Got Tin Foil?

[Virginia Dare]

The Pentagon is collecting "radar" information in D.C. Today. By the way, have I mentioned that I'm the Queen of Sheba?

:tinfoilhat:


Four airplanes, including a type used in a James Bond movie, will fly low over the Washington region today, tomorrow and Friday to help compile radar information, the Defense Department announced yesterday.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/20/AR2006062001403.html

[Javaman]

1. Watch Loose change...

Then suddenly, your tinfoil hat may actually be helping you.

moron lies about everything, why should we trust him about 9/11???

No one has been able to give me an answer on that one.

[Virginia Dare]

2. None of them have any credibility with me anymore...

it's to the point where I automatically discount any explanation for anything that comes out of the Bush Administration, especially the Pentagon.

And yes, the "official" 9/11 story is all bunk. Anyone who doubts that the government has the ability to lie and cover-up, sometimes very successfully, doesn't know the inner workings of Washington, D.C. too well.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

3. Watch paint dry. n/t

[Javaman]

4. Okay I will but answer me this...

If the admin lies about everything, why should we believe them about 9/11?

Answer me that.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

5. Ho ho ho.

Never seen that one before. Riddle me this: Why does the fact that Bush is a liar mean we believe whatever you're peddling?

[Javaman]

6. Because He* has never once told the truth and

since you don't know me, the odds are 50/50 than I am. That's much better than his*.

Besides, what question am I posing that makes you think I'm lying?

Answer me that, oh riddler...

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

7. See, this is my problem with the entire MIHOP mindset.

Whether or not I know you or trust you is not even half as relevant as the information you're trying to present, and the veracity of that information as established by other pieces of supporting evidence. That's how deductive reasoning works. And I'm not accusing you of lying. I'm just saying that you're wrong.

[Javaman]

9. Well, have you seen the documentary Loose Change???

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

15. I watched as much of it as I could stand.

It was like a rehash of the worst of the 9/11 dungeon. I can't deal with that level of irrationality for very long.

[EOTE]

32. Can I ask which parts you had problem with?

I thought it was extremely well researched and presented. Can you point out one part of the documentary noted as fact that you take issue with? And if so, can you point to a link, or present knowledge of your own which refutes it?

[Old and In the Way]

72. Whoops, guess you asked him the wrong question.

He can make sweeping generalizations about 'Loose Change' and smears about those who question the OCT....but when you ask for some hard examples as to what he has a problem with in the movie....no comment.

I agree, I thought 'Loose Change' was well produced and a serious query into the 9/11 attack. We used to have a media that did this kind of stuff...

[alittlelark]

36. sigh....

glad to see you added a profile.:shrug:

[Sinti]

66. Then what on earth brings you to this playground? n/t

[frylock]

69. must be the money..

I mean, I don't believe in god, but I don't spend my free time trying to convince the believers that god doesn't exist. I've always wondered what the motivation was for all the resident debunkers that hang out here.

[Old and In the Way]

73. Well said.

I could see posting a few months after 9/11 and then, if I strongly disagreed with the anti-OCT crowd, I'd move on. But we are talking 5 years for some supporters of the OCT. That's an amazing effort of perseverence.

I particularly like the "Oh shit, not this again" comments. Is someone holding a gun to their heads and forcing them to click, yet again, on a post that they disagree with? It sounds so damn agonizing for these poor people to have to click, read, and comment on something they have dissed hundreds of times in the past. It really must be a labor of love. I mean they hate this forum....yet I hardly ever see any of these people posting upstairs....hmmmm. I guess this is the place they to hate.

[New World Odor]

106. prove it

How about a little rational scientific analysis from you? Explain to me how Hani Hanjour piloted 77 into the Pentagon successfully.

Loose Change is irrational? Prove it. Don't just say it.

[earth mom]

13. You are the gullible one then.

Believing ONE WORD out of the pretzeldents mouth means you'll believe anything!

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

14. No, it doesn't.

By your logic, if Bush were to say, "The sky is blue," then the sky would be green. These things you are saying are simple rhetoric and are not logical.

[JuniperLea]

18. I'd take a look at the sky to make sure!!

What is normally acceptable, such as the sky is blue, cannot be assumed anymore.

If the PresiDunce says the sky is blue, we better all take a look just to be sure.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

19. Bush is not capable of altering the laws of physics.

The laws of this country, yes. Refraction has not stopped working because of Bush. Not yet, anyway.

Edit: Of course he's capable of ignoring them, but that's not relevant to this discussion.

[Virginia Dare]

29. Color is a perception...

it can be manipulated.

http://www.echalk.co.uk/amusements/OpticalIllusions/colourPerception/colourPerception.html

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

31. Touche.

Very cool. But it's not going to fool a spectrometer. :)

[JuniperLea]

35. I know I carry my spectrometer around with me every day...

Too bad we don't have a BS meter...

[mhatrw]

75. By your logic, if Bush said "9/11 Changes Everything"

you'd heartily agree.

[MercutioATC]

88. Not at all.

You DO realize there's a middle ground between believing everything somebody says and disbelieving everything somebody says, don't you?

Either position is unwise.

[New World Odor]

108. some are unbelievable

Operating from a spurious reference point(OCT)makes just about everything they say as unbelievable.

[orleans]

76. bush would never say the sky is blue because he is a fuckin liar

any questions?

[New World Odor]

107. moving on

Substance dude or move on

[rman]

8. also watch

Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime
Produced by: John J. Albanese
Research Consultant: Nicholas Levis
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8372366181300641663&q=Everybody%27s+Gotta+Learn+Sometime

Different then most other productions on the subject, this one does not focus on the (records of) physical evidence relating to the events on september 11, but rather on the organizations and people involved before, during and after the event took place.

--

Largely ignored by the mainstream media, many of the disturbing facts surrounding the attacks of 9/11 raise deeply ethical questions associated with issues of accountability, justice and censorship in America.

"Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime" may very well be the most compelling film yet outlining the disturbing and heavily censored facts associated with the worst terrorist attacks in American history. And while a grassroots movement worldwide continues to grow, and demand answers to the growing number of unanswered questions, the public outcry for accountability and transparency makes this film, perhaps, the most important film of 2006. "Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime" is a free movie, produced by an independent artist, for educational and journalistic purposes only. Any proceeds derived from this premier event will go towards allaying the costs of presenting this film in the light of day, in New York City, in what is left of a free America in Tribeca.

We are making such material available in our efforts to advance the general publics understanding of political, human rights, and social justice issues, under the definition of 'fair use' as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. The material on this site is distributed without profit for research and educational purposes only.
http://www.911citizenswatch.org/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=855

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

12. Fantastic video! I Also, Who Killed John O'Neill!!!!

It is a must see -

http://www.whokilledjohnoneill.com/

Available to be viewed online in several formats

[JackRiddler]

17. thanks

[Viva_La_Revolution]

25. avail. online

found a link - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6757267008400743688&q=Everybody%27s+Gotta+Learn+Sometime

[MercutioATC]

10. Why would you think they're not collecting radar data?

What else would they be doing?

The craft are all of varying sizes, from small to really small. The only reliable way to determine actual radar coverage would be to do exactly this...send up planes, monitor radar returns, and see if there are any holes.

[Virginia Dare]

23. For the same reason...

that I think that the stand-down of NORAD on 9/11 and the terrorist attacks were not coincidental.

[MercutioATC]

40. So you believe the government lies about EVERYTHING?

You drink the water it purifies, you eat the food it certifies, you send your children to its schools, you drive on its roads, you work and live in buildings built to its codes and you live under its laws...

...yet you dismiss a valid method of determining radar coverage as a conspiracy?

:eyes:

[Virginia Dare]

42. No, not everything....

but I definitely do not trust ANYTHING that comes out of the Pentagon these days, and very little of what comes out of the Bush Administration or any of it's spokespeople.



:eyes: Right back at ya.

[MercutioATC]

43. Absolute positions are rarely justifiable.

This is a valid method of determining radar coverage. That doesn't cease to be true simply because the Pentagon agrees.

What ELSE would they be doing with these aircraft?

[Virginia Dare]

44. What ELSE?

very good question....that's what I wondered too.

[MercutioATC]

47. Unless you can come up with a plausible alternative, your OP seems a

little paranoid.

You say that (although this is a valid method for determining radar coverage) you don't believe the explanation. However, you're unable to propose a reasonable alternative reason for these flights.

Doesn't that seem a little paranoid to you?

[Virginia Dare]

49. If I came up with an alternative explanation...

would you consider it reasonable? I doubt it.

Perhaps I'm paranoid, but perhaps I have good reason to be, as should we all. Do you believe the official 9/11 story? I don't. Do you believe that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction ready to send us all to kingdom come? I don't. The Bush Administration has already admitted that it is spying on us, have they not?

It could very well be what they say it is, neither of us knows for sure.

Believe or don't believe, it's up to you, but I will continue to be a skeptic.

[MercutioATC]

51. Well, if it was plausible, I might...

...that aside, the radar test has absolutely nothing to do with either the 9/11 "official story" or Iraq having WMD.

[New World Odor]

111. myth

It's a publicity stunt to further promulgate the terrorist myth.

[Americus]

58. Most people here don't believe the OCT. Why do you feel you've failed

so badly to convince the vast majority of DUers here that they're wrong? Is it a simple matter that when the truth isn't on your side but you are "obligated" (for who knows what reasons)to promote and defend the 9/11 lies of the Bush administration, you just have to do what you have to do without worrying about the consequences or the disruption you are causing to sincere objective people? Is THAT it?

[MercutioATC]

59. What does that have to do with determining radar coverage?

Your unsuccessful attempt to link determining radar coverage to 9/11 notwithstanding, this is a valid method.

[Americus]

61. Please, take your time, and answer the question. No need to duck it.

You must be especially sensitive to the implications of the questions posed to you. I can't imagine why.

[MercutioATC]

64. I'm not "ducking" anything...

I've responded to the OP, which interested me.

Your questions don't particularly interest me, especially in light of the fact that I've explained my views on multiple occasions in the past. If you'd like a response to your off-topic questions, feel free to search my post history.

[Americus]

67. If it looks like a duck, walks and quacks like one, it probably is. n/t

n/t

[BuddyYoung]

113. Are you SURE that most here DON'T believe the OCT? Looks to me

like there are as many here in support of the Bush administration's version (to the extent that the Administration has actually laid out a "version") as there are people that question the OCT.

[Old and In the Way]

74. What else would they be doing with these aircraft?

Well, if there were evil people in our government who had dark intentions, maybe they record blips that could be used as manufactured "evidence" in a future attack? Or maybe just learning what kind of aircraft can or can't be disguised from radar signatures altogether?

Of course, I'm not saying that this is the case, but there could be valuable information learned if we had certain people in our government willing and able to create an event to, say, disrupt an election to avoid losing majority control of Congress or even to jumpstart an illegal war with some country that happens to have a lot of oil under their real estate.

[MercutioATC]

77. A couple of problems with your propositions:

1) There's no reason to "record" radar returns. It's much easier and cheaper to just create a radar tape from scratch (fabricate one on a computer).

2) They already know what types of aircraft give what type of radar signature. We spend billions of dollars on stealth technology. Do you really think we'd need to fly some planes over a city to know how visible they are to radar?

My point is this: It's reasonable to expect that the government would want to know specifics about its radar coverage over high-risk targets. The only way to evaluate that is actually sending aircraft up and seeing if there are any blind spots. Unless somebody is especially paranoid, I don't understand the reason they'd doubt this.

[Americus]

45. So you believe GWBush is honest & wouldn't lie about 9/11, WMD etc.?

Your post makes it sound like you might be experiencing a little cognitive dissonance. BTW, which Osama do you think is the "real" one. You know, the longtime CIA asset Osama? Or, do you feel there's only one Osama and the photos the government that you trust so much has released show what only SEEMS like someone other than the "real" Osama?

Since you believe the OFT and given that most people here do not believe it(Official Fairy Tale), why would you think they'd believe anything you have to say?

Would you go to a forum on say, Catholicism, and try to undermine and disrupt serious discussions and try to convince the posters there that your viewpoint that Catholicism is the Devil's religion is correct, while their belief in Catholicism is crazy?

[MercutioATC]

46. The radar test in the OP has absolutely nothing to do with 9/11

Why are you attempting to create a relationship between two completely separate issues?

[Virginia Dare]

53. I'm not trying to connect them...

I am giving you reasons why I don't trust what I am told by the Pentagon and the Bush Administration.
I am giving you reasons why I'm skeptical of these stories. We've been hoodwinked before.

[Americus]

57. Can't you respond SUBSTANTIVELY to the post?

n/t

[MercutioATC]

60. I DID respond "substantively" to the OP.

You're the one trying to make this a :tinfoilhat: 9/11 conspiracy issue, not me.

[Americus]

62. Why are you afraid of the questions I posed?

You must be really sensitive about the implications of what I asked you. Is there something you don't want us to know about that is causing you to run from those particular questions?

[MercutioATC]

63. Not afraid, just disinterested.

If you'd like to search my post history, feel free. I've dealt with those questions on many occasions.

...and I've learned that there's just no reasoning with some people.

[Americus]

68. Weak excuse. "are you scared of the dark?" "no, just disinterested"!

Another opportunity for a OCT'er to give us the benefits of their wisdom and what do they do with it? Squander it. Don't you understand how many people are going to be disappointed?

[MercutioATC]

70. Juvenile attempts at baiting me won't work, either.

Again, I posted in response to the OP, not your off-topic questions.

In the more than five years I've been here at DU, I've expressed my views on 9/11 conspiracy theories numerous times. Had you been here longer than two months, you'd know that.

Frankly, I'm really not interested in engaging in the same arguments every time somebody new joins DU. However, you have the option of getting your answers to these questions (and more) by simply searching my post history. If you truly want my responses, that's a great way to get them. If you just want to pick a fight, you're going to have to look elsewhere...I'm simply not interested.

Either way, childish attempts at baiting me aren't going to get you anywhere.

[Javaman]

79. If you aren't interested in ingaging the same arguments...

why did you respond on this thread to begin with??

THAT I find curious.

[MercutioATC]

81. Did you miss the fact that the OP had nothing to do with 9/11?

The OP spoke about the use of aircraft to evaluate radar coverage. That's what I responded to.

When some posters dragged 9/11 CTs into the discussion, the thread was moved to the 9/11 Forum...AFTER I made my initial post.

I found the OP subject interesting. I don't, however, have an interest in making the same responses to the same CTs that I've made scores of times before.

Does that answer your question?

[Javaman]

85. Actually, no it doesn't...

You continued to respond to various counter posts. I would think that if you really weren't that interested in this topic or the continuance of the thread you would have stopped long ago.

:shrug:

[MercutioATC]

86. I responded in the context that the methodology of the test is valid.

...and it is.

I have systematically refrained from making any comments about 9/11 conspiracy theories because they aren't the issue. At issue is:

1) whether using these four aircraft is a valid means to evaluate radar coverage (it is), and

2) whether there would be a plausible "hidden" reason for using these aircraft in this capacity (there isn't).


If other posters choose to bring 9/11 conspiracy theories into the debate, that's their issue. I'm simply responding to the facts of this specific test.

[Virginia Dare]

89. The idea that they may be used ....

for surveillance isn't plausible to you?

:shrug:

[MercutioATC]

90. None of these aircraft (with the exception of the Inventus) fits that bill

The Falcon, Twin Otter and BD-5J all move at too high a rate of speed to be useful for urban surveillance.

If you're worried about privacy issues, traffic cameras such as these...

http://www.trafficland.com/findacamera/findacamera.php?city=WAS&maptype=flat&map=100

...should probably be of much greater concern.

[Virginia Dare]

91. So, it's plausible...

that there would be other uses that the military would have for these aircraft, other than radar detection, especially with regards to the Inventus?

By the way, the OP has nothing to do with traffic cameras and privacy issues.

[MercutioATC]

92. Well, not plausible, but possible...

I can't think of any reason to put an Inventus in the air for a few days when helicopters would work even better, but yes, it's possible .

[Virginia Dare]

93. Just because you can't think of a reason...

doesn't mean the Pentagon can't. By the way, I don't really think they are using this drill to spy on citizens, but I do think that there is probably some other purpose to it, along with the radar detection.

[MercutioATC]

94. I see no evidence of that, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion.

Without any plausible evidence or alternate purpose, I'm prepared to take this at face value.

I may believe the administration lies to us about a lot of things, but I just don't see any evidence of it here.

[Virginia Dare]

95. One more question regarding this...

maybe you can answer. What would be the reason that they would use all of those different aircraft? Why not just use one type of aircraft for this particular exercise?

[MercutioATC]

96. All four aircraft have different characteristics...

Different propulsion, different sizes, different construction, etc.

If you'll notice, though, they're all small aircraft which (I think) lends credibility to their mission. We KNOW that larger planes present a larger radar target. If you're going to look for small areas of radar non-coverage over an urban area, a mix of aircraft like this seems a perfect way to do it.

[Virginia Dare]

97. Rummy has stated his paranoia over...

cruise missiles, so they're probably trying to determine if one could get through the D.C. radar detection system. That's my guess, but who knows?

[MercutioATC]

98. That, or the possibility of somebody using a UAV to attack...

...either scenario's a possibility.

[Virginia Dare]

99. Yes, that's his stated "fear"...

that someone could launch a missile from a UAV. But it scares me everytime these people war-game.

[MercutioATC]

101. Actually, it'd be easier to spread a bioweapon from a model plane.

Anthrax dropped from a radio-controlled plane...the ultimate low-tech "WMD" attack.

..and invisible to radar.

[Virginia Dare]

102. Maybe that's the reason for this...

http://www.bizjournals.com/baltimore/stories/2006/06/19/daily10.html

[Americus]

84. It must be embarassing to have to run from uncomfortable questions

"I'm simply not interested" is a tactic that screams "I don't know how to answer those questions in a way that doesn't make me sound as loony as the OCT, so I plead my rights to 5th Amendment protection against incriminating myself".

[MercutioATC]

87. It must be embarassing to have to bait people to get them to talk to you

Again, I'm not addressing 9/11 conspiracy theories, I'm addressing the OP and the validity of these radar tests.


I'm sorry if that upsets you, but that's the way it is.

[Americus]

103. You consider being asked questions "baiting" you?

BTW - I have read some of your gazillion posts and they go all over the place.

* Some say that you're an Air Traffic Controller & that you will only be posting about ATC issues.

* Some say you will only talk about things you know because of your work.

* Your views on the OCT go all over the place. You even supported the idea that LIHOP might be possible. Later, you denied having taken that position.

* You had a really bizarre theory about how jet fuel and pieces of shrapnel or other material all swirled thru the Pentagon and that's how the circular exit hole was made. That one made me wonder if you got the idea from one of L. Ron Hubbard's science fiction book.

* You seem to have always been an enthusiastic cheerleader for the Official Pentagon Conspiracy notion that a large commercial airliner crashed into the building, but you give different descriptions of what angle it came in on, it's altitude whenever it hit the building etc., but one of the most glaring inconsistencies in your Pentagon Conspiracy Theory is what happened immediately upon impact. Whenever you've been pressed about nearly any detail, you give conflicting answers.

* The main thing I noticed in reading your prior posts is what you do whenever someone asks you a question you don't want to answer. You almost always refer to a government-sponsored "report" that everyone HERE knows was produced soley for that purpose: to provide a hoped-for plausible explanation that could be used as a catch-all document to refer pesky questioners to.

When it comes to critical issues related to 9/11, your posts reflect little knowledge beyond the standard OCT talking points and no appetite and little tolerance for those who have examined the subject in greater detail and came to a different conclusion than the Bush 9/11 conspiracy theoy
that you and the other OCT'ers here promote day in and day out.

[MercutioATC]

104. Again, I'm not discussing 9/11 issues here.

I've read many of your old posts, too...


(and they weren't all "sweet and right")

[Javaman]

80. I don't drink the water it purifies..

It contains chlorine, fluoride and heavy metals.

I don't eat the food they certify for basically the same reasons I stated with water.

I don't have children.

I don't drive, I take the bus or bike. And I can tell you from both experiences, the roads are in deplorable shape.

I work for an architecture company and believe me when I say, there are good buildings and there are very bad buildings, and both as you would postulate fall under the same rules that are covered by gov't rules and regs.

And as far as our laws and our rights, they are being ignored by moron* via his little signing statements and our rights guaranteed under the constitution are being taken away. Or did you not hear that the police can now enter your home with out knocking and announcing who they are? violation of the 4th amendments unreasonable search and seizure.

I will never ever believe a single thing uttered by that poor excuse of a prez* ever.

[New World Odor]

110. not a conspiracy

Not a conspiracy in the conventional sense. A phony exercise to further promulgate their "terrorist" prevention agenda.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

11. I'm stocked up!

:tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat: :tinfoilhat:

[Beacho]

16. Nazis On The MOOOOOOON!!!!!!

:tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat:
:tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat:
:tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat:
:tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat:
:tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat:
:tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat:
:tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat:
:tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat::tinfoilhat:

[Marie26]

21. LOL

:rofl: Now there's a conspiracy theory! You've almost got to respect the creativity.

Nazi Moon Base - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_moon_base.

[Beacho]

22. I knew somebody would get it

I'ma big 'fan' of conspiratology and that's one of my favorites. The other one is that the 14th century didn't happen, I even saw an ad for te book in MJ, of all places.

on edit: I'm not such a big fan of the 911 Truth *koff* (bowl) Movement. Loose Change is one of the worst piles of crap I've ever seen in the realm of parapolitics. Makes Space Lizard Man look lucid.

[Virginia Dare]

24. Apples and oranges...

there are ridiculous conspiracy theories and there are not so ridiculous conspiracy theories. I don't think it's fair to lump them all together.

[Beacho]

27. Yeah, both are FRUITY!

Oh man, I apologise, but I just couldn't resist.

[Virginia Dare]

30. I'm not bananas, but no sour grapes...n/t

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

26. The 14th century is a PNAC/Mossad plot?

Wicked!

[Beacho]

28. My bad it was the Carolingian period

Charlemagne was a fictional character!

[Marie26]

38. You don't say?

I've always thought it was suspicious - who can name something that happened during the 14th century, anyway? I've never seen Loose Change & don't intend to. But, to be fair, the OP wasn't really posting a conspiracy theory, but a verified news event (w/tinfoil implications). Why this was dumped in the Sept. 11 forum is beyond me.

[DemInDistress]

65. didn't the "black plague" occur during the 14th century? nt

[Marie26]

71. No idea

Medieval history is not my strong suit. Wasn't there some hundred-year war or something, too?

God, I'm such a geek; I had to look it up. Yep, Black Death - 1347–51. Hundred Years' War - 1337 to 1453. Well, now I can name exactly two things that happened then. Maybe the 14th century did exist after all. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_century

[shance]

20. I thought I was the Queen of Sheba.

At least that's what my mom always told me.

[Cleita]

33. No, I am.

:evilgrin:

[Virginia Dare]

34. Will the real Queen of Sheba please stand up?...n/t

[Beacho]

37. Eeeeewwww!

I got dragged into the 911 ghetto.

Kind of like being stuck in downtown Oakland at 3 AM.

[Marie26]

39. Get out quick before you're spotted! nt

[Virginia Dare]

41. My thread was hijacked and thrown into the dungeon...

wow, I wonder how that happened?

:tinfoilhat:

[MercutioATC]

48. I think it was a Pentagon conspiracy...

[Virginia Dare]

50. Fess up!....n/t

[MercutioATC]

52. Actually, you seem to be injecting a lot of 9/11 CT into the dialogue...

...can one claim a hijacking when one furthers that end themself?

[Virginia Dare]

54. If you are implying that was the agenda of the OP...

then you would be wrong.

[MercutioATC]

56. Not at all. Just observing that the "hijacking" was mutual.

Personally, I would have rather seen this thread proceed without all of the :tinfoilhat: 9/11 stuff. If people dont't believe the craft are being sent up to evaluate radar coverage, I'd like to know why they think that.

[Virginia Dare]

78. For the reasons that have been given to you several times now...

they don't trust what the Bush Administration says or does.

I choose not to blindly go along with whatever is served up by them for public consumption. Perhaps you do, and if that's the case I have a few more for you:

Global warming doesn't exist
Bush won Florida in 2000, fair and square
Bush won Ohio in 2004, fair and square

[MercutioATC]

82. Peoples' 9/11 beliefs weren't the subject of my comment.

You complained that your OP (which had nothing to do with 9/11) wad been "hijacked" by 9/11 talk and moved to the 9/11 Forum.

I simply pointed out that you had probably aided in the mods' decision to move it to the 9/11 Forum with some of the replies you'd made here.

[Virginia Dare]

83. The minute the flame-war over "Loose Change" erupted...

I knew it was doomed. I don't care anyway. People can live in the dark if they choose to, I choose to live in the light.

[Jazz2006]

109. If you think that "loose change" has any basis in fact,

you're not living in the light at all.

It's a crock. Even most of your fellow tinhatters think so, never mind those of us who aren't wrapped in tin foil.

[BuddyYoung]

112. In your mind, what was the "giveaway" that "loose change" is bogus?

Serious question. I've never seen the movie(?).

Thanks.

[Virginia Dare]

115. My response was in regard to the reason behind thread being...

moved to 9/11 forum, it was not a comment on Loose Change.

[dailykoff]

55. If it doesn't star crazy Arabs drunk on their evil religion,

it's a conspiracy theory.

[bushatbooker]

100. Falcon 20

Now where have we heard that plane mentioned before?

2 planes had no part in crash of Flight 93; Business jet, military cargo plane were in area of hijacked United Flight 93

"Two other airplanes were flying near the hijacked United Airlines jet when it crashed in Somerset County, but neither had anything to do with the airliner's fate, the FBI said yesterday.
In fact, one of the planes, a Fairchild Falcon 20 business jet, was directed to the crash site to help rescuers. The request for the jet to fly low and obtain the coordinates for the crash explains reports by people in the vicinity who said a white or silver jet flew by moments after the crash.
A C-130 military cargo plane was also within 25 miles of the passenger jet when it crashed, FBI spokesman Bill Crowley said yesterday, but was not diverted.

Debris from the crash has been found up to 8 miles from the crash site...

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010916otherjetnat5p5.asp

And a military "cargo plane" passes by (the same one that flew over the Pentagon scene) and debris is found 8 miles away. Hmmm.

[MercutioATC]

105. Well, Dassault DID build 477 of them...they're not a specialty item.

http://www.dassault-aviation.com/passion/gb/dassault_a_a_z/histoire_aviation/programmes/affaires.cfm

[petgoat]

114. The C-130H was, if memory serves, 14 miles from Shanksville

according to the 9CR when UA93 hit the ground at 10:03.

At 300 mph, this would place it right at Shanksville at 10:06,
which is the time that seismographic readings show an
airplane-crash-like event taking place.

A witness interviewed in the book "True Lies" says that he went
outside just before the crash because the lights dimmed in the
building he was in. This suggests the use of electromagnetic
weapons.