If we do not sort out the red herrings

[medienanalyse]

- if we do not focus on the main issues,
- if we do not understand that the perpetrators of 9/11 are very MUCH interested to turn the 9/11 sceptics into conspiracy idiots
- if we do not see that the internet is used by them
- if we do not realize that people are paid to produce false claims

- then Bush and his administration will feel safe, and the PNAC guys will go on to laugh and feel happy.

Those who do not understand what I say may ask themselves what they would do if they were in the position to do a criminal act AND to produce "information" about that deed. Would they only look for a alibis and defend these alibis? Or would they not do a lot more and try to produce red herrings to alter the story of the criminal act?

Which are the red herrings in the "9/11-movement"?

Even if you did not recognize them untill now, would it not be a fruitfull task to look for them? And would it not be an important hint that those may be the red herrings that do NOT POINT TO A PERPETRATOR but to "somebody"? So i.e. nearly all of the so called "physical" questions?

[Direckshun]

1. ...

You are preaching to the choir, dude.

Strong point(s), though.

[LARED]

2. Red Herrings

WTC was demolished.
Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon
Cell phones cannot function on a plane.
MIHOP.
LIHOP

Once you get rid of these issues ninety plus percent of the red herrings disappear. You are basically left trying to figure out if the incompetence is criminal or not.

[medienanalyse]

3. no. I am not talking about incompetence

I try just in the contrary to figure out why AA77 just hit the wedge which was equipped with heavy steel beams shreddering the plane, with kevlar on the walls and blast resistant windows (PENRENprogramme)-

when on the other side of the pentagon the NMCC sits, alarmed since at least 8:28 and does nothing. Mr. Bush knew "America is under attack" since 9:05 by Mr. Card, and those who are responsible for attack and defense sit on their hands another 30+ minutes untill the besayed wedge is hit - and then continue to do nothing until 10:30.

And then they start their wars.

I ask why this scenario is so quite similar to the
- simulation in October 2000 in the war room and to the
- predictions of the PNAC people who were waiting for another Pearl Harbor - in example Mr. Krepinovich.

I ask why everybody else was identified - but not the five bodies of the alleged hijackers. They have the bodies on ice and allegedly they know who they are. So why no identification and transfer to their families? Maybe because these families do not exist nor their sons (except of the first 6 pr seven "hijackers"-scapegoats) - because there is no evidence for their existence and for their involvement in 9/11.

I wonder why an ec-130 capable for electronic warfare is close to the place in that time although the airspace was closed for all civilian and milityr traffic.
I wonder where the fighter jets were.

But I do not deny the obvious facts in order to hide who is responsible and to make the whole thing obscure and to mix the existing undeniable data into a theory which can easily be dismissed as conspiracy theory.

My point is: the perpetrators are interested to change the minds of the people. So 9/11 was only the tool. If 9/11 is only a tool and they have other tools to and the objective was NOT 9/11 as itself:

then they have preplanned their mindshaking influence after 9/11. They are not in the defense, they are still offensive, still working on us. 9/11 is not over, the terrort is not over, the battle is still on the way. And we are in the middle of that.

[MercutioATC]

5. As far as the C-130 being in airspace that was "closed", we've discussed

this before. There were still plenty of planes in the air when UAL93 crashed. Your notion of the airspace being "closed" is just untrue. Planes were being landed on an "as soon as possible" basis, but it takes some time to land over 4500 aircraft.

[Woody Box]

6. Are you sure ...

I wonder why an ec-130 capable for electronic warfare is close to the place in that time although the airspace was closed for all civilian and milityr traffic.

...that the ec-130 were no red herrings?

[medienanalyse]

15. c-130, ec-130

no red herring. Eyewitness in undisputable source and later confirmation by pilot.
additionally: C-130 close to the UAL93 and additionally C-130 confirmed in the hearings of the 9/11 commission.
But I cannot display my whole book in English here. Just the sources about the "Pentagon ec-130":

“Then the plane -- it looked like a C-130 cargo plane -- started turning away from the Pentagon, it did a complete turnaround.
http://www.nylawyer.com/news/01/09/091201l.html

The only large fixed wing aircraft to appear was a gray C-130, which appeared to be a Navy electronic warfare aircraft, he seemed to survey the area and depart in on a westerly heading. http://www.ournetfamily.com/WarOnTerror/emails/pentagon...


Star Tribune Minneapolis 11. September 2002, Metro Edition: “How we've changed” Bob von Sternberg wrote about a pilot named Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien who allegedly was ordered with his c-130 from one place to the other (first Pentagon, then Shanksville), faster than any fighter jets, better for observation, and for sure all by chance - he just came along ...

I point to the "looked like a c-130". The second source is more precisely and notices the big generators which make the ec-130 differ from c-130.

Just noticed that the second link is broken. I have the full text available for sure, and archive.org or nexis-lexis will find it too. But most important is where the machines (EC-130 commando solo are stationed: find it out and get surprised) and that a c-130 was -obviously by mistake - confirmed in the 9/11 commission.

[MercutioATC]

40. I can't speak for Washington D.C. (not my airspace), but

C-130s fly all of the time near the UAL93 crash site. They've been doing it for years. There's nothing out of the ordinary with a C-130 being near Shanksville.

[Abe Linkman]

43. I agree you can't., but everyone remembers the Official Conspiracy ...

Theory INCLUDES detailed information about C-130s on 9/11. Right?

[MercutioATC]

44. So what's your point?

You expect the military to release information on all of their flights now? That's the primary reason I have to have a security clearance to work where I do...movement of military aircraft (that and Presidential aircraft). There is always going to be military information that's not released to the public.

[Woody Box]

7. Sorry

cellphones don't work in airplanes.

Everyone can check it out for himself.

[LARED]

8. You're wrong

It's not even debatable. Cell phones will work on airplanes. Just not all the time.

[Woody Box]

13. Clarification

Cell phones will work on airplanes. Just not all the time.

Cellphones don't work in the air above 3000 ft.

On the ground, they work.

[LARED]

14. They work above 3,000 feet.

Get over it.

http://slate.msn.com/id/1008297 /

3. Cell phones work on airplanes? Why does the FAA discourage their use? What's the maximum altitude at which a cell phone will work?

From this morning's New York Times: "According to industry experts, it is possible to use cell phones with varying success during the ascent and descent of commercial airline flights, although the difficulty of maintaining a signal appears to increase as planes gain altitude. Some older phones, which have stronger transmitters and operate on analog networks, can be used at a maximum altitude of 10 miles, while phones on newer digital systems can work at altitudes of 5 to 6 miles. A typical airline cruising altitude would be 35,000 feet, or about 6.6 miles."

The Times added that "there is little evidence, if indeed any, to suggest that the use of cell phones interferes with an aircraft's avionics or communications systems. In other words, no one knows with certainty whether cell phones affect an aircraft's ability to communicate with ground personnel or other aircraft. After all, an abundance of radio, television and other communications signals already travel through airwaves with minimal consequences for airborne communications systems." Ken Shirriff (again) referred Explainer to this 1999 Wall Street Journal article, which concurs with the Times' judgment.

[Woody Box]

18. Your gullibility is breathtaking

We don't need "expert" opinions. Everybody can check it out on his next flight (the aircraft will not explode).

But we don't even need this kind of little violations of the rules.
There is another way to find out:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[LARED]

19. The irony of your title

is refreshing. It give me hope the world will always be full of funny people.

[MercutioATC]

51. Yes, cellphones do work above 3,000 feet:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[demodewd]

60. Duhhhh

Next time try actually using your cell phone.

[MercutioATC]

61. Yes, that would have been more conclusive, but

I was trying to be inconspicuous (next time, a trip to the lavatory might be in order).

The point I was trying to make was that I did have a cell signal at 35,000 feet.

[demodewd]

62. nada

Which means nothing.

[MercutioATC]

63. Actually, it's not "nothing", it's a cell signal.

[Abe Linkman]

64. Totally meaningless.

Not even a good BS line to use in trying to fool people.

[MercutioATC]

65. You're entitled to your opinion.

I seem to remember some debate about it here, however. While I didn't make a call, I can verify that it is possible to get a cell phone signal at 35,000 feet.

[k-robjoe]

4. Trying it out

to see how it looks :

¤ The lump underneath flight 175 was manipulated into the videos as a red herring, to make us appear as fools.

¤ The surveillance camera images at the Pentagon are fake, designed to make us appear as fools.

¤ The other videos of the Pentagon crash have been kept under lock for the same purpose.

¤ Stories about bombs going off in the WTC have been fabricated for the same purpose.

Example of such a story :

"In this same vein, The Christian Science Monitor reported on WTC office worker Tom Elliott, who was employed by the Aon Corporation on the 103rd floor of the South Tower. After the North Tower was struck, he naturally left his post, reaching the 73rd floor when Flight 175 barreled into the South Tower. “Although it’s spectacularly televised impact was above Elliot, at first he and those around him thought an explosion had come from below. An incredible sound – he calls it an ‘exploding sound’ – shook the building, and a tornado of hot air and smoke and ceiling tiles and bits of drywall came flying up(!) the stairwell.” (Source: A Changed World by Peter Grier, September 17, 2001)"
http://69.28.73.17/thornarticles/911bombs.html

P.S: I´m not trying to be funny. Things are so weird whichever way you see it... I sure don´t have the answers.

[medienanalyse]

10. Only hints

because I do not want to discuss conspiracy theories:

1. Mercuto - yes we discussed that and you did not take notice of the undeniable fact that the airspace in the triangle Washington-Boston and east of Cleveland was closed BEFORE the whole airspace was closed and AFTER takeoffs in that region were prohibitited sinde 9:05. I am not interested in the WHOLE airspace and the WHOLE amount of the USA planes: Logic says: 2 times WTC : no take offs anymore. I provided the link.

2. calls by phones: physical question again. In my book I compared 10 different versions of Ted Olsons story: blunt lies. And here I showed by discussing text and circumstances: no call ever took place.

3."The lump underneath flight 175 was manipulated into the videos as a red herring, to make us appear as fools." So you know who made the video? You are sure there is no manipulation? Really? And it means to take the WTC down:

- first they made the missile trick
- then they introduced a plane which was not a plane
- then they demolished the WTC additionally
- and tomorrow somebody will tell us he has sen laser beams too
- and who is "they"_ Saudis, Jews,Pakistanis, Germans, Russians, Marsians? If you would ask for the srambling procedures there is only one answer. There are people who are interested to divert your attention from the scrambling.

WHY IS IT NOT ENOUGH TO TAKE AAL11 and UA175 and ask: who did it and where was the defense? What are you looking for? Ten ways to destroy a skyscraper?

4. "The surveillance camera images at the Pentagon are fakes designed to make us appear as fools." Ever noticed the times of the camera? Wrong data and obviously one pic missing?

5 "The other videos of the Pentagon crash have been kept under lock for the same purpose." EVERY material evidence was destroyed or sacked, if it was possible. Must I really write ten pages of evidence which should be existing and is miraculously not? They have kept all and so they must not answer questions which are based on factual evidence. Exceprt eyewitnesses and the first outlets of the newspapers plus their OWN CONTRADICTING statements. Good enough to work with. Sufficient to bring them into jail.

6. "Stories about bombs going off in the WTC have been fabricated for the same purpose." Yes and no. I always wonder how Americans can believe that lifts falling down, first floors collapsing, steel bursting and so on
- produce no dust
- make no noise.

This is kindergarten to discuss that bulls....

[k-robjoe]

17. feel like repeating

that I was not trying to make fun of anything/anyone. Some answers :

¤ No, I don´t know who made or handled the videos of flight 175 coming in, and the idea that the lump has been manipulated into the videos as a red herring is not something I want to make fun of.
I can´t see that it´s impossible or implausible.

¤ Have I ever noticed that the times on the cctv images are wrong. Yes, and the idea that the images are a complete fake is not farfetched the way I see it.
Even people who have studied the Pentagon crash a lot closer than you or I, hold this view :

" However, we do not believe the "whistle blower" theory of the origin of these images. On the contrary, we believe that the controversy and bickering over these images is exactly what the government intended, and that the images were released through spurious semi-official channels, with the explicit intent of fraudulently supporting the missile theory. If this is correct, then the tailfin and exhaust plume have been added by an unknown artist." ( http://www.911-strike.com/pentagon.htm )

¤ In fact, this line of thinking could help explain another matter that is very puzzling.
I´m thinking of the Bin Laden confession tape :
Is it fake? If so, why did they make it in such a way that they afterwards had to fake the translation to get it incriminating enough? Maybe another case of doing seemingly counterproductive acts that actually are productive in the long term because they bring with them so much confusion.

(Actually I´m in a miss about that tape right now, if it might not be genuine after all. Seeing pictures like this ( http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2004/04/15/395841.html ) where he´s got exactly the same attire as in the tape...)(Well in this pic he´s got a west and not a jacket, but in a pic in the paper he´s even got the same jacket...)

NB : Ofcourse, even if I see your point, to a degree, as stated in the above, I´m not going to stop posting things (related to physical evidence) that I feel a need to discuss.

[k-robjoe]

25. One piece of physical evidence

that we will agree about :

"John Fleegle, Jim Brant and Carol Delasko were about two-and-a-half miles from what would soon become the Flight 93 crash site. According to the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, they "heard engines screaming close overhead. The building shook. We ran out, heard the explosion and saw a fireball mushroom ..."

Delasko, "... said she thought someone had blown up a boat on the lake. 'It just looked like confetti raining down all over the air above the lake.'"

This is probably the single most important observation. Within a second or two after Flight 93 passed over the Indian Lake Marina where Delasko, Brant and Fleegle stood, debris from the stricken plane began to fall into the lake. Lots of debris. Some of it on fire. And it was deposited in a compact area rather than as a continuous trail for some period of time.

Seismologists determined that Flight 93 crashed at 10:06 a.m. and 5 seconds. The 757 was perhaps 20 seconds from crashing when observed by Fleegle, Brant and Delasko. Its cargo area and passenger area had been opened by an explosion. News reports describe a large number of cancelled checks, stock broker documents, pieces of seats, small chunks of melted plastic and small human parts." http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_I...


And then the question : Why was it shot down at this point? Because the passengers took control? Some very unwanted witnesses aboard? Did noone on the ground have any idea that the passengers were planning to take control? Were none of the phonecalls to any officials?


About the cctv images being fake : 911-strike was a bad example (as their main theory is simply wrong.) A better example is Jean-Pierre Desmoulins. ( http://perso.wanadoo.fr/jpdesm/pentagon/pages-en/im-2nd... )

And here is a very good example of a false lead/red herring (not planted I think) :http://www.mikejwilson.com/myth-busted/pentagon_missile...

[MercutioATC]

41. Yes, that "triangle" was closed. Nothing new took off from there.

It's the most densely populated airspace on the planet, however, and there were hundreds of planes already in the air. These had to be rerouted and landed. It took hours to land them all.

This is a complete non-issue.

[Abe Linkman]

9. How do you know this is occurring? Think there's any here at DU?

"- if we do not realize that people are paid to produce false claims"

[medienanalyse]

11. for sure it is occurring

and I like to be asked for my opinion. Let us make a guess game who is it: me - or you - or who? Shubidoobedooo ...

Or seriously: do you doubt that the perpetrators of 9/11 were interested to change the public opinion?

Tell us more about that. They really only wanted to destroy the WTC because they hated big buildings, and they hoped nobody would take notice and would get angry?

And so they would never ever think about manipulating TV and press and internet?

Are you sure we shall discuss this perception of 9/11?

Who are you?

[Abe Linkman]

12. Yes, I agree.

However; being specific is "dangerous" because it's one of the two sure ways to get banned from DU.

On the other hand, it is more than passing strange that there are people who support the Official Version Story (or, at least claim to support it), yet spend huge amounts of time here on a forum frequented mainly by people who do NOT believe the Official Version Story. Furthermore, when asked for proof of the Official Story, they give: THE OFFICIAL STORY!

Very strange. The other curious thing to me is why someone would spend so much time basically just trying to split hairs and otherwise
implying things...seemingly as though for no other reason than that of a criminal defense lawyer facing a mountain of evidence against his client; hoping against hope to raise just enough doubt to persuade one member of the jury to vote "not guilty."

Of course, I don't know who is doing that here on DU. Do you?

[gandalf]

16. Motivation and spending free time arguing with conspiracy nuts

it is more than passing strange that there are people who support the Official Version Story (or, at least claim to support it), yet spend huge amounts of time here on a forum frequented mainly by people who do NOT believe the Official Version Story.

Good point. That is what I have asked myself many times. If I believe that the official story is correct, at least regarding the basic assertions, why spending hours and hours constructing internet sites (e.g. Ron Harvey) and arguing endless debates with people whom I consider conspiracy nuts?

Do I really need to support what Bush and the media is telling the people all the time anyway? What would be my personal motivation to invest so much free time? Because I want to save the lost souls who believe conspiracy theories? That is really kind.

[TrogL]

20. Point counterpoint

...arguing endless debates with people whom I consider conspiracy nuts

Because otherwise people start believing them.

I get the same problem with reparative therapy nuts invading websites. They have to be countered with proper thinking otherwise they take the field.

[parasim]

21. I have two questions I'd like to ask

to perhaps better understand your position:

1) What is your definition of the words "conspiracy nut"?

2) What is your definition of the words "proper thinking"?


Thank you.

[TrogL]

30. Definitions

Conspiracy nut - an individual who abandons logic, causality, common sense, his powers of observation and apparently his mind in pursuit of a theory explaining an occurance. His observations on the topic will resemble those of a paranoid schizophrenic.

Proper thinking - logic, causality, observations leading to theory, healthy skepticism

[gandalf]

22. In this 9/11 forum there are no passers-by

who could start believing evil theories (perhaps with few exceptions).

The people who post here firmly belong to one of the two sides.

It would be much more efficient if you took care of conspiracy nuts in the GD forum, because there naive minds could fall for dangerous ideas.

[MercutioATC]

42. That's not true, I get PMs from people I've never seen post here.

People ARE passing through and looking. Many of them just don't post.

[DulceDecorum]

46. Are they polite?

Democrats are usually much better behaved than Rupublicans.
And we don't fall down as much.
I think it has something to with NOT inhaling stuff,
staying away from the pretzels,
and letting someone else do all the sucking or barfing.

Wouldn't you agree,
MercutioATC?

[MercutioATC]

47. Yes they are, DD. Complimentary, in fact.

[MercutioATC]

23. Me! Me! He means ME!!!

Unless I misunderstood when he asked how the weather was in Langley.

Of course, I could really be an air traffic controller who has some specialized knowledge, but where's the fun in that?

[Abe Linkman]

26. For one thing, you could pretend to be somebody else.

You could be........an ACTOR! Is that what you're hinting at?

[MercutioATC]

27. No, I'm "hinting" that I COULD really be an air traffic controller.

Hell, I've got the government convinced...I have the paychecks to prove it...

[Abe Linkman]

28. Okie dokie.

"I have the paychecks to prove it..."

Well, that's okay. The gummit pays a lot of actors.

[MercutioATC]

29. Just curious...what field is YOUR expertise in?

[LARED]

31. A Preemptive Name Deleted Post

As any response I could think of will be deleted.

[Abe Linkman]

32. Thanks for asking. The field I have some expertise in is...

Identifying BS, diversion, ambiguity, evasion, oversimplification, faulty logic, emotion, semantic problems, erroneous thinking, and specious argument -- and using the right tools to cope with foolishness, wishful thinking, improper generalizations, misinterpretations, inconsistencies, fallacious logic, irrationality, irrelevance, and other
NONSENSE.

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MercutioATC]

34. Impressive! Where did you get THAT certification?

I could just as easily say that my true area of expertise is identifying people who grasp at conspiracy theories, but I don't.

Aside from your professed expertise in...well...all of that stuff you mentioned, what technical knowledge do you have of aviation issues?

[Abe Linkman]

35. You might as well, since you "easily say" all kinds of things.

"I could just as easily say that my true area of expertise is identifying people who grasp at conspiracy theories, but I don't."

The only problem with that isn't so much the arrogance of it, as it is the fact that most DUers would snicker.

[demodewd]

36. box size

Some people play in smaller boxes..Abe..if you get my drift.

[MercutioATC]

37. MOST DU'ers don't even visit this forum, so I'm comfortable with the

snickering...

The facts, as I see 'em:

1) I claim to be ATC.

2) I occasionally post here.

3) I've not seen any other ATC's posting here.

4) I've not seen anybody claiming to have spoken to a verified ATC who refutes anything I've said.

5) You haven't claimed to have ANY specific skills or knowledge pertaining to aviation.

I'm not being arrogant, I'm being honest. On an online forum, I may not be able to prove my profession or qualifications, but you don't even CLAIM to have any specialized knowledge in the field. Come to Cleveland Center, I'll get you a pass. You can see what we do.

Otherwise, stop making accusations....

[DulceDecorum]

24. Foregone conclusion

medienanalyse says:
"If we do not sort out the red herrings".........
- then Bush and his administration will feel safe, and the PNAC guys will go on to laugh and feel happy.

How can we compete with the euphoria of pretzels?

Even if we sort out the red herrings, what good will that do?
Will Bush and his administration STOP feeling safe?
Will the PNAC guys start CRYING and feel unhappy?
Even if this happens, what good is it to us?
Why should anyone on the Democratic Underground give a damn how BushCo feels?

[PATRICK]

38. Accumulation of facts

intuiting theories under a general blanket of secrecy so deep even the kindest things that might exonerate the Bush team are blocked.

THAT deserves any suspicion or theory but leaves us still in the realm of the unprosecuted, guessing at history. The most important product is lobbying for disclosure and awakening to dangerous possibilities that the data supports- saving history from revision and working toward accountability.

IF a 911 Commission member gets bogged down or sidetracked by a 'red herring" that is only symptomatic that all we have sometimes is intuition and anger and fear. We need a little quality control while this battle goes on. There has been no victory of interpretation yet for any side.

And yes, you are visited more than you think.

[DougFir]

39. guide to red herrings

http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html

Bogus 9/11 Truth Sites
Muddying the waters with easily disproved phony claims
a COINTELPRO effort to discredit the 9/11 Truth Movement?


a short history about disinformation masquerading as 9/11 truth


The three biggest stories used to alienate the public from 9/11 truth


debunking the "webfairy" - the most ridiculous bogus site


Pod people try to hijack the 9/11 truth movement
(the most popular tactic, since "webfairy" didn't catch on)


LetsRoll911.org posts "new proof" for pod claim which proves "pod"theory is only a bad joke


Idiot Savant -- sites that are a mix of good and bad


9/11: in plane site -- the worst film on the topic
is this grotesque incompetence, deliberate disinformation or a case of useful idiots used by covert operatives?


KPFK Pacifica promotes "plane site"


911nutshell admits pod images are doctored by webfairy
webfairy and pod people are the same campaign!




we should all be honored that the 9/11 truth movement is having
enough political successes in shifting public consciousness to
understand that 9/11 was not a surprise attack that the powers-that-be
feel it necessary to create fake films and bogus websites to hide
the real evidence for official complicity behind a blizzard of bullshit

[DulceDecorum]

45. oilempire: the mother of red herrings

Why should we trust a PUBLIC RELATIONS DISINFORMATION WEBSITE??
These are the same (COM) Covert Operatives Meddling
that came up with 911review.COM.

And the Boeing with the unbreakable wings.



Anyone who looks can see the truth of THAT argument.



We have all seen images like that before.
We know what happens when a cartoon character slams into a hard surface.



Why should a Boeing be any different?
When that particular video was made by Acme?

DougFir,
Do you even know
WHO IS BEHIND OILEMPIRE?

The data contained in Wild West Domains, Inc.'s WHOIS database,
while believed by the company to be reliable,
is provided "as is"with no guarantee or warranties regarding its accuracy.
..... In most cases,
Wild West Domains is not the registrant of domain names listed in this database.
Registrant:
Domains by Proxy, Inc. 15111 N Hayden Rd., Suite 160 PMB353 Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 United States
Registered through:
Eugene Free Community Network domain purchasing
Domain Name:
OILEMPIRE.US Created on: 25-Feb-03 Expires on: 25-Feb-05
Last Updated on:
25-Feb-03
Administrative Contact:
Private, Registration [e-mail] Domains by Proxy, Inc. 15111 N Hayden Rd., Suite 160 PMB353 Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 United States [phone]
Technical Contact:
Private, Registration [e-mail] Domains by Proxy, Inc. 15111 N Hayden Rd., Suite 160 PMB353 Scottsdale, Arizona 85260 United States [phone]
Domain servers in listed order:
NS.EFN.ORG NS1.EFN.ORG NS2.EFN.ORG

DougFir gave us the link to oilempire.us.
Who exactly manages the .us extension?

Services Offered
.us
As "America's Internet Address," .us is the official country code top-level domain (ccTLD) for the United States. Our technology enhancements to .us will enable United States citizens and residents—as well as businesses, organizations and government entities—to establish a unique, short and memorable American address on the Internet (e.g., johnsmith.us, publicservice.us, mycompany.us).
http://www.neustar.com/registry/index.cfm

All domains administered by NeuStar and NeuLevel have been awarded by either government entities or industry bodies through competitive procurements.
http://www.neustar.com/registry/index.cfm
And THAT would include OILEMPIRE.US.

Corporate Facts
Headquartered in Sterling, VA;
satellite offices in Washington, D.C.,
Concord, CA, Oakland, CA,
and London, England
NeuStar's critical registry and infrastructure services enable:
The routing of virtually every telephone call dialed in North America;
Effective numbering administration and optimization;
The administration of every .biz and .us domain name worldwide;
http://www.neustar.com/info/profile.cfm
Jeffrey Ganek Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Mr. Ganek is responsible for the overall executive management of NeuStar, Inc., the leading provider of neutral, third-party clearinghouse services to the communications industry.
http://www.neustar.com/info/management.cfm

Privacy and Confidentiality
NeuStar vigilantly protects customer data and individual privacy, and works under strict confidentiality rules at all times. These data protection standards apply not only to disclosures outside of NeuStar, but to disclosures within NeuStar business units as well. NeuStar's privacy and confidentiality practices undergo continued scrutiny in the form of comprehensive audits and internal reviews.
http://www.neustar.com/fot/index.cfm
Which brings us back to OILEMPIRE.US.

The business of DBP (Domains By Proxy) is to maximize Your right to privacy to the greatest extent possible. When you subscribe to DBP’s private registration service through a DBP-affiliated Registrar, each and any available domain name registration that You designate will thereafter be registered in the name of DBP, as Registrant. In exchange for DBP becoming the Registrant of each domain name registration on Your behalf, DBP shall keep Your name, postal address, email address, phone and fax numbers confidential, subject to Section 4 of this Agreement. When DBP becomes the Registrant of Your domain name registration, the following DBP information (and not your personal information) will be made publicly available in the “Whois” directory as determined by ICANN policy:
https://www.domainsbyproxy.com/popup/DomainNameProxyAgr...

These PR flacks are VERY invested in
attacking LEGITIMATE 911 RESEARCHERS
from behind two double-layered cloaks of anonymity.
These are tactics used by persons who try to confuse gullible readers
who have difficulty seeing the forest for the firs.

And as for Webfairy,
tell me this
WHY IS THE FAA BACKING UP THE NO-PLANE THEORY?
Go to their website.
http://162.58.35.241/acdatabase/acmain.htm
Check out the N-number registry.
Punch in the N-numbers of ALL of the planes of September 11.
According to the FAA,
NOT ONE SINGLE PLANE WAS DESTROYED ON SEPTEMBER 11.
ANYWHERE.
ON PLANET EARTH.

We now return you to your bloodstained herring.
DougFir says:
.... the powers-that-be
feel it necessary to create fake films and bogus websites to hide
the real evidence for official complicity behind a blizzard of bullshit

[MercutioATC]

48. Still pushing your flawed database theory, DD?

Again, for a registration to be removed from the FAA's database, the registration holder must file paperwork with the FAA. If they don't, the registration remains valid. An active registration in the FAA database has nothing to do if the plane is actually flying or not.

You've been told this numerous times, yet you continue to post this tripe. If you don't believe those of us who have told you this, why not just call the FAA and check for yourself.

This is a perfect example of the "red herring" that you seem so concerned about.

[DulceDecorum]

52. Is MercutioATC a supporter of oilempire.us?

And their phony research?

As for ANYTHING you have told me,
you have YET to substantiate it.
Give us a link to ANYTHING which can independently corroborate that hokum about removal from the FAA registry.

I have read the FAA regulations -- which you hold in high disdain,
and 591UA HAS been spotted in O'Hare,
flying under the pseudonym 594UA.

Furthermore,
the FAA is WELL AWARE of the allegations concerning the condition of this plane. As is the company that insured it.
Yet the FAA INSISTS to this very day,
that the status of 591UA and 612UA is VALID.

It is most curious to see the manner in which this event is being handled by the FAA and other aviation authorities.
The BTS claims that the two American Airlines planes never took off and it gives a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT version of events.
The NTSB bows out the investigation, stating that all questions should be addressed to the FBI.
http://www.ntsb.gov/Pressrel/2001/010913.htm
The FAA airman database backs up the anomalous records of its sister agencies.

But put that aside for a moment,
What says MercutioATC about oilempire.us?
What says MercutioATC about empirewatch.org?

[MercutioATC]

53. Ever try reading my replies?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

I posted it hours ago. Seems like another hokey CT site to me.

[Laura_B_manslaughter]

49. We should prolly focus on the Pentagon attack

That's where the evidence is extremely strong that we were lied to. Almost certainly the P was hit by a missile.

[Abe Linkman]

50. So solly, but by golly, you prolly meant to say "probably". n/t

n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

54. Laura: Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.

This is beyond "almost certainly." This is a fact.

There's more profit in correcting people who think Kerry's a flip flopper because of the "87 billion" remark than trying to point out explainable discrepancies in the hundreds of eyewitnesses who watched the large American Airlines jet (identifiable on radar records as Flight 77) crash into the Pentagon. The immediate and continued recovery of the pieces of that jet and its passengers (who boarded Flight 77 earlier that morning) is documented and verifiable.

Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. You'll help get Bush out of office quicker if you'll release your grip on this bright, shiny object and start registering people to vote.

[Abe Linkman]

55. If Fl 77 had crashed, there would be evidence of it. There isn't.

ALL bolo can do is repeat the refrain that "eyewitnesses" saw "the plane" crash. Eyewitness accounts are notoriously unreliable. Especially so, to an event that happens suddenly, is over quickly, and where there is confusion caused by lots of things happening at the same time.

If FL 77 had crashed at the Pentagon, there would be physical evidence of it having done so. There is no such credible physical evidence. FL 77 was a B757. A huge airliner. The Gov't released a video which the GOV'T claimed was of the plane crashing into the Pentagon. The plane in the video is way too small to be anything even remotely as large as a B757.

If FL 77 had crashed at the Pentagon, why was the ONLY claimed physical evidence of an AA plane found outside the Pentagon a small piece of material that could NOT have come from FL 77, and therefore had to have been planted there as false evidence?

If FL 77 had crashed at the Pentagon, why do NONE of the photographs taken just a couple of minutes after the attack show ANY airplane parts -- burning or just laying on the pristine Pentalawn?

Furthermore, neither bolo (or any of the other sales reps for the Official "Cavemen Did It" fairy tale) can give a straight answer to the question of MUSH. HUMAN MUSH: Wherdy go? Sometimes they tell you it was all vaporized, other times they tell you it was too gory to be seen, and most of the time, they don't even attempt to answer the question except by way of repeating a lie told about a "child's hand" that was allegedly found INSIDE the Pentagon.

bolo must be worried about his image. After all, it's much more "respectable" in mainstream society to keep quiet about certain things and just go along with what so-called "opinion leaders" want you to believe and say.

I'm not aware of even ONE person who has more than a surface knowledge of the attack on the Pentagon who has changed from NOT believing FL 77
crashed to believing FL 77 DID crash. Not one. It's always the opposite. The only people who post here regularly who say they believe FL 77 crashed...are the SAME PEOPLE who have promoted the Gov't story since day One.

[MercutioATC]

56. Ahhh, Abe, but there IS physical evidence...

The wheel, the gear strut, the high-pressure rotor, the oxygen bottle, the hand, the DNA and the aforementioned piece of aircraft fuselage found on the lawn.

Claiming they're "lies" or they were "planted" doesn't make them go away.

Regarding the piece of fuselage found on the lawn, how could it have been "planted" in the plain sight of scores of onlookers? There's not ONE report from anybody of somebody carrying that piece onto the lawn and leaving it there.

[Abe Linkman]

57. Uh, mercution -- NONE of those are from a B757 & YOU know it, too.

The only equipment found at the Pentagon that could have been from a jet was way too small to be from a B757.

You can try and fool some of the new people here all you want to, but they'll be twice as angry at you whenever they learn the truth.

You have NEVER made even ONE logical argument for your position. But, how could you? After all, your claim is that a fairy tale is the truth.

[MercutioATC]

58. That wheel is from a small jet???

Abe, you really need to look at some pictures of airplanes....

THIS is what an F-16 wheel looks like:

http://www.whiteplanes.com/showcase/waddington/waddingt...

[Abe Linkman]

66. Comedian.

THAT is about the size of what was found at the Pentagon. Waaaay too small to be from a 757.

When you can put together a cohesive, logical argument for why the Official Story Version of the Pentagon attack is true, let me know.
(However -- I can't wait forEVER.)

[MercutioATC]

67. Really?

Check the width to diameter ratio on the Pentagon pic we've all seen (the one at the exit hole with the firefighter in the foreground).



Now, check the same ratio on the F-16 pic.



The F-16 wheel is much thinner in relation to its diameter.




Just for fun, let's look at a 757 wheel...



Much closer in appearance to the Pentagon debris, no?

[demodewd]

59. plane bomb?

Have you checked this site out? http://eric-bart.net/iwpb/