Why I hate 9-11 Truthers

[Capstone]

"Twoofers, conspiracy theorists, loons, philosophers, and theologians!", poor Hollie still rings hollow after all these years.

His or her primary standard for judging the credibility of prominent commentators, scholars, scientists, professionals from highly relevant fields, and other researchers from the 9/11 Truth Movement is as dubious as it is transparent - anyone who doesn't support the patently ridiculous NEOCT (conspiracy theory) is a "twoofer" and a "loon" by default. How super-de-duper convincing!

 

[Hollie]

"Twoofers, conspiracy theorists, loons, philosophers, and theologians!", poor Hollie still rings hollow after all these years.

His or her primary standard for judging the credibility of prominent commentators, scholars, scientists, professionals from highly relevant fields, and other researchers from the 9/11 Truth Movement is as dubious as it is transparent - anyone who doesn't support the patently ridiculous NEOCT (conspiracy theory) is a "twoofer" and a "loon" by default. How super-de-duper convincing!

Poor capstone. Her appeals to theologians, philosophers and social misfits such as Alex Jones are the promoters of their conspiracy theories.

And here we are, a decade and a half past the events and the conspiracy theorists still have no credible case to make to placate their conspiracy theories.

Do you conspiracy theory loons need another decade and a half to make a credible case?

 

[daws101]

As noted and asked several years ago by the consummate researcher and patriarch of the 9/11 Truth Movement, Prof. David Ray Griffin:

"This rejection of Ted Olson’s story [...] especially [by] the FBI is a development of utmost importance. Without the alleged calls from Barbara Olson, there is no evidence that Flight 77 returned to Washington. Also, if Ted Olson’s claim was false, then there are only two possibilities: Either he lied or he was duped by someone using voice-morphing technology to pretend to be his wife.17 In either case, the official story about the calls from Barbara Olson was based on deception. And if that part of the official account of 9/11 was based on deception, should we not suspect that other parts were as well? "

Great question.

Preemptive Note to Dwas the Debwunker: Before you chime in with your usual ad hom idiocy, yes, I'm fully aware that Griffin's advanced degrees are in Theology and Philosophy, so spare me the blast of your chronic halitosis.

You mean something factual like he's totally unqualified to be taken seriously
like yourself.

 

[daws101]

Your conspiracy theory ramblings are boilerplate.
Critique of David Ray Griffin s 9 11 Fake Calls Theory by Erik Larson 911Blogger.comf...

Yet Larson had nothing to say about perhaps the most crucial point from Griffin's essay:

"...in spite of the fact that two women from American Flight 77 – Barbara Olson and flight attendant Renee May – were generally reported to have made cell phone calls, the graphics for them did not indicate that either of them had used a cell phone. And when we look at a May 2004 FBI report on phone calls from AA Flight 77, which “was conducted in support of the U.S. Justice Department’s criminal case against Zacarias Moussaoui,” we find this statement: “All of the calls from Flight 77 were made via the onboard airphone system.”39 "

Here's the referenced document:

Taken together, the FBI exhibit from my previous post and this FBI report confirming that all of the calls from Flight 77 were made via the onboard airphone system, we can only conclude that Barbara Olson was unsuccessful in any attempt to contact her husband.

This evidence strongly suggests one of two things: either Ted Olson lied about the two famous calls from his wife, or he was duped and the conversations he had were not with his wife. Either way, the widespread media reports of those calls were based on an intentional fabrication on somebody's part.

...And yes, citing the ramblings of a 9/11 conspiracy theory loon who's training and degrees are in theology and philosophy tends to further lessen the credibility of the conspiracy theory.

Right, because philosphers and theologians have historically contributed so little to legitimate fields of knowledge (like science and math).

Too bad he's not one of them.

 

[Capstone]

Having cited several direct eyewitness accounts, the FDR analysis as recounted by a highly qualified analyst, and the FBI documentation that was entered in evidence in federal court back in 2006, all corroborating my beliefs that the Pentagon was struck by a small to mid-size "commuter plane"...and not, as widely reported, by AA Flight 77, I'll now turn my attention to supporting my beliefs regarding Flight 93.

First, corroborating the possibility that UAL Flight 93 was shot down by a rogue interceptor who may have "slipped through the cracks of the *war games stand-down" (*an aspect I intend to cover in greater depth in a future post), the following excerpt is from a well-sourced Concensus9/11.org article, which was posted at globalresearch.ca on January, 21, 2015 (oh yes, the 9/11 Truth Movement is still very much alive and kicking):

"[. . .]The 9/11 Commission claimed that Cheney did not issue a shoot-down authorization until 10:10 or later, whereas the evidence shows that Cheney gave the authorization by 9:50 – hence at least 20 minutes earlier than the Commission claimed. This 20-minute difference means the difference between whether military pilots could, or could not, have been ordered to shoot down United Flight 93 (which reportedly crashed at 10:03).
The Commission’s claim about the time of the shoot-down authorization was not the only part of the official account of the shoot-down authorization that was problematic: The press focused on the Bush administration’s claim that Cheney had transmitted authorization received from the President (rather than declaring it on his own, which would have been illegal), about which even the 9/11 Commission was skeptical.22

More important to the truth about 9/11, however, was the 9/11 Commission’s claim that the shoot-down authorization was not given by Cheney until 10:10 or later, hence after United 93 had crashed. This claim is contradicted by reports from Richard Clarke, U.S. News and World Report, Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr, the FAA, and three military officers: Col. Marr, Gen. Arnold, and Brig. Gen. Winfield.

Moreover, the 9/11 Commission’s 10:10-or-later claim presupposed the Commission’s claim that Cheney did not enter the PEOC, where he took charge, until almost 10:00, and this claim is contradicted by abundant evidence, as shown in Point MC-3.23"

Emphasis mine.

Now, while the points highlighted above can't be claimed as direct evidence of a shoot-down, they do at least corroborate the possibility. Moreover, they can be viewed as evidence of a cover-up on the part of the 9/11 commission, as well as evidence that directly contradicts several key aspects of the NEOCT as presented in the mainstream media, not least of which the in-flight passenger revolt story that came to us by way of a number of *reported cell phone/airphone calls (*another aspect I intend to address at length in a future post).

Anticipating the objection that a shoot-down order is counterintuitive to the notion that Cheney was in-the-know and intentionally complicit in the 9/11 black operation, we need only look at the nature of the alleged order as it was understood by those who reportedly received it.

From the same article quoted above:

[. . .]General Larry Arnold, the commander of NORAD within the Continental United States, said: “I had every intention of shooting down United 93 if it continued to progress toward Washington, D.C.”15

General Montague Winfield, the deputy director of the National Military Command Center in the Pentagon, reportedly said: “The decision was made to try to go intercept Flight 93. . . . The Vice President [said] that the President had given us permission to shoot down innocent civilian aircraft that threatened Washington, DC.”16 [...]

IF, as these accounts may suggest, the shoot-down order was intended to apply only to "civilan aircraft that threatened Washington D.C.", and in deference to the prospect that Cheney knew Flight 93's intended target was in NYC (Building 7, maybe?), then such an order wouldn't be counterintuitive in the least.

I'll leave it there for now.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Having cited several direct eyewitness accounts, the FDR analysis as recounted by a highly qualified analyst, and the FBI documentation that was entered in evidence in federal court back in 2006, all corroborating my beliefs that the Pentagon was struck by a small to mid-size "commuter plane"...and not, as widely reported, by AA Flight 77, I'll now turn my attention to supporting my beliefs regarding Flight 93.

First, corroborating the possibility that UAL Flight 93 was shot down by a rogue interceptor who may have "slipped through the cracks of the *war games stand-down" (*an aspect I intend to cover in greater depth in a future post), the following excerpt is from a well-sourced Concensus9/11.org article, which was posted at globalresearch.ca on January, 21, 2015 (oh yes, the 9/11 Truth Movement is still very much alive and kicking):

"[. . .]The 9/11 Commission claimed that Cheney did not issue a shoot-down authorization until 10:10 or later, whereas the evidence shows that Cheney gave the authorization by 9:50 – hence at least 20 minutes earlier than the Commission claimed. This 20-minute difference means the difference between whether military pilots could, or could not, have been ordered to shoot down United Flight 93 (which reportedly crashed at 10:03).
The Commission’s claim about the time of the shoot-down authorization was not the only part of the official account of the shoot-down authorization that was problematic: The press focused on the Bush administration’s claim that Cheney had transmitted authorization received from the President (rather than declaring it on his own, which would have been illegal), about which even the 9/11 Commission was skeptical.22

More important to the truth about 9/11, however, was the 9/11 Commission’s claim that the shoot-down authorization was not given by Cheney until 10:10 or later, hence after United 93 had crashed. This claim is contradicted by reports from Richard Clarke, U.S. News and World Report, Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr, the FAA, and three military officers: Col. Marr, Gen. Arnold, and Brig. Gen. Winfield.

Moreover, the 9/11 Commission’s 10:10-or-later claim presupposed the Commission’s claim that Cheney did not enter the PEOC, where he took charge, until almost 10:00, and this claim is contradicted by abundant evidence, as shown in Point MC-3.23"

Emphasis mine.

Now, while the points highlighted above can't be claimed as direct evidence of a shoot-down, they do at least corroborate the possibility. Moreover, they can be viewed as evidence of a cover-up on the part of the 9/11 commission, as well as evidence that directly contradicts several key aspects of the NEOCT as presented in the mainstream media, not least of which the in-flight passenger revolt story that came to us by way of a number of *reported cell phone/airphone calls (*another aspect I intend to address at length in a future post).

Anticipating the objection that a shoot-down order is counterintuitive to the notion that Cheney was in-the-know and intentionally complicit in the 9/11 black operation, we need only look at the nature of the alleged order as it was understood by those who reportedly received it.

From the same article quoted above:

[. . .]General Larry Arnold, the commander of NORAD within the Continental United States, said: “I had every intention of shooting down United 93 if it continued to progress toward Washington, D.C.”15

General Montague Winfield, the deputy director of the National Military Command Center in the Pentagon, reportedly said: “The decision was made to try to go intercept Flight 93. . . . The Vice President [said] that the President had given us permission to shoot down innocent civilian aircraft that threatened Washington, DC.”16 [...]

IF, as these accounts may suggest, the shoot-down order was intended to apply only to "civilan aircraft that threatened Washington D.C.", and in deference to the prospect that Cheney knew Flight 93's intended target was in NYC (Building 7, maybe?), then such an order wouldn't be counterintuitive in the least.

I'll leave it there for now.

Good because no professional or expert analysis proves anything other than the hijacked airliner hit the Pentagon. The FDR analysis is neither.

There is no evidence as you claim for Cheney's order either

 

[Hollie]

Having cited several direct eyewitness accounts, the FDR analysis as recounted by a highly qualified analyst, and the FBI documentation that was entered in evidence in federal court back in 2006, all corroborating my beliefs that the Pentagon was struck by a small to mid-size "commuter plane"...and not, as widely reported, by AA Flight 77, I'll now turn my attention to supporting my beliefs regarding Flight 93.

First, corroborating the possibility that UAL Flight 93 was shot down by a rogue interceptor who may have "slipped through the cracks of the *war games stand-down" (*an aspect I intend to cover in greater depth in a future post), the following excerpt is from a well-sourced Concensus9/11.org article, which was posted at globalresearch.ca on January, 21, 2015 (oh yes, the 9/11 Truth Movement is still very much alive and kicking):

"[. . .]The 9/11 Commission claimed that Cheney did not issue a shoot-down authorization until 10:10 or later, whereas the evidence shows that Cheney gave the authorization by 9:50 – hence at least 20 minutes earlier than the Commission claimed. This 20-minute difference means the difference between whether military pilots could, or could not, have been ordered to shoot down United Flight 93 (which reportedly crashed at 10:03).
The Commission’s claim about the time of the shoot-down authorization was not the only part of the official account of the shoot-down authorization that was problematic: The press focused on the Bush administration’s claim that Cheney had transmitted authorization received from the President (rather than declaring it on his own, which would have been illegal), about which even the 9/11 Commission was skeptical.22

More important to the truth about 9/11, however, was the 9/11 Commission’s claim that the shoot-down authorization was not given by Cheney until 10:10 or later, hence after United 93 had crashed. This claim is contradicted by reports from Richard Clarke, U.S. News and World Report, Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr, the FAA, and three military officers: Col. Marr, Gen. Arnold, and Brig. Gen. Winfield.

Moreover, the 9/11 Commission’s 10:10-or-later claim presupposed the Commission’s claim that Cheney did not enter the PEOC, where he took charge, until almost 10:00, and this claim is contradicted by abundant evidence, as shown in Point MC-3.23"

Emphasis mine.

Now, while the points highlighted above can't be claimed as direct evidence of a shoot-down, they do at least corroborate the possibility. Moreover, they can be viewed as evidence of a cover-up on the part of the 9/11 commission, as well as evidence that directly contradicts several key aspects of the NEOCT as presented in the mainstream media, not least of which the in-flight passenger revolt story that came to us by way of a number of *reported cell phone/airphone calls (*another aspect I intend to address at length in a future post).

Anticipating the objection that a shoot-down order is counterintuitive to the notion that Cheney was in-the-know and intentionally complicit in the 9/11 black operation, we need only look at the nature of the alleged order as it was understood by those who reportedly received it.

From the same article quoted above:

[. . .]General Larry Arnold, the commander of NORAD within the Continental United States, said: “I had every intention of shooting down United 93 if it continued to progress toward Washington, D.C.”15

General Montague Winfield, the deputy director of the National Military Command Center in the Pentagon, reportedly said: “The decision was made to try to go intercept Flight 93. . . . The Vice President [said] that the President had given us permission to shoot down innocent civilian aircraft that threatened Washington, DC.”16 [...]

IF, as these accounts may suggest, the shoot-down order was intended to apply only to "civilan aircraft that threatened Washington D.C.", and in deference to the prospect that Cheney knew Flight 93's intended target was in NYC (Building 7, maybe?), then such an order wouldn't be counterintuitive in the least.

I'll leave it there for now.

Good because no professional or expert analysis proves anything other than the hijacked airliner hit the Pentagon. The FDR analysis is neither.

There is no evidence as you claim for Cheney's order either

I wouldn't expect the rabid twoofers to let a few incidentals like facts get in the way of their cutting and pasting.

 

[G.T.]

Lol truthers are still a thing?????

 

[Capstone]

For the benefit of anyone interested in serious discussion, I'll respond only in reference to specific information or evidence that refutes or seemingly contradicts the information and evidence I've cited. Posts with nothing more to offer than unsupported pronouncements and/or adolescent name-calling will receive from me the attention they deserve - none.

Regarding Cheney's shoot-down order applying to a specific Washington-bound aircraft (bear in mind: this would have been after the "Flight 77" incident at the Pentagon), his own words have confirmed this.



Between 0:07 and 0:18

Interviewer: "...you were the one who gave the direct order to shoot down a plane that you were told, as it turns out incorrectly, was headed for Washington."

Cheney: "Right. That's correct."

This televised confirmation indicated his belief at the time the order was given - a belief apparently based on incorrect information - that the target of the order was headed for Washington.

Since that specific target was identified as Flight 93 by a number of high-ranking officers who reportedly received and at least intended to obey the shoot-down order (see the article in my last post), it seems reasonable to conclude that Cheney was indeed knowingly speaking of Flight 93.

Obviously, if Cheney knew Flight 93's intended target was supposed to be in New York, then the erroneous information that it was headed for D.C. would have indicated a problem in the RC flight system, which would have made the ultimate destination of that aircraft/drone an unacceptable wildcard.

 

[Hollie]

For the benefit of anyone interested in serious discussion, I'll respond only in reference to specific information or evidence that refutes or seemingly contradicts the information and evidence I've cited. Posts with nothing more to offer than unsupported pronouncements and/or adolescent name-calling will receive from me the attention they deserve - none.

Regarding Cheney's shoot-down order applying to a specific Washington-bound aircraft (bear in mind: this would have been after the "Flight 77" incident at the Pentagon), his own words have confirmed this.



Between 0:07 and 0:18

Interviewer: "...you were the one who gave the direct order to shoot down a plane that you were told, as it turns out incorrectly, was headed for Washington."

Cheney: "Right. That's correct."

This televised confirmation indicated his belief at the time the order was given - a belief apparently based on incorrect information - that the target of the order was headed for Washington.

Since that specific target was identified as Flight 93 by a number of high-ranking officers who reportedly received and at least intended to obey the shoot-down order (see the article in my last post), it seems reasonable to conclude that Cheney was indeed knowingly speaking of Flight 93.

Obviously, if Cheney knew Flight 93's intended target was supposed to be in New York, then the erroneous information that it was headed for D.C. would have indicated a problem in the RC flight system, which would have made the ultimate destination of that aircraft/drone an unacceptable wildcard.

Alex jones predicted all of this.




You can't deny the twoof.

 

[Capstone]

Using the WaybackMachine, early anecdotal evidence for the shoot-down hypothesis can be found in abundance.

This Daily News article from November, 2001, for instance, documents a strange consensus among the locals near the Shankesville crash site. I encourage everyone to read this very balanced article in its entirety.

Some excerpts:

[. . .]"I know of two people - I will not mention names - that heard a missile," Stuhl said. "They both live very close, within a couple of hundred yards. . .This one fellow's served in Vietnam and he says he's heard them, and he heard one that day." The mayor adds that based on what he knows about that morning, military F-16 fighter jets were "very, very close." [...]

[...]Laura Temyer, who lives several miles north of the crash site in Hooversville, was hanging some clothes outside that morning when she heard
airplane pass overhead. That struck her as unusual since she'd just heard on TV that all flights were grounded.

"I heard like a boom and the engine sounded funny," she told the Daily News. "I heard two more booms - and then I did not hear anything."

What does Temyer think she heard? "I think the plane was shot down," insists Temyer, who said she has twice told her story to the FBI. What's more, she insists that people she knows in state law enforcement have told her the same thing, that the plane was shot down and that decompression sucked objects from the aircraft, explaining why there was a wide debris field.[...]

[...]*THEMYSTERY PLANE. Many people in the Shanksville area, including some interviewed by the Daily News, saw a fast-moving unmarked small jet fly overhead a very short time after Flight 93 crashed. Several days later, authorities said they believe the plane was a Falcon 20 private jet that was headed to nearby Johnstown but was asked to descend and survey the crash site. Yet officials have never identified the pilot nor explained why he was still airborne roughly 30 minutes after the government ordered all aircraft to land at the closest airport.[...]

[...]Just a few days after the crash, a federal flight controller told a Nashua, N.H., newspaper that an F-16 was "in hot pursuit" of the hijacked United jet, following so closely that it made 360-degree turns to stay in range. "He must have seen the whole thing," an unnamed aviation official said.[...]

[...]a number of residents saw a small, unmarked jet circling over the crash site shortly after. Workers at a marina saw it, and so did Kathy Blades, who was in her small summer cottage abut a quarter-mile from the impact site.

Blades and her son ran outside after the crash and saw the jet, with sleek back wings and an angled cockpit, race overhead. "My son said, 'I think we're under attack!' " She said she was so shocked by the crash she can't say exactly how long after the impact it was.[...][emphasis Capstone's]

[...]Most Americans are quite comfortable with the conclusion that the struggle between the passengers and the hijackers caused the crash of Flight 93. Roxanne Sullivan, who lives at the end of Skyline Drive in Shanksville and helped erect and maintain one of the memorials, says she has absolutely no doubt that's what happened. How does she know?

"Right here," she said, thumping her heart.

Not all her neighbors are so convinced.

"I think it was shot down," said Dennis Mock, who was not an eyewitness but lives closest to the crash site on the west side. "That's what people around here think."

Until the FBI decides to release the flight data, there will be little to convince him or his neighbors otherwise. *

Sadly, as noted here:

During the sentencing phase of the 2006 trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the contents of the cocpit voice recorder of Flight 93 were played for the jury. On April 12, the government released a transcript of the recording, but not the recording itself. The last entry in the transcript has the timestamp 10:03:09, consistent with the 9/11 Commission's story that the crash was at 10:03. A report two years prior to the publication of the Commission's Report -- when the crash time was widely recognized as 10:06 -- stated that "the last seconds of the cockpit voice recorder are the loud sounds of wind, hinting at a possible hole somewhere in the fuselage." 1 [...][emphasis Capstone's]

The decision to release a written transcript (with questionable timestamps?) instead of the actual audio has only further fuelled the fires of public suspicion.

Not to imply that a US-based lettered agency would ever dream of altering or fabricating evidence!

It should also be pointed out that the previously "widely recognized" time of 10:06 had also been widely reported.

One such example:

[. . .]The Federal Aviation Administration said yesterday it turned over to the FBI a radar record of United Airlines Flight 93's route.

The data traced the Boeing 757-200 from its takeoff from Newark, N.J., to its violent end at 10:06 a.m., just outside Shanksville, about 80 miles southeast of Pittsburgh. [...][emphasis Capstone's]

Here's another:

[. . .]Forty-five seconds after telling Fritz to evacuate the Johnstown tower, Cleveland Air Traffic Control phoned again.

"They said to disregard. The aircraft had turned to the south and they lost radar contact with him."

It was 10:06 a.m. [...][emphasis Capstone's]

...among many other local and mainstream reports in the days and weeks following those dastardly "terrorist" attacks.

 

[Hollie]

For the goofy conspiracy theorists / twoofers:

 

[SAYIT]

Not to imply that a US-based lettered agency would ever dream of altering or fabricating evidence! ...

Is there any chance that you will ever provide the number of "US-based lettered" agencies and the number of co-conspirators you believe took part in the CTBS you are selling here?

 

[SAYIT]

A coincidence or a conspiracy? Was the now defunct "Truther" Movement just another cover for insipid anti-Semitism?

Thirteen years of 9/11 CTs with a strong dose of "the Jews did it" just won't die because they serve those for whom hate trumps truth.

Charlie Veitch was once one of Britain’s leading 9/11 conspiracy theorists and friend to David Icke and Alex Jones but when he had a change of heart, the threats began...

When asked if he found anti-Semitism in the 'truther' movement he responded: “Loads. Loads.."

"...I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong." - Charlie Veitch

 

[daws101]

"I'll leave it there for now."- crapstone post # 485.

 

[Capstone]

...picking up from where I last left it (for then), we know, as a matter of congressional record (S9497, from September 19, 2001) that a specific group of F-16 interceptors, the "Happy Hooligans", from the 119th Wing of the Air National Guard out of Fargo, North Dakota (not Langley!) were scrambled on 9/11.

From that record:

"[. . . ]For some time, the Happy Hooligans have kept a permanent detachment with four F–16s, pilots, and crews on alert at Langley Air Force Base to provide air defense of the United States. I am not going to get into the details because it is important for national security not to reveal what they were doing, but they were very much in harm's way. I will not get into any more detail other than to say, these pilots —the Happy Hooligans, and any others who were involved in that scrambled mission to protect our Nation's Capital, and the region here in the DC area—really were willing to give their lives in a generally undefended position."

Emphasis mine.

It had been rumored in the early 2000's that one of the Happy Hooligans, (now Col.) Rick Gibney, took out Flight 93. This rumor reemerged in 2008ish, even though it had supposedly been "debunked" by the long-exposed shills at Popular Mechanics back in 2005.

The following excerpt is from a somewhat lengthy critique of that PM effort.

[. . .]All said and done you can rest assured any mention of Mr. Joseph Allbaugh was intentionally excluded from the Popular Mechanics article and for obvious reason then and on that note I contend Popular Mechanics went out of its way to whitewash the shooting down of UA flight 93 by quoting the false statement made by Edward F. Jacoby, Jr. Having demonstrated why that intended alibi was a ruse that means one thing. Lt. Col. Rick Gibney's whereabouts and actions on 9/11 (between his leaving Fargo, North Dakota and his arrival in Albany, New York) remains completely unaccounted for.

Before moving on with this treatise I wish to make my point of view on the matter of UA flight 93 and Lt. Col. Rick Gibney crystal clear. In no way am I maliciously attacking or blaming Lt. Col. Rick Gibney for anything and despite my believing it was at least possible for him to have shot down UA flight 93 on 9/11, in no way then am I saying that's what happened, nor do I believe that action would constitute a traitorous and/or criminal act on his part, had he done so. In fact, when considering the events of the day and the dire circumstance of UA flight 93, the military truly had no other option but to fire upon that aircraft. Hopefully then time will tell of that, but with that said I've no doubt anyone up to and including Lt. Col. Rick Gibney wouldn't have experienced a profound sense of empathy, sadness and consternation at the time. Which in and of itself is the very definition of our being all too human whereby we're often manipulated by credentialed experts into doing bad things to good people.[...][emphasis Capstone's]

Wholeheartedly agreed.

I'll leave it there...for now.

 

[Hollie]

...picking up from where I last left it (for then), we know, as a matter of congressional record (S9497, from September 19, 2001) that a specific group of F-16 interceptors, the "Happy Hooligans", from the 119th Wing of the Air National Guard out of Fargo, North Dakota (not Langley!) were scrambled on 9/11.

From that record:

"[. . . ]For some time, the Happy Hooligans have kept a permanent detachment with four F–16s, pilots, and crews on alert at Langley Air Force Base to provide air defense of the United States. I am not going to get into the details because it is important for national security not to reveal what they were doing, but they were very much in harm's way. I will not get into any more detail other than to say, these pilots —the Happy Hooligans, and any others who were involved in that scrambled mission to protect our Nation's Capital, and the region here in the DC area—really were willing to give their lives in a generally undefended position."

Emphasis mine.

It had been rumored in the early 2000's that one of the Happy Hooligans, (now Col.) Rick Gibney, took out Flight 93. This rumor reemerged in 2008ish, even though it had supposedly been "debunked" by the long-exposed shills at Popular Mechanics back in 2005.

The following excerpt is from a somewhat lengthy critique of that PM effort.

[. . .]All said and done you can rest assured any mention of Mr. Joseph Allbaugh was intentionally excluded from the Popular Mechanics article and for obvious reason then and on that note I contend Popular Mechanics went out of its way to whitewash the shooting down of UA flight 93 by quoting the false statement made by Edward F. Jacoby, Jr. Having demonstrated why that intended alibi was a ruse that means one thing. Lt. Col. Rick Gibney's whereabouts and actions on 9/11 (between his leaving Fargo, North Dakota and his arrival in Albany, New York) remains completely unaccounted for.

Before moving on with this treatise I wish to make my point of view on the matter of UA flight 93 and Lt. Col. Rick Gibney crystal clear. In no way am I maliciously attacking or blaming Lt. Col. Rick Gibney for anything and despite my believing it was at least possible for him to have shot down UA flight 93 on 9/11, in no way then am I saying that's what happened, nor do I believe that action would constitute a traitorous and/or criminal act on his part, had he done so. In fact, when considering the events of the day and the dire circumstance of UA flight 93, the military truly had no other option but to fire upon that aircraft. Hopefully then time will tell of that, but with that said I've no doubt anyone up to and including Lt. Col. Rick Gibney wouldn't have experienced a profound sense of empathy, sadness and consternation at the time. Which in and of itself is the very definition of our being all too human whereby we're often manipulated by credentialed experts into doing bad things to good people.[...][emphasis Capstone's]

Wholeheartedly agreed.

I'll leave it there...for now.

Here's the twoof.

 

[SAYIT]

...It had been rumored...

That's pretty much the "Truther" theme song.
I'll leave it there...for now.

 

[daws101]

it must be remembered that the CT community has had almost 15 years to perfect their bullshit .

 

[SAYIT]

it must be remembered that the CT community has had almost 15 years to perfect their bullshit .

It's their unwillingness to let go of what "had been rumored" after 14+ yrs of getting their noses rubbed in it that makes their agendas so suspect. They not only don't seem to care that others see them as raving lunatics, they find a perverse satisfaction in it.
I get the Pied Pipers who making their living selling 9/11 CTs on coffee mugs, t-shirts and DVDs ... they gotta eat.
I sorta get those who concoct elaborate YouTubes ... they get 15 seconds of fame.
What I didn't really get - until insider Charlie Veitch spilled the beans - was just how little the truth mattered to the "Truthers" and how motivated by their hate they were:

When asked if he (Charlie Veitch) found anti-Semitism in the 'truther' movement he responded: “Loads. Loads..."

"...I thought the term ‘Truth Movement’ meant that there’d be some search for truth. I was wrong." - Charlie Veitch