All the source material I’m quoting is here:
http://www.archives.gov/legislative/...t-sept2005.pdf
Which is what my first post was about and what we are supposed to be debating yes/no???

No, all you need is a small number of key individuals at the top to prevent an interception.

There’s no report of any correspondence between Boston and AA prior to the call by AA at 8:29, that’s 15 minutes after the first loss of contact and 7 minutes after the reported hijacking by Ong.

I already answered this, they didn’t contact them until 8:29, a full 7 minutes after they knew the plane was hijacked and they called to ask about the status of Flight 11 and not to report the hijacking. How would they know that Boston knew about the hijacking at 8:25 if they hadn’t bothered to tell them?
No it doesn’t, but it does indicate there’s a problem. Furthermore the transponder was switched off at 8:21 adding to the seriousness of the situation.

It’s an unbelievable report because they knew the plane was hijacked at 8:22, yet we have this report at 8:33:

And this report at 8:36:

It’s probably not relevant to what Boston ATC did after 8:25 but it does show what a fantasy story the whole report is and that's why I referred to it.


They lost radio contact at 8:14, transponder at 8:21 and SOC knew there was a hijacking at 8:22 but apparently didn’t bother telling anyone until the call at 8:29

you are doing what the whole report is trying to do, stretch out the timeline to justify no interception. Talking about a kamikaze hijacking is irrelevant to this, are you suggesting there’s a different procedure for suspected kamikaze hijackings?

There’s no cherry picking of evidence, the first report to the military was at 8:37, and we are lead to believe that this was a shortcut. Why weren’t the military notified at 8:22 when SOC acknowledged the hijacking, or at 8:21 when the transponder was switched off or at 8:25 when Boston knew it was a hijacking?

Or what about this report at 8:32:

Why didn't the FAA notify the military?

I have shown from the report itself that nobody in the military, at any level, was notified of the hijacking until 8:37. SOC knew at 8:22, Boston knew there was serious problem from 8:21, the FAA knew prior to 8:32 yet nobody contacted the military. The whole report is a farce.

Give me a reputable source for this or get back under your bridge. I love you tin foil guys.

__________________
"I don't know whether the world is run by smart men who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain

Remember the Drumboe Martyrs -
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Provide a source? This is all common knowledge in the public domain...it's like someone saying that this country has been ruined under FF, and another person saying "I don't believe you, can you provide a source for that."

An initial 3 million dollars was spent on the 9/11 commission and a further 11 million was requested and 9 million was granted giving a total of 12 million dollars.

This for the biggest act of crime in US history.

Do you know how much the Irish government spend on the John Carty / Justic Barr Commission? 20 million euro, nearly twice what was spent on the 9/11 commission. Do you really think the 9/11 commission was a thorough investigation then?

No, it wasn't. But only in so far as it didn't investigate every crackpot conspiracy theory from thousands of crackpot bloggers and posters.

Over 200 people were killed at the pentagon...yet not a single verifiable piece of a boeing 757 was found...even though they could claim to identify victims by finger prints...

The American people and people like you are dumb for accepting the explanation that the wreckage vapourised. That's the real crackpot theory, that a plane vapourised and only naive fools would believe this happens.

It's easy to write off someone who questions the official account as a crackpot, it's the lazy unintelligent approach and demands no use of the brain.

Litterly thousands of expert aviators, physicists, scientists, professional engineers and arachitects of the highest professional rank have question the 9/11 official narrative. Yet you have Joe Soap posters as on here who think they know more than these experts.

Of course middle America accepts the government account. Middle America is easily deceived and not very sophisticated similar to some posters on here. They accept everything you tell them just as in Ireland people accepted everything FF told them.

<sigh> You morons just don't give up, do you?

The 'Hijackers are alive' crap is just that - crap. Suspects for the hijackings were named by the FBI based on the passenger (and to a lesser extent, investigative) information at the time of the flights. Passenger information provided by the hijackers in booking tickets, renting premises, renting cars, hotel rooms &c &c.

Yet somehow you, Dylan Avery, Alex Jones and the rest of the wet pants brigade think that there is some HUGE CONSPIRACY because, horror of horrors - Some of These Identities Were Fake

By the way, some of the names cited by the Grand High Tin Hat - you may as well state in hushed tones that Sean McCarthy is alive and well in Cork, or that there is, to this day, a Stephen Jones or an Alec Williams alive and well in the Vallllleys of South Wales. The presence of common given names in these terrorist lists is evidence of incompetence and futility, not of Conspiracy.

__________________
entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem

LOL I suspose you think the mainstream media is a reputable source?

FYI According to intelligence insiders the BBC centre is London is known to them colloquially as "b_lls&*t house". As for the bridge business it's already occupied by your own sort according internet lore anyhow.

not as much as the mass murderers of 9/11, Iraq Gaza etc love self destroying sheep like you i'd dare guess. You make it so easy for them to continue to stage more attacks invasions, attacks of privacy and restrictions freedom. You are tyrants' Facilitators

Oh Yeah, a likely story! You better inform the FBI since they still have the original names on their website. Nothing strange about that or for it is more a case for all your arrogance you just haven’t thought about it nor about the fact that none of the mainstream media has bothered to amend their lists either.

Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe


Thermite material from a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material has been found in dust from destroyed 9 11 Trade Center

Source

__________________
"In a time of universal deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act." (George Orwell)


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Right.. and what does Quintierre think happened? Incidently - Whilst there may be issues with NISTs investigations, which are indeed picked up on from various structural engineering entities through the world, not one of the papers submitted for peer review makes the case that it was anything else than a collapse due to anything other than controlled demolition.

Care to explain that?

No more than 'office fires'. Well according to Quintierre - NIST could have under-estimated the fireloads in that building by up to a factor of 3...

Incidenty, 'no more than office fires'. What 'exactly' is that supposed to mean? Do you actually work? What is an office full of? Its full of highly combustible materials in the form of paper, and highly energy dense materials in the form of Hydrocarbon dervied products (i.e.) Plastics, which will be in everything from the computer to the chair that an office worker sits on, to wood of the work desks.

So what exactly do you mean 'no more than office fires'.

Hmmmm

Vulcan Solutions - Cardington Fire Test Comparisons

Care to answer what the standard fire loads which were used in these tests, what they were representative of and what temperatures they reached?

Well I'll do it for you...

[img]http://www.vulcan-solutions.com/images/card_demo_before_s.gif[/img

Typical fire load.

Would you say thats a typical office fire?

You're confusing me... Where?

Arguing implies that you actually answer other peoples points And questions. You don't, you haven't.

Actualy thats not proven at all. You make a great case about how NIST didn't bother to examine any of the structural steel and now you claim that they examined all the structural steel in the outer steel columns in the crash areas affected.

Whats it too be?

But it would be a good idea to try and tie this in with what NIST's Hypothesis is. Do they say that the WTC collapsed due to a weakening in the outer structural steel? I don't think so - so yet nother strawman from yourself.

Reference please.

What exactly does it matter that the building was 95% intact.

Incidently, which Fire experts have widely discredited NIST? Apart from Quintierre, who thinks that there is another 'equally valid' explanation for the collapse, that NIST could have under estimated the fire loads in the building by a factor of 3.

And Quintierre's Hypothesis? That the buildings collapsed due to the effects exerted on the building by fire...

Can you point out why the building being in total 95% intact, how that would have prevented a top down collapse?

By a professor of Physics, whose specialises in Cold Fusion. The University which he was at until until he 'published' his paper, Structural Engineering (You know, the structural engineering being the most relevant area here) department quite quickly distanced themselves from his conclusions.

Oh and then Professor Stephen Jones makes a complete mockery out of his paper by submitting his paper for peer review, not in a structural engineering Journal or even an engineering journal at all, but instead thought that his article would have a better time in peer review by submitting it to a Political Science Journal...

John Quinterre (which you referenced above, again... Padding much?),. who thinks he has an 'equally valid' hypothesis and still does not think the buildings collapsed due to explosives...

Danny Jowenko, who incidently DOES NOT think that 1 & 2 WTC were subject to a controlled demolition, which somewhat contradicts you does it not?

In aeronautical flying... wow. I'll think you'll find that a few hundred pilots out of a few million does not a consensus make...

Whose one argument is this...

lets forget that the Hijackers had already killed one person, stabbed another and had a pilot in their ranks so the chances of Charles Burlingame doing what exactly, is what exactly?

So, they've convinced me....

Richard Gage, who is an Architect. What do they do? And why exactly do they need a structural engineer on their design team?

Incidenty, what Sky scrapers has Richard Gage worked on?

The foremost experts in their field...

Thats not a fallacy at all is it?

I'm sure the Hindenberg was designed by the foremost experts.
The Titanic. Hell, its not like having a Bachelors, Masters, or PhD in Any engineering or science subject has ever precluded from anybody actually making mistakes.

Can you point to a building which is constructed using the same techniques as 1 & 2 WTC since there construction? Whats that? No you can't? Why is that?

Just because it was 'designed' to be something, doesn't neccessarily mean it was in reality.

Simplest terms. Formula one. Each team designs its cars to be the fastest. Yet only one is. Each one is only designed by the foremost experts in their fields, driven by the most talented drivers in the world.

Could you point out why Toyota have not won a F1 Construtors championship, despite having the largest budget, the best parent company and arguably some of the best engineers in the world?

And what do we have in you?? We have an 'expert' in nothing. And you might go to experts... but hell, we've never actually get to debte with these experts, just some short statements from yester year.

Or the experts which you claim to support your positions... don't.

Or 'experts' whose primary reason for doubting 9/11 is that a white man wouldn't let himself be bossed around by an arab with a boxcutter.

All of which is demonstrated above.

So you ignore NIST (experts), you ignore John Quinterre (your expert), you ignore Danny Jowenko (you're expert, whose views on 7 WTC are disputable, but since he's YOUR expert, directly contradicts you on 1 & 2 WTC.)

You ignore that not one structural engineering entity from Universities to consultancies have ever submitted a paper for peer review claiming that the WTC werent not the subject of fire induced collapsed.

Well done you.

Ahhh Nothing to say Stewie?

Oh thats right, because you're a moron, who apart from snide comments, can't even beat little old me in an argument.

Go and have a ******************** somewhere.