IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Radar "injects", "sims" And "phantoms"

kawika
post Oct 24 2011, 09:03 PM
Post #1





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 460
Joined: 16-August 07
From: Upstate NY/VT border
Member No.: 1,719



For too long I have been hearing the story about SIMS being injected onto the ATC screens and absolutely confounding the controllers. I have suspected for some time that this was not true, so I went looking for the evidence.

I couldn't find any in the audios and transcripts. I asked several people who are familiar with this and got varying answers, but usually they could not separate the NEADS controller from the FAA when making their points.

I finally went to an ATC who was on duty on 9/11. I have confirmed this answer with others, who concur. (I am not revealing the names because I have not asked for permission to use them.)

Here is my query and the answer.

This issue keeps coming up. Can ATC see the NORAD war games injects? Can NORAD see the ATC civilian traffic?

It seems to me that ATC has enough to deal with. It would be counterproductive for them to have to work around phantoms or ghosts or SIMS.

I have listened to many tapes and read many transcripts. I have heard no references to being confused by SIMS. The one audio we are all familiar with, I am nearly certain, was a NEADS audio telling them turn the SIMS off. But now this story has infected the thinking of anyone who considers ATC activity. Am I way off base here?

I would really appreciate a tutorial or link to learn what the separation between NORAD and ATC looks like.

Thank you very much.


We don't see their SIM Targets. Even our training DYSIM lab is completely tied off of our HOST Computer so we can't even see our SIM Traffic that we use in training. When the military runs a SIM exercise we don't normally even know about them. On occasion when they want to run an exercise and if one or two of the aircraft can't make it, they cancel the exercise and run it as a SIM exercise instead.

NORAD or EADS controllers are MRU controllers and are not ATC certified. Giant Killer Controllers from the Navy are certified ATC controllers. The USAF has ATC controllers but they work at regular ATC facilities. Shaw AFB, others like that. There are some Air National Guard units as well that operate as MRU controllers. MRU is Mobile Radar Controller. Prior to 1998 they were allowed to due certain air traffic control functions like Hand-offs which they no longer can make. So they don't really separate planes. They do what is called a Transfer of Flight Information which is similar to a hand-off but not a true hand-off. We separate from most Military airspace by 3 NM and by 500 feet below Flight Level 290 and above FL290 we use 1,000 feet.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
23investigator
post Oct 25 2011, 03:33 AM
Post #2





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 377
Joined: 28-November 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,467



QUOTE (kawika @ Oct 25 2011, 11:33 AM) *
For too long I have been hearing the story about SIMS being injected onto the ATC screens and absolutely confounding the controllers. I have suspected for some time that this was not true, so I went looking for the evidence.


I would really appreciate a tutorial or link to learn what the separation between NORAD and ATC looks like.

Thank you very much.


We don't see their SIM Targets. Even our training DYSIM lab is completely tied off of our HOST Computer so we can't even see our SIM Traffic that we use in training. When the military runs a SIM exercise we don't normally even know about them. On occasion when they want to run an exercise and if one or two of the aircraft can't make it, they cancel the exercise and run it as a SIM exercise instead.

NORAD or EADS controllers are MRU controllers and are not ATC certified. Giant Killer Controllers from the Navy are certified ATC controllers. The USAF has ATC controllers but they work at regular ATC facilities. Shaw AFB, others like that. There are some Air National Guard units as well that operate as MRU controllers. MRU is Mobile Radar Controller. Prior to 1998 they were allowed to due certain air traffic control functions like Hand-offs which they no longer can make. So they don't really separate planes. They do what is called a Transfer of Flight Information which is similar to a hand-off but not a true hand-off. We separate from most Military airspace by 3 NM and by 500 feet below Flight Level 290 and above FL290 we use 1,000 feet.


Dear 'Kawika'.

It does appear what you have said was the case on 11-9-2001, from reading and listening, like you.

The radar plots that have been brought forward, seem very confusing though.

There seems to be 'stuff' going in all directions.
Took this up with 'tume', but did not really get a handle on it.

You are so right, that this needs to be really clarified, by people who really know what they are on about.

Your motion is seconded, "come on people who know what they are on about", your help is needed.

Robert S
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Oct 25 2011, 05:50 AM
Post #3





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



The notion of insertion of simulated radar targets onto ATC radar raises an interesting phenomena about 911. This is not whether this can or cannot be done... which we need to know.. but the fact that we are quick to things... almost anything... usually without attribution or vetting as *fact*. We all seem to do this.

It is somewhat understandable. If we read something written by and intelligent accomplished person, who *credentials* in some field we tend to think that they are not going to make anything up out of whole clothe. It's a kind of trust we have in the integrity and rigorousness of others.

I, for one, know next to nothing about aviation issues, and look to those who do for their expertise on these matters. If someone who has professional experience with the ATC system offers an opinion or a statement about the ATC system I can only assume it to be accurate. But perhaps not. People make mistakes. Maybe it needs to be verified by another person if the statement is key to some important larger argument.. a piece of a large puzzle.

There are some interesting *appeal to authority* issues in play in 911 research. One example which I am personally familiar with the AE911T which in its presentation of its case suggests that it has 1,600 (now and growing) licensed building professionals - architects and engineers who have been associated with and completely support their case... and have put their reputation on the line in so doing. This sounds very impressive. But it is a bit of a slight of hand. First the actual number of architects or engineers .. actual building professionals is less than 1/3 perhaps 500. The rest are engineers.. mechanical, electrical, and so forth. Second virtually none of the signers are consulted about their *case* and most have signed the petition because they support a new investigation. Some may agree with the evidence others may simply want to associate themselves with others in their profession calling for an investigation. Some even come forward and volunteer to assist. But hardly a one does any *research* or even vetting of AE911T's case. And most of that case - the Blueprint for Truth - was created by people who are not architects or building professionals... such as Jim Hoffman, Steven Jones, Niels Harrit, Jim Hoffman, David Chandler. This doesn't invalidate their work, but it does show that it was not the work of *licensed building professions*. But it is the notion that their *conclusions* are vetted and supported by 1,600 building professionals is the flawed *appeal to authority* argument in play.

We need to vet and drill down into the provenance of the *data* and statements which are at the foundation of, or make up the various *explanations* of what happened on 911.

It is heartening to see that someone is trying to vet the statement about insertion of data into ATC radar on 911... which seems possible conceptually, but is it actually possible and has it been done historically for any reason?

Thank you.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kawika
post Oct 25 2011, 09:14 AM
Post #4





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 460
Joined: 16-August 07
From: Upstate NY/VT border
Member No.: 1,719



QUOTE (SanderO @ Oct 23 2011, 08:50 AM) *
I, for one, know next to nothing about aviation issues, and look to those who do for their expertise on these matters. If someone who has professional experience with the ATC system offers an opinion or a statement about the ATC system I can only assume it to be accurate. But perhaps not. People make mistakes. Maybe it needs to be verified by another person if the statement is key to some important larger argument.. a piece of a large puzzle...


...We need to vet and drill down into the provenance of the *data* and statements which are at the foundation of, or make up the various *explanations* of what happened on 911.

It is heartening to see that someone is trying to vet the statement about insertion of data into ATC radar on 911... which seems possible conceptually, but is it actually possible and has it been done historically for any reason?

Thank you.


Here is confirmation from another ATC professional who worked in the NE sector USA.

Question:

Are the FAA and NORAD radar data processing and presentation systems "compatible",...meaning could they DIRECTLY SHARE their independently PROCESSED AND DISPLAYED RADAR DATA STREAMS?

Answer:

They cannot. They only share the basic raw radar data that is in the radar data pipelines from the selected radar antennae sites.
Therefore, ONLY NORAD [NEADS etc.] can have such radar data and alpha-numeric data displayed on its own scopes...and the same goes for the FAA...ie: only FAA radar data-alpha-numerics which have been processed by the FAA's RDP [Radar Data Processing] can be displayed onto FAA radar scopes. MEANING...there were NO RADAR INSERTS ON FAA RADAR SCOPES.


This incorrect assumption was begun by early researchers who failed to verify.


The only places that the FAA has the capacity to "insert" target and alpha-numeric data is in the simulations used for training...and we do not believe that this capability is available at the various ATC facilities around the country..They are concentrated at the FAA ATC Training facilities.



So there you have it from two independent professionals familiar with the FAA radar systems. The answers were obtained without either one having access to the other's thoughts on the matter.

My opinion is that the ATCs have been unfairly maligned. It was the military response side that was confused, failed to act in a timely manner, sent fighters away from the action, were not armed in advance and prepared to swing into action quickly.

We have all the FAA records. All we need is for researchers to pour over them and pull out the relevant facts from the day. The 9/11 Commission is the only entity that has so far had the same access. Their skewed story prevails.

It is incumbent upon us to provide the balance, refute their bare assertions and get busy prosecuting those responsible for the crimes of 9/11. 19 Muslims couldn't possibly accomplish what we witnessed. No, the ones who made this happen are alive and well. We need to root them out! No government investigation will do this for us.

Thank you for your continued interest.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Oct 25 2011, 09:47 AM
Post #5





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



QUOTE (kawika @ Oct 25 2011, 03:03 AM) *
For too long I have been hearing the story about SIMS being injected onto the ATC screens and absolutely confounding the controllers.


I don't doubt that someone may have suggested this in the past but since you are claiming this is a repeated (yet incorrect) meme can you please cite some examples with quotes where some researchers have published something stating this happened?

Also, just curious, if the anonymous alleged ATC's you spoke with were not part of the operation, why is it logical to assume they would understand the full capabilities of whomever was in control of a black operation of this magnitude?

To be clear I'm not personally suggesting they "inserted" anything on that day (nor have I ever that I can recall). I'm just curious about the logic you are using to come to your conclusion.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kawika
post Oct 25 2011, 10:17 AM
Post #6





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 460
Joined: 16-August 07
From: Upstate NY/VT border
Member No.: 1,719



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Oct 23 2011, 12:47 PM) *
I don't doubt that someone may have suggested this in the past but since you are claiming this is a repeated (yet incorrect) meme can you please cite some examples with quotes where some researchers have published something stating this happened?

Also, just curious, if the anonymous alleged ATC's you spoke with were not part of the operation, why is it logical to assume they would understand the full capabilities of whomever was in control of a black operation of this magnitude?

To be clear I'm not personally suggesting they "inserted" anything on that day (nor have I ever that I can recall). I'm just curious about the logic you are using to come to your conclusion.


The one that immediately comes to mind is Michael Ruppert. I am not suggesting he is part of any cointelpro because I can't wrap my mind around all that constantly changing possibility. I defer to you who know more about the underpinnings of disinfo and how to recognize it.

I think this misconception is generally the conclusion of many people. My opinion only.

I am basing my conclusion on what I have read and heard in the new FAA records, which is by no means a comprehensive search. I am seeking assistance.

As for the ATCs who offered their expertise on the question of inserts, of course I cannot be absolutely sure of their integrity. I am a trusting person. I ask a simple question and I expect an honest answer. The answer makes sense to me. Determining the completeness of the answer is part of the task here. Your insight is valuable too.

Your point about the ATCs not understanding the capabilities of a larger operation that they might have been a part of asks me to go beyond what is available for me to study at this time. It is entirely possible they were unwitting players. There are too many possibilities for consideration. And analyzing their motives is not the subject of this thread. The subject is whether there is evidence of ATCs having to deal with phantoms on their screens.

Thank you for touching on it anyway. Maybe we need another thread devoted to finding evidence to determine whether or not the ATCs were part of the black operation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Oct 25 2011, 11:11 AM
Post #7





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



Right, well I was just trying to understand your logic here or why you would pursue this line of inquiry in the first place.

I'm personally not aware of anyone stating that false blips known to the ATC's as being part of an exercise were a cause for confusion so if Michael Ruppert or anyone else has made that claim I'd like to see the quotes and the source to see if they provide any evidence to back it up. Do you have any quotes?

However, regardless, we still have no way of knowing whether or not false blips were inserted in real-time on that day. Assuming your off the record email discussion was with honest people, it certainly does not rule out this possibility.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kawika
post Oct 25 2011, 12:02 PM
Post #8





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 460
Joined: 16-August 07
From: Upstate NY/VT border
Member No.: 1,719



QUOTE (Craig Ranke CIT @ Oct 23 2011, 02:11 PM) *
Right, well I was just trying to understand your logic here or why you would pursue this line of inquiry in the first place.

I'm personally not aware of anyone stating that false blips known to the ATC's as being part of an exercise were a cause for confusion so if Michael Ruppert or anyone else has made that claim I'd like to see the quotes and the source to see if they provide any evidence to back it up. Do you have any quotes?

However, regardless, we still have no way of knowing whether or not false blips were inserted in real-time on that day. Assuming your off the record email discussion was with honest people, it certainly does not rule out this possibility.


Here is one quote from Crossing The Rubicon

One of the components of this drill included "false blips" (radar injects simulating aircraft in flight) placed on FAA radar screens. [21] At one point FAA head Jane Garvey said they suspected up to 11 hijackings on 9/11. Was she saying they couldn't determine which were real, which were simulated, and which were [i]live-fly military exercises?[/i]

Another one.
There were likely false blips on screen even [i]after 9:16. The Kean Commission's report introduced "phantom flight-11" as being reported by the FAA at 9:25 on 9/11. The FAA reported flight 11 was heading to Washington D.C. at that time when in fact it had already struck the World Trade Center. The Kean Commission's report stated they were "unable to locate the source of the mistaken FAA information." [23][/i]

"Phantom flight-11" was a false blip, but since the war games are classified, specific information on "false blips" and other details can't be reported.

Now imagine being an air traffic controller with both real planes and "false blips" simulating hijackings on your screens when suddenly there are real, multiple, hijackings. Where do you send the few Air Force fighters that you have? You can't guess wrong, you don't have enough assets for that. The FAA doesn't even make that decision, the military does. The Kean Commission managed to scapegoat the FAA in their report, but the Air Force itself confirmed the FAA did its job properly on 9/11 in [i]Air War Over America. [24][/i]

Source:


http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/...lify_case.shtml

This post has been edited by kawika: Oct 25 2011, 12:02 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Craig Ranke CIT
post Oct 25 2011, 12:24 PM
Post #9





Group: Contributor
Posts: 1,072
Joined: 15-October 06
Member No.: 75



Great thanks for that.

Kane certainly is suggesting in that article that false blips were definitely known to be "one of the components" of Northern Vigilance.

He cites page 339 of Crossing the Rubicon for this.

Do you have the book so you can check to see what evidence Ruppert cites for this or whether or not Ruppert is as certain about this as Kane leads on?



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Oct 26 2011, 09:45 AM
Post #10





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,940
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



I have read Ruppert's book, so maybe that's where I read about it, but it seems that I also read it in other sources, years ago. I take some notes, the old fashioned pen & paper way, but have no notes on that.

As I recall it was in the mainstream media, perhaps in conjunction with the 911 Commission, that they were experiencing phantom targets EVEN AFTER the skies were cleared of all aircraft but military.

To me the concept is simple. If indeed this was an inside job, and if most parts of the Pentagon were complicit, it seems obvious to me that they were going to tell as few people as possible about it.

Whether they actually had the power to "inject" the FAA system without the controllers knowledge seems obvious to me. We know that some management level FAA types were involved, because we know that some tapes were destroyed by management level FAA types.

Spoofing the system was the way the entire day was started, and the way that innocent FAA types were used as pawns to start the game.

It seems logical to me.

But who knows, maybe the OCT is right, and maybe those Boeing were really flying 150 knots over Vne?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
woody
post Oct 28 2011, 08:45 AM
Post #11


Woody Box


Group: Respected Member
Posts: 266
Joined: 28-August 06
Member No.: 20



QUOTE (kawika @ Oct 25 2011, 05:02 PM) *
Here is one quote from Crossing The Rubicon

One of the components of this drill included "false blips" (radar injects simulating aircraft in flight) placed on FAA radar screens. [21] At one point FAA head Jane Garvey said they suspected up to 11 hijackings on 9/11. Was she saying they couldn't determine which were real, which were simulated, and which were [i]live-fly military exercises?[/i]

Another one.
There were likely false blips on screen even [i]after 9:16. The Kean Commission's report introduced "phantom flight-11" as being reported by the FAA at 9:25 on 9/11. The FAA reported flight 11 was heading to Washington D.C. at that time when in fact it had already struck the World Trade Center. The Kean Commission's report stated they were "unable to locate the source of the mistaken FAA information." [23][/i]

"Phantom flight-11" was a false blip, but since the war games are classified, specific information on "false blips" and other details can't be reported.

Now imagine being an air traffic controller with both real planes and "false blips" simulating hijackings on your screens when suddenly there are real, multiple, hijackings. Where do you send the few Air Force fighters that you have? You can't guess wrong, you don't have enough assets for that. The FAA doesn't even make that decision, the military does. The Kean Commission managed to scapegoat the FAA in their report, but the Air Force itself confirmed the FAA did its job properly on 9/11 in [i]Air War Over America. [24][/i]

Source:


http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/...lify_case.shtml


This "phantom flight 11", reported to NEADS at 9:21 by our buddy Colin Scoggins, was certainly no radar insert, but just a misinformation. Scoggins himself belonged to Boston Center, which is not responsible for the Baltimore airspace, and he himself was not looking at a radar screen, but just transmitting information from the Boston TMU or, possibly, the military. I personally believe that Scoggins' misinformations (the phantom flight 11 is just one of them) were part of the ongoing exercises to confuse NEADS and test their ability to react in a non-standard situation. Also, this phantom flight 11 is not reported with one word by Washington Center, the FAA center in charge for the area.

Regarding Ruppert (I read Crossing the Rubicon years ago, but haven't got it now), I remember that his insert theory was based on only one article of a a certain newspaper (Toronto Star?). And shoestring's interpretation of the "sim switches" as radar inserts is not necessarily right. "sim switches" could also have been switches to expose live-fly hijack simulations or any other input related to the exercises.

My opinion is that there may have been radar inserts or not, but that they're not really important, compared to the huge evidence for real live-fly hijack simulations/swapped planes, as revealed by the pilots, CIT, myself, and others. But they get a great welcome by the Hoffman/911blogger gang because they're compatible with their LIHOP scenario.








Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Oct 28 2011, 09:30 AM
Post #12





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,940
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



My opinion is that the inserts, assuming that they actually did happen, were the first domino in the very long line of dominos that subsequently fell. I think think they were critical to the initiation of the day's events, primarily because they were the mechanism by which many many innocents within the ATC system were made pawns in the game. Playing the game and executing the plan, all with no knowledge of their role.

As planned, everything else fell into place.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kawika
post Oct 28 2011, 10:52 AM
Post #13





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 460
Joined: 16-August 07
From: Upstate NY/VT border
Member No.: 1,719



QUOTE (amazed! @ Oct 26 2011, 12:30 PM) *
My opinion is that the inserts, assuming that they actually did happen, were the first domino in the very long line of dominos that subsequently fell. I think think they were critical to the initiation of the day's events, primarily because they were the mechanism by which many many innocents within the ATC system were made pawns in the game. Playing the game and executing the plan, all with no knowledge of their role.

As planned, everything else fell into place.


I have seen nor hear heard any references to confusion by FAA controllers due to SIMS. That is the focus of the study. If another study is necessary to determine NEADS confusion then I am asking it be kept separate, until such time as the two can be linked in a credible fashion.

The assumption that FAA was subjected to false inserts is a huge leap I am not willing to make. But I agree that it appears NEADS was being confused and that was enough to get the jobs done.

More study is required.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
rob balsamo
post Oct 28 2011, 11:31 AM
Post #14



Group Icon

Group: Admin
Posts: 9,716
Joined: 13-August 06
Member No.: 1



I havent come across any evidence of radar "inserts" on live FAA ATC radar in which FAA ATC knew such "inserts" were present in the form of a simulated test. This doesn't mean there weren't "inserts" placed into live ATC radar without the knowledge of ATC, although that would be pretty hard to do without someone in ATC knowing. Or, (just speculating here) it could be done with the controller thinking he was working a real airplane, but the airplane was an "insert", while thinking he was communicating with the pilots of the airplane, but instead he was talking with some "operative" in some command and control center.

As pointed out by woody, the phantom target reports caused a lot of confusion in the system, stalling response time for intercept. Convenient for the govt story, there isn't any direct source of the misinformation/disinformation, the trail stops at Colin Scoggins. Read more here in my exchange with Colin on this matter...

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10799146

With that said, according to NEADS audio, NEADS did have simulated inserts on their radar. We captured the sound bite. "Turn off those damn sim switches", in 9/11: Intercepted when they were looking for their tankers TEAM 23.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Oct 28 2011, 04:24 PM
Post #15





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



I have no experience or knowledge of how the ATC system works. Having said this... ATC screens, Radar and so forth are all digital media.. and subject to *hacking* at least conceptually.

The data that radar and the ATC system uses is received on ground based antenna and then transferred via land lines through processing equipment and then presented on the ATC screens. When someone looks at an ATC screen, a computer screen they have no idea of the origin of the image they are seeing, where it came and how it got on their screen. We CAN and DO know how it supposed to work, and how it normally does work. This is not a mystery. What we may not know is how data can be over laid or added to an ATC screen... or if there is even evidence of these *inserted* targets.

The same issue attends to radio communications. One cannot know with certainty who they are speaking with and where the communications originated.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Oct 29 2011, 10:12 AM
Post #16





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,940
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



I think we are in general agreement on this.

We know that 1 FAA supervisor destroyed audio tapes in front of others. Who knows what other records might have been destroyed? Destruction of evidenced is one of the hallmarks of illegal government behavior.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kawika
post Oct 29 2011, 11:23 AM
Post #17





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 460
Joined: 16-August 07
From: Upstate NY/VT border
Member No.: 1,719



QUOTE (amazed! @ Oct 27 2011, 01:12 PM) *
I think we are in general agreement on this.

We know that 1 FAA supervisor destroyed audio tapes in front of others. Who knows what other records might have been destroyed? Destruction of evidenced is one of the hallmarks of illegal government behavior.


What I find damn curious is that this story stands alone. Nobody has tried to bring those employees back together to reconstruct what they said for the recording.

I am pretty sure we could get pretty close by looking at the relevant transcripts and listening to the audios carefully.

I believe this was NY center in Ronkonkoma. We have a lot of the records, including employee time sheets that might show the names.

Can we do a better job than the 9/11 Commission Teams did? I believe we can.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Oct 29 2011, 02:11 PM
Post #18





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



There is woefully little fundamental research re 911. There is a hell of lot of theorizing... repeating what others say... building a case on evidence which has not been vetted.

CIT actually did fundamental research... rather unusual. Others have to deal with the vids and so forth which is in the public record and as has been pointed out that evidence is often tainted, fiddled with, incomplete and so forth and so you really can't build a case on a foundation of unreliable evidence. At best you can falsify the official case.

And this doesn't even go to the issue that most people simply haven't looked carefully at the visual record flawed as it may be... careful enough to general real data from it. We need to really hit the ground and dig up more evidence...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Oct 30 2011, 11:02 AM
Post #19





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,940
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



I disagree SanderO--there has been very much research done regarding the events of the day and surrounding circumstances, and it has ALL been done by private citizens, NOT the government.

To me, that point is crucial.

Call it all circumstantial evidence if you wish, but there has been very much evidence uncovered by private citizens. Consider Craig Ranke as but 1 example. The folks who gathered and analyzed the dust created in Manhattan. The folks who have studied and analyzed the roles and relationships between the various Bush family members, Paul Bremer, Dov Zakheim and many many others.

The circumstantial case is HUGE, and we are not in a court of law, we are in the court of public opinion.

Keep in mind that the ONLY jury to ever hear the case against James Earl Ray found that he was NOT the killer.

I say that any jury to hear all the evidence gathered, circumstantial and otherwise, would find that the OCT is a damn lie.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
kawika
post Oct 30 2011, 11:29 AM
Post #20





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 460
Joined: 16-August 07
From: Upstate NY/VT border
Member No.: 1,719



QUOTE (amazed! @ Oct 28 2011, 02:02 PM) *
I disagree SanderO--there has been very much research done regarding the events of the day and surrounding circumstances, and it has ALL been done by private citizens, NOT the government.

To me, that point is crucial.

Call it all circumstantial evidence if you wish, but there has been very much evidence uncovered by private citizens. Consider Craig Ranke as but 1 example. The folks who gathered and analyzed the dust created in Manhattan. The folks who have studied and analyzed the roles and relationships between the various Bush family members, Paul Bremer, Dov Zakheim and many many others.

The circumstantial case is HUGE, and we are not in a court of law, we are in the court of public opinion.

Keep in mind that the ONLY jury to ever hear the case against James Earl Ray found that he was NOT the killer.

I say that any jury to hear all the evidence gathered, circumstantial and otherwise, would find that the OCT is a damn lie.


I concur.

The investigation MUST be conducted by WE THE PEOPLE. Nobody in a position of authority can be trusted to do it for us. They are too easily compromised, threatened with loss of career, income and position.

We have plenty of data to scrutinize. Grab some and start looking for evidence. It doesn't have to be perfect, just thorough.

CSI is Hollywood. Entertainment for the masses to convince them someone is protecting. Baloney. The truth is, the protectors have become predators.

PM me your email and I will send you the list of FAA files.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 23rd November 2014 - 12:41 AM