43 of 76 people found the following review helpful
Well, why didn't they debunk the myths?,
This review is from: Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can't Stand Up to the Facts (Paperback)
In these propaganda pieces, I always look for what they say about Flight 93. It's an easy indicator of the level of access to sensitive information the researchers were given.
The reason why I look for this is because I was in the Air Force at the time of the attacks, working as an Arabic linguist. Given that there were scrambled Air Force fighters in the air after the attacks got started, you might imagine what we tuned our dials to that morning. It is no less than a fact that Flight 93 was shot down by the Air Force. There is little else to be said about it. Why this, why that...who knows. Obviously, there will be no answers until more insiders step forward, or a substantive investigation takes place. This book certainly gets us no closer to the truth.
One thing I would like to ask, though, is why are people demonized for questioning the official story? If we're not convinced, does that absolutely mean we're rebels against the government? Maybe I think a foreign government did it. Maybe the White House just doesn't want to admit it because it proves their incompetence. If I say the towers were expertly demolished, why does it mean I'm pointing my finger at the government or that I'm paranoid? Isn't it possible, considering the years of planning that went into the attacks, that the perpetrators used those years to plant explosives? For example, we learned that there were no fewer than three bombs (thousands of pounds) planted in the Murrah Building in the Oklahoma City bombing. If I say that, why does that mean I'm against the government? Couldn't Timothy McVeigh do that with his comrades?
The outright lying just makes you look guilty, PM. You didn't plant the explosives, so why are you covering it up?
Tracked by 2 customers
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 15 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Apr 25, 2013 12:22:46 PM PDT
Robert W. Osborn says:
The reviewer alleges that Flight 93 was shot down is a "fact". So there ya go; now we know. To hell with supporting documentation or evidence I guess, though it might be interesting to know from where he/she derives his "facts" I think.
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 29, 2013 11:57:47 AM PDT
Warren Cox says:
I completely agree with Mr. Osborn regarding the reviewer's "fact." I, too, was in the Air Force during 9/11. I was a JAG and can tell you that it is highly unlikely the the reviewer would have been privy to such an incredible "secret." In the first place, linguists in the Air Force are enlisted. I was a Major at the time and can tell you that such a secret would not have been shared with someone in my pay grade. So, unless this linguist was also a fighter pilot at the time that personally shot down the aircraft, I highly doubt that he would have been privy to any such secret. Of course, there was no such secret because there was no conspiracy (other than the one by the terrorists) and Flight 93 was brought down by the terrorists while repelling an attack by the brave passengers who put up a fight.
In reply to an earlier post on May 9, 2013 8:19:04 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 14, 2013 11:15:48 AM PDT
And you know this how, Warren? Because the government said so? And you believed them? Did you know that NORAD's shifting stories so angered the 9/11 Commission that the Commissioners considered asking for a DoJ investigation?
Did you know that if 93 was shot down on Cheney's orders it would have been without necessary presidential authorization, and thus the 9/11 Commission was highly motivated to cover up Cheney's shootdown if it were true?
Think about the supposed objectivity of a bipartisan commission in such a politicized context. The Republicans don't want to reveal that Cheney shot down Flight 93 (if he did) because it furthers his reputation as an amoral lizard-man and because, in an election year, it puts Bush on the spot. Bush has to validate Cheney's shoot-down of innocent civilians or he has to find another Vice President. The Democrats don't want to admit it if Cheney shot down flight 93 because then they'd have to prosecute him for it, and in an election year this could backfire, making them look soft on security. So they come up with this theory that yes, Cheney did order 93 shot down in principle at 10:15, but it doesn't matter because a) flight 93 had already crashed by then and b) Bush had already given the clearance by then.
Read the Newsweek story by Michael Isikoff (and others) called "Shot heard round the world" Feb. 27, 2006, and read between the lines of the material about flight 93 and the 9/11 Commission investigation.
In reply to an earlier post on May 10, 2013 9:26:06 PM PDT
Perhaps somewhere on the Internet you'll be able to find "documentation" (which would have to be a leaked document, so not quite reasonable of you to request it), but the best I can do for you is tell you that I was a linguist (Arabic) in the AF. Finding our internal communications regarding Flight 93 was really quite simple.
In reply to an earlier post on May 10, 2013 10:11:40 PM PDT
Robert W. Osborn says:
I beg to differ; a claim as inflammatory as this one begs supporting documentation, lest its maker be rightly taken as a charlatan. Put up or shut up.
In reply to an earlier post on May 11, 2013 12:32:24 AM PDT
It's asinine to put forward the notion that information access (in SIGINT, anyway) follows "pay grade." By your own admission, Warren, the vast majority of COMINT is collected by the enlisted, so even you can infer that the enlisted have the greatest amount of first-hand access to the intelligence data. And non-intelligence officers such as yourself...well, you don't have a need to know the information, and that means you don't get the information. Similarly, I more than likely had a higher clearance than you did, but that doesn't mean I got to peek at your files. But juicy details about what's going on around the world? How could you think you'd know more?
Whom is it you think military linguists work for? Certainly you can figure out why many linguists get stationed at Ft Meade. I have no doubt you can name the intelligence agency that's headquartered there. But even if you know all that, I suppose you're suspicious how I might come to know some "secret" unrelated to the collection of Arabic intelligence. If you were in our shoes on that day, and you had the resources, would you listen to Fox News/CNN, or the scrambled aircraft from our own military, or the off-duty Arabs half-way across the world (on 11 Sep 01, 0900 = 1700 in most of the Middle East), or perhaps some combination of them? As you can imagine, we kept records.
In reply to an earlier post on May 11, 2013 12:57:17 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 11, 2013 6:30:22 PM PDT
Ahh. Robert, do you imagine that when one is researching information in a SCIF that he takes pictures of himself with his prohibited cell phone, and then he smiles while he holds what, a notarized document that says Flight 93 was shot down? Or I should have hit print screen and tagged you in a tweet with a link?
Truly, I said what I said only because many people have already come to this conclusion based solely on the fact that what they would expect to find had Flight 93 crashed (whole) in a field in Pennsylvania isn't what they actually find. I am not imagining my corroborative testimony to be what convinces those folks, or really anybody. At best, it cements what they already believe. For some, I can hope, it's only a trigger to ask questions, and the many pictures and witnesses will be what finally convinces them. I hope you try to prove me wrong. Just be thorough.
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 4, 2013 10:30:59 PM PDT
Do you have a point, or are you just another pseudonymous internet poster who gets a cheap thrill out of pretending he's some kind of spook with arcane knowledge?
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 12, 2013 8:54:51 PM PDT
Brian, do you suppose everybody with whom you disagree is lying to you? Is Amazon in on the conspiracy, since they say "Caleb" is my real name?
As far as the point, the same question applies to the author(s) of the book which our correspondence surrounds. Once you figure out what the point of the book is, you'll then understand the point of the criticism.
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 12, 2013 11:53:45 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 13, 2013 12:11:39 AM PDT
3) The point of the book is clearly to lie about 9/11 since it contains so many ridiculous lies
4) I'll suppose therefore that your point is to lie about 9/11.
I note that you did not back up your claim that you are a spook with arcane knowledge.