into the details of your post.

1) Sometimes it is better to not respond...especially to a patently untrue accusation. One who has experience with the media already knows this w/o further elaboration.

2) In these days of the "two-minute story", it is foolish to not be skeptical of most anything you read. That is not to say you do not/cannot believe anything, just corroborate several times before giving the story much weight.

3) I would say the laziness rests with the reader. If the reader is foolhardy enough to consider himself well-informed after reading one printing w/o corroboration...well...

Anyone that is familiar with the media, or has had articles printed about them, knows too well the word games that take place. Can you imagine if Bill Gates or the Pope responded to every story (fable), or even every accusation written about them? You choose the battles worth fighting, and in a skeptical/cynical world, you fight the battles you can win. Either way, I'm a firm believer in corroboration and skepticism...on both sides of the coin. Just my $0.02 for the day. Cheers.

 

[cyberbri]

Ok ... Cyberbri ... What does what you posted prove ? What is the real evidence ? It is all a bunch of cobbled together stuff. I have also seen very convincing evidence that the Loch Ness monster is really there, and that Bigfoot exists ... well, ok, it was not convincing, but those who had put together the material thought it was.

It is pretty clear that you want to believe all this, so enjoy.

It proves that the official conspiracy theory is not 100% bulletproof, not even 50% since the 19 hijackers weren't even on any passenger list or flight manifest (how were they able to identify them so quickly, and how did they get on the flights?), and shows why people are still searching for the truth.

I honestly don't know what to believe, because there is no evidence that 100% proves things one way or the other. For example, they have the black box flight recorders, but won't release the contents. Why? That would prove that there were terrorists (who could barely fly planes) flying and navigating these jets cross-country for 30-60 minutes, unchecked by US fighters, pulling off what many pilots have said were super-figher moves (especially the 270-degree u-turn Flight 77 took around the Pentagon to hit the nearly-empty part of the building). If there were terrorists in the cockpits flying, the recordings would let us hear their voices talking for 30-60 minutes or more. But right now, we only have a portion of the recordings of Flight 77.


Please, tell me, what proof is there that these planes were hijacked by the terrorists the government claims hijacked them (when some of them have turned up alive in other countires)? A few phonecalls (many of which are very unnatural) from passengers on one of the planes? Is that the proof? They weren't on the passenger lists or manifests, not seen on any airport security cameras where they would have had to board the planes, etc. The only proof is the assumption that it was terrorists. Is that proof? When something like that happens, real proof isn't needed. At least not in the immediate aftermath.

When I (and many, many others) look at all the "proof" out there, it doesn't make sense. We don't "want to believe" anything. We are looking for the truth, and right now it doesn't make sense. I don't want to believe that this was a 21st Century Operation Northwood, but I haven't ruled it out. But none of the evidence whatsoever is conclusive one way or the other. Hence asking questions and looking for answers to uncover the truth.

Say it really was 19 terrorists that did everything. The response by the government, or rather lack of response (including FBI HQ not approving requests to search computer/files of Moussaui(sp?) when he was captured weeks before 9/11, and the requests to search his property mentioned the word "terrorist" some 70 times -- and including the President not being whisked away to a safe location, but rather left in the open as a target for 45+ minutes after the country was already under attack, just 4 miles from an airport), could mean they had knowledge and let it happen, maybe even facilitated it by confusing the radars/FAA with all the war game simulations that were going on (apparently re-scheduled to a few months early by the newly-appointed head of those exercises, Cheney). Who knows? No concrete proof to prove anything, one way or the other.


A lot of New Yorkers feel the same way, too:
http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855

Released: August 30, 2004

Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and “Consciously Failed” To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York’s Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals

...

On the eve of a Republican National Convention invoking 9/11 symbols, sound bytes and imagery, half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall say that some of our leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act," according to the poll conducted by Zogby International. The poll of New York residents was conducted from Tuesday August 24 through Thursday August 26, 2004. Overall results have a margin of sampling error of +/-3.5.

The poll is the first of its kind conducted in America that surveys attitudes regarding US government complicity in the 9/11 tragedy. Despite the acute legal and political implications of this accusation, nearly 30% of registered Republicans and over 38% of those who described themselves as "very conservative" supported the claim.

The charge found very high support among adults under 30 (62.8%), African-Americans (62.5%), Hispanics (60.1%), Asians (59.4%), and "Born Again" Evangelical Christians (47.9%).

Less than two in five (36%) believe that the 9/11 Commission had "answered all the important questions about what actually happened on September 11th," and two in three (66%) New Yorkers (and 56.2% overall) called for another full investigation of the "still unanswered questions" by Congress or Elliot Spitzer, New York's Attorney General. Self-identified "very liberal" New Yorkers supported a new inquiry by a margin of three to one, but so did half (53%) of "very conservative" citizens across the state. The call for a deeper probe was especially strong from Hispanics (75.6%), African-Americans (75.3%) citizens with income from $15-25K (74.3%), women (62%) and Evangelicals (59.9%).

W. David Kubiak, executive director of 911truth.org, the group that commissioned the poll, expressed genuine surprise that New Yorkers' belief in the administration's complicity is as high or higher than that seen overseas. "We're familiar with high levels of 9/11 skepticism abroad where there has been open debate of the evidence for US government complicity. On May 26th the Toronto Star reported a national poll showing that 63% of Canadians are also convinced US leaders had 'prior knowledge' of the attacks yet declined to act. There was no US coverage of this startling poll or the facts supporting the Canadians' conclusions, and there has been virtually no debate on the victim families' scores of still unanswered questions. I think these numbers show that most New Yorkers are now fed up with the silence, and that politicians trying to exploit 9/11 do so at their peril. The 9/11 case is not closed and New York's questions are not going away."

Nicholas Levis of NY911truth.org, an advisor on the poll, agrees, "The 9/11 Commission gave us a plenty of 'recommendations', but far more plentiful were the discrepancies, gaps and omissions in their supposedly 'final' report. How can proposals based on such deficient findings ever make us safe? We think these poll numbers are basically saying, 'Wait just a minute. What about the scores of still outstanding questions? What about the unexplained collapses of WTC 7, our air defenses, official accountability, the chain of command on 9/11, the anthrax, insider trading & FBI field probes? There's so much more to this story that we need to know about.' When such a huge majority of New Yorkers want a new investigation, it will be interesting to see how quickly Attorney General Spitzer and our legislators respond."

SCOPE: The poll covered five areas of related interest: 1) Iraq - do New Yorkers think that our leaders "deliberately misled" us before the war (51.2% do); 2) the 9/11 Commission - did it answer all the "important questions" (only 36% said yes); 3) the inexplicable and largely unreported collapse of the third WTC skyscraper on 9/11 - what was its number (28% of NYC area residents knew); 4) the question on complicity; and 5) how many wanted a new 9/11 probe. All inquiries about questions, responses and demographics should be directed to Zogby International.

 

[cyberbri]

cyberbri:

Allow me to play the devil's advocate on three of your points (about the media, and that information which they choose to publish) w/o gettting into the details of your post.

1) Sometimes it is better to not respond...especially to a patently untrue accusation. One who has experience with the media already knows this w/o further elaboration.

2) In these days of the "two-minute story", it is foolish to not be skeptical of most anything you read. That is not to say you do not/cannot believe anything, just corroborate several times before giving the story much weight.

3) I would say the laziness rests with the reader. If the reader is foolhardy enough to consider himself well-informed after reading one printing w/o corroboration...well...

Anyone that is familiar with the media, or has had articles printed about them, knows too well the word games that take place. Can you imagine if Bill Gates or the Pope responded to every story (fable), or even every accusation written about them? You choose the battles worth fighting, and in a skeptical/cynical world, you fight the battles you can win. Either way, I'm a firm believer in corroboration and skepticism...on both sides of the coin. Just my $0.02 for the day. Cheers.

I totally agree with you.

But these are not isolated incidents. These are collections of testimonies from news stories all over. They can't all be made up, fabricated, exaggerated, or whatever. This is people trying to take every tidbit from every local newspaper story or news report and piece together answers to questions that have not been answered.

Simple question:
What happened to Flight 77?

We have the crater in the ground, tiny debris scattered up to 8 miles away, an engine blown off miles away, no other major plane wreckage. Some of the debris supposedly rained down on a nearby lake minutes after the initial blast. We have many, many local witnesses who saw another plane, which was explained as supposedly a nearby corporate jet asked to get a closer look by the FAA.

We have 4 hijackers that weren't on the passenger list, flight manifest, or seen on airport security cameras.

We have a few phonecalls from passengers onboard (although I would like to see definitive proof one way or the other if phonecalls can be made from 30-40K in the air at 600mph), some of which are very unnatural.

We have (finally) a partial disclosure of a portion of the black box recorder with voices of supposed terrorists. But the publicized portion is not long enough, and does not prove whether the terrorists took the plane down in the field, whether they blew it up with some sort of bomb, or whether the passengers broke into the cockpit and forced it down.

So what really happened to Flight 77?
If I am missing evidence, someone please enlighten me.
But why is it wrong to ask what really happened? Why is it wrong to ask about the evidence that doesn't definitively prove one way or the other what really happened?

 

[mulester7]

What does what you posted prove? What is the real evidence?

.....Craigsub, you got any thoughts on The Pentagon incident?....I flew one time from St. Louis to Seattle non-stop....we were most of the time above 35,000 feet where the air is thin and commercial airliners can HAUL it....the captain came over the radio and said we were cruising at 560 mph....concerning The Pentagon incident, I don't see a commercial airliner under 500 feet of elevation in muggy, thick air, doing 530 mph, and making a sharp bank while doing 530 mph....if one segment of 9-11 is highly suspect, how could the whole picture not be suspect?....then there's the small crater in Pennsylvania with no airliner silver anywhere......

 

[cyberbri]

.....Craigsub, you got any thoughts on The Pentagon incident?....I flew one time from St. Louis to Seattle non-stop....we were most of the time above 35,000 feet where the air is thin and commercial airliners can HAUL it....the captain came over the radio and said we were cruising at 560 mph....concerning The Pentagon incident, I don't see a commercial airliner under 500 feet of elevation in muggy, thick air, doing 530 mph, and making a sharp bank while doing 530 mph....if one segment of 9-11 is highly suspect, how could the whole picture not be suspect?....then there's the small crater in Pennsylvania with no airliner silver anywhere......

A 270-degree u-turn, to be exact. It came in from the north, circled around and hit from the west, approximately. This advanced maneuver supposedly done by a guy who could barely fly a Cessna, after flying hundreds of miles to get there. He came in from the north, circled around, and hit the 1st story wall of a nearly-empty portion of the building. Coincidentally, had it followed the same trajectory and not hit the building, it could have been at the (military?) airport on the other side in minutes.

Many witnesses also saw a second plane, which many (ex-military guys, etc.) identified as a C-130, flying directly above it.

Many witnesses also say they heard what sounded like a sonic boom go by (at 400mph), not an airliner plane's engines. People in/out of the building were knocked to the floor/ground, some sent flying 10s of (up to 100) feet.

Too bad the FBI won't share those security camera tapes they snatched up minutes after the plane hit the building. Or the black box recorder for the flight data and audio recording.

 

[craigsub]

Ok ... I just got off the phone with Scully, Muldar and the smoking Man. To enlighten me on airplanes, We discussed the airport near our home. Flights come in from the south, which, in case no on noticed, means they were flying north. These flights will then do a 270 degree turn, clear a rather large fence, then hit the runway about 300 yards in from the fence.

The smoking man had a pretty good point to. Did you know there is a thing called a Crane, and another called a Bulldozer ? They have a theory that the debris MAY have actually been taken away.

Muldar handled the missing tape - it turns out the FBI has a habit of not publicizing evidence. Something about it tainting a trial.

 

[craigsub]

Here is one actual picture of the Pentagon. What was it about a 16 foot wide hole in the "Loose Change" video ?

 

[cyberbri]

The smoking man had a pretty good point to. Did you know there is a thing called a Crane, and another called a Bulldozer ? They have a theory that the debris MAY have actually been taken away.

There was nothing to haul off, except tiny bits debris and body parts.