-119 votes

Truthers continue to see what they want to see.

Let me give you an example, and then I will go off on my rant.

Regarding the passport: You guys only see what you want to see. Why don't you list every item that survived? Drivers licenses survived, entire arms and other limbs, clothes, etc. Tons of things survived, but you frame the argument like only the passport survived. They already had flight manifests. They knew who was on those flights. There was no reason at all to plant a passport. The fact of the matter is that tons of things survived, not just a passport, and planting a passport would have been useless. It only seems like it matters to you guys because you want it to matter. If it was a conspiracy, don't you think the real cover up would have been about how they faked the flight manifest?

You people just continue to see what you want to see, regardless of how ridiculous it is. You take every bit of flimsy evidence and force it to support your conspiracy. Check that, I shouldn't even call it "evidence' because it isn't. It is a lack of evidence that you have. You invent questions about the incident and when you can't wrap your brain around reason and logic, you take every stupid thing any witness ever said and cling to it as if it were straight from God's mouth to your ears. You twist logic to fit your own narrative so you can feed your feable need to feel important on a national scale, like somehow the nation is reading your posts.

I remember when this sight was about liberty and free market capitalism. I remember when people here discussed topics related to the ideas Ron Paul was bringing up every day. You all have driven those fine people away with your own ignorant lack of critical thinking. I enjoyed those people. We shared information and learned together. I don't enjoy you people. You spread fallacy through verbosity. You post every tiny scrap of psuedo-evidence no matter how easily refutable, rendering the rest of us simply too tired to continue to address your never ending pile of fiction.

And worst of all, you continue to move the goal post, to the point that no amount of debunking will ever satisfy you because you will simply wait for the next bit of psuedo-evidence to come out, and if that evidence isn't readily available, you resort back to the old time honored defense of "All I know is that I don't believe the official story". And that only creates another fallacy you all love, the false dillema, where you try to shoot holes in the official story thinking that it somehow proves your story is true, only you don't even have a coherent story to back up. If I point out all the inconsistency in the Bible, does that somehow prove that Thor is real? You need evidence in support of your story, not lack of evidence in support of their's. You people don't have evidence. You don't have a story. What you do have unfortunately, and in abundance, is a never ending supply of fallacies.

As a middle school teacher, part of my curriculum is teaching fallacies, so when I claim you are using them in abundance, I'm not speaking generally. You are using them in abundance and it is killing your argument. The sad part, is that even if you all were right, your constant use of fallacy and lack of logical skills has driven away countless people who might have actually cared.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I appreciate your passion, but disagree wholeheartedly...

Infighting is what made our movement strong, it is acceptance of others that is the bond of the liberty movement. You do not have to agree with me, you do not have to respond to me, but the battles of ideas that come out of the discussion are what put us ahead of the rest. The statists are not allowed to sway from the 3x5 card in which says 3+3=6, and there in lies their weakness. Accepting everything that is told to you only makes the mind and soul weak, arguing and battling for your beliefs allows both sides of the coin to reveal why they think the way they do, what led them to their conclusion, and in many cases pulls others down the rabbit hole to see that things are rarely as they seem.

Once this is achieved an individual is on the cusp of an awakening, and while I do not agree with the authors post here attacking those he does not agree with, for the most part the discussion has brought out many truths to ponder. Once you are awake, a disagreement with another liberty minded individual will not tear you away from wanting liberty and true justice for all, from what I have witnessed it is what in the end brings us all together. Of course this is only my opinion, feel free to make it your own... hehe

Always remember:
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." ~ Samuel Adams
If they hate us for our freedom, they must LOVE us now....

Stay IRATE, remain TIRELESS, an

No wonder my kids

learn NOTHING USEFUL at school. Your blindness to what actually happened on 9/11 and inability to look critically at the physics of the freefall as it applies to B7 is a great example of why my kids don't learn at school how to think for themselves. Thank you for the explanation, I am relieved that the problem is not with them, its with the likes of YOU!

There is only one hole about 9/11 that is controversial

that is "who done it?"

It is pretty clear how the buildings came down. (clue: it wasn't the planes)

the only area of controversy is the lack of facts about who did it. This is the area of speculation.

You must be a public school

You must be a public school teacher....that says it all. You work for the government. You work for a system that brainwashes and institutionalizes children.

"I will not submit to authority of man. I'm alive, I'm awake, this is more than I can take." -Jordan Page

All our ills writ large in one headline...

"Truthers continue to see what they want to see."

As well as the weak and nasty ad hominem attack in the title, it is also semantically illogical. And the writer claims to be a educator—in a public school no doubt.

How can we expect such ignorant small minds to open and enlarge the minds of others? We can't, that's the problem.

Ok dude, I've had enough of

Ok dude, I've had enough of people like you trying to point out holes in our conspiracy theories. We are going to bury this thread in downvotes. The govt has:

1) Faked the moon landings.
2) Faked sandy hook.
3) Faked 9/11

There is incontrovertible proof. You do justice to your name Mr. Snakepit and should be ashamed. Do not come to the DP forums again with your reason, and healthy skepticism and common sense. We do not tolerate that here.


You now how this label got started: By trying to demonize people who are searching for truth. If you're not searching for truth why are you even posting on this forum?

If you're not a TRUTHER why are you here? To spread lies? I also find it pretty interesting that you're not debating this on this VERY informative thread here:


...and instead decided to post a separate thread - away from all those inconvenient facts.

Why am I here?

Because this is a Ron Paul forum, not a 9/11 Truther forum. You know Ron Paul, the guy who doesn't believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy? The guy who believes it was the inevitable result of blowback from our crummy foreign policy. That is why I'm here. And as for why I didn't post this in the other thread, I didn't post it there because I'm sick of debating this with you guys. Obviously you all see the world the way you want and no amount of evidence will prove you wrong. I've spent years wasting my time debating you guys and I'm sick of it. I love talking about freedom with the people here and I wrote this thread because I'm annoyed that this page have become about 911 and floride and chemtrails rather than about the things Ron Paul talks about, free market capitalism, blowback, gold, etc.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

Ron Paul has said numerous

Ron Paul has said numerous times that the government is covering something up related to 9/11. He has called for further investigations and questioned the official story. He may not have come out and said "9/11 was an inside job" but he's done everything short of that. It appears that you are the one that blindly believes whatever you want to accept as the truth.
No one knows exactly what happened on 9/11 because our government doesn't want us to. Until they decide to be transparent, there will always be speculation. Regardless, it's clear we haven't been given the full story.

"I will not submit to authority of man. I'm alive, I'm awake, this is more than I can take." -Jordan Page

deacon's picture


if truthers believed otherwise,wouldn't they be known
as lairs or liar-ers? ;)

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

I think the truthers truly believe what they do, as much as the

author of this attack piece believes his/her own theory. The author is as guilty as any other conspiracy theorist by claiming the story given is the truth, when no one knows the full truth. While truthers do see what they want to see, the author believes what he/she wants to believe which does not make one any different than the other. The author cannot claim a moral high ground nor that their theory is any stronger than any other as any and all investigation has been shown a fallacy by the very participants.

The author remembers a time when this site was about liberty, but since I have been around for almost half a decade longer than the author I always thought that the open discussion here was supportive of Liberty and not the self righteous individuals with their own conspiracies. this has been hashed out long before the author created his/her present account and the claim that many "good" people (implying that asking questions makes one a "bad" person) it is my view that the author has not participated long enough at the DP to know who and what the site is and was always about. Not to mention the pretense that the author goes against the DP owners own rules of posting, while attacking ideas instead of presenting convincing enough argument to sway opinion alone.

In the end the author closes by pointing out the number of people driven away from the liberty movement is the same skewed opinion that the anti gun folks make when they make up their stats to support their weak opinion. As the Liberty movement has grown by leaps and bounds since 2007, I'm not sure where all the good people went?

In closing I am not a truther, yet I realize that the official story is not what it appears, this is from reading John Farmers book, "The Ground Truth" and seeing first hand that the time lines and events do not add up in the least, and while the author may feel he/she has more information than one involved in the entire 9/11 commission report, one can only assume that the author might need to take a step back, do some reading, as we all will forgive their cognitive dissonance when they can respectfully make a case for their conspiracy with evidence and not the claim of victory in a debate no one else has seen.

While I will speak out against a truther claiming to know the full truth just the same I hope people do not see this as an attack on the author, just the idea that a single individual has declared what is and is not proper for us to discuss and digest, isn't this the antithesis of liberty and truth? I am of the opinion that the truth is hidden and will not be revealed unless someone involved speaks out to note either gross government incompetence, or perhaps a deeper seeded conspiracy involving a group or groups that controlled the situation and has yet to be uncovered and more than likely never will.

Always remember:
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." ~ Samuel Adams
If they hate us for our freedom, they must LOVE us now....

Stay IRATE, remain TIRELESS, an

This might be the 100th time I've posted this...

...but again, I've never said I endorse, believe, or support the "official story". However, even the most simple crime scene can be incorrectly deconstructed and even cops or politicians targeting the actual perpretrators can be prone to corruption and falsificaiton in order to make their case easier to prove. Flaws in the "official story' don't prove a conspiracy anymore than flaws in my daughters math test prove she conspired to destroy the study of Algebra.
People are imperfect and this incident was grand in scale. Pointing out flaws in the report doesn't prove who did it, or that anyone besides the accused did it. This truther movement is based on attacking the official story but it doesn't give a shred of evidence to point to anyone else.
If I'm not quite sure how Jimbo robbed the bank, it doesn't mean that he didn't do it. It just means that I'm not quite sure how he did it. You guys are trying to blame Bob because you aren't satisfied with the evidence against Jimbo. It's fine not to be satisfied with the evidence agaisnt Jimbo, but that doesn't automatically implicate Bob.

Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).

Im not sure that the "truther movement" is attempting

to lay blame on anyone, but I may be wrong as I am unaffiliated with them. I assumed by what videos I have seen, protests, and other that the truther movement wants an independent investigation into 9/11. While I have met and seen the fringe that sell the no plane opinion, the Cheney/Neo con/Israel Mossad line, as well as the nuclear super weapon theory, but as a group I think their desire is for a new, thorough, and independent investigation.

I'm not sure how anyone could not get behind that, if for nothing else the families whose questions were never addressed by the very people tasked with doing so. No matter which side you are on, a new investigation would seem to put to rest the mass conspiracy theory in general. This can be accomplished easier than getting Obama to provide his birth certificate simply by releasing the pentagon crash videos to the public, all of them. Forcing Bush and Cheney to testify separately and under oath, and allowing credible people like John Farmer to question these people about the inconsistencies he found. Also members from architects and engineers to question representatives from NIST, and so on. Even the anti conspiracy folks should rally to have this done so their theories can be proven in the open, or debunked in the same.

I do agree with you on the point that those that claim this person or that is responsible to support their theory might be pushing things over the edge, but if these items are not brought to light and open for discussion then we just as well accept that the one event that ushered in the destruction of the U.S., the police state apparatus, TSA, DHS, and the hodgepodge of government alphabet soup that currently resides over us as the norm, I for one choose to openly discuss these things if for nothing more than the future of my own children living in a nation of free people.

While I might not agree with folks that claim to know the truth, have the names and reasons behind their complicity, and cannot be swayed from their position, I certainly want to hear it, and if someone is offended then they should not participate in the discussion in the first place. The dailypaul has been the bastion of reason and the unreasonable, but there are few places left where open discussion is not quelled by the statists controlling the conversation. I would certainly not visit the DP should one day discussions be banned or moderated because of a person or persons being offended by the content, as each individual has the free will to participate or to ignore that which they dare not touch.

Always remember:
"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." ~ Samuel Adams
If they hate us for our freedom, they must LOVE us now....

Stay IRATE, remain TIRELESS, an

deacon's picture

question or 2

if the evidence pointed away from jimbo,would you still want to see it?
if the evidence points away from others,isn't what and who are left the ones involved?
"pointing out facts in the report doesn't prove who did it"
but by pointing false facts that points way from a particular person or group,the one(s) left are the guilty ones,right?

If we deny truth before your very eyes,then the rest of what we have to say,is of little consequence

Nobody knows for sure what

Nobody knows for sure what happened on 9-11 or who was responsible. What we do know is the official government story does not hold water.
Someday we may know how this all went down but it will only be after all the involved parties are long dead and buried.

and after

most of the people who want to know the truth are long dead and buried..

Daughter of 1776 American Revolutionists

Stories written by Kevin Ryan

Kevin R. Ryan began to investigate the tragedy of September 11th, 2001 through his work as Site Manager for a division of Underwriters Laboratories (UL). He was fired by UL in 2004 for writing to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), asking about its World Trade Center investigation and UL’s work to ensure the fire resistance of the buildings. He now serves as co-editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studies, and is a former board director at Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Ryan has co-authored several books and peer-reviewed scientific articles on the subject.

The information is there if you want to see it!

Why Louis Freeh Should Be Investigated For 9/11
by Kevin Ryan
November 24, 2012

Full article here:http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/11/24/why-louis-freeh-should-be-investigated-for-911/

Pg 1 of 5

In the summer of 2001, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agent Robert Wright, a counterterrorism expert from the Chicago office, made some startling claims about the Bureau in a written statement outlining the difficulties he had doing his job. Three months before 9/11, he wrote: “The FBI has proven for the past decade it cannot identify and prevent acts of terrorism against the United States and its citizens at home and abroad. Even worse, there is virtually no effort on the part of the FBI’s International Terrorism Unit to neutralize known and suspected terrorists residing within the United States.”[1]

Revelations since 9/11 have confirmed Wright’s claims. FBI management did little or nothing to stop terrorism in the decade before 9/11 and, in some cases, appeared to have supported terrorists. This is more disturbing considering that the power of the FBI over terrorism investigations was supreme. In 1998, the FBI’s strategic plan stated that terrorist activities fell “almost exclusively within the jurisdiction of the FBI” and that “the FBI has no higher priority than to combat terrorism.”[2]

A number of people are suspect in these failures, including the leaders of the FBI’s counterterrorism programs. But at the time of Wright’s written complaint, which was not shared with the public until May 2002, the man most responsible was Louis Freeh, Director of the FBI from 1993 to 2001.

Agent Wright was not FBI leadership’s only detractor, and not the only one to criticize Freeh. The public advocacy law firm Judicial Watch, which prosecutes government abuse and corruption, rejoiced at the news of Freeh’s May 2001 resignation.[3] Judicial Watch pointed to a “legacy of corruption” at the FBI under Freeh, listing the espionage scandal at Los Alamos National Laboratories, as well as “Filegate, Waco, the Ruby Ridge cover-up, the Olympic bombing frame-up of Richard Jewell, [and] falsification of evidence concerning the Oklahoma City bombing.”[4]

Judicial Watch said that Director Freeh believed he was above the law. The group went on to say that Freeh was “a man so corrupt he destroyed the office he led, and a man so cowardly he refuses to face the music for the illegalities he has allegedly committed.”[5] To this was added a claim that the FBI under Freeh was being directed by sinister yet unknown forces. “In case after case throughout the 1990′s, the FBI seems to have tailored its investigative efforts to fit somebody’s pre-arranged script. The question is, who wrote that script — and why?”

Freeh became FBI Director on July 19, 1993, just five months after the first WTC bombing, three months after the Waco siege, and one day before the alleged suicide of Hillary Clinton’s former Rose Law Firm associate, deputy White House counsel Vincent Foster. Freeh’s predecessor was William Sessions.

Prior to his appointment by President Clinton, Freeh was a federal judge. He had been selected for that position by President George H.W. Bush in 1991. Before that, Freeh had been an Assistant District Attorney for the Southern District of New York and an FBI field agent.

Freeh was involved with U.S. counter-terrorism efforts for many years prior to his appointment as FBI Director in 1993. As an FBI agent he worked for the New York Field Office, which led the FBI’s counterterrorism effort. It was later the lead field office for Bin Laden investigations and was the first to establish a Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF) of state and federal law enforcement and intelligence personnel. Freeh worked there for seven years until he was promoted to Assistant U.S. Attorney in 1981. Throughout the 1980s, Freeh worked with or for U.S. Attorney Rudy Giuliani, who was mayor of New York City on 9/11.

Although Clinton was a Democrat, after his appointment as FBI Director Freeh immediately began forming alliances with Republicans in Congress. This apparently caused difficulty between the FBI and Clinton’s White House. Freeh also developed a secret relationship with his former supporter, former President George H. W. Bush. He used that relationship to communicate with the Saudi royal family without Clinton’s knowledge.[6]

Ignoring or facilitating domestic terrorism

Just five months before Freeh’s appointment as FBI Director, the World Trade Center (WTC) was bombed in an attack that killed six people and wounded a thousand others. It was blamed on a Pakistani-Kuwaiti by the name of Ramzi Yousef, along with about half a dozen others. However, as the New York Times reported, it was clear that the FBI was somehow involved as well.

Law-enforcement officials were told that terrorists were building a bomb that was eventually used to blow up the World Trade Center, and they planned to thwart the plotters by secretly substituting harmless powder for the explosives, an informer said after the blast.

The informer was to have helped the plotters build the bomb and supply the fake powder, but the plan was called off by an F.B.I. supervisor who had other ideas about how the informer, Emad A. Salem, should be used, the informer said.[7]

The 1993 WTC bombing was a terrorist operation that had been infiltrated by the FBI but the role that the FBI played in trying to prevent that operation, or allow it to go forward, has never been revealed. What has been revealed is that forensic data was falsified and “conclusions were altered to help the government’s case.”[8] These facts were revealed by Frederick Whitehurst, the chemist and supervisory special agent in charge of the FBI’s crime lab who became a whistleblower. The altered conclusions that Whitehurst described were made under the leadership of Louis Freeh.

A similar case occurred in April 1995, when the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City (OKC) was bombed, killing 168 people including 19 children. Investigators have since learned that the FBI played a role in that bombing as well. Reasons that the OKC bombing was suspicious include the fact that there were secondary explosives found in the building that were not reported as part of the official account. And as with the events of 9/11, the FBI immediately confiscated, and refused to release, security videos that would have revealed what actually happened.[9]

Freeh’s colleague and personal friend, Larry Potts, was the FBI supervisor who was responsible for the tragedies at Ruby Ridge in 1992, and Waco in 1993. Potts was then given responsibility for investigating the Oklahoma City bombing.[10] Later it was claimed by one of the convicted conspirators that lead bomber Timothy McVeigh was actually acting under the direction of Potts.[11] As an apparent reward for Potts’ performance, in May 1995 Freeh promoted him to be his number two man as Deputy Director of the FBI. Two months later, Freeh removed Potts from that position due to public outrage at the appointment.

On the FBI links to the OKC bombing, author Peter Dale Scott wrote:

One such case of a penetrated operation “gone wrong” in 1993 might be attributed to confusion, bureaucratic incompetence, or the problems of determining when sufficient evidence had been gathered to justify arrests. A repeated catastrophe two years later raises the question whether the lethal outcome was not intended.[12]

The result of the OKC bombing in governmental terms was the passage of a new anti–terrorism law in April 1996. This was a bill that would be mirrored by the USA Patriot Act six years later, and it was described as representing an assault on civil liberties. The Houston Chronicle called the bill a “frightening” and “grievous” attack on domestic freedoms. But Louis Freeh supported it.

Because many Congressional representatives opposed the bill, it was passed only after having been watered down. In Freeh’s words, it had been “stripped… of just about every meaningful provision.”[13] Freeh’s call for this legislation to be more restrictive of civil liberties must be considered with the fact that his agency was accused of facilitating the event that precipitated the legislation.

One of the obstacles often cited as a root cause for the FBI not doing its anti-terrorism job effectively was “the Wall.” This was a set of procedures that restricted the flow of information between law enforcement officers pursuing criminal investigations and officers pursuing intelligence information via the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). The procedures, set out in a 1995 memo from deputy attorney general (and future 9/11 Commissioner) Jamie Gorelick, were seemingly intended to prevent the loss of evidence, due to technicalities, that might be obtained via a FISA warrant.[14] Because such losses were never actually experienced, later claims about “the Wall” appear to be weak excuses to explain why information was not shared or actions were not taken.

In July 1996, TWA Flight 800 crashed into the Atlantic Ocean just after taking off from JFK Airport in New York, killing all 230 people on board. Freeh later claimed that “No one knew what brought it down.”[15] Curiously, the FBI took over the investigation despite the fact that the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) had priority over the investigation as established by law. FBI agents then blocked attempts by the NTSB to interview witnesses.[16]

I know you are just saying

I know you are just saying this for information gathering purposes but whatever!

The Case Against Ralph Eberhart, NORAD’s 9/11 Commander
by Kevin Ryan
January 16, 2013

Page 1 of 4

In a 2004 U.S. Senate hearing, Senator Mark Dayton remarked that “this country and its citizens were completely undefended” for “109 minutes” on 9/11.[1] Dayton went on to clarify that officials within the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) had covered up the facts about the lack of air defenses by lying to the 9/11 Commission, to Congress and to the American people. And they were not held accountable.

One man was most responsible for both the air defense failures and the lying that covered it up. U.S. Air Force General Ralph Edward Eberhart had taken over command of NORAD from General Richard Myers in February 2000. The position included leadership of all air defense operations in North America and, also, the U.S. Space Command. Therefore, on 9/11, Eberhart was the man most responsible for failure to intercept the four hijacked aircraft over a period of nearly two hours.

NORAD is the joint U.S.-Canadian military organization responsible for monitoring and defending the airspace over North America. Long-standing operating procedures at NORAD, for dealing with airliners that have gone off-course or been hijacked, were not followed on 9/11. Each of the four flights involved in the 9/11 attacks should have been intercepted when they lost radio contact, deviated from their course, or turned off their transponders.[2]

The procedures for interception were automatic and required no special orders to implement. Through these procedures, interceptor jets had been scrambled 129 times in the year 2000 and 67 times in the year prior to June 2001. A 1994 government report stated, “Overall, during the past four years, NORAD’s alert fighters took off to intercept aircraft (referred to as scrambled) 1,518 times, or an average of 15 times per site per year. Of these incidents, the number of suspected drug smuggling aircraft averaged … less than 7 percent of all of the alert sites’ total activity. The remaining activity generally involved visually inspecting unidentified aircraft and assisting aircraft in distress.”[3]

On 9/11, the NORAD interception system failed completely and we have been given multiple, conflicting explanations for why that happened. Considering that there is strong evidence for an alternative hypothesis of insider involvement in 9/11, it is reasonable to assume that an intentional compromising of the U.S. air defenses might have occurred that day. Adding to this suspicion is the fact that guilt tends to be reflected in false testimony. And as Senator Dayton said, NORAD officials “lied to the American people, they lied to Congress and they lied to your 9/11 Commission.”[4]

Exactly which NORAD statements were lies and which were not is a matter that is still not clear to this day. This is partly because the explanations and testimony that are now said to have been false were far more damning to NORAD than the final account, which exonerates NORAD entirely. Why would NORAD leaders want to lie so as to make their performance look worse?

In order to better determine the facts, investigators should begin with at least three areas of inquiry: 1) the times at which NORAD was notified (or made aware) of the hijackings, 2) the times at which NORAD responded in the form of scrambling jets to intercept, and 3) the instructions given to the interceptor pilots in terms of speed and direction.

NORAD’s ever-changing story

The military’s explanations began with a short description of the response to the hijackings. Two days after the attacks, General Richard Myers gave this account to the Senate Armed Services Committee, in an official hearing for his confirmation as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS). He said that no fighter jets were scrambled to intercept any of the hijacked 9/11 flights until after the Pentagon was hit.[5]

Although Myers was not in command of NORAD on 9/11, he should have known two days later if normal procedures had been followed. As Acting CJCS on 9/11, and as Vice Chairman otherwise, his role was to ensure the president and secretary of defense were informed of critical military matters. A second story was given a week after the attacks, when NORAD provided a partial timeline of the notifications it had received from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the responses that followed. General Eberhart reiterated this timeline in testimony to the U.S. Senate a few weeks later and for over two years it stood as the official account.[6] This timeline said that NORAD had received notification about three of the hijacked planes with plenty of time left to ensure interception and had scrambled jets from multiple bases as the attacks proceeded.

The new timeline showed that NORAD was notified about the hijacking of Flight 175 at 8:43 am, a full twenty minutes before it impacted the south tower of the World Trade Center (WTC). Moreover, F-15 interceptor jets from Otis Air Force Base (AFB) were said to be airborne by 8:52, having been scrambled in response to the first hijacking. This allowed twice the time needed for the jets to reach New York City before Flight 175 crashed.

Eberhart added that NORAD was notified about the hijacked Flight 77 coming into Washington at 9:24 am, fourteen minutes before it impacted the Pentagon. He told the Senate Armed Services Committee (repeatedly) that this was a “documented notification.”[7] If true, interceptor jets from Andrews AFB, only ten miles from the Pentagon, could have easily reached the errant airliner given this lead time.

Although the military might now use the excuse that Andrews was not technically under the command of NORAD, the 9/11 Commissions says Eberhart’s statement was simply not true. In fact, both Commission counsel Dan Marcus and Team leader John Farmer were later very blunt about this being a false statement.[8] Therefore, it is clear that Eberhart should be brought up on a charge of contempt of Congress. It is illegal to make any materially false statement or representation in testimony to the Unites States Congress.[9] And that was not the only false statement that Eberhart apparently made to the senators.

In May 2003, Eberhart’s subordinates General Arnold and Colonel William Alan Scott presented a slightly revised version of NORAD’s timeline. They contradicted the timeline for Flight 175, saying that NORAD was not notified of the hijacking until 9:05, three minutes after the aircraft crashed into the south tower. This was despite the fact that when asked by a U.S. Senator about “the second hijacked plane somewhere up there” (Flight 175), Eberhart had previously said “Yes, sir. During that time, we were notified.”[10]

Arnold and Scott also revealed for the first time that NORAD was notified about the hijacking of Flight 93 at 9:16 am. This was 47 minutes before that flight allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania, at 10:03 am. Obviously, interceptor jets could have easily reached and escorted Flight 93 given this revised timeline.

The fourth and final story from NORAD was the official account given by the 9/11 Commission Report, now supported by NORAD. In this explanation NORAD received “no advance notice” on any of the last three hijacked airliners.[11] Instead of 20 minutes’ notice on Flight 175, and 14 minutes’ notice on Flight 77, and 47 minutes’ notice on Flight 93, we were told that NORAD was not notified about any of them until it was too late. The military was off the hook entirely.

All the evidence for notifications and response, which had constituted the official account for nearly three years, had been thrown out the window. In place of these documents and testimonies, new explanations were given for why the scrambled aircraft never reached the hijacked airliners. These included unbelievable claims of communication failures and misdirection of the scrambled jets, as well as the introduction of a never-before mentioned “Phantom 11” scenario.[12]

The 9/11 Commission Report account was supported two years later by an article in Vanity Fair.[13] Allegedly, the author of the article was given privileged access to audio tapes that were not available to the public. Although the newly revealed “NORAD tapes” ostensibly bolstered the Commission’s new timeline, credible explanations were never given for throwing out the years of testimony and evidence that supported entirely different timelines.]

Oh the irony...

I think you need to re-read your definitions of logical fallacies and also read about the strawman argument because that is all your entire post contains.

Here is the definition of a false dilemma fallacy since you clearly have forgotten.

Someone saying that they know they are being lied to but don't know what to believe is called basic skepticism. They aren't even offering a scenario B

I'll give it to you...

Maybe when the guy said "pull it" he meant pull the firefighters out when the building was coming down...

Maybe Dick Cheney accidentally scrambled the jets the wrong way...

Maybe the President just happened to be sitting in a room of innocent children at the time...

Maybe a passport flew out of the plane escaped the fire and landed nearby for a passerby to stumble upon...

Maybe there weren't explosives in the dust and the steel buildings fell down because of the fires...

Maybe when they swore they could never imagine such a thing happen, they weren't aware of the drills being run...

Maybe Larry Silverstein bought the terrorist insurance because the insurance salesman said it was a good idea...

Maybe he called up the BBC and told them the buildings were "going to" come down and they just read it wrong...

Maybe the things some of the witnesses said were wrong

Maybe when George said he watched the plane hit the building and thought they were bad pilots, he had forgotten what the secret service had whispered to him in the classroom...

Maybe they wanted to put Henry Kissinger in charge of the 911 commission because he's a good investigator...

There's a couple of the things even I think may be a coincidence.. but maybe, just maybe you don't want to know the truth.

yeah well thats bullcrap about "pulling fire fighters"

I distinctly remember the news reporting at the time that they were going to bring the building down. It wasn't until years later that I found out they were claiming it fell on its own.

Building 7 was brought down purposely by detonation.

I can hear the conversation..

"Hey, we need to get out there first on this other building going down"
"Yeah, just say something about all the loss of life, the building just wasn't important anymore"

I know..

it's so completely obvious what he meant

robot999's picture

oh, and maybe

just maybe the laws of physics were temporarily suspended for bldg 7 collapse!

"Government is the entertainment division of the military-industrial complex". - Frank Zappa


I didn't even get into the tower 7 coming down all by itself.
I mean if part of the building was on fire and a chunk of one of the sides came off.. i could understand that, but well.. we all saw what happened

"You take every bit of flimsy

"You take every bit of flimsy evidence and force it to support your conspiracy."

Actually, that sounds like exactly what -you- are doing.

Go Watch

the first part of "The Ring Of Power" and then get back to us on that. But you won't, because you WANT to believe our government is good or else you work for them.


911 is an important aspect to

911 is an important aspect to waking up to the Globalist agenda, we need to understand the enemy to be able to resist it. There have been a number of false flag events recently that present an opportunity for the elite to push their agenda but also an opportunity to expose their lies and deceit. That is where the battle for liberty is today. The tide is turning against the elite and even the sleeping masses are questioning the Sandy Hook event which could unravel their whole agenda. I have posted on numerous news sites debating the event and guess where I got many of my talking points and evidence from? The Daily Paul.

We can all have philosophical discussions on Constitutional Conservatism vs Anarcho Capitalism which is important but none of that matters if the elite win. This is an activism site and False Flags, Drones, food and health freedom, Gun Control- these are the issues that compose the front line of the battle to make America free again and where our energy needs to be put forth. Almost every aspect of our life from the info the media pumps out to the crap food we eat to the fluoride poisoned water we drink has been twisted against us to keep us enslaved. We must rid ourselves from these before we can rid this country of the corruption at the top. That is what my signature denotes- The front line is everywhere, there be no shelter here...

On 911- So far, the facts presented that support controlled demolition surpass the debunker's explanations. Namely why building 7 collapsed from a small amount of debris falling on it and the book in the pentagon that was not even charred. I mean, how can one plane crash produce enough fire to melt /weaken steel at the twin towers but a similar plane hit the pentagon and not even burn a paper book? For that matter, where is all the security footage of the plan hitting the pentagon aside from the 3 frames given? If they had nothing to hide, why was this all confiscated?

We all share this eternally evolving present moment- The past and future only exist as inconsequential mental fabrications.


that you are too stoopid to get it. But I am glad you support RP's principles of liberty...or do you? Maybe you are one of those paid trolls. Good luck with that.