Oooh~~~Forbidden Stuff
This YouTube guy, has some of the really interesting stuff you won’t see in the fore.
Look, its not going away, sorry. We’re gonna have to deal with it and it won’t be pretty.
July 31st, 2007 by Cliff Lyon 
Cliff Lyon
July 31st, 2007 by Cliff Lyon Cliff Lyon
This YouTube guy, has some of the really interesting stuff you won’t see in the fore.
Look, its not going away, sorry. We’re gonna have to deal with it and it won’t be pretty.
August 1st, 2007 at 2:43 pm
I’m at the office, no access to YouTube. However, let me offer a link to the NIST FAQ. It answers all of the questions raised by those who suspect the World Trade Center towers were brought down by explosives planted ahead of time.
August 1st, 2007 at 4:36 pm
Richard,
I can’t believe you are giving me the NIST report. Do you not understand that their job is to fabricate the perfect lie?
Are you going to believe your eyes, or the kind of crap below: (from the NIST report)
On Thermite
“Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive.”
On molten medal:
“There is no evidence of similar molten liquid pouring out from another location in WTC 2 or from anywhere within WTC 1. ”
On the steel beams being cut:
“The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing. ”
“While NIST has found no evidence of a blast or controlled demolition event, NIST would like to determine the magnitude of hypothetical blast scenarios”
August 1st, 2007 at 5:07 pm
“do not believe anything until it is officially denied”
Otto von Bismarck.
August 1st, 2007 at 9:22 pm
OK, Cliff, I watched this video. It was a complete waste of time.
On YouTube the video is modestly titled “Conspiracy Fact: The Bush Administration Planned 9/11.†Obviously the arguments presented fall far short of the conclusion. They are snippets of various talks. The speaker is not identified by name, so I’ll just call him YouTube Guy.
Intro: “I don’t deal in conspiracy theory, I deal in conspiracy fact… They say it’s impossible to have a conspiracy of this size with thousands of people knowing and somebody would have talked—and my answer is, you bozos, you buy it the line every time, don’t you?â€
So, what does YouTube Guy know that we don’t know? Nothing, it turns out.
YouTube Guy says the NORAD response was “paralyzed†by exercises, and there were not enough fighters to shoot down four airliners over New York and Washington.
NORAD was unprepared because the last time the military got a call from the FAA about a hijacking was 1993. The military cannot shoot down a civilian plane without an order from the National Command Authority anyway. NEADS, the Northeast Air Defense Sector, was notified about American Airlines Flight 11 only nine minutes before it hit the WTC. That was the most notice they had about any of the hijacked planes, not enough time to get authority to shoot. NEADS only found out about United Flight 93 after it had already crashed, however with incomplete information VP Cheney did authorize the Air Force to shoot it down (but the pilots never received the order).
NEADS scrambled two F-15s at Otis AFB in Massachusetts and two more at Langley AFB in Virginia. Andrews AFB in Washington independently scrambled fighters from the DC Air National Guard on orders from the Secret Service. More NEADS fighters got airborne in Ohio and Michigan to intercept another plane that turned out not to have been hijacked.
Bottom line—the FAA and NORAD were unprepared and surprised but not the least bit paralyzed. (Source: 9/11 commission report)
Footnote #116 (Chapter 1) in the 9/11 commission report is a lie.
Here is the complete footnote: “On 9/11, NORAD was scheduled to conduct a military exercise, Vigilant Guardian, which postulated a bomber attack from the former Soviet Union. We investigated whether military preparations for the large-scale exercise compromised the military’s response to the real-world terrorist attack on 9/11. According to General Eberhardt, “it took about 30 seconds†to make the adjustment to the real-world situation. Ralph Eberhardt testimony, June 17, 2004. We found that the response was, if anything, expedited by the increased number of staff at the sectors and at NORAD because of the scheduled exercise. See Robert Marr interview (Jan. 23, 2004).â€
What does YouTube Guy have? He claims the report says the exercise is called “Vigilant Warrior.†Then he says it was not Vigilant Guardian but “Northern Vigilance.†“They’re trying to confuse you again, by lying,†he says. Sounds like YouTube Guy is confused. He never touches the significant point, which is that the NORAD exercise had either no effect or a beneficial effect on response to the real-world events on 9/11.
Other than the two points above, the video presents some fragmentary stuff about aborted investigations and Dick Cheney being in charge of everything under the sun. There is nothing even slightly resembling a coherent case that the 9/11 attacks were planned and executed by the Bush administration.
August 2nd, 2007 at 12:57 am
But let’s face it Richard, if there is ANYTHING the Bush’s and Rumsfeld and Cheney and Rove are good at, it’s making sure that they are not connected directly to ANY crime that can be proved in a court. This sometimes means changing laws to make what they are doing no longer a crime, or even retroactively, (through congress), making their actions legal. You know I’m right!
If I’m not mistaken, this video was from a mock hearing Cynthia Mckinney held because none of the Republicans in congress had the guts to hold any actual hearings. Diebold machines seemed to not be working well in the last election she ran for office in, and…
Well, you know!
August 2nd, 2007 at 6:45 am
Richard,
This just one of so many hundreds of such videos and people, each focusing on any number of intersecting lies, coverups, coincidences, etc.
Loose Change is the most complete. It is as sickening to watch for those who don’t accept the official story as for skeptics .
911 Commission and NORAD contradict each other
I’m most surprised however by your retort, “the last time the military got a call from the FAA about a hijacking was 1993.” So what?
The second a plane veers off course, NORAD scrambles jets.
This routine was activated on at least 67 occasions in the year prior to June 1, 2001 and on 129 occasions in 2000. Fighters generally find their target with ten minutes. NORAD claims they didn’t get timely notice from the FAA. The FAA records have been inadvertently destroyed, and the radar data from that day was confiscated on 9/11.
Here’s another interesting tidbit that alone could be called coincidence, but in this case, is nothing but another in a long line of coincidences.
Are we finished with the NIST report problems? Have you found any reputable engineer who will endorse THAT joke?
Anyway Richard, as much as I appreciate that you are even willing to discuss this, I really don’t see the point. Certainly, there are people and resources far more expert than I.
I’ve done done the work, reluctantly, to my satisfaction. There is not single thing that convinced me, but there are many which taken together and compared with the official account, leave little question which one is more reasonable.
The main ones are (in addition to all the questions the admin won’t answer):
No evidence bin Laden did it
No plane crash parts in PA or the Pentagon
Obvious collapse all three towers by controlled demolition.
Too many coincidental and unusual emergency exercises that day
The admins refusal to release any of the 11 security videos that would show an airliner hitting the Pentagon.
The fact that none of the alleged hijackers names were on passenger lists.
And this is a really short list.
As I’ve said to you many times. I will not be the one to convince you. Only Richard will convince Richard to believe the official story or, the unimaginable. Its all there.
August 2nd, 2007 at 7:43 am
Cliff, can you cite reputable sources for anything you wrote above? Or is it from YouTube Guy? What’s his name, anyway? If “Loose Change” makes it to the theaters or DVD, I’ll watch it. But I’d prefer a book– with footnotes. It’s laughable that YouTube Guy says the 9/11 commission report is wrong because of a single alleged error in one footnote. I wondered if the editor of the video was trying to portray YouTube Guy as a scatterbrained crank.
The 9/11 Myths site debunks the nonsense about routine military intercepts of commercial flights prior to 9/11, and the idea that fighters can chase down any plane in ten minutes is a fantasy. As I mentioned, NORAD only knew about the hijacking of American Airlines Flight 11 nine minutes before it struck the WTC and had even less time to find the other three planes.
As far as the NIST report, are there any reputable engineers who disagree with the findings? I’ve never heard of one.
Let’s go over your bullet points:
No evidence bin Laden did it - We have Osama’s confession on tape, and the 9/11 commission report offers a great deal of conclusive evidence that Al Qaeda was behind the attacks.
No plane crash parts in PA or the Pentagon - I already gave you links to the photos of the evidence.
Obvious collapse all three towers by controlled demolition - The NIST investigation debunks this in detail.
Too many coincidental and unusual emergency exercises that day - No evidence these exercises had any effect on the response to the 9/11 attacks. In the case of NORAD, the 9/11 commission heard testimony that more people on duty for the exercise may have in fact helped.
The admins refusal to release any of the 11 security videos that would show an airliner hitting the Pentagon - Video was released after FOIA request.
The fact that none of the alleged hijackers names were on passenger lists - Not true, the lists were introduced as evidence at Moussawi’s trial.
According to Wikipedia, “Loose Change” makes even the YouTube Guy look reasonable. Does the film really claim that the 9/11 planes all landed safely?
August 2nd, 2007 at 8:32 am
Complicity or incompetence on the part of the administration, pick your poison.
If it incompetence it would explain all the failures in Iraq, if it is conspiracy we should be quietly impressed that we have elements within the country and without, so capable of pulling it off.
I will err on the side of incompetence, and given the clusterfuck we see in Iraq and no clear plan, steady lying, and a slipping installed government…and all this accomplished by the insurgency with AK-47, RPG-7, and old artillery rounds to make the IED.
August 2nd, 2007 at 9:56 am
How many naive people will be fooled by the inter-cuts of the uncomfortable people on the dias? How many will be thinking to question whether that footage is even from the same event as the guy’s testimony/questions to the panel?
That’s one of the dangers of the internet: users sometimes too stupid to know when they’re being taken. But I guess the bright side is that deceptive propaganda is no longer a government monopoly.
August 4th, 2007 at 6:25 am
Mr. Warnick,
Since the assassination of JFK, there are no constants in the lives and memories of Americans as sharp as our ability to recall the moment we became aware that a plane had struck the World Trade Tower.
I remember every detail of that moment and so it seems, does everyone else…except George W. Bush.
August 4th, 2007 at 11:05 am
Cliff– I think we have found the problem, our president is a freaking idiot. I’m glad you don’t believe the “Loose Change” theory that the planes never crashed.
August 4th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
I believe my eyes, and so far my eyes have never seen any plane wreckage that has ever been verified by experts as having belonged to the plane in question.
I suppose in all the drama, we forget to go back to basics.
This is how one studies the subject. Using the Internet alone, starting with a blank slate in mind, one should attempt to prove to oneself either of the conspiracy theories based upon solid, primary evidence.
If you block out everything that has been said and just look at physical evidence, there is no way you can prove that a plane hit the pentagon or crashed in PA or that planes took down 3 world trade towers.
Thats all you need to do. Then move on to theories.
August 5th, 2007 at 6:00 pm
This amount of fear-mongering is what we’ve come to? I was in DC on 9/11 - I saw the fire at the Pentagon, first-hand. I saw the burning plane as I rode, distraughtly, on an emergency vehicle as it passed the pentagon.
BELIEVE YOU ME - THAT HORRIFIC INCIDENT WAS NOT THE RESULT OF A “MISSLE” - If you, like me, had seen the fuselage and the ass-end of an airplane on fire, you would join me in contradicting the nonsense that is posted here.
August 5th, 2007 at 6:26 pm
So you say… seriously?
August 6th, 2007 at 6:45 am
Wow Seriously,
After you took off after Larry here I had to review your one other comment on this blog to see how seriously to take you.
Tell you what, when you can produce a picture of
you saw at the Pentagon, I’ll take you real seriously.
But I don’t see how you can, because there are many pix beginning immediately after impact and long before you would have “rode, distraughtly, on an emergency vehicle as it passed the pentagon,” and none of them show such a thing as you claim you saw.
Could it be you were so “distraught” you ASSUME you saw a burning plane? Because no one else did. In fact the official report says the entire plane penetrated well into the building and the airplane disintigrated hence no plane parts.
So, picture please?
August 6th, 2007 at 9:03 am
Well if the “government” would release the security video from the gas station from across the street there would not be much question would there?
Is there any explanation WHY by now it has not been released for public viewing? “Nuff said seriously,seriously is seriously full of shit.
August 6th, 2007 at 11:13 am
Cliff, two things: Larry’s coment was cryptic (at best) and, if Serious (a presumed wingnut) says he saw the tail of a large comercial aircraft sticking out of the wall of the pentagon, then there is no doubt that it was. I, myself had a similar vision but chalked it up to the new reality created only moments earlier by the republican movers and shakers.