investigate 9/11

[BeetrootsResolution]

My uncle sent me this and thought it was an appropriate time to share it with you

The Truth?

The fate of Flight 93 victims is perhaps the least mysterious, although their identification took inordinately long for a jetliner that crashed into the ground. Somerset County Coroner Wallace Miller said that the identification was originally expected to take six months. On October 26, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology DNA lab in Rockville, Maryland, which was tasked with identifying the victims using DNA testing, confirmed that 34 of the 44 people alleged to have been on Flight 93 had been identified. 1 Â

Oh, and a very neat summary of events by a poster at Blairwatch (This bit is particularly interesting: "Notwithstanding that the Pentagon is ringed by anti-missile batteries, which are programmed to destroy any aircraft entering the Pentagon?s airspace, except for any aircraft with a US military transponder. and if Flight 77 had entered the Pentagon?s airspace, it could have escaped being shot down only if officials in the Pentagon had deactivated its anti-aircraft defenses. This Pilot somehow out smarted this missile battery.")

hmm...interesting...

Aloha's article...it seems to suggest that this woman who made the error wasn't alerted of this until 2003...thats 2 years her error went unnoticed...or is it just that it didn't need justifying until it was questioned?? Confused!

oops! sorry i'm not wwjd. I was saying that i said something sophable was agreeing with. Sorry for crossed wires! lost track of this thread now...

The 9/11 Family Steering Committee still has lots of unanswered questions too - they don't want to sweep it all under the carpet either.

"After three years of work toward making America more secure, the FSC is transitioning in order to address issues such as the release of the still embargoed 9/11 CIA and FAA reports; terrorist financing; immigration reform; the remaining recommendations of the 9/11 Commission; and other issues that continue to emerge. Although the FSC as a group will no longer exist, many of us will continue to work individually and through other 9/11 related groups for these causes"

(January 2005)

with regard to WTC7 here is the part of the fema report Page 20 shows a photo with 'smoke plume from south face of WTC7' (this looks to me like the smoke and dust from the collapse of the twin towers)
page 21 shows a dark plume of smoke 'rising from it [WTC7]) but the lighter smoke is from the collapse of the 2 towers (????)

Much is made of the damage to the south side but the report indicates that the collapse started on the east side - read the 'probably collapse sequence' on page 30 (sounds like a fit up )

I'm no expert but if a building was collapsing on one side why would it come down as uniformly as WTC7 did?

oh the report also opens saying there were 'no casualties from WTC7'

Cue for me to repeat:

For the FEMA report to say there were no casualties, after there had been a Congressional report specifying that there had (no date on FEMA report but quoted dates include April 25 02), is a bit odd, don't you sceptics think? Come on, let's hear the rational explanations!

(Nothing to do with many more people hearing that first line of the FEMA report than the Congressional record, and that as there was absolutely no good reason for him to have been there, it was better ignored?)

do you know (not of any relevance but hey)
My dd1 was born on 9/12.
We had a minutes silence in the hospital and I had to try and keep her quiet!

Have a look on youtube, at Steven Jones's views on things...he is very convinced the towers were all demolished. A lot of his clips are fairly long but he is very interesting.

his stand down

apologies if this link has been provided before

Guardian 5/9/06

They didn't use cellphones (except at the point where the plane flew low). They used the phones installed in the plane, specifically for use on a plane. It was in my link. What are you saying here? That the bereaved family simply made up the calls? That they are in this 'conspiracy' too?

Surely the absence or presence of wreckage does not support the theory that the plane was shot down. People saw the plane, spoke to the passengers and it was seen by air traffic control. Are people suggesting there was no plane?

Re the other plane, the journalist involved attempted to clear up the error long before 2003.

WCPO's Liz Foreman posted the original news report stating that United 93 had landed in Cleveland, but says the whole thing was just a simple mistake on a very confusing day.

"The story stated that flight 93 landed in Cleveland," admits Foreman on her station's blog. "This was not true." She claims it was an error in the Associated Press wire report that was corrected in later updates. After she discovered the mistake, she removed the link to the story, but not the story itself; Google searches still found it on WCPO's site until 2003, when someone alerted her to the number of conspiracy blogs that had picked it up. Foreman deleted it, but the damage was done.

"Messages and phone calls started coming in about "Why did the government make me remove the story?'" she writes. "So, in the interest of media transparency, this is my attempt to clear the air."
thought it was time to set the record straight on a website error that's gotten out of hand.

I've been getting calls and e-mails for several years, all from folks who have seen my byline on a story (Plane Lands In Cleveland; Bomb Feared Aboard) about Flight 93, the plane that crashed in a Pennsylvania field on September 11, 2001.

The story in question, an Associated Press bulletin, was posted on WCPO.com during the morning of September 11, 2001. The story stated that Flight 93 landed in Cleveland. This was not true.

Once the AP issued a retraction a few minutes later, we removed the link.

There were two problems:

1)I only removed the link TO the story. We did not remove the story itself. This was my error probably due to the busy nature of the day - I was the only person updating the website until about noon that day, and things were crazier than they?d ever been.

2. The byline was incorrect. In my haste, I pasted the ?Reported by: 9News Staff? byline from a previous story, but this was actually an Associated Press story.

Sometime in 2003 I received an e-mail inquiring about the story. I quickly removed the story, and wrote back to the person, thanking them for the heads up about the incorrect story.

Things didn't stop there.

Messages and phone calls started coming in about "Why did the government make me remove the story?" As is the nature of the net, folks had gotten a hold of the old story and posted it on their own blogs, fueling even more interest in the situation.

So, for everyone who is still wondering about this story, here are some frequently asked questions. I'm hoping this clears everything up once and for all!

FAQ

1. Where did the original story come from?

The story was an Associated Press bulletin that came across the news wires. Associated Press is a news service that many news organizations subscribe to for non-local news. The idea is that a local news organization can?t possibly have reporters everywhere in the world, so for that reason, we publish stories written by Associated Press journalists.

1. So you didn?t report the story yourself?

No, I work at the website in Cincinnati. I generally do not do any reporting out in the field. Also, I was not in Cleveland, nor does WCPO-TV have a Cleveland-based reporter. If you?re not familiar with the geography of Ohio, Cleveland is a good four hours away from us.

There were two problems:

1. I only removed the link TO the story. We did not remove the story itself. This was my error probably due to the busy nature of the day - I was the only person updating the website until about noon that day, and things were crazier than they?d ever been.

2. The byline was incorrect. In my haste, I pasted the ?Reported by: 9News Staff? byline from a previous story, but this was actually an Associated Press story.

1. Why didn?t you remove the problem story page from the outset?

My mistake, that?s why. I removed the link TO the story, but didn?t remove the actual story. Then, the story page was indexed by the major search engines. I didn?t even know the story hadn?t been removed until after I was contacted by a member of the public.

1. Why DID you remove the page?

Because it was in error.

1. Why did you create this FAQ page? Isn?t that just fueling the fire?

I?ve been getting a ton of phone calls and e-mails about this recently and answering everyone would make it hard for me to get my day job ? running the website ? accomplished. Also, unlike the old media paradigm, which is ?ignore it and it?ll go away,? the Internet means a two-way conversation with our website users. So, in the interest of media transparency, this is my attempt to clear the air. blogs.scripps.com/wcpo/staff/2006/02/wcpocoms_flight_93_story.html

Were all the eyewitness who SAW the plane lying?

I do find the assertions that the phone calls to relatives were all made up are the most absurd thing of all, frankly. If the phone calls were real, the plane was real. Shot down or not.
Actually I can't believe I'm debating the existence of planes that people saw. People even seem to be doubting the existence of the planes that hit the twin towers!

agree with yo u100% aloha. How can people think that thousands of New Yorkers (some of the most media savvy people on the planet) were duped into 'seeing' the two planes?? the mind boggles.

quote from the Blairwatch stuff "Somehow these hijackers learned how to fly and navigate these jumbo jets without the aid of air traffic controllers." What? You don't need Air Traffic Control help to fly a plane. ATC are there to stop pilots crashing into things...

did someone say the planes didn't exist? that is barmy

there was something about phones not working though at that high up in the sky -

Well I doubt that the twin towers actually existed at all now! All those Manhattan Skyline posters are obviously fakes. There are so many inconstancies between images I feel like a fool for believing the lie for so long!, They are part of the whole conspiracy; made up just so some fake terrorists could fake them falling down in the first place..you still with me?

You only need ATC if you are going to follow a flight plan that they dictate!

Dh has always said that they could have crashed the planes as they did with minimal training. His comment is that landing a plane is the thing that takes skill.

As I mentioned eons ago on this thread, I have seen my ds (age 6 with no flight training) 'fly' a comericial flight simulator (ie the one the pilots train on)into a pretend building that was far smaller than the twin towers

The conspiracy stuff is full of this type of assertion that, when you think about it for a minute, just doesn't make sense. 'they did it without air traffic control!' (well, yes...) 'they went into a bit of the Pentagon that had just been strengthened/renovated!' (So?)

Yes, I have no doubt that there are things the US government want to keep secret. Perhaps it had more warnings than it wants to let us know. Maybe the army did shoot down the plane in the end (that at least would make sense), maybe it is embarrassed at its own incompetence. Perhaps they could and should have identified the hijackers earlier in their careers in the US. But to believe, on no real evidence, that the US government orchestrated this whole, giant, impossibly complex murder plot.

Cue for me to repeat again:

I am old enough to remember TV progs by Eric Von Daneken (sp???) He used to make these sorts of vast leaps. 'Here we have a very well made wall, better than any others in the area' jump to 'Aliens made it'

The same thing with this conspiracy....someone made an error in the BBC listing a name incorrectly. Jump to, The cia killed thousands of people so that they could invade Iraq (forgetting that this didn't lay a trail to Iraq, but there you go!)

aloha, they flew all the way around the Pentagon in order to hit that bit - they could have flown straight into the side where Rumsfeld's office was.

Have you looked at any of my links recently?