BBC: "Q&A: What really happened "

[ma2007]

Here is the poor document

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/conspiracy_files/6341851.stm

At least they take the Air Force as the starter. Not even one sentence can be judged as correct. Such lame arguments I did not expect , not by the BBC, not five years later.

[The Lone Groover]

1. Point by point analysis of the BBC program can be found...

..on one of Alex Jones' web sites.

Now that is a demolition job.

I would link but I'm not sure I'm allowed to.

[ma2007]

2. I did not know that there is a restristion, but

I would like to concentrate on the sentences of the first point ()Air Force) in this thread, and I invite all OCTers to retell, explain and expose the BBC allegations, to make them flurish, younger, sexy.

I have a sens of humor, people say. Let me laugh.

[The Lone Groover]

3. OK...Fight 77 was a known hijacking and potential weapon...

...for over 40 minutes before it hit the Pentagon.

Could the USAF have intercepted it?

Apparently not.

[ma2007]

5. A known hijacked - in a situation ...

of another 45 minutes before of other hijacked machines which already had hit the towers.

The whole world knew that -like Bush and Rumsfeld - since a quarter of an hour, but they knew it even longer than the people on the TV screens, because the media only got the "results" of the hijackings.

"America is under attack" was known to the government OFFICIALLY stated since 9:05.

But how could the secretary and the commander in chief think about denfence ? It is all so complicated, you know. Exercises. Radar. Locations.

[The Lone Groover]

7. If the USAF can't intercept a hostile aircraft...

...in the American skys for over 40 minutes then something is incredibly wrong.

Who got fired over this?

Or did anyone get promoted?

[hack89]

8. When was the Air Force told?

How much time did the FAA give the Air Force to respond and intercept?

[ma2007]

9. Time enough

Even under the assumption its own lack of performance were not deliberatory. Time enough.

I.e. Why did the two (allegedly) scrambled interceprors from Otis not just go further to Washington when they (allegedly) were too late in New York ?

Besides: the airforce has Radar itself, they are combined with civil functions, technically and by officials. They KNEW what was happening BEFORE they got an offifcial request by the FAA.

Do you refer to any special time come on with it. Show your trumps.

[The Lone Groover]

10. This was Flight 77...

...over 40 minutes roaming the skies as a known hostile aircraft that is going to be used as a weapon in all probabilty.

Systems were fully up and comms lines open because what had happened before Flight 77 was hijacked.

How long does it take the USAF to intecept a hostile aircraft in USA air space?

Who got fired?

Who got medals and promotions?

[ma2007]

11. My invitation to OCTers

is still valid ....

[The Lone Groover]

13. ...no takers?

Quelle surprise.

[JackRiddler]

26. By which timeline?

Sure, let's find out when NORAD and the air defense system found out about Flight 77.

Let's see here, which timeline should we consult?

Richard Myers's of Sept. 13, 2001?

The NYT's (reporting from Pentagon sources) of Sept. 15th?

NORAD's of the Sept. 19th press release?

The one laid out by Woodward citing high White House sources in his January 2002 series?

The one given by NORAD officers to the Kean Commission in May 2003?

The one implied in the Mineta testimony of that day?

The FAA press release of May 23, 2003?

Or the new and improved final revision provided by the 9/11 Commission in "Staff Statement No. 17" (which became Ch. 1 of the Report) in June 2004?

Or how about the version we can piece together from the documents gained by the National Security Archive in its FOIA requests?

Why so many conflicting versions? Obviously multiple someones were pitching false versions over long periods.

Who deserves the benefit of the doubt? Who qualifies for the "just innocent and stupid" prize? And who's a liar?

How come a Senator said NORAD lied, and the Commissioners in their recent book say they considered bringing charges against NORAD?

Or what about the version given by air traffic controllers on 9/11/2001, on tape, at around noon? Oh, sorry, that tape was destroyed by an federal agent.

Nothing suspicious in that!

[ma2007]

48. Good compilation

but the only way out is to force those who make an allegation to state it clearly including times - and then to hook them on their statement. Don`t let them out of their OWN allegations.

Not WE must look for "what really happened" - which is the interest of the Bushists to put us into that position.

[Kingshakabobo]

20. Sorry, no speaky gibberish. n/t

[T_i_B]

4. Alex Jones can't whinge

He was one of the main MIHOPer's the programme interviewed along with Loose Change creator Dylan Avery and Jim Fetzer of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. And if he couldn't defend his crackpot theories in his interview for the programme then you have to ask why bother wading through his nonsense for a second time?

[The Lone Groover]

6. Actually..

The debunking of the BBC program isn't written by Alex Jones even though its on his web site.

Read it and understand how the BBC slanted the whole thing. It's interesting.

[CJCRANE]

14. There were 13 OCTers vs 3 truthers.

The doc didn't even mention the 9/11 Families Steering Committee. Instead we were told that continuing to question the official version would upset the victim's families.

[Bolo Boffin]

18. How much face time for each? n/t

[MervinFerd]

27. Was it a ball game?

CJ,
The Truthers were given the opportunity to present their case; their statements were then directly contradicted by witnesses, video and photographs. Sometimes Reality is biased.

And where were prominent debunkers? Lared wasn't interviewed. Or Greyl, etc. Or The Amazing Randi, for that matter.

[greyl]

29. Dammit.

I'm very case-sensitive.
;)

[The Lone Groover]

31. CJ said...

The doc didn't even mention the 9/11 Families Steering Committee.

Well Boloboffin and Greyl - it didn't did it!!!

It avoids Press for Truth - as do OCters in general. (I watched it again today - a truely outstanding 9/11 documentary).

The BBC program was a hit piece. You do understand the way the media works don't you?

[JackRiddler]

34. That list just says it all.

13 "experts" defending the official story against... Fetzer, A. Jones and Dylan.

One is a pariah to the movement he is (mis)representing and a total clown, the image of the conspiracy nerd (Fetzer). The other two are controversial among the 9/11 skeptics, for being extreme or sloppy. None of them are actually experts in anything, be it social science or hard science. All three are special for a) constantly making mistakes and b) being loud or spectacular.

You don't see a fix in this?

Not even Griffin. The best-selling of the authors by far, and the consensus figure of sorts. Not S. Jones, the consensus figure for demolition hypothesis. I have different preferences, but these would be the honest choices if one were looking at the mainstream of 9/11 skepticism.

Certainly NOT the Sept. 11th family members who condemned the 9/11 commission! Certainly not anyone whom an investigative journalist would go after, if he were interested in actually learning anything about 9/11 (Able Danger, Sibel Edmonds, Mineta, Myers, the 9/11 Commissioners including Cleland, etc.)

No Paul Thompson, no P.D. Scott, no Chossudovsky, no Hoffman, no Tarpley (with whom I disagree on much, but who would make mincemeat of these people intellectually). All of them have been on Book TV, by the way.

Certainly not, sitting right there in BRIGHTON, Nafeez Ahmed. The first 9/11 skeptic to have a book published, ever.

And you don't see a fix here?

I suppose I should be grateful they didn't dig up Chris Bollyn, or find some imam somewhere talking about "4000 missing Jews"?

[Bolo Boffin]

12. "Not even one sentence can be judged as correct."

Wow. You say every sentence is wrong. That is an amazing feat. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

For example, this first section:

To sceptics of the official account of 9/11, the idea of 19 fundamentalists hijacking commercial airliners and outsmarting the world's most advanced air defence system seems simply incredible.

Some 9/11 conspiracy theories argue that the US Air Force should have succeeded in intercepting at least some of the hijacked planes, and that someone, therefore, must have prevented them from doing so.

The official version - 9-11 Commission Report - holds that on the morning of 11 September, 2001 a major defence training exercise was taking place.

This exercise caused confusion, as some personnel initially thought the hijack reports were a drill. Even when the reports were confirmed, it still took nine minutes for the pilots to be scrambled. And once airborne, they were still unsure about where they were going: the fighters scrambled from Washington headed out to sea, rather than towards the hijacked airliners.

Davin Coburn, a reporter with the magazine Popular Mechanics, offers an explanation. The military, he argues, responded so poorly because they were simply unprepared.

Which one of these sentences is incorrect? Don't skeptics of the official account think what the BBC reports them to think? Don't they make the claims in the second paragraph? Isn't paragraphs three and four an accurate account of what the 9-11 Commission report says happened that day? Doesn't David Coburn offer an explanation of the 911CR account? Isn't that last statement an accurate representation of Coburn's explanation?

How then can any of these sentences, in context, be judged as incorrect?

[The Lone Groover]

15. If true this is outrageous...

This exercise caused confusion, as some personnel initially thought the hijack reports were a drill. Even when the reports were confirmed, it still took nine minutes for the pilots to be scrambled. And once airborne, they were still unsure about where they were going: the fighters scrambled from Washington headed out to sea, rather than towards the hijacked airliners.

Who got fired?

Who got medals?

[ma2007]

21. Hi Bolo - I ADMIRE your courage !

First sentece- first answer:

"the idea ... seems simply incredible"

Are we talking about credibility of ideas ?
No. This is wrong.

The "sceptics" say: "the allegation has not been proved, and here are the points which are controversial."

It is not about ideas, but about the truth of allegations.
It is not a religious controversy about credibility, but a dispute about facts and their relevance.

So even the starting sentence is genuinly misleading. I cal this propaganda by the BBC.



Second sentence:
"..should have succeeded in intercepting at least some of the hijacked planes, and that someone, therefore, must have prevented them from doing so."

"should" "must" ? "at least some", "someone" ?

No. This was a way of argumentation in the very first days. Only completely uninformed people argue in this vague way.

Today we KNOW exactly who was responsible and what the times were. The information is good enough to put some guys on trial.

[Bolo Boffin]

35. "The information is good enough to put some guys on trial."

Well, since you have evidence of treason, you should start releasing it and naming names. Be so good as to do this in an English newspaper, so the libel trials can get underway.

Your attempt to make the first sentence incorrect is rather lame. "religious controversy about credibility"...? Credibility comes up in other arenas of discussion besides religious ones. What are you talking about? Is it your contention that the idea of 19 hijackers overcoming the defenses of the United States is NOT incredible, that we should have expected such a thing to happen? I doubt it. But that is what you must claim if you attempt to falsify the first statement.

Your attempt to make the second sentence incorrect is just more hairsplitting. The sentence remains a summation of even your precisely-held beliefs. By the way, since you have evidence of treason, you should start releasing it and naming names. Be so good as to do this in an English newspaper, so the libel trials can get underway.

Your attempt to make any other sentence incorrect is missing. Remember you said that not a single sentence could be judged as being correct. Get cracking.

[ma2007]

37. Was this an answer ?

Bolo you ask for facts and names.
Take into account i.e. this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=136493&mesg_id=136493


Then I explained it to you very nicely and slowly enough for your capabilities (I misjudged them in you opinion as I seemed to be "too lame") that we are NOT discussing ideas. But you keep on to ask:

"Is it your contention that the idea of 19 hijackers overcoming the defenses...."

So you try to ask me and to lure others into a IDEOLOGY debate.
It is different. The Bushist tell us it were 19 hijackers. Prove it. It is so simple. You OCTers make an allegation. Prove it. I do not make an allegation about who and how the planes were hijacked.

My allegation is about the incorrectness of the sentences.
You took four as a starter, I wisely reduced it on the first two - and as we can see now we run into a dead end IN THE FIRST SENTENCE because already there you seem to be uncapable to grip the sense.

Ideas and facts are not the same, Bolo. The whole discussion is about the facts of 9/11. I am not going to discuss ideas or beliefs, not with you and not with others.

[Bolo Boffin]

40. If you're not going to discuss ideas or beliefs, not with me and not with others...

...then how can you possibly talk about the first sentence? It's a sentence about an idea.

Never mind. Let's mark this down to a language barrier.

[ma2007]

47. language barrier?

The principal axiomatic columns of logic are the same in every language.
"a sentence about an idea" shows that you really do not understand the very basics of science. To give you a clue:
"a sentence" is a grammatical formula.
But the meaning of a sentence may be a question or a statement, the statememnt itself may be right or wrong - and so on.

Again for the slow runner:
An allegation about the guilt of the 19 hijackers is not a way of perception of the world (like "I believe we will all die on judgement day in 12 years" or "in my view all australians are vegetarians as they see cangaroos as vegetables").
It is a statement of a fact. It may be right or wrong. Those who do allegations have to prove it.

To say (=to state) that this allegation is a mere idea, let us talk about it like about if we like rainy weather or if we believe in Allah or not
is incorrect.

[BrokenBeyondRepair]

16. "Popular Mechanics study" ...lol

[sweetheart]

17. The BBC is like the catholic church

They deal in faith and their thought-cult of myth.

6000 years ago, God created JP4 which was the principal fuel behind the big bang.
Anyone who tells you different, is a conspiracy theorist.

[The Lone Groover]

19. Why aren't OCTer's taking up this thread? nt

[MervinFerd]

22. I see frothing denunciations of the piece. What about refutation?

What, can't refute clear facts?

Sorry.

[The Lone Groover]

23. Once again...

This exercise caused confusion, as some personnel initially thought the hijack reports were a drill. Even when the reports were confirmed, it still took nine minutes for the pilots to be scrambled. And once airborne, they were still unsure about where they were going: the fighters scrambled from Washington headed out to sea, rather than towards the hijacked airliners.

Who got fired?

Who got medals?

It's outrageous.

It's hard to believe the BBC premise that the planes couldn't have been intercepted.

Over 40 minutes for Flight 77 flying as a known potential bomb.

Didn't they use to practise this kind of thing? Didn't they have real life interceptions as well?

The BBC claim is BS.

[ma2007]

24. Who got medals?

As nobody got fired the medal question is more important. In fact I am not informed about that - but I kno about some promotions: Captain Leidig (NMCC) got Admiral, and Commander Quenneville (Otis) was upranked to the NEADS. These are only some of the leading actors.

There are more possibilities to show appreciation: money, futire posts in the industry, and: not to expse people who were on the hook anyway before because of another crime. So the simple threat of being killed is a good motivation too. We have to deal with mass murdererd, do not forget.

[The Lone Groover]

25. Nobody got fired...

...NOBODY GOT FIRED!!!!

Did I shout that loud enough?

People actually got rewarded!!!

Is this Wonderland? Are we through the looking glass?

[The Lone Groover]

32. Who got "The Defense of Liberty Medal"?

Members of the ANG?

Remarkable considering the lack of defense on 9/11.

But nobody got fired anyway. (I have to keep saying it - it might sink in with the OCTers, you never know).

[T_i_B]

33. "It's hard to believe the BBC premise that the planes couldn't have been intercepted."

That's becuase the programme never once made that premise. Indeed it actually showed that the response could have been better and if it had been, then yes they could have been intercepted.

You clearly haven't bothered to watch the documentary if you think that the programme said that the planes could never have been intercepted. Either that or you are telling porkies about the documentary.

[The Lone Groover]

39. The premise was made...

Nothing much to answer except a slap on the wrist (for who?) as far as the BBC is concerned.

Each of the topics were shown in a "nothing much - if anything - to see here" way. "Could have done better" is an outrageous position.

Damn right could have done better!

Flight 77 flew and was tracked, un-intercepted for over 40 minutes in US airspace as a known potential weapon - that is inexcusable.

Indeed it actually showed that the response could have been better and if it had been, then yes they could have been intercepted...

Now who got fired because of the pathetically inadequate response? Did the program question why some got promoted and given medals?

Did it interview anyone from Press for Truth? That is the first item of concern in that video.

Oh yeah... it's all down to incompetence.

[Bolo Boffin]

41. LG, Flight 77 wasn't tracked for forty straight minutes on 9/11.

It is possible to reconstruct 77's path from the radar records, but Flight 77 was lost by ATCs on 9/11. It wasn't reacquired by them until a few minutes before it hit. Flight 77 couldn't have been intercepted that day because for thirty minutes after it was hijacked, no one could have given intercepting jets a bearing to head towards. There was no indication that it was heading back east. The last known direction was west. It could have just as easily been flying to Chicago and flying into the Sears Tower.

[The Lone Groover]

45. Flight 77 was tracked and you know it.

There were a few minutes when the transponder was off - that is all.

But it was tracked.

You are splitting hairs again.

Who got fired?

Did the ANG get any medals?

[Bolo Boffin]

49. What?

You have no evidence for that claim. Prove it.

[ma2007]

50. Bolo`s logic again:

even IF flight 77 "was lost"

1. this is only an allegation. Is it true ? Prove that it was lost by the rardar screen tapes.

2. Radar ("primary") does not need transponders. The transponder signals give only additional targets. So a plane can be seen - and a plane without transponder sticks out of all the others with transponders. Especially since the alert was out.

3. But even if the allegation of "lost" were true, even if AAL77 got invisible somehow, even if the other (combined != radar stations would not pick it up -

WHY IS THIS NOT A CAUSE important enough to launch an AWACS ? Or just to scramble interceptors which get vectored to the place where AAL77 presumably is ? Fighter jets have theri own rardar and friend/foe systems (in wars normally the enemy fighters do not identify by transponders ...), and AWACS radar is overwhelmingly good enough to get a survey for a whole gegion. AWACS are available i.e. on Andrews AFB too.

4. That is why the simple question is good:
who got fired ?

------
additionally: I just notice Bolos #49. He addresses a claim. In fact there are different ones in LGs post. Bolo: who must prove what ? Not only in a courtroom and not by sheer deliberate will mankind agreed to logic procedures of a fair trial: those who make the allegtions of guilt have to prove their case. Those who have the evidence (here the radar screen tapes) must open them to the public.

[Bolo Boffin]

52. When Flight 77 turned off its transponder, it was in an area without primary radar.

To be precise, the ATCs in that area of the country used a system that relied on secondary radar first to track the planes. Secondary radar gets its information from the transponder. When the hijackers turned off the transponder, Flight 77 was gone from ATC screens.

And it stayed that way for 8 minutes and 13 seconds. When primary radar information (very weak in that area of the country) finally put a sounding of Flight 77 on the main ATC screen, it was due east of its last location on the screen. However, the ATCs were looking for the plane to the west of its last location, because that's the direction it was heading when the transponder was turned off.

Flight 77 was not recognized as an aircraft for 36 minutes by the ATC network.

All of these things are documentable facts. It is a refreshing change of pace to argue this the other way - usually people are waving that 36 minutes around as a time when Flight 77 could have been swapped with another plane. The two of you insisting that Flight 77 was seen the entire time by ATCs is a new one, but still as wrong as can be.

[The Lone Groover]

56. Now that all depends on which of the multiple official versions...

...of what happened to Flight 77 you want to believe.

Apart from the few minutes when the transpoder was off, Flight 77 was tracked by radar.

Flight 77 was not recognized as an aircraft for 36 minutes by the ATC network.

Nope.. it was back on the network when the transpoder came back on.

At 9.05 Flight 77 was being tracked by Leesburg ATC - but how it was handled is hard to say as the stories conflict - maybe it should be investigated properly.

To claim it was off the radar for 36 minutes is rubbish.

Anyway... someone should have been fired. If you believe the OCT this was a monumental cock-up.

Who got fired?

Nobody deserved medals.

Who got medals?

[Bolo Boffin]

60. Flight 77's transponder was never turned back on.

If you have evidence to the contrary, produce it.

[The Lone Groover]

63. You know it was! nt

[Bolo Boffin]

65. No, I don't! Prove it. Now would be good. n/t

[The Lone Groover]

67. You're right... Flight 11's transponder was switched back on...

not Flight 77... but at 9.05 Flight 77 was back on radar and was being tracked - but you know that.

Flight 77 was never lost.

It was never intercepted.

Who got fired?

[Bolo Boffin]

68. It was not being tracked. Prove otherwise. Now would be good. n/t

[The Lone Groover]

71. It was tracked from 9.05 when it appeared back on radar...

...as a target without a transponder.

But you know that.

It's distance from DC was being reported to Cheney at regular intervals from at least 50 miles out.

50 miles at 400 mph is 7.5 minutes, add to that the 2.5 minutes for the spiral descent and are already at least 10 minutes back from impact time.

Now you said it was off radar for 36 minutes... according to OCT it disappeared at 8.56. Add 36 minutes and we are at 9.32. That leaves 5 minutes before impact.

I see now why you have to discredit Mineta.

Perhaps something other than ATC's were tracking Flight 77 as well (even though Flight 77 was on ATC radar).

I would sincerely hope that if a rogue nation ever launched a hostile air strike on the US that the military would not be relying on ATC's and transponders for data about the whereabouts of airborne weapons.

Anyway up.. this was a monumental cock-up by OCT standards.

Who got fired?

[ma2007]

66. And Bolo you know too that

primary radar is the basis for the transponder fun. It is the original signal. Every radar station has primary (because some balloons, clouds and (see the military) enemies do not have transponders.

You claim: not visible for secondary AND primary radar, right ? This means that in half an hours distance to the most militarized region of the U.S.A., the capital of the most powerfull nation of the world there is no way to recognize enemies ? Are you serious ? Must I tell you about the region which is covered by Leeburg alone additionally Indianapolis plus all the smal airports in the network in between, additionally to the military ones ?

And again: even IF YOUR CLAIM WERE TRUE - it would only cause more need to scramble AWACS and interceptors to retrieve the "lost" aircraft. For sure you did not answer that argument.

[Bolo Boffin]

69. As a matter of fact, no, primary radar is not a basis for transponder "fun."

The area into which Flight 77 had flown relied on secondary radar info for the main screen. The primary radar was weak in that area, because primary radar is mostly around the coastline, where it is used to detect where the military assumed enemies would come from - outside the NORAD coverage area.

You might want to read up on how the air system worked in this country before 9/11. The threat was assumed to come from the outside. That's why the fighter jets, on being scrambled, defaulted to flying out to sea in lieu of having an actual coordinate to try and intercept -- because the threat was generally assumed to be coming from outside.

Inside, the main screens would display transponder info only, because for the needs of normal air traffic, the transponder gave all the relevant info and then some. Primary had to be added to the screen on purpose, and in that area, the primary radar signal is weak, because it's coming from radar outside the area. When you sit down with the records, Flight 77 was trackable from takeoff to crashing, but in realtime, Flight 77 disappeared from the screens, turned around, and flew undetected by ATCs for 36 minutes.

You are entitled to your own opinions, ma, but not your own facts.

[The Lone Groover]

72. Yes...

where it is used to detect where the military assumed enemies would come from - outside the NORAD coverage area.

Because no one could have imagined aircraft being hijacked within US airspace and being used as weapons.

That's why they never practiced that scenario. Did they?

[ma2007]

75. And not imaginable seems to be

for Bolo and the Bushists

- that an emergency without hijacking occurs. That is: sudden disease of the pilots, electric failure by a lightning stroke, bomb which damages parts and so on. All these emergencies which are described in the Hollywood movies.

Why the hell are the interceptor units assigned to help in these cases ? Why shall they safeguard civilian airplanes not only over the Atlantic ocean but inside the country too ? Could it possibly be dependend on the fact that problems with the radio system, with electric gear in th cockpit (like i.e. transponders) can occur everywhere ?

Air policing covers the whole territory. It is by definition complete nonsense what Bolo writes. Even without the hijacking argument.

[ma2007]

73. Just a simple question, Bolo:

about the "weak" primary radar.
You do not answer my arguments. It is easier to write letters without sense into a forum if you just ignore what the other says. I.e. that clouds (still very important in aviation) do not carry transponders but need to be detected by the ATCs.
No answer too about the need to scramble interceptors if you get "blinded" by the missing of transponder signals.


So the simple question:
Fo the radar stations with primary and secondary radar need ONe (1) or two (2) antennas ?

[MervinFerd]

28. Frothy denunciations; what about rebuttals?

The BBC piece gave the most prominent Truthers the chance to state their case; then, presented witnesses, video and photographs that directly contradicted their claims. In what regard was the BBC evidence untruthful or misleading?

FWIW: "It's hard to believe that....." is NOT a rebuttal and not evidence of anything at all. Many things that are "hard to believe" are nonetheless true.

[The Lone Groover]

30. And...

Many things that are "hard to believe" are totally false.

Lest we forget.

The BBC piece gave the most prominent Truthers the chance to state their case;

You need to read the piece on Alex Jones web site to realise what the BBC did on that program.

[ma2007]

36. Who are the most prominent - and why ?

And again: I refer to the WRITTEN statements on the BBC website. Follow the link. I have not seen the documentary yet. Better to talk about written statements anyway.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

42. There are so many factions in the Truthiness movement

so you're likely to hear many different opinions on "who should have been interviewed."

[SidDithers]

43. Splitters!!!...

REG:
Right. You're in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the fucking Judean People's Front.
P.F.J.:
Yeah...
JUDITH:
Splitters.
P.F.J.:
Splitters...
FRANCIS:
And the Judean Popular People's Front.
P.F.J.:
Yeah. Oh, yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
LORETTA:
And the People's Front of Judea.
P.F.J.:
Yeah. Splitters. Splitters...
REG:
What?
LORETTA:
The People's Front of Judea. Splitters.
REG:
We're the People's Front of Judea!
LORETTA:
Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front.
REG:
People's Front! C-huh.
FRANCIS:
Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg?
REG:
He's over there.
P.F.J.:
Splitter!


Sid

[tr-oh]

38. why fake 9/11?

So why d'y'all think bush went to the trouble of faking 9/11, but didn't fake WMDs in Iraq, which would have been much easier?

[MervinFerd]

44. DON'T ASK LOGICAL QUESTIONS! It will upset the Truthers!

They will accuse you of working for Bush, or just being a deluded Sheeple or something.

Just don't ask logical questions and you will do very well around here.

Yell "DUSTIFICATION!" at random intervals.

[The Lone Groover]

46. I have a logical question...

...how do you measure that faking WMD in Iraq is easier then faking certain aspects of 9/11?

[MervinFerd]

54. Answers.

1. Faking WMDs in Iraq, obviously, was -not- easy. Otherwise, they would have done it. It was not easy -because- any find would have been investigated by independent agencies, foreign journalists, foreign intelligence services, etc. The American Military is an independent organization with long traditions of honor and courage; one cannot assume the military would participate in a fraud. For anything found, there would be distinctive chemical traces, a paper trail indicating how it got there, workers who put it there. That would all have to be faked. AND all this evidence would have to be fabricated -somewhere- by -someone- and planted by numerous workers, any one of whom could turn whistleblower.--AND-- if any of this went wrong, which it likely would, the consequences would be disastrous.

2. Faking -anything in the comparative order and peace of the US would be vastly more difficult than in the chaos of Iraq.

3. There is no point in faking "some aspect of 911". You have to fake all of it or none of it. Why fake passenger cell phone calls if there really are hijackers on passenger planes? Why fake an airplane crash into the Pentagon if you have to hijack the jet anyway? It would be vastly simpler just to hire some suicide bombers and have them crash planes into buildings. (IOW, the CT theories do not add up to a coherent story.)

Hope this helps.

[The Lone Groover]

57. No... I've got a problem with your unit of measure...

...for how difficult faking something is.

There is no point in faking "some aspect of 911". You have to fake all of it or none of it.

Only if you believe every single theory about 9/11.

I'm only being logical.

You understand logic.. don't you?

Yes of course you do, you said so in a previous post. You are logical and "conspiracy theorists" are not logical. It all makes sense.

[MervinFerd]

58. -23 points: Obtuseness. Poor reading comprehension.

"Only if you believe every single theory about 9/11."

No. It's all interconnected.

If there were real hijackers, hijacking real jetliners, there would be no need to fake anything; if the hijackings were fake, then -everything- has to be fake.

Isolated events, like the crash in Pennsylvania could be faked, but "Why?".

[The Lone Groover]

59. Nope...

No. It's all interconnected.

Bollocks it is - only for OCTers wo want to make out "Conspiracy Theorists" believe it all - even the disinfo.

But you're the logical one.

"Obtuseness"

MervinFerd has accused me of being obtuse!

As Captain Kirk once said... "Physician heal thyself".

[The Lone Groover]

51. Hello MervinFerd,

...can you answer my logical question please?

[rman]

53. Apparently, faking WMDs was not necessary

Though there's speculation that they tried and failed due to interference from the likes of Valery Plame.

Without 9/11 as the new "Pearl Harbor" the neocons would have had no plausible cause to invade Afghanistan and Iraq.
Heck, even in the case of Pearl Harbor, just that was enough to enter WW2 - they didn't need additional evidence to show that Japan was a threat.

[MervinFerd]

55. No, it wasn't. They got what they wanted by manipulating...

public perceptions with ambiguous and "cherry-picked" evidence.

They got in trouble when they made a statement that could be objectively proven to be false--uranium ore from Niger.

This worked before the invasion; once the US military ran the place they had to produce solid proof, which they could not do.

[JackRiddler]

61. Why display your ignorance?

The chief field inspector for the UN mission to disarm Iraq in the years 1993-1998, Scott Ritter, once explained to me at length, before the Iraq invasion, why the US could not fake or plant chemical or biological weapons in Iraq and get away with it. These weapons exhibit specific signatures from manufacturing process, changes in location, and time. There is no way to, for example, fake gas made by an Iraqi process in 1997 and aged by six years before it is found "coincidentally" by a UK unit or a UN inspection. The US case for invading Iraq faced international opposition. To make a claim of finding WMDs credible, the US would have had to put it up to the scrutiny of UN teams. The deception would have been exposed.

The alternative was simply to claim finding WMDs without allowing international scrutiny. Ritter predicted this would happen, and indeed in 2003 the US military produced a variety of bogus reports about finding "substances" that must be the longed-for WMDs. These reports had the intended, limited success of convincing the already once-suckered supporters of the war at home. This is why even to this day, certain proportions of people in polls think WMDs were found in Iraq. However, of course these reports were not followed up with any international scrutiny, and no one in the world outside the FOX-viewing segment of the US public believed it.

Beyond this, all countries of the Security Council, regardless of whatever statements their diplomats may have made, were well aware that all Iraqi WMDs and delivery systems and the country's entire technical capacity for build WMDs had been fully explored and destroyed by the UN teams by 1998. As soon as this "mission accomplished" point was reached, Ritter was ordered to fake an Iraqi provocation to help justify Clinton's bombing of Iraq - interesting, isn't it? Ritter resigned and produced a great documentary, In Shifting Sands, which though it is largely his personal testament is also impossible to argue with, since he knows exactly whereof he speaks.

Ritter said the only trace WMDs that might be left in the country after 1998 would be stores that the Iraqis themselves had genuinely lost track of. All of the players prior to the 2003 invasion knew the WMD show was a farce, and it would have been foolhardy for the US to claim finding them after the invasion.

Sept. 11th is different because it is a "surprise attack" on domestic territory, very shocking and horrific to everyone who witnesses it live on TV all around the world. The first instinct for most people is to sympathize with the victims, not to doubt their government's story. Officials of foreign powers who do doubt are at first going to be terrified of expressing that in public, understanding the stakes implied by a false-flag attack of this magnitude on a superpower that clearly intends to launch a global war "in response."

And anyway the information vectors are firmly in the hands of US authorities and they are free to withhold, release or fabricate information as they wish, and expect a) the media to transmit it, especially in an "emergency" atmosphere and b) the foreign allies not to question it, for their own reasons.

[MervinFerd]

62. Well, you started off great...

But you end with irrationality.

Just why do you think that "US authorities...are free to withold, release or fabricate information as they wish" within the US, but not in Iraq?

Who are "US authorities'?

Do you imagine that the agencies responsible for fabricating information are composed of 1000s of robot clones who will, with certainty, keep quiet--even about a horific crime?

Do you not think that there are intelligence agencies from many countries with information about this event? Are they -all- silent too?

You make no sense.


Jeebus H Krist on a falling A-bomb wearing a uniform and waving a cowboy hat!

[The Lone Groover]

64. Actually... that was a great post by JR.

He has perhaps helped you in your logical struggle as a way of measuring faking ability.

You never know.

[MervinFerd]

70. So, what part of 911 could "American Authorities" have faked? And,...

how would they have done it?

The answer will help me with my measurement difficulties.

[The Lone Groover]

74. You're the logical one...

...use your logic to work it out.

"conspiracy theorists" aren't logical.