hobo knife

Cheney is saying they made that decision on the day of the attacks, they did deploy fighter jets, and the fighter jets did supposedly have orders to destroy an airliner as a last resort. They happened to have deployed the fighter jets too late. I don't have to prove they confiscated all the film the simple fucking fact that no film was released is proof. If they didn't confiscate all the film then why didn't some of it get released to the media? Why wouldn't they release the footage from the gas station? If you know they can have fighter jets in the air that fast then why didn't they have them in the air an hour and a half after the first planes were hijacked? <!--QuoteBegin-Stereotype V.001@Jan 31 2006, 02:28 PM Don’t you think the flight instructors, who didn’t have any red flags go up when their students did not want to learn how to land, are maybe, just maybe trying to make themselves look better? Naaaah. Quoted post Of course. Why the fuck does that make the flight instructors look better? "Yeah they were really bad pilots, they didn't even want to learn how to land, but we passed them anyway." That really doesn't make any sense. Wouldn't they say the pilots were exceptional and the fact they didn't want to learn how to land was overlooked because of their skill?

^^^haha...yeah, ....scientists you can keep your fine and dandy "science"!!!

Here is the relevant excerpt from 'Meet the Press' Sept. 16 2001: "Mr. Russert: What's the most important decision you think he made during the course of the day? "Vice Pres. Cheney: Well, the--I suppose the toughest decision was this question of whether or not we would intercept incoming commercial aircraft. "Mr. Russert: And you decided? "Vice Pres. Cheney: We decided to do it. We'd, in effect, put a flying combat air patrol up over the city; F-16s with an AWACS, which is an airborne radar system, and tanker support so they could stay up a long time... "It doesn't do any good to put up a combat air patrol if you don't give them instructions to act, if, in fact, they feel it's appropriate. "Mr. Russert: So if the United States government became aware that a hijacked commercial airline[r] was destined for the White House or the Capitol, we would take the plane down? "Vice Pres. Cheney: Yes. The president made the decision...that if the plane would not divert...as a last resort, our pilots were authorized to take them out. Now, people say, you know, that's a horrendous decision to make. Well, it is. You've got an airplane full of American citizens, civilians, captured by...terrorists, headed and are you going to, in fact, shoot it down, obviously, and kill all those Americans on board? "...It's a presidential-level decision, and the president made, I think, exactly the right call in this case, to say, "I wished we'd had combat air patrol up over New York." --NBC, 'Meet the Press' 16 September 2001 (1) Alternate link: http://emperors-clothes.com/9-11backups/nbcmp.htm And, you're right, I mistakenly said that wedge of the pentagon was empty... that's not true. That's only because I haven't even thought about all this stuff since I first looked into it... here's some of the info I was getting at. "This was a terrible tragedy, but I'm here to tell you that if we had not undertaken these efforts in the building, this could have been much, much worse," Evey said. "The fact that they happened to hit an area that we had built so sturdily was a wonderful gift." The rest of the Pentagon would not have fared as well. The fire that swept through the building caused the greatest damage in an unrenovated section with no sprinkler system, heavy windows or steel reinforcements. But many of the offices there were empty in anticipation of the renovation. While perhaps 4,500 people normally would have been working in the hardest-hit areas, because of the renovation work only about 800 were there Tuesday, officials said. [LATimes]http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-091601pentagon,0,2818328.story oh and I also mistakenly said the CIA collected video after the crash, it was the FBI, Velasquez says the gas station's security cameras are close enough to the Pentagon to have recorded the moment of impact. "I've never seen what the pictures looked like," he said. "The FBI was here within minutes and took the film." http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/20...repentagon.html I don't know if they collected other videos, I read somewhere they confiscated a hotel video that showed the crash...but the pentagon had a lot more cameras, not just one. They had cameras with better vantage points that would have shown the crash in clear view, not to mention whatever videos the fbi confiscated minutes after the crash. So why did they only release 5 frames from one security camera? And I love the way you took a shot at the freedom of information act for allowing the terrorists to target a section of the pentagon...I'm sure Rush would join you in disgust. And LSD? College Exams? "You can't magically have fighter jets in the air within a few hours, nevermind a matter of minutes" Do you make this stuff up as you go along? Or is this a fact that you can back up with links? Or since your a grunt in the military you just know stuff like this already, bra. I will admit that I wasn't aware they had FAA pilots licenses, and they had logged so many hours of flight simulator training. Although, the pentagon crash has been called a very difficult stunt and would require a seasoned pilot, not someone called incompetent by his flight school instructors.

An example of how the air defense network normally responds to domestic emergencies is illustrated by the well-reported 1999 case of Payne Stewart's Lear jet. When the golfer's jet failed to respond to air traffic controller communications, F-16 interceptors were quickly dispatched. According to an Air Force timeline, a series of military planes provided an emergency escort to Payne's stricken Learjet starting about 20 minutes after contact with his plane was lost. I guess you should have done more research involving flight interceptions before "you served me" with your favorite movie. Prove the CIA collected all the video of the crash? haha...ok, I'll just ask them to release some more footage...maybe this time they'll release more than 5 frames of some shitty security camera 200 yards away. your 30 seconds of googling produced some shit from the 911 commission and some cnn list of casualties? And can you honestly say that when you googled those links your mind wasn't previously made up? I didn't say arguments supporting the official story were hard to find, even someone as un-biased as yourself managed to find them in 30 seconds.

haha, whoa, what are you 12?

haha..oh, yeah, great point! Thanks for putting an end to the debate, you're right...the fact that osama bin laden hasn't come forward and explained to us what it was that hit the pentagon explains everything.... It's awesome that you don't have to argue any other point ...if it wasn't a plane then obviously Osama would tell us what it was. end of discussion.

oh man... I probably got myself on all types of gov't watch lists with all the research I did on this a year ago... There are pretty good arguments supporting both the official(officialy bullshit)story and lots of the other explanations of what happened. Although in my mind there are some questions that the official story just can't explain. All the "conspiracy theories" may not be 100% true but neither is the official story, therefore the gov't has something to hide; most likely their involvement. I don't think the absence of the plane is such a big issue...it's other things....such as why didn't the terrorists find out that section of the pentagon was empty? all that planning just to attack some empty offices. And why did they circle the pentagon and make a very difficult descent and bring the "757" within 10 feet of the ground to strike the bottom floor of the outer ring? They approached from the north and saw the pentagon but decided to circle around to hit the empty south side?? How could this pilot with no flying experience pull that off? Why did our defenses fail? we had over an hour to deploy fighter jets around our capital when we were obviously under attack, there is an airforce base responsible for defending washington just a mile or two away from the pentagon, yet with four planes hijacked we didn't put fighter jets over DC? then they start flying into buildings and there is one headed towards DC and we still didn't have any fighter jets. bullshit. ...Then whats even better is, we were so slow to defend the pentagon, but yet within minutes the fucking cia collected every video camera that could have gotten footage of the attack. ...hahahah.... how stupid do you have to be to believe the official story????

The media does cater to sensationalism, I don't doubt that, and if Ted Turner was caught with a prostitute I'm sure CNN would cover it just like every other station. But, what I don't think these larger corporations are willing to do is investigative reporting on touchy subjects which, A) might effect legislature concerning their subsidiaries B) might upset some of their corporate partners C) might cause a public uproar and shift US policy ...for instance, I highly doubt NBC will ever be able to afford to upset the pentagon in any way, seeing that GE is granted billions in gov't contracts every year...they pretty much do what they are told. In fact the line between big business and politics is so blurred that US foreign/domestic/environmental policy is generally in the same interest as GE/Ted Turner/Rupert Murdoch/CBS... ...it's understood what is acceptable to do investigative reporting on, thats why all these scandals and appearent cover-ups are only headlines for a week before they get shoved out of our memory and hardly ever mentioned again. So, yeah the TV news will report what the public wants to hear, but they understand very clearly when to drop it and move on to the next big story. Like the tax cuts...or cheney's secret energy meetings...or Bush's deep ties with ken lay... or what Bush's siblings do... or his grandfather... or Bush's dad's involvement in Iran/contra... or all the missing money in Iraq... or the gas pipeline in afgahnistan... or why Bush allowed Osama's family to fly out of the country on Sept. 12... Or the shotty elections... I can't say what direct connection some of the media giants have to all these scandals but I'm sure there is some reason why they won't investigate any further than whatver the status quo was. In some cases it's probably public image matter, that they don't want to make waves and lose conservative advertisers... But I agree you have to get your news from multiple places, the TV is where you can get your daily dose of sensationalism and a quick blurb about what happened today.

well... Maintstream media might be biased towards the green. Believe it or not I think there are some media sources truely concerned with being unbiased, but they aren't the ones on TV. I'd venture to say most americans (at least most of the republicans) get their news from the TV. But...the mainstream media is also owned by multi-nat'l corporations who have vested interests in how the american public interprets news. So in a sense they are driven not just by money, but by their own investments...ie. iraq, defense industry, environmental regulations. I'm not sure how it breaks down anymore...G.E. owns nbc/msnbc and viacom is a subsidiary of some other corporation...I forgot..but these corporations make serious amounts of money when we go to war or when so and so gets elected or when environmental regulations are lifted... therefore they under report them or spin the story in favor of some corporation and fail to mention their parent company also owns said corporation. But then the media makes us really mad about gay people and liberals and demonstrators and when celebrities break up. So then really confused people log on to internet forums and bitch about welfare abusers and the liberal media and why our new strategy in iraq will work....haha.

What movie about the one guy from germany are you talking about? And you think washington couldn't keep a secret?...I'm not saying anything about conspiracies here but, I assure you "washington" has plenty of secrets.

^^yeah, really....thats more or less the point I was trying to make a week ago... "domestic spying" has been going on for a long long time. All the CIA has to do is get a warrant from a judge. And then they can spy on akhbar or timothy or whoever the warrant is for, whether they are a citizen or not. The law says a warrant must be issued before they can spy on someone...not that the person must be living here illegaly before they can spy on them. I'm sure after 911 it's much easier to obtain a warrant anyways. I guess the Bush administration finds it easier to just go ahead and break the law...and then later on they will explain to us why it doesn't matter and how that law was what caused 911 in the first place. So it's not a question of wether the gov't can keep an eye on suspicous people(they already do) the question is should they be able to break laws behind our back and spy on EVERYONE without anyone knowing. And that is a good point, we're not going to be able to stop terrorism completely. So these laws will keep getting more and more invasive. Another point, how many domestic acts of terrorism have been commited? All the abortion clinic bombings, timothy mcveigh, altlanta's olympic park, or what about all of the race crimes in this countries past. Isn't that good enough reason to put everyone under 24 hour surveillance.

You're simplifying what I said to support your argument. We're not talking about just any "dang ole towel head" (although that is a very clever slur)....we're talking about someone who was suspected of having direct ties to al-queda...and was being watched years before 911 even happened. So this guy was in new york city(which alqueda had attacked once already) he was leaving the country and returning frequently, and you're saying that a judge wouldn't have issued a warrant to keep an eye on an al-queda foot soldier? I'm not really that opposed to what Bush has actualy done here...It doesn't surprise me that they want to monitor int'l calls, especially calls to middle eastern countries. It's the principle though, that they are breaking the law behind our back, and tightening the noose around the public's privacy. If you're so opposed to big gov't you should be concerned that they granting themselves the power to monitor your every move. And it's all being done in the name of patriotism. You want to be protected by the gov't? Then tell them to stop conquering other countries and creating massive amounts of future terrorists in the process. Or maybe you want more war and violence because you get off on it...lets go kill some towel heads. yeah.

If we were tracking Zacharious Moussaui years before 911 and we knew he was linked to al-queda...I'm sure once he entered and re-entered the country (EVEN IF HE WAS HERE LEGALLY) a court would have granted a warrant to keep him under surviellance. I think it was still legal even way back in 2001 to spy on americans IF they recieved a warrant. And I'm sure they could have gotten a warrant issued to watch an al-queda operative. So, your wrong. The CIA could have been watching the terrorist cells legally...and even if they were watching illegaly, I assure you someone, anyone, could have bent the rules and swept it under the rug just to keep an eye on al-queda(sp?). But, no, of course your attitude seems to be it's not Bush, or our gov'ts fault. It's the goddamn liberals fault 911 happened. Use some common sense. EDIT: after reading my post I'll take back my statement that you're wrong...you are most likely wrong. ha. But seriously...though.

Man... ...fox news doesn't lean a little too far to the right. Fox news is not a news agency. They don't "lean" either way. Fox news only exists to benefit the republican agenda. End of story. Most other major news agencies don't report liberal news, especially tv news agencies. I wish I could drill that through peoples heads. Liberal news might really discuss what happened in the 2000 and 2004 elections. They might discuss the Bush family history. They might discuss what the tax cuts are doing to lower and middle class america. They might investigate the official story of 911 and why so many things don't add up. Or maybe why corporations these days have more rights than humans do. Or look into which social programs are being cut in order to pay for an illegal war based on (lies) bad intelligence, in which a lot of the contracts have been awarded to our vice presidents company. Or bush's dui in texas, or cocaine habit in college, or the fact he was a fucking cheerleader. Why don't they do some reports about how walmart is putting so many small business' under and the gov't hasn't stepped in to stop it. Or the fact that a few mega-corporations own 90% of the media and control what most americans are exposed to. ..blah blah blah. I know a few of these stories have been glossed over during a 3 minute segment on 20/20...but a lot of this should be headline news night after night with real investigating going on.

Freedom. Iraq is free now.

I wonder if just being a member of the NRA increases your chances of suicide and or death by firearm. Modern day militias are really pointless. If guns aren't needed for self protection then why do you guys keep using this milita argument for owning guns? Are you guys gonna defeat the dea/fbi when they kick your doors in? Or is the point that if we all had guns we would all be safe from each other and the gov't? I agree guns are cool. They look cool, they are capable of shooting bullets (which is really cool) and they are made to kill things. That IS cool. And if we all had one we could resort to our guns when we feel threatened, I can't think of a better scenario....americans scared shitless by their gov't and stockpiling automatic rifles with an endless supply of bullets. So that one day...when our gov't has the strongest most deadly military ever, we can rise up.... ....and then die. yay. And in the meantime, while we stock our ammo and guns we'll be tricked into voting republican (so we can keep our sacred guns) and allow our gov't to strip us of REAL NATURAL RIGHTS.

I don't want to find where you've been stealing ideas from. I don't want to read your posts.

Man...calm down. First of all you just (mistakenly) inferred something about me and why I'm even posting...appearantly to strengthen your argument... Second, I was refering to your entire demeanor...the fact that you're so charged of conservative anger and libertarian ideals. Political propaganda(liberal or conservative) usually tries to spark some sort of distaste for the opposition. And the reason I'm coming out of the woodwork is not because you hurt my feelings(wtf? don't flatter yourself) it's because I don't pay attention to crossfire anymore b/c it's a waste of time...and I seriously advise you to stop coming in here to vent on your political views you'd probably start feeling better in general if you quit reading books like "Curious George and the Iranian funded militant group Fatah's adventure in the Caspian Region." ...but whatever kid. Keep on proving those liberals wrong...and buying those books so you can regurgitate something in your next post.

Sorry, dude, you are the one spitting out rhetoric. You are obviously way way into politics and reading....I can tell you probably read a lot of political material, that is true right? If you're not reading this stuff you must be listening to it on talk radio. Really man, it's so obvious that you haven't actually formed you own opinions, you just eat up everything you read. And then you spit back out on a forum.

Also, for all intents and purposes the rich guy living off of robbing people is statistically non-existent. The only segment that approaches this description is that of middle-class adolescents. The rest of criminals are generally in the lower income brackets. Quoted post [/b] I think "the rich guy living off of robbing people" was a reference to people like Ken Lay/ Neil Bush...Cheney....and other CEO's who continously rip off the american public by commiting white collar crime resulting in millions upon millions of dollars being stolen. Where as a poor guy robs a convenient store with a gun and steals $1,000 gets 10 years. To me large scale white collar crimes committed by people who are already multi-millionaires is much much more hienous than crimes most poor people commit (with the exception of murder, child molestation, rape) I also think, when you have a drug lord killing another drug lord...or most gang violence for that matter...is different than some psycho killing an old lady. Those dudes knew what they were involved with, and the people tookie may have killed were probably murderers themselves who would have killed him given the chance. So I strongly disagree with the death penalty in this case. I do support it in other cases but I also think a lot of innocent people have been wrongly executed.

Kabar is a scared old man who has the political attitude of a unich(sp) He's taken the path of least resistance. It must help him sleep easier.

^^true, but it almost seemed more like they wanted to lash out at the city in general for letting such a racist and twisted display of the first ammendment take place. It sucks that they couldn't just beat the shit outta the nazi's, I guess the nazi's practically had a police escort.

Your first paragraph hits the nail on the head. But in the second paragraph you seem to confuse the two parties.... It's the republicans who just engaged in an uneccesary, expensive, war that we are losing...not to mention the reasons for war were based on lies, and the real reasons are extremely obvious when considering the ancestry of our president. If thats not the most fucking irresponsible thing our gov't has done in the last 4 decades, then I don't know the definition of irresponsible. Not to mention this war is extremely immoral too. but whatever. I guess clinton was waay more irresponsible and immoral when he got his dick sucked.

well, you're right, unfortunately politics revolve around power and money. (not democracy, voting, justice, equality, freedom, liberty or anything else) But at the beginning of this thread you're spewing out rhetoric as if one party (republican) is not as guilty as the other. When in reality, in the case at hand, it is the republicans who are guilty. So what you're doing here with this thread is just continuing a retarded fucking cycle of name calling. But then later on (after the spin of the media has died down and you're not constantly exposed to the rhetoric you were regurgitating a couple weeks ago) you come to the conclusion that it's just politics as usual.

yeah, it says they banned the use of the machines. That doesn't mean the votes weren't tallied on diebold or es&s software.