Randi Rhodes right before signing off says that 911 was an inside

[whistle]

...job and that the FAA destroyed audio tapes from hijacked planes which gave details of what was happening. I can't find the article or link that she says is on her website. If true, this is every bit as bad as the 18 minute gap in the Nixon White House tapes!!!

[undeterred]

1. a million times worse

:nuke:

[whistle]

16. correct much worse.....so any links specifically to the story

...of the ATC audio tapes that the FAA destroyed from 911?

[LifeDuringWartime]

39. dont have any links, but

i do remember reading at least one news report that had very explicit details of how an air traffic control manager, or somebody with a similar title, destroyed the tape of the emergency meeting earlier that day. he shredded the tape and put the pieces in different waste baskets spread throughout the building.

[FourStarDemocrat]

60. True & followup information was supressed, & no further investigation

of the matter took place. This manager was not fired, demoted, or anything. Something always reeked about that.

[sam sarrha]

102. Ask the Masad.. they had the cameras running before the first plane turned

they just got sent home.. without even a spanking.

[Nothing Without Hope]

65. Yes, that's the way I remember it too. Spread pieces around different

wastebaskets. There was an eyewitness of this. 9/11 mavens will know the name and have links.

[orleans]

87. Randi talked about this at great length last year

when the article came out in washington post--
before the election.
i'm glad she's talking about it again. go randi!!

(did you sign the letter? here's the link)

[Wilms]

2. Of course it was an inside job. n/t

[FreedomAngel82]

44. Of course

A lot of people could've told you that. Jones also has a memo stating how there are attacks plans from "BinLaden" and was reading about it in July 2001. I've never heard this story before. This is big. Are there any tapes left or were they all destroyed? Oh and has anybody found out what was in that black box they found at the site government officials said was destroyed?

[kaygore]

3. But we have had a lot of information

pointing to this from day one and yet no MSM will do any investigating.

[undeterred]

4. there are a ton of links in the 911 forum here at DU

The book by David Griffin tells the whole story.

[in_cog_ni_to]

5. The black boxes were found and the people who found them

were told to NEVER speak about them. The people were told the boxes were destroyed in the exposions. They lied about the boxes. WHY?

[11cents]

9. Families listened to cockpit tapes

...from the flight that crashed in Pennsylvania, and described what they heard to the press.

[leesa]

109. The two black boxes were found in NYC and the FBI hustled them away.

[maveric]

10. Do you have a link explaining that?

I like to have facts to use for my arguments with the nazi sheeple.

[chknltl]

89. www.flight77.info/

not exactly what you requested but lotsa good links in here too and maybe a fact or two to use against the hitleryouth. The wings not breaking the windows of the Pentagon at the points of their impact is VERY suspicious though.

[Just Me]

22. And, of course, they written off as "kooks". Where is that dang link!!!

I'm searching and can't find it.

[oasis]

33. The fire vaporizes a black box but Mohammad Atta's passport survives.

Only a :dunce: would but that one.

[FreedomAngel82]

45. Simple

It's what's inside the box's.

[sam sarrha]

103. the planes were capable of being flown remotely..

[libertypirate]

6. Just ask yourself some questions

Steal is not ever going to be weaker than an aluminum aircraft wings. So the airplanes ran into steal buildings with reinforced concrete right remember that?

The wings didn't break off in any of the collisions and the one we have video they cut right into the building; not even remotely possible.

We all know this we taxi down the runway before takeoff the wings bounce up and down, even fully loaded with fuel...

They flex so easily but they are strong enough to cut through concrete and steel like a hot knife through butter? Why aren't they pinned to the outer wall of any of the buildings or fallen to the ground bellow?

[11cents]

12. All the qualified engineers in the world must have been "got to".

All of them. Since nobody else has pointed out a fact so obvious that it can be diagnosed from a video faster than Frist diagnosed Schiavo.

[Eloriel]

13. Well, I'm no physicist (by any means!) but I do know there's a flaw in

your argument.

Why? Because for nearly as long as I've known about tornadoes (since I was a little kid -- nearly 50 years, I'd say) I've been familiar with a phenomenon that sometimes happens in tornadoes. I've seen pieces of actual wheat STRAW jammed through coke bottles and wooden fence posts while still retaining their essential character. There's something about the tremendous speed and/or force that can make that happen.

Edited to add: that doesn't mean I'm not firmly in the LIHOP/MIHOP camp, just that I find that particular argument of yours lacking.

[spooked911]

114. That's a good point but isn't that essentially a freak event?

The wheat straw stuck in something much harder. Sure it can happen-- one wheat straw out of a million can get stuck if it is at the right angle and speed.

But EVERY plane on 9/11 essentially disappeared into whatever it hit without the wings breaking off. Both planes that hit the WTC, the wings went right through thick steel beams and concrete floors. The plane that hit the pentagon, the wings disappeared after the plane hit a reinforced concrete and brick wall. Flight 93 that crashed in a field, the plane disappeared into the GROUND without the wings breaking off.

Even more strange, is that the TAILS of all four 9/11 planes disappeared as well. Normally the tail is the least damaged part of a plane in a crahs and breaks off intact. Yet not one plane tail survived or has been found. This is particularly odd for flight 93.

Something about the fact that these things happened four out of four times makes me very suspicious that those were not ordinary planes.

[Zynx]

135. Every single bit of the plane is moving at approx. 500 MPH

Construction is more or less uniform, meaninging there is nothing grossly harder or denser than the rest execpt possibly the engines. By this I mean there's nothing like a tungsten core inside a hollowpoint lead bullet or something equally extreme. So the wings should behave at least mostly like the fusalage.

Physics simply do not support the wings shearing off like in a cartoon, or any large sections such as a tail surviving. At 500 MPH (or anything close to it) everything will penetrate to at least some degree, and deceleration will not be uniform. Hence parts of the plane are violently torn to pieces in an explosive energy transfer. The fuel helps, but it's not a high explosive. The real violent explosive force that destroys the plane comes from the sheer kinetic impact.

This is true for the planes that hit WTC, the plane that hit the Pentagon, and Flight 93. In all cases, the plane is literally ripping itself apart by the countless physics actions when a part strikes something and reacts equal and opposite.

It's really not hard to see how a plane could be completely destroyed by this. In fact, it's impossible to see how it WOULDN'T be.

[spooked911]

139. There should be a large deceleration by the time the tail reaches

first the impact of the nose will slow down the plane, then the impact of the wings will slow down the plane. So to say the tail will be shredded up by the collision doesn't make sense. There have been thousands of plane crashes and the tail usually survives-- that is why they put the black boxes there.

Also, there seems to be a contradiction in that you say the wings shouldn't be shorn off yet you also say the plane is "violently torn to pieces in an explosive energy transfer." Either the wings are torn to pieces (and come off), or they slice into thick steel beams. Which is it?

[libertypirate]

146. You know it can't become common knowledge that

aluminum is weaker than steal; oh that would be bad for * Co.

They are trying to get a pound for pound argument started with out saying that their possition is based on a pound for pound assesment of material strength.

Pictures of other plane wing damage...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3773484&mesg_id=3777181

All I can say is; wow the horseshit that sells...

[Name removed]

158. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[libertypirate]

142. Here is some pictures of wing damage

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3773484&mesg_id=3777181

[Selteri]

35. My problem is with the steel and te fall.

First, the steel was melted to a molten level in parts. The temperature needed to make steel molten is higher than jet fuel can get.

Literally the steel that the WTC was made from should not have been able to melt because aircraft fuel burns at `1800 though it can potentially top 2300. The steel of the kind making up the WTC (Which I work with all the time while working borosilicate and only being able to really attach steel in the torch.) The gas could have flared, but to be able to do the level of damage that is described from the airplane impaces to cause molten pools is highly unlikely without something else assisting the temperature.

The second part I have a problem with is how cleanly they fell, both of them. The fall was so perfect, it honestly looked just like watching professional demolition. I remember thinking that when the first tower fell from the further away shot. I woke up just as they were replaying on CNN the first shots they got of the first collision which was really more of a shot just after it happened. About three minutes before the collision happened. When they both dropped it was a miraculious dropping. Both fell fairly straight.

The fact that the WTC was closed just the night before for maintenance the night before and this was an exceptional case by itself as rarely do they fully close some buildings the WTC had an extremely low incendence where normal maintenance. That is a bit suspiicious but also could be a tin-hat scenario.

[johnfunk]

59. Steel needn't be molten to lose its strength

It loses its tensile strength at around 800-1000 degrees, nearly a thousand degrees below its molten point -- and the jet fuel and combustibles it ignited burned at a high enough temperature to soften the _lateral_ steel, whose collapse would be enough to compromise the vertical steel.

My brother's an architect wi8th an encyclopedic knowledge of structural physics, and he's honestly surprised in retrospect that the towers didn't pancake _sooner_.

I too believe those two towers came down because the powers that be let the attack happen -- but did not expect the towers to collapse.

[libertypirate]

144. Nope sorry steal is still stronger than aluminum

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3773484&mesg_id=3777181


Does anyone have the beam count across the front of the plane when it hit the tower?

More than a dozen I am guessing...

[Nothing Without Hope]

66. Watch the David Ray Griffin lecture - he goes through these points and

more. Very convincing. I linked to it in another post in this thread.

[Zynx]

126. WTC 1 and 2 *have* to fall straight down. Huge amount of inertia

Gigantic amounts of mass are being pulled straight down constantly at 1 G. There isn't any force short of a very close nuclear weapon blast that could make the towers go sideways to a significant degree.

[FogerRox]

37. I respectfully dissagree with a bit of the above premise

[libertypirate]

155. That's nice....

[GregW]

48. I did ... here's some answers ...

Your assumption is that aluminum is harder than steel and concrete, therefore aluminum cannot cut steel or concrete. Well, what about water? Water is way 'softer' than aluminum, yet waterjets are regularly used to cut steel.

Next, you claim aluminum wings flex therefore they are not as 'strong' as steel or concrete. Yet tungsten and titanium flex (golf clubs) and they are far harder than steel or concrete.

Guess what ... two airliners hit two buildings on 9/11/2001. The buildings then collapsed.

[libertypirate]

160. Aluminum is weaker than steal, specifically in the two

applications we are talking about.

Guess what ... "two airliners hit two buildings on 9/11/2001. The buildings then collapsed."

This is what assholes use to convince people of bullshit.

For your other no where to go arguments...

Hey BTW light cuts too dude when it's concentrated!


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=41551&mesg_id=41711

[Pithlet]

77. Force = mass x velocity

That is all.

[rman]

128. That's not all; what is it supposed to explain?

The force exerted on the wings by the steel is equal to the force exerted on the steel by the wings.
Which of them gets most damaged depends on the structural strength of either.
Aluminium wings are weaker then a steel structure, so why would the wings cut through the steel rather then the other way around?

[ProfessorGAC]

133. It Depends On The Force Vectors rman

The steel may be harder and have higher absolute tensile strength, but:

The steel structure is intended to provide maximum support in the vertical direction. The wings are designed to provide maximum support in the horizontal. So, the strength of the wings in the vector of the plane's flight is higher than the steel supports. I don't make the rules, i only enforce them.

That's why the wings can, indeed, cut through steel. If they were both aligned along their maximum strength vectors, then the wings would lose that battle. But, structural designs are more complicated than merely tensile strength, surface hardness, and density.
The Professor

[libertypirate]

141. Check out these sir

Something has to break off...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3773484&mesg_id=3777181

[ProfessorGAC]

148. No Thanks

I prefer my science unbiased. I'm not debunking LIHOP or MIHOP here. But, i will not accept hypotheses that fly in the face of facts of physical science. He asked why steel would ever break from aluminum. I told him how. That's it. Don't try to convince me of anything. I'm just providing an answer to rman.
The Professor

[libertypirate]

150. You certianly are

"i will not accept hypotheses that fly in the face of facts of physical science."

aluminum airplane vs. steal and concrete building

Face some facts yourself one machine was built for what happened one wasn't, take your bais and make up the answer you want to.

[Zynx]

136. And the amount of force here is more than enough to destroy both

Steel supports, aluminum wings, it doesn't matter. Both are going to be annihilated.

The wings were destroyed almost immediately, except for the engines. However, they're going to rip through the very, very thin outer steel supports first because they're much more massive than the parts of the supports they are striking. MUCH more massive.

Combine that with the fact the steel outer supports are bearing vertical force - a LOT of vertical force - and they won't provide much resistance at all to this sort of mass at this sort of velocity.

[EST]

145. Speed, speed, speed (actually, velocity)

The airliners were traveling at nearly twice the speed of the fastest tornado ever spun. During the first few milliseconds the plane transforms from a largely empty cylinder to a huge hunk of solid scrap, still moving at very nearly five hundred mph. A quick, back-of-the-envelope scratching tells me what you end up with is a bullet, weighing well over a half million pounds, traveling at roughly eight hundred feet per second. Simply bringing that huge bullet to a stop (which didn't happen, anyway) would heat some local areas well past the melting points of most common materials. Same notion as the fact that you don't need an incendiary round to start fires in a gasoline storage area.

Consider the vaunted, intrepid skydiver. If her 'chute should fail (socks and underwear instead of a parachute?) It doesn't matter much whether she is over water or not, even pointing her toes only adds "form" points as she illustrates the fact that, at terminal velocity (as fast as she can go in because of atmospheric friction,) the water will act very similar to a parking lot. Although the skydiver is only moving at approximately two fifths the speed of the wayward airliners, the water becomes a rock wall.

Even the jet fuel, alone, if you could somehow contain it and hurl it at the building, at that speed, would be like a 90,000 lb block of granite. The only reason the immediate damage was so limited was because of the "softness" of the tower. Had the tower been a lump of solid steel, it would, probably, have sheared right off and come down immediately.
This illustration, rough as it is, is at the right magnitude and there is simply no need to posit some outside activity or destructive action.

Edited to add: In no way am I suggesting there was no mihop/lihop. My investigation into the surrounding circumstances, backed up by a huge effort all across the non sheeple, wide awake, discerning mojority. The weight, to me, lies behind the notion that the BFEE, far more than just welcoming their own, personal, Pearl Harbor, had an active role in carrying it out.

[libertypirate]

152. Actually

The towers were designed to resist a 13,000 ton horizontal load.

The plane was around 300 tons.

You actually tried to say this

"very, very thin outer steel supports"

Oh boy...

[DelawareValleyDem]

151. Actually, force=mass x ACCELERATION

[ailsagirl]

93. Good questions. Here's one more: "Cui bono?" (Latin) or

"Who benefits?"

[Zynx]

125. What exactly are you trying to say?

The planes *did* penetrate the buildings and a plane made of armor-piercing materials could never, ever fly. These are just two of the many physics problems with your statement.

Clearly your position is incorrect.

[libertypirate]

140. No my possition is that steal is stronger than aluminum...

slice it dice it anyway you want.

I cannot imagine that what I saw made sense aluminum is not stronger than steal and concrete. Something at least by the time it got to the tail should have broken off. Check the images bellow...

Just a bump
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/708609/L/

Almost knocks this engine off
http://www.airliners.net/open.file/217135/L/

Yeah Airplanes real tough
http://www.airliners.net/discussions/general_aviation/read.main/2110824/

These are small bumps...

Let me just go this far only an utter idiot would try and put logic around this. Aluminum is not stronger than steal, even if the aluminum is thicker than the steal; which it wasn't.

[GregW]

149. Hmmm ... bricks are stonger than skin/muscle/bone ...

So how does a karate student break them?

[libertypirate]

154. And exactly like every other example.....

Show me something that has a wide front surface impact and I might give you some props but not a single acute point of impact. Basically, everyone who wants to shit on my parade wants to think a focus impact is exactly the same as a distributed one.

When two objects collide they resist along their entire impact surface.

The problem you all have is that an airplane has a "very wide impact surface" which will distribute the load. Not on the airplane but across the face of the building. The building would have a hard time resisting a pinpoint or focused impact, all the energy being transferred in the same spot.

That is not what happens when an airplane runs into a building.

[GregW]

157. Very wide impact surface?

Looking at the top graphic (the orientation of the plane when it impacted the WTC) - you see that the type of objects striking the building were similar to a spear (fuselage) and knives (wings). Sounds to me exactly like a pinpoint or focused impact, right?



Look, planes DO hit buildings and imbed. It happens. Accept it.

e.g. Empire State Building, hit by one of those 'soft' B-25 bombers in 1945

[libertypirate]

159. BTW your example's wings were torn off... Doh

Those marks on the right in last image are from where the wings didn't make a whole.

Lame frame...
hit by one of those 'soft' B-25 bombers in 1945

Not 'soft' aluminum is just not as strong as steal and concrete.

Keep searching!

[goodboy]

7. Watch this it pre-dates 911>>>

http://www.prisonplanet.tv/articles/august2004/082604alexwarned.htm

[Swamp Rat]

8. MIHOP

[slaveplanet]

11. what made her come around?

she's largely avoided CT in the past....surely,It couldn't just be the missing tapes.

[rainy]

17. She has been saying this for quite a while now!

[whistle]

20. Randi claims new artcile or report that the FAA ordered audio...

...tapes of all or some of the hijacked 9-11 planes destroyed. The ATC apparently recorded conversations being broadcast from the planes from their take off right up to their impacts. Why, this was evidence? Why was the FAA able to destroy first hand evidence of the 9-11 hijackings and not be accountable for that?

[Just Me]

25. I don't know about you,...

,...but, I hope to hell that those tapes weren't actually destroyed.

[Wilms]

53. A bunch of tapes WERE destroyed.

Even the "official story" lovers that hang on the 9/11 forum admit that that looks pretty suspicious.

It's old news. But if Ms. Rhoades is up to looking at it, I'll support that.

[NuttyFluffers]

113. heh, and the manner of destruction was uber suspicious.

broken up, magnetic tape cut up into tiny, tiny, pieces, and then the guy dropped off pieces of this crushed evidence in different garbage cans all throughout the FAA building, spreading them to the four winds essentially.

which, is standard MO for a gov't that is a completely innocent victim, isn't it? :sarcasm:

[bunny planet]

76. She's always leaned towards MIHOP. Just says she can't talk about it

without proof. She's always talking about Norad being asked to stand down and she was the only person on the air I ever heard talk about the destruction of the air traffic control tapes from NY airspace.

[MichiDem]

94. All we need is proof

LOL!

[NuttyFluffers]

116. empirical v circumstantial v anecdotal evidence

it wouldn't be so funny if you understood that there is evidence, just not enough of the empirical stuff that will directly connect the upper eschelon players for conviction. plenty for indirect connection, and plenty for convicting underlings for "seemingly disconnected" crimes. viewing the case in toto you find an unusual amount of "coincidences" that seem to favorably fall in place.

that and evidence has been destroyed wholesale in this case (after the attacks). that leaves a suspicion that is in no way funny.

edit: unless there should be a sarcasm emoticon to your post, suggesting this group will continue to destroy as much proof they can get their hands on. in that case i misread.

[lonestarnot]

14. MIHOP

[knowbody0]

15. all you need to know

is that cheney was diddling with ATC in a mock hijacking trial, and that ATC had been ordered to stand down. average response to hijacking-launch time is 12 minutes. nothing was done, 4 hijacked aircraft for 27 minutes. it is absolutely mind numbing.

[BigBearJohn]

18. TIN FOIL ALERT: We may be biting off more than we can chew.

I can hear Limbaugh now: "Yeah, those crazy Lefties.. first
they say Bush planned the whole war -- and guess what else they said
he planned? 9/11!!!! ... boy, I tell you... Liberalism is a sickness."

[whistle]

23. Who gives a rat's ass what Ruch Limpdick thinks....

....why were the audio tapes of all or some of the hijacked 9-11 planes destroyed. The ATC apparently recorded conversations being broadcast from the planes from their take off right up to their impacts. Why, this was evidence? Why was the FAA able to destroy first hand evidence of the 9-11 hijackings and not be accountable for that?

[Fire Walk With Me]

42. Hey, that's pretty good. Um, who are you, really? ;-)

Anyway, anything they say, turned around, is the truth.

[FreedomAngel82]

46. Yep

They speak backwards. I've noticed that definitley.

[BigBearJohn]

51. I'd love all the truth to come out, it's just that I think we need focus

on Downing Street Minutes. You start talking about Bush PLANNING 9/11 and their weak minds are going to go on overload... possibly implode.. which isn't a bad idea actually... but I think it's too much for weak minds to handle. But if you'all think we should through everything and the kitchen sink at 'em... count me in.

[BamaBecky]

74. The Downing street memo went over like a thud.....I think the 911

evidence is much more POWERFUL......IN THE WHOLE

[bunny planet]

84. Downing Street minutes are just beginning to percolate.

No way that story is over.

[Im with Rosey]

98. Agreed

I think DSM is just beginning to gather steam. Also agree with BigBearJohn, we need to stay focused on what Conyers is doing because it is gaining momentum.
Don't forget to give what you can to help Conyers keep up the fight.

[Frederik]

88. Who cares what he says

He and his ilk are full of crap no matter what we do or say.

[acmejack]

124. If not a MIHOP, we have gotten screwed!

The most expensive air force and air traffic control system in the world and we cannot protect two centrally placed targets? 40 minutes and we can't even vector an aircraft to intercept them successfully? In the seventies they would guarantee us that there was absolutely no way a evasive military aircraft could successfully prosecute an attack from 20 miles away (Iran hostage era).

My major issue is this: There was an incident once during a military exercise where an accidental launch of a warshot torpedo occurred. The torpedo ran normally. impacted it's intended target and failed to detonate. Good fortune, you say? No, the personnel who had assembled and tested that weapon were court martialed! Massive failure of NORAD-no one's fault? BS!!!

[mirrera]

132. Just send him "The Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11"

We have to fight back with this. THEY are the Coincidence Theorists. WE have more evidence of being right. The Left turns out right more often then not, as you already know...

http://rigorousintuition.blogspot.com/2004/08/coincidence-theorists-guide-to-911.html

www.nobullshirt.com

[whistle]

21. Why......

.......audio tapes of all or some of the hijacked 9-11 planes were destroyed. The ATC apparently recorded conversations being broadcast from the planes from their take off right up to their impacts. Why, this was evidence? Why was the FAA able to destroy first hand evidence of the 9-11 hijackings and not be accountable for that?

[knowbody0]

32. that's where stuff falls apart

it would take so much co operation to pull this off. the facts remain, connecting the dots gives such a diabolical picture..

[FreedomAngel82]

47. Also at the FAA

that week a guy who didn't know what the hell he was doing was hired to take control of everything. Why? Also Bush's brother, Neil, was in charge of security that day at the WTC and his contract was up on 9/11! If you haven't you should download Alex Jones' film "9/11: Rise of Martial Law" at http://www.mininova.org You need a bit-torrent to download and open. Also check out the website http://www.reopen911.org That's a really good 9/11 site.

[musette_sf]

55. Not Neil

Marvin is the brother you are thinking of.

Neil is evidently an idiot, since he thought all those women coming to his hotel room in Asia were just completely HOT for him. How was he to know they were hookers? :rofl:

[goclark]

24. Cheney at the lead

And the Chimp can't even read a book to little children about a goat.

Why was he out of the loop on 911 and the plane incident last month?

[knowbody0]

26. if he tries to listen or talk

while he's on his bike he falls down

[BamaBecky]

70. Yep, that & the "Insider trading", FBI agents said it was common

knowledge inside the agency, they went to David Shippers, Shippers tried in VAIN to get to Ashcroft to WARN, Ashcroft ignored his calls, Ashcroft switched to flying private, Colleen Rowley, Sibel Edmonds, throw in the damn Caspian Basin PIPELINE, PNAC's plan to "Attack Iraq" dated way before 2001!

I could go on and on....

Go watch:
Hijacking Catastrophe
David Ray Griffin's C-Span presentation
911 in Plane Site
Loose Change
Treason, Inc.

:patriot:

[indepat]

19. It is so curious to me that seemingly not one supporter is curious about

what really happened re 9-11, not one RWer, not one Repug, not one true-believer, not one religious-right fanatic, not one right-leaning MSM outlet, not a one of them that I am aware of is the least bit curious.

[babsbunny]

Please go to this website for a petition to sign

and all the info you need to make up your own mind. www.reopen911.org

[babsbunny]

29. Do you realize we have an inside job

a stolen election, and the Downing street memo!!!! Come on folks, these are no conspiracies!!!

[thecai]

34. Reopen 9/11

Thank you for the link, and welcome to DU, Babsbunny! :hi:

[whistle]

30. It's called denial on the part of the true believers and I suppose

....the hatred of Muslim fundamentalists and the Arab people runs so deep that even an act like 9-11 which can be scapegoated to Arabs and specifically terrorists is a green light to take whatever reciprocal action that the president wanted. Even when all of the reasons used to justify an attack on a country, Iraq which had no involvement, have been proven not just wrong, but totally false, these true believers are ready to make the ultimate commitment, total nuclear war to appease their hatred.

Now, it has become public that vital evidence from the 50 to 90 minutes leading up to each of the 9-11 crashes were secretly destroyed, there is still no outrage, no cry for accountability, no demands on officials to come forward and explain these criminal actions. What in God's name has happened in America?

[BamaBecky]

78. You nailed it! My hats off to you!......very curious...isn't it!...n/t

[Frederik]

91. Yes, and if you point out the irregularities

they get really offended, almost scared. There's just no room for doubt that "Osama did it", perhaps with some help from his buddy Saddam. These are the people who could easily imagine that Hillary killed Vince Foster.

[MrSlayer]

27. The FAA destroying the tapes was reported last summer.

I would link you to the story but fucking EZBoard went nuts and all the old threads on my board are gone.

[thecai]

28. And Why The Gag Order....

...to quiet the police, firemen, EMTs? That was TOO suspicious, IMO.

Recommended this thread.

[whistle]

31. It all stinks of cover-up and treason at the very highest levels.....

...of the White House, the military and throughout the government.

[thecai]

36. EXACTLY!

IMPEACH Bush NOW!
I can't say it enough! ;-)

[Triana]

38. I've had that suspicion myself...

...my first instinctive thought, without even knowing fully yet what had happened was: "They knew".

Either they MIHOP or LIHOP but - they knew.

[mopaul]

40. she's obviously insane and making us all look bad

[Swamp Rat]

52. She's a witch!

Burn her!!!

[wicket]

Damn, beat me to it!

:D

[BamaBecky]

79. You guys are funny....but this is really serious stuff....n/t

[Swamp Rat]

90. serious as a heart attack

[Clark2008]

112. Cheney's heart attack...n/t

[ROH]

41. Links

http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/randirhodes/messageboards/index.php?s=4ce1bb8e1e4541551b4a8182a8959fd1&showtopic=38671&pid=283532&st=0&#entry283532

http://www.voicesofsept11.org/911ic/archive/2004/050604.html

[bush_is_wacko]

43. I just got my copy of "Loose Change"....

It's not the greatest video for a true non believer but I'm hoping it might sway someone that is on the fence. The makers of the CD are encouraging us all to get one copy and burn as many as we can and get them out to the public.

While I believe what I am seeing is evidence of explosions UNRELATED to the plane crash and "faked" cell phone calls, I'm not sure an unbeliever can really grasp that. Where have all those people who received those cell phone calls gone? didn't we hear some of those calls? Even I can no longer remember. Have they been putting something in our water supply to make us forget or was it just extreme fear that caused me to forget all these things?

It is my opinion that someone with tangible credibility. A well known official if you will, will be the ONLY way Americans will believe this in full. I say this because even WITH credible evidence that 6 million Jews died as a direct result of Hitlers policies there are STILL people that have the audacity to suggest it never even happened.

Why didn't this nation see these things RIGHT after 911? Did we forget that buildings just simply do not fall down that way. Would we have suspected something if our media reported the fact that the clean up crew and the demolition crew was headed by a bush brother? How did we forget that NORAD tracks EVERYTHING in this country? Why wouldn't NORAD scramble jets immediately? What the hell kind of reason can the American public accept for the lack of response for these particular planes? WE track down around a 100 planes a year that have strayed slightly off course. How the hell can Americans buy the explanation that on September 11 NORAD, and ALL other securities failed, the security cameras inside both the towers and WTC building 7 were not in operation, blah, blah, blah... I could go on and on and i am still wondering how ALL this information has NEVER been spoken about in all this time.

If nothing else, Americans should at least consider the fact that it is EXTREMELY odd that a media that seems to know every intimate detail of Michael Jacksons pedophilia has never even bothered to ask these questions for their audience.

[FreedomAngel82]

50. People still don't believe in the Holocaust event?

Wow. Simply wow. How can you not believe it? :crazy: There are still people a live who went through it (Elie Wiesel for example). I wonder though about the phone calls myself. I read on http://www.reopen911.org that the phone call from that one guy's wife never happened. So where is she at? Was she even on the plane? Were these calls just staged and made at an earlier time? I've also heard that the plane's used were not what the "official" story said. So why would they lie about that? There's just so many things to grasp your mind around. :crazy:

[BamaBecky]

81. Hi there BIW! Mine came today too!

I haven't watched it yet......

[Al-CIAda]

97. The WAR GAMES on 9/11- lack of defense of the Pentagon...

The Final Fraud
By
Michael Kane


The multiple war games running on 9/11 also included (but were not limited to) VIGILANT GUARDIAN, which involved hijacking scenarios over the continental United States. None of the war games was ever referenced by name at any time during the hearings. The details of these exercises are the Achilles' heel of the "external threat" mantra parroted by all three generals, and these details seem to be classified.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/KAN408A.html


=====

The non-response of NORAD and lack of defense of the Pentagon.
Testimony of Sentor Dayton and an interview with Dr. Bowman (Lt. Col. Ret. USAF) by Micheal Kane. He discusses the war games planned that very morning at the exact time the event occured.
Powerful 15 min....must see imho

http://innworldreport.net/video/2004-08-04/dayton.html

[sce56]

99. There is plenty of evidence just don't have any real Americans left in

Govt anymore those in high places have all been compromised and are being blackmailed into alowing the coverup

http://www.tomflocco.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=110&mode=&order=0&thold=0

Missile & remote control systems added to small jets before 9-11; same parts found at Pentagon

Two civilian defense contractor employees--told to remain silent--say other workers quietly retro-fitted missile and remote control systems onto A-3 jets at Colorado public airport prior to September 11 when similar A-3 parts much smaller than a Boeing 757 were found at Pentagon

Presidential candidate says scores of retired and active military and intelligence officials would testify before current grand jury probing government involvement in 9/11 attacks

by Tom Flocco

Fort Collins, Colorado -- May 26, 2005 -- TomFlocco.com --
According to two civilian defense contractor employees working at commercial corporate facilities at Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport (left), in the months before the September 11 attacks U.S. Air Force defense contractors brought in A-3 Sky Warrior aircraft under cover of darkness to be completely refitted and modified at the small civilian airport in Colorado.

The revelations are important evidence for a reportedly ongoing secret 9/11 probe because widely available Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) photographs taken during the attacks clearly show that the few aircraft parts found at the Pentagon belonged to a small jet very similar to a modified A-3 Sky Warrior--not the American Airlines Boeing 757.

It is not known whether all members of Congress are aware of the under-the-radar-screen grand jury proceedings, who has already testified, and whether the probe is purposefully being kept from public knowledge, according to government intelligence sources.

[dogday]

49. Where Were The Planes? Who Told Them To Stand Down?

When Payne Stuart's plane went off course, they had two fighters right beside it in 22 minutes. Now think of the amount of time and ask yourself why did they not respond, they had the time...

[whistle]

54. Bingo, here it is from one of the DUers over in the Setember 11...

...room:

<snip>
FAA Managers Destroyed 9/11 Tapes
Recordings Contained Accounts of Communications With Hijacked Planes

By Sara Kehaulani Goo
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, May 6, 2004; 2:45 PM

Six air traffic controllers provided accounts of their communications with hijacked planes on Sept. 11, 2001, on a tape recording that was later destroyed by Federal Aviation Administration managers, according to a government investigative report issued today.

It is unclear what information was on the tape because no one ever listened to, transcribed or duplicated it, the report by the Department of Transportation inspector general said.

The report concluded that the FAA generally cooperated with the independent panel investigating the terrorist attacks by providing documents about its activities on Sept. 11, but the actions of two FAA managers "did not, in our view, serve the interests of the FAA, the Department or the public."

The report was conducted at the request of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), after the panel investigating the Sept. 11 attacks, officially known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, complained that the FAA had been less than forthcoming in turning over documents and issued a subpoena to the agency for more information.

The FAA said it had taken disciplinary action against the two employees and it was cooperating fully with the 9/11 panel.

"We believe the audiotape in question appears to be consistent with written statements and other materials provided to FBI investigators and would not have added in any significant way to the information contained in what has already been provided to investigators and members of the 9/11 commission," said FAA spokesman Greg Martin.

Hours after the hijacked planes flew into the World Trade Center Towers, the Pentagon and a Pennsylvania field, an FAA manager at the New York Air Route Traffic Control Center gathered six controllers who communicated or tracked two of the hijacked planes and recorded in a one-hour interview their personal accounts of what occurred, the report stated.

The manager, who is not named in the report, said that his intentions were to provide quick information to federal officials investigating the attack before the air traffic controllers involved took sick leave for the stress of their experiences, as is common practice.

According to the report, a second manager at the New York center promised a union official representing the controllers that he would "get rid of" the tape after controllers used it to provide written statements to federal officials about the events of the day.

Instead, the second manager said he destroyed the tape between December 2001 and January 2002 by crushing the tape with his hand, cutting it into small pieces and depositing the pieces into trash cans around the building, the report said.

The tape's existence was never made known to federal officials investigating the attack, nor to FAA officials in Washington. Staff members of the 9/11 panel found out about the tape during interviews with some controllers who participated in the recording.

One controller said she asked to listen to the tape in order to prepare her written account of her experience, but one of the managers denied her request.

The New York managers acknowledged that they received an e-mail from FAA officials instructing them to retain all materials related to the Sept. 11 attacks. "If a question arises whether or not you should retain the data, RETAIN IT," the report quoted the e-mail as saying.

But the managers decided not to include the tape in a November 2001 "Formal Accident Package" report the office prepared because one manager said he did not want to break his word to the union official and he did not think the tape should ever have been made.

The inspector general concluded today that the managers' actions resulted in the loss of potential evidence that would allow the 9/11 commission to compare controllers' recollection of the events immediately after the attacks with the written statements prepared three weeks later.

"The destruction of evidence in the Government's possession, in this case an audiotape -- particularly during times of national crisis -- has the effect of fostering an appearance that information is being withheld from the public."


http://www.voicesofsept11.org/911ic/archive/2004/050604.html

[troubleinwinter]

56. WHERE IS THE CIA INSPECTOR GENERAL'S 9-11 REPORT???

This is a report that supposedly "names names". It was completed last summer, and was due for release before the election. It was withheld "until after the election". It is not classified. SIX MONTHS AFTER THE ELECTION, WE HAVE NOT SEEN IT. It has not been released.

WHERE IS THE REPORT?!

[billbuckhead]

58. They found the wrong kind of jet engine, one from a smaller plane

I can never believe that the Air Force, the biggest Navy base in the world, the Air National Guards from a half dozen states, couldn't get planes up quicker. I heard they were distracted by a war game going on at the same time. Hell, they could have called Canada if they were too busy.

[whistle]

67. Foot dragging........

[seabeyond]

57. we have known a long time tapes were destroyed, yes n/t

[whistle]

69. But nothing was doen about it , not even an investigation....

[BrklynLiberal]

61. MIHOP Always and forever. No matter what "they" say....

No matter how distasteful and horrific the idea may be.
The Bush crime family has been involved in as bad and worse in their long and terrifying history. This is just the tip of the iceberg showing thru the black waters.
:evilfrown:

[Nothing Without Hope]

62. Yes, I recall that someone was an eyewitness to those tapes being

destroyed. Don't have a link and have forgotten the name, but 9/11 mavens will know. If that isn't a tacit admisstion, what is?

[Nothing Without Hope]

63. Watch or listen to the historic David Ray Griffin lecture on Bush Admin

complicity in the 9/11 attacks and see many other related links here, including the replies:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x39690

[Generator]

64. Old news which took me .02 seconds to find

http://www.avweb.com/newswire/10_20a/briefs/187259-1.html

If you want to figure out that the official 9/11 story doesn't add up-I'll give you a good thirty minutes and internet access. Depending on your worldview-a day to a few months to believe your government is really that evil-and well folks, it's all out there.

[whistle]

72. Sure...lay it out.....

[bunny planet]

68. This came out quite awhile ago. It was a Washington Post article that

appeared and then disappeared down the memory hole. No one talked about it at all in the MSM. Randi said she has the article on the archives at her site. It's much worse than the 18 minute gap in the Nixon tapes. The NY area air traffic controllers were ordered to hand over the tapes to an FAA official who proceded to tear them in little pieces, set them on fire and then distribute the small, burnt pieces throughout the building in various trash cans. Seems they really wanted to make it impossible to find out what was on those tapes, highly suspicious. Randi talked about this months ago, well before the election, right around the time of the hearings. The 911 commission was also not interested in the testimony of those air traffic controllers. It is amazing what they've gotten away with.

[whistle]

73. right, now posted above in #54...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3773484&mesg_id=3774138&page=

[bunny planet]

80. Ok, so I got a bit histrionic. He didn't burn the tapes. I just reread the

article. Burning it would have been a little too suspicious no?

[corbett]

71. Best Link I've Seen

You can download the WHOLE DVD for free at the bottom of the page:

http://www.reopen911.org/free_dvd.htm

Check out this one, afterwards:

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050601/the_key_to_impeachment.php

[bunny planet]

75. Linky.

http://www.therandirhodesshow.com/randirhodes/messageboards/index.php?showtopic=38671

[Cha]

82. And we were considered

conspiracy theorists after 9/11 when we were saying how we believed MIHOP or even LIHOP.

[mirrera]

83. Michael Ruppert "Crossing the Rubicon"

Says it all. The book lays out the case for Mihop/Lihop with out a doubt. The book is so scary I thought they'll kill you for knowing this! I immediatly bought 3 more copies to send to my family. I am not going down alone...

www.nobullshirt.com

[bunny planet]

85. I feel certain Randi has read the book. She alludes to things in there

that I'm sure she's just dying to discuss.

[LizW]

123. I just finished it

I mentioned yesterday that it took me four months to read because it is so scary that I kept having to put it down.

:scared:

[mirrera]

130. Kept putting it down...me too!

It was like a scab you can't stop picking, and finally I gave in and finished it. My cousin who is the sweetest person signed one of her emails "head firmly planted in sand" and i had to laugh out loud. There are many people who KNOW but are afraid the world will expect something of them if they go there. I feel a NEED to know even though my fighting back is limited.


www.nobullshirt.com

[bpilgrim]

86. it's ALL in her HEAD!!! CT FREAKS!!! making 'US' look bad AGAIN, damn!

THE NEW PEARL HARBOR

Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11

by David Ray Griffin
foreword by Richard Folk

CONTENTS
Acknowledgements vi
Forword by Richard Falk vii
Introduction xi
PART ONE THE EVENTS OF 9 / 11
1. Flights 11 and 175: How Could the Hijackers' Missions Have Succeeded? 3
2. Flight 77: Was It Really the Aircraft that Struck the Pentagon? 25
3. Flight 93: Was It the One Flight that was Shot Down? 49
4. The Presidents Behavior. Why Did He Act as He Did? 57
PART TWO THE LARGER CONTEXT
5. Did US Officials Have Advance Information about 9/11? 67
6. Did US Officials Obstruct Investigations Prior to 9/11? 75
7. Did US Officials Have Reasons for Allowing 9/11? 89
8. Did US Officials Block Captures and Investigations after 9/11? 105
PART THREE CONCLUSION
9. Is Complicity by US Officials the Best Explanation? 127
10. The Need for a Full Investigation 147
Notes 169
Index of Names 210

read online here...
http://vancouver.indymedia.org/news/2004/06/141355.php

psst... pass the word ;->

peace

[Huckebein the Raven]

95. The indy media link is not working for me

Have another link ?

Also, is this the guy who made the speech that CSPAN televised ?

[bpilgrim]

105. yes and try this one...

http://tinyurl.com/dm7th

peace

[Huckebein the Raven]

106. Thanks

:)

[yebrent]

92. self delete. wrong thread

[xnmeme]

96. where does rhandi get her information

rhandi rhodes always makes suggestions such as these that don't show up anywhere else in the media or dialogue. Where does she get her information?

[Stand and Fight]

117. Better than your sources I'm sure...

Fox News, that is... :eyes:

[Frederik]

147. Washington Post

This was reported in the Wash Post.

[sce56]

100. She is right

See the folowing sites to see how we've been duped!
You can d/l for free Loose Change DVD (need Bit Torrent, it takes a few days to get but worth it unless you just buy it) it has compeling evidence of a cover up of the truth behind 911
http://tinyurl.com/da56m

http://www.911wasalie.com/avalon/index.php?avl_so=yes

[RobbinsdaleDem]

101. I remember reading about a tape

that the air traffic controllers recorded while events were fresh in their minds. I believe one of the controllers said he figured they wouldn't be interviewed for hours, and by recording the tape, they'd be less likely to forget anything. A supervisor (?) destroyed the tape when he found out about it.

I believe some people in the administration knew something was going to happen, but they never expected it to be as devastating as it was. After all, who would have thought those buildings would collapse?

[thecai]

110. Oh Yeah,

They knew.
Welcome to DU,RobbinsdaleDem! :hi:

[RobbinsdaleDem]

118. Thanks for the welcome!

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

131. Here is the article. I just posted this at the 9/11 Forum.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x41477#41538

[thecai]

104. kick! n/t

[progressivebydesign]

107. Here's why I think it's an inside job...

NO ONE but Americans would concieve and carry out something like that on THE most memorable number/date in our culture. "911" is an iconic number because of our emergency services. That is NO coincidence that it is so incredibly marketable. What if had happened on 8/16? Remember 816? Hardly. I'm convinced it is just as dirty as the Northwoods Project, in fact it's basically a remake of that Northwoods Project. Scary shit.

[NJCher]

119. this makes sense

Think about bushco--they are all about marketing. From the logos like "made in America" that appear behind the Puppet when he speaks to not introducing a new product in August, that is what they are all about.

Oh man. Absolutely creeps me out.

"9/11" is their signature.


Cher

[whistle]

121. It is scary indeed....more must be revealed

[Al-CIAda]

134. PNAC, PNAC, PNAC -n/t

[AntiCoup2K4]

137. If it happenned on 8/16, the primary suspect would have been....

Yes, Elvis Presley. International terrorist. Why not? His existence can be proven about as much as Osama's (in recent years) or Hopalong Zarqawi

[Aminal]

108. Missile & remote control systems added to small jets at remote civilian a

Missile & remote control systems added to small jets at remote civilian airport before 9-11; same parts found at Pentagon

http://www.tomflocco.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=110&mode=&order=0&thold=0

[spooked911]

111. Welcome to DU!!!!!!!!

:toast: :party:

[Zynx]

127. I hope you're not trying to say the planes hitting WTC were small

The scaling is very clear from the video of the impacts - these were LARGE aircraft. 767-size large.

[AntiCoup2K4]

138. The second one WAS clearly a large plane, probably a Boeing 757.....

....as advertised.

And it would have to be, because the planners of the attack (whomever you believe that to be) knew that this would be the grand performance piece. The money shot, so to speak, with at least a dozen live TV cameras already focused on the scene, filming the aftermath of the previous crash.

But what they hadn't counted on was any video footage of the first crash itself. And only one such tape exists (that we know of)which was pretty much an accident. The Naudet brothers were filming what they thought was a routine documentary about the FDNY. Their video camera wasn't properly focused to capture the details of a plane crashing into a building 80 stories up. But even from the poor quality footage, what CAN be seen is an object which drops out of the sky far too quickly, and leaves an impact hole in the building far too narrow for a 757 wingspan.

They didn't think anybody would film that. And they knew that 15 minutes later, nobody would really give a shit. And of course, once the towers collapsed, who would know the difference, right?

[LunaC]

115. More pieces to the 911 puzzle

"PNAC 101 - Rise of the Neocons" (see link in sig line) offers a detailed overview and timeline of the Bush* Administration's desire to attack Iraq as early as 1998 and their complicity in allowing the 911 tragedy to occur as a pretext for attacking Iraq. It provides vital background information that puts the Downing Street Memo in clearer perspective and completes the Big Picture regarding Bush's
many impeachable offenses. It is well-documented with mainstream and reputable sources.

I just sent an email to Randi asking her to help spread the word.

PLEASE post this link wherever you can!

[whistle]

122. Will do, that is an interesting link, DU beta site.....never heard....

...that was available. As for cutting and pasting, some of the text does not copy. Are parts of the post in text format and others in PDF? The Part under March 2001 that relates to Iraq's situation and Cheney's mad drive to give a much different impression seems to be resistant to copy. I might be doing something wrong.

[LunaC]

156. Works for some but not for others

There's some sort of arbitrary bug in the system.....might be browser related.

Here's a link to a DU thread that will print but it doesn't include info on Cheney.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=104&topic_id=2234142#2237784

I'll contact the Admin and see if I can get the printing snafu resolved.

[mopaul]

120. .....

....

[whistle]

129. I am hoping that Randi Rhodes follows up on this topic today....

...thanks for all of your posts here. :hi:

[funkybutt]

143. She's been talking about this stuff for a year...where ya been?

the thing about the tapes is not new...

[dbt]

153. Interesting that this one made it to the Greatest Page before

it was moved into the 9/11 Forum, where it cannot be nominated for the Greatest Page.